Vaccination & epidemic
With the withdrawal of 10 of the 13 original supporters from the original Lancet paper that kicked off the anti-vaccination craze (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9500320) and the revelation that Andrew Wakefield falsified his results linking vaccination to autism, it would seem as if the anti-vaccination lunatics (
http://www.generationrescue.org/) would back off at least a little on their dangerous allegations that vaccines harm more than they save. Instead, it seems as if they've redoubled their efforts.
In discussing the vaccination issue with people who have chosen not to vaccinate their children, I find that a typical reaction to my pro-vaccination opinion is to assume that I simply haven't read enough. Naturally, given my specific interests in the fields of biochemistry and epidemiology, the opposite is true; if anything, I've read too much. I have watched my children, worried, after each vaccination, and breathed a sigh of relief when none of the many well-documented complications arose. None of those well-documented complications happen to be long-term mental deficiency or autism, but that's not stopping the anti-vaccination ignorant from promoting their potentially disastrous propaganda, nor is it stopping the resurgence of formerly eradicated and dangerous diseases like mumps, measles, and rubella. Even tuburculosis and the horrible crippling disease of polio, formerly considered extinct, is on the rise.
Why, in this day of new and increasingly dangerous epidemics such as AIDS and SARS, are we allowing idiots to disarm our bottom-line defenses against diseases we defeated decades ago? This is sheer insanity.
A.) There was not a "revelation" that Dr. Wakefield falsified his results--there was a single accusation that he had done so, and he is currently suing said accuser.
B.) If you actually look at the original study, it was in no way intended to demonize vaccines in and of themselves.
INTERPRETATION: We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.
The digestive disorders were correlated with the autism symptoms, and the MMR vaccine (specifically the live measles part of it) may or may not have contributed to worsening the underlying digestive disorders. No one has ever implicated the polio vaccine in anything, and people who go whole-hog and choose not to get it are overzealous. The reality is, vaccinating and not vaccinating both have side effects. It is a little unfair to expect the parents of a child who has been harmed by a vaccine to rationally accept that it is better that their own child be harmed rather than some other child dying of the disease. There's no comparison. Either it's your child or it's not, and if it is your child, everything changes.
A.) There was not a "revelation" that Dr. Wakefield falsified his results--there was a single accusation that he had done so, and he is currently suing said accuser.
B.) If you actually look at the original study, it was in no way intended to demonize vaccines in and of themselves.
A) According to an investigation by the Times, the allegations look to be confirmable:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece
B) I said "the original Lancet paper that kicked off the anti-vaccination craze", not "the original Lancet paper that was intended to demonize vaccines". Either way, the vast majority of the researchers involved have withdrawn support from the paper, and I think that bears strong consideration.
The rest of your post contains interesting observations similar to those I alluded to in my own post.
Except we do not agree on this part:
None of those well-documented complications happen to be long-term mental deficiency or autism,
unless you are hinging your statementon the fact that it is "undocumented" by large, double-blind controlled studies. There are scores of studies showing that measles causes digestive damage, and an exponentially-growing body of evidence that digestive disorders can result in autistic symptoms. It's not hard to make the connection between the two. Like any extremists, the total anti-vaccine people could be less widespread if only the medical community would honestly examine the issue and admit that there are significant risks to vaccination, though they may still be less than the risk of an unvaccinated population. By railing against them and calling them "ignorant" or "idiots," you only strengthen their position with moderates who have doubts that vaccines are "totally safe," as most doctors still gamely insist.
Regarding the Wakefield study:
However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.
My son's pediatrician told me that she had "absolutely no concerns about autism" less than a week before he was diagnosed by a trained professional. Pardon my jaded cynicism, but GPs don't know squat, and the vast majority of parents of autistic children realize this very quickly, and stop bothering with normal pediatricians altogether. My son's GP records don't show 90% of his symptoms, despite the fact that I'd been reporting them for months, because the doctor didn't consider them noteworthy. I know this, because I requested all his medical records as part of his treatment. And again, the fact that symptoms of autism were noted before the MMR shot does not mean the MMR shot did not worsen them. Thirdly, my son's gastroenterologist reported that his gut was "normal," i.e. he did not have celiac disease. This, despite a lifetime of chronic diarrhea. It would seem the only "evidence" that things were falsified is that he found ailments no one else had identified.
A) According to an investigation by the Times, the allegations look to be confirmable: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683671.ece
Brian Deer, the Times reporter is the SOURCE of the allegations ffs... sorry I don't trust him to accurately investigate the bullshit he made up in the first place.
B) I said "the original Lancet paper that kicked off the anti-vaccination craze"
[/QUOTE]
Also incorrect. The anti-vaccination craze had been around for a long, long time prior to Wakefield's paper. There has been vaccine
controversy for as long as there have been vaccines. Have you not heard of the swine flu/Guillian Barre, DTP vs. DTaP, thimerosal fiascos etc.? Yeah - it's the people that bitch about the unsafe vaccines that get that made safer - for those who choose to use them.
You didn't click on the links, did you?
How else would I know it was a Brian Deer article? But no, I didn't click on the "anti-vaccination lunatics" link because, well, duh.
I didn't need to click on it, because I've already been there before. Large portions of that site are dedicated to treating and curing existing autism cases, in which they believe vaccines are only a part of the equation. But like I said, you keep bringing people over to your side by belittling groups who have a more moderate view than you'd like to believe they do. Let me know how that works out for you.
Since I'm sure you've read your own link, I'd be interested in what you think about their
large-scale study involving rates of neurological disorders among vaccinated and non-vaccinated children. Do you think they faked the data? Do you think there's something else that explains the correlation?
Interviews were successfully completed in 11,817 households with one or more children age 4 to 17. From those 11,817 households, data on 17,674 children was gathered. Of the 17,674 children inventoried, 991 were described as being completely unvaccinated. For each unvaccinated child, a health battery was administered.
Reading this I wonder why those 991 children weren't vaccinated? I was under the impression they had to be vaccinated to attend school. If that's true then they must be home schooled, and I wonder what other differences there are in family lifestyle?
They say you have to be vaccinated to attend school, but usually you just have to jump through a dozen hoops and go through a bunch of bureaucratic red tape to file for an official exemption. Each state is different, and I don't know what the specific rules are in California and Oregon, where this study was done--but
this is the information form for Texas, for example.
Like any extremists, the total anti-vaccine people could be less widespread if only the medical community would honestly examine the issue and admit that there are significant risks to vaccination, though they may still be less than the risk of an unvaccinated population.
I agree that this is proper action but do you think that an honest examination would have such a great affect since scientific journals and media are not heavily read by the general public?
Most people read articles from journalists who have an agenda. Sadly, if the medical community did do this honest examination, the journalistic reporting probably won't at the same level, especially if extremists are the only ones giving input to this issue.
Reading this I wonder why those 991 children weren't vaccinated? I was under the impression they had to be vaccinated to attend school. If that's true then they must be home schooled, and I wonder what other differences there are in family lifestyle?
There are exemption options for every kid in every state. Home schoolers have the same vaccination requirements as any other kid.
I agree that this is proper action but do you think that an honest examination would have such a great affect since scientific journals and media are not heavily read by the general public?
Yes, because I also think an honest examination would force them to conclude that the current vaccination schedule is too aggressive, and that certain specific vaccinations carry extra risks and should be performed with even more caution; and in the long term view, I think it would also open the research path of trying to identify those kids who are genetically at risk. The PR danger is that they have to be sure to do this all in one fell swoop, because as soon as they actually admit there's a problem, vaccination rates are going to plummet until they can convince everyone they've got it figured out again. The best way to do it would be the same way they removed Thimerosal: "Okay, okay, look,
we know there's absolutely no risk, but fine, if you
insist, we'll take it out. Happy now?"
I don't have anything further to add to this discussion because I can't intelligently discuss any topic with people who refuse to do any additional reading because they think they already know all the available material, have made up their minds, closed them, and thrown away the key.
"There is no need for me to click on the links or read the studies, or the withdrawals, because I already know everything".
I heartily recommend reading actual medical studies and not third-party interpretations of those studies wherever possible, because when you read the interpretations you're absorbing someone else's opinion, not forming your own.
What do you think about Evan Harris' allegations against Wakefield? What do you think about the resurgence of measles? What do you think about the fact that Wakefield is more or less entirely irrelevant to the fact that not vaccinating kills or harms more children than vaccinating does?
Nice troll.
This is your only reaction to being asked to think for yourself? :lol:
I have always felt, instinctively, and please, don't jump all over me for that, I am not a medic, I have no reason or desire to become an expert; but I always felt, that it seems an awful risk to throw so much at a youngster's immune system in one fell swoop.
Whether it was the vaccinations that sent my baby eczema mental or not, it occurred within a couple of days of the first lot and then stayed like that for 15 years, before calming down some. Given the immuno connection with eczema, and a bunch of other conditions of a similar nature, I am inclined to think, instinctively that it may have been connected. It's very difficult to show a clear path of causality in a lot of these conditions. But we have higher than ever, and rising, levels of such conditions.
I think there is a case to be made for giving vaccinations at a higher age, and one at a time. I don't know about over there. But over here we put our children into the social scene of playgroup/nursery/school, at a very young age. Personally, I think we should be holding off an extra year (or two) before sending them into the fray, and then perhaps we don't have to vaccinate so quickly?
By an troll, yes.
Oh, yes, clearly all my posts here over the course of the last several months, especially my poetry and the personal information I've shared, reveal me to be a troll.
Or is that how you always dismiss people who expect a higher level of intellectual integrity in debate?
I have always felt, instinctively, and please, don't jump all over me for that, I am not a medic, I have no reason or desire to become an expert; but I always felt, that it seems an awful risk to throw so much at a youngster's immune system in one fell swoop.
Whether it was the vaccinations that sent my baby eczema mental or not, it occurred within a couple of days of the first lot and then stayed like that for 15 years, before calming down some. Given the immuno connection with eczema, and a bunch of other conditions of a similar nature, I am inclined to think, instinctively that it may have been connected. It's very difficult to show a clear path of causality in a lot of these conditions. But we have higher than ever, and rising, levels of such conditions.
I think there is a case to be made for giving vaccinations at a higher age, and one at a time.
I agree with parts of this... and that's how I handled my kids' vaccinations. At a higher age, and one at a time. There are clear risks, and known ways to minimize them.
However, "thinking instinctively" that a vaccine caused your child's eczema is a sort of magical thinking.
If there is a directly chartable correlation between specific vaccinations and increasing rates of eczema, it makes sense to suspect that the vaccinations are at fault... that's one aspect of science. But it's a long step from "These vaccines have the potential side effect of causing eczema so we should be aware and cautious about giving them in combination or at too early an age" to "These vaccines have the potential side effect of causing eczema so we should stop using them and put our children, and others, at risk of contracting some horrific diseases with far greater potential for severe harm".
That's my sole point. Thanks to the anti-vaccination mob, kids are getting measles again, and mumps. And POLIO, for fuck sake! Polio! WTF.
It's pretty screwed-up.
Whether it was the vaccinations that sent my baby eczema mental or not, it occurred within a couple of days of the first lot
When my first dog went into seizure, it was the day after his heartworm pill. My ex went online, googled seizures and heartworm pills, and found a lot of concerned dog owners finding their dogs having seizures within 48 hours of taking heartworm pills.
Of course; because dogs with the most concerned owners give their dogs heartworm pills once a month, so if they go into seizure there's a 1/15 chance it was 48 hours after a pill. The seizure was actually due to a brain tumor, as it is most of the time, but explain that to the overly-concerned owner who has just found 5 other overly concerned owners.
So that's exactly it Dana, the causality is hard to get to, partly because self-selecting overly-concerned owners can now create their own troubling evidence...
...BUT as well as, perhaps, to find new hypotheses to test with diligent home science, as performed so excellently by Clod.
Of course if they are not so diligent they may wind up treating their children as labs for BAD science...
I agree with parts of this... and that's how I handled my kids' vaccinations. At a higher age, and one at a time. There are clear risks, and known ways to minimize them.
So what you're saying is, you
chose to delay the vaccination schedule that is clearly and strongly urged by the American Academy of Pediatrics? Exactly as the generationrescue.com people say you should? Sounds like you're fighting against the wrong people, Tiki. You keep referring to some mythical "anti-vaccination mob," except by your own admission, you acted exactly like 90% of them do.
So what you're saying is, you chose to delay the vaccination schedule that is clearly and strongly urged by the American Academy of Pediatrics? Exactly as the generationrescue.com people say you should? Sounds like you're fighting against the wrong people, Tiki. You keep referring to some mythical "anti-vaccination mob," except by your own admission, you acted exactly like 90% of them do.
Nope, with the full cooperation of my pediatrician, I delayed vaccination to the recommended upper age limits, and spaced them out so they weren't getting hit by round after round of vaccinations all at once. I didn't exceed the recommended upper age limits for each given vaccination, but I wouldn't, in most cases, find it unreasonable for parents to do so on an individual basis if they were basing their choices on known risk/benefit factors. It is not uncommon for some vaccines to be delayed for medical or developmental reasons.
The anti-vaccine people that I refer to in my OP are against vaccinating their children at all. They don't do it. I'm not talking about delaying vaccinations or spacing them out, I'm talking about not doing it at all. There are significant and growing numbers of them.
That's why measles, mumps, rubella, and polio are making a comeback. Unfortunately, they put a lot of people at risk in addition to the children whose parents chose not to vaccinate them.
The anti-vaccine people that I refer to in my OP are against vaccinating their children at all. They don't do it. I'm not talking about delaying vaccinations or spacing them out, I'm talking about not doing it at all.
Perhaps the "people" you refer to don't, but the link you gave (
www.generationrescue.com,) identifying them as "the anti-vaccination lunatics"
says the following:
Consider delaying vaccines until your child is 18-24 months old.
...
Consider no more than one vaccine per doctor’s visit.
It seems rather evident that
you didn't click on your links, Tiki...
Turns out we're all on the same side. Nobody wants a measles comeback, nobody wants another child to develop autism, everyone wants to space out vaccines better... It is fun to tweak each other with magical thinking comments, but we don't progress without challenges to received wisdom. The present vaccines are good enough for the life or death throw-down we are in and they have bought us time, but now that something equally horrific to a minority of children has asserted itself free inquiry is not to be opposed under the guise of science. After all, those children could be the canarys in the coal mine. Once upon a time, flushing our shit directly into the Susquehanna was vastly superior to having a city full of out-houses but thankfully we kept looking for a superior solution.
Oh, yes, clearly all my posts here over the course of the last several months, especially my poetry and the personal information I've shared, reveal me to be a troll.
Or is that how you always dismiss people who expect a higher level of intellectual integrity in debate?
A troll is as a troll does, in 1 thread or all of them. You can write all the poetry you want, but you started this thread off with name calling, then moved on to ignoring post content, making snarky, meaningless, pointless remarks, and then threw in some hyperbole. Oh but
now you want some intelligent debate.
Yeah, I'm not impressed.
Nobody wants a measles comeback
This is absolutely true, but at the same time... is it the bogeyman that some make it out to be? I don't know. It's certainly worth looking into.
Keep in mind that (in the US) we do not vaccinate for typhus, typhoid, TB, and one of the biggest pre-vaccine era killers: scarlet fever. Yet, their prevalence decreased right along with the diseases we do vaccinate for.
The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, and as the CDC points out, it reduced measles deaths from about 400-500 per year to 1 or 2 - although there were epidemic years in 1970-72, 1976-78, and 1989-91.
According to the Vital Statistics of the United States, in the 63 years prior to the measles vaccination introduction, death rates declined from 13.3 per 100,00 to 0.2 per 100,000.
A troll is as a troll does, in 1 thread or all of them. You can write all the poetry you want, but you started this thread off with name calling, then moved on to ignoring post content, making snarky, meaningless, pointless remarks, and then threw in some hyperbole. Oh but now you want some intelligent debate.
Yeah, I'm not impressed.
Sounds like you're feeling defensive. That's your issue, not mine.
Perhaps the "people" you refer to don't, but the link you gave (www.generationrescue.com,) identifying them as "the anti-vaccination lunatics" says the following:
It seems rather evident that you didn't click on your links, Tiki...
I posted that link for the reference to Jenny McCarthy.
I fail to understand that comment. Jenny McCarthy founded the organization. It's her website. She's an airhead, but she's an airhead that supports vaccinating--on a less aggressive schedule, and with fewer toxins in the vaccinations--just like she says on her website.
Keep in mind that (in the US) we do not vaccinate for typhus, typhoid, TB, and one of the biggest pre-vaccine era killers: scarlet fever.
...yet.
Jinx's last statistic seems pretty remarkable so I looked it up and she was right. The stat is hard to understand because overall deaths per 100,000 went down by about half in the same time period. Of course death is not the only negative to catching a major viral infection... you could have lifelong consequences, brain damage etc.
But overall it seems like societal hygiene is an excellent preventative for many diseases, so WASH YOUR GODDAMN HANDS, YOU DIRTY HIPPIES. That goes for you white trash barefoot uneducated crackers as well. And double for you Euro punters, because we all know you filthy buggars'll pee right in the middle of the street and not change out your underwear for a week.
So, so, do people think that autism is one possibility if the body finds it has a strong immune system, and isn't fighting anything because we're so ultra-clean nowadays, that the body starts to fight nutrients and/or useful enzymes? And stuff?
No soap fer me, thanks! Time to go sit in the goat crap for Francescas 10:30 feeding. I feel better already.
Jinx's last statistic seems pretty remarkable so I looked it up and she was right.
Cool, how about these?
Pertussis decline 1900-1949(year vaccine introduced) 12.2 per 100,000 to 0.5.
Diptheria decline 1900-1949(year vaccine introduced) 40.3 per 100,000 to 0.4.
Typhoid decline 1900-1949 32 per 100,000 to <1.
Scarlet fever decline 1900-1949 10 per 100,000 to <1.
The problem is that the risk always becomes unacceptable when it's your kid that gets hurt, regardless of the side. I have a friend whose 5-month-old baby caught Pertussis, just before she would have gotten her immunization at her 6-month checkup. She had to be hospitalized for two weeks, and there was a period where the doctors were warning the parents that there was a very real chance she might not make it. My friend now believes, not surprisingly, that the DTaP shot ought to be given to babies even earlier.
There are more cases of whooping cough being reported among small children recently. It has been attributed to less people immunizing their children.
There are more cases of stupid shit being posted on internet forums recently. It has been attributed to more stupid people having computers.
If there is a directly chartable correlation between specific vaccinations and increasing rates of eczema, it makes sense to suspect that the vaccinations are at fault... that's one aspect of science.
My point was that it is not always so easy to make a direct chartable correlation between specific
anything and eczema. We don't know anywhere near enough about the condition. So...if there is anecdotal evidence that a condition, which is connected to the immune system, becomes more severe in some babies, after they've been immunized, maybe this is a link worth looking at more closely. That said, the difficulty they've had in identifying any single cause or relationship beyond the loosely grouped immuno and allergic definitions they currently have, suggests that this is not such an easy thing to do. That doesn't mean those causes and relationships
don't exist.
I fail to understand that comment. Jenny McCarthy founded the organization. It's her website. She's an airhead, but she's an airhead that supports vaccinating--on a less aggressive schedule, and with fewer toxins in the vaccinations--just like she says on her website.
The submit without questioning crowd has been running out their own airhead as well. I'd like to think the saftey and effectiveness of vaccinations were based on solid research rather than financial interests but then you see mandated chicken pox vaccines and you start to doubt. Jinx's numbers are pretty damning.
There are more cases of whooping cough being reported among small children recently. It has been attributed to less people immunizing their children.
Actually, that doesn't make sense. In most cases the children who got the whooping cough were not deliberately unvaccinated, they were younger than the vaccine schedule would have them immunized. In my friend's case, there's no question that she got the disease from her mother.
Except her mother was vaccinated as a child, just like we all were. Her mother got the disease because, as doctors will freely admit, a vaccine doesn't give you lifelong immunity like having the disease does. It wears off. It is the millions of adults walking around who are now susceptible to the disease again because their childhood vaccines have worn off, rather than the handful of unvaccinated children. There's been a big push in this country--for over three years, at least, because I got all the handouts when my first one was born--for new parents to re-immunize themselves against whooping cough, so they won't pass it to their baby. We've set ourselves up to need lifelong "booster shots."
Cool, how about these?
Pertussis decline 1900-1949(year vaccine introduced) 12.2 per 100,000 to 0.5.
Diptheria decline 1900-1949(year vaccine introduced) 40.3 per 100,000 to 0.4.
Typhoid decline 1900-1949 32 per 100,000 to <1.
Scarlet fever decline 1900-1949 10 per 100,000 to <1.
These numbers are completely irrelevant because Scarlet Fever and Typhoid are both caused by
BACTERIUM, not viruses. You cannot vaccinate against bacteria. Bacterial diseases are prevented through better hygiene (on a mass, not individual level) and treated with antibiotics.
Clod, the weakened immunization among adults was not previously considered a large problem because these diseases are largely spread among children, and the idea was that if each successive wave of children were vaccinated, there would be no source from which the adults could contract them. Like we were successful at doing with smallpox, the trajectory for many of these diseases was total eradication, at which point vaccination could be ceased.
Unfortunately, the decline in immunity for adults vaccinated as children compounds the severity of these diseases when there is an outbreak.
These numbers are completely irrelevant because Scarlet Fever and Typhoid are both caused by BACTERIUM, not viruses. You cannot vaccinate against bacteria.
You're wrong again Tiki - Diptheria is also caused by bacteria, and there is a vaccine for it.
I fail to understand that comment. Jenny McCarthy founded the organization. It's her website. She's an airhead, but she's an airhead that supports vaccinating--on a less aggressive schedule, and with fewer toxins in the vaccinations--just like she says on her website.
...yet.
Her "official" stance sure has changed a lot, then. :lol:
You're wrong again Tiki - Diptheria is also caused by bacteria, and there is a vaccine for it.
OK, you're right. I was mistaken about being unable to vaccinate against bacteria... certain types can be vaccinated against.
However, the decline of of bacterial diseases that we now understand how to prevent and treat using modern antibiotics still has no bearing on the efficacy of vaccines.
By your logic, the decline in Black Death proves that vaccines are unnecessary, because we don't have a vaccine for Black Death and yet there are very few cases of it. However, the truth is that increased hygiene and ready availability of antibiotics has resolved that issue, and it's unrelated to vaccination.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but you want to tell me what the "truth" is?
Excuse me while I go think for myself, thanks.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but you want to tell me what the "truth" is?
Excuse me while I go think for myself, thanks.
:lol:
Bacterial vaccines:
Anthrax
Brucellosis
Cholera
Diptheria*
Hib*
Meningococcus*
Pertussis*
Plague
Pneumococcal*
Tetanus*
TB (BCG)
Typhoid
Typhus
combo vaccine DTwP/DTaP*
*= on current vaccine schedule in US
Bacterial vaccines:
Anthrax
Brucellosis
Cholera
Diptheria*
Hib*
Meningococcus*
Pertussis*
Plague
Pneumococcal*
Tetanus*
TB (BCG)
Typhoid
Typhus
combo vaccine DTwP/DTaP*
*= on current vaccine schedule in US
I don't think that the fact that I was wrong about bacterial vaccines (which I readily acknowledged a few posts back - I don't have a problem admitting it when I've made a mistake) really invalidates the fact that many bacterial illnesses have diminished because they are easily preventable and treatable with antibiotics. If your argument against vaccines hinges on the availability of bacterial vaccines, you don't have an argument at all.
The Y. Pestis vaccine, by the way, is still experimental and not in common use. I looked it up, because I like looking things up. Nonetheless, plague is not a widespread or common infection, because it has been controlled through hygiene and is easily treatable with antibiotics.
My point is, the fact that many diseases have been controlled through means other than vaccination does not invalidate or minimize the importance of controlling other diseases through vaccination. It doesn't even make any logical sense to argue that it does.
Bacterial vaccines:
Anthrax
Brucellosis
Cholera
Diptheria*
Hib*
Meningococcus*
Pertussis*
Plague
Pneumococcal*
Tetanus*
TB (BCG)
Typhoid
Typhus
combo vaccine DTwP/DTaP*
*= on current vaccine schedule in US
I have pretty much had them all except Brucellosis and Cholera. I will let you know if I get any central or peripheral nervous system disorders.
I have pretty much had them all except Brucellosis and Cholera. I will let you know if I get any central or peripheral nervous system disorders.
Military?
Military?
Yea. I had all the Anthrax shots before they mandated them in the rest of the military as we were off to some hairy places, but I was one of the lucky ones and never had any problem with them.
If your argument against vaccines hinges on the availability of bacterial vaccines, you don't have an argument at all.
Argument? I just posted the a list of bacterial vaccines to clear up the misinformation you posted about them not existing.
Argument? I just posted the a list of bacterial vaccines to clear up the misinformation you posted about them not existing.
Sort of a red herring, don't you think? I had already admitted to being wrong about bacterial vaccines, and it doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand, which is about whether vaccines prevent disease.
oh....I though the discussion was about who didn't click what link, and who's a lunatic idiot, and who has done all her homework and research so that she can talk down to other people and stuff.
I may have to re read this thread.
It all depends on what you want to see, and what elements you latch onto.
You didn't click on the links, did you?
I don't have anything further to add to this discussion because I can't intelligently discuss any topic with people who refuse to do any additional reading because they think they already know all the available material, have made up their minds, closed them, and thrown away the key.
"There is no need for me to click on the links or read the studies, or the withdrawals, because I already know everything".
I heartily recommend reading actual medical studies and not third-party interpretations of those studies wherever possible, because when you read the interpretations you're absorbing someone else's opinion, not forming your own.
With the withdrawal of 10 of the 13 original supporters from the original Lancet paper that kicked off the anti-vaccination craze (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9500320) and the revelation that Andrew Wakefield falsified his results linking vaccination to autism, it would seem as if the anti-vaccination lunatics (http://www.generationrescue.org/) would back off at least a little on their dangerous allegations that vaccines harm more than they save. Instead, it seems as if they've redoubled their efforts.
In discussing the vaccination issue with people who have chosen not to vaccinate their children, I find that a typical reaction to my pro-vaccination opinion is to assume that I simply haven't read enough. Naturally, given my specific interests in the fields of biochemistry and epidemiology, the opposite is true; if anything, I've read too much. I have watched my children, worried, after each vaccination, and breathed a sigh of relief when none of the many well-documented complications arose. None of those well-documented complications happen to be long-term mental deficiency or autism, but that's not stopping the anti-vaccination ignorant from promoting their potentially disastrous propaganda, nor is it stopping the resurgence of formerly eradicated and dangerous diseases like mumps, measles, and rubella. Even tuburculosis and the horrible crippling disease of polio, formerly considered extinct, is on the rise.
Why, in this day of new and increasingly dangerous epidemics such as AIDS and SARS, are we allowing idiots to disarm our bottom-line defenses against diseases we defeated decades ago? This is sheer insanity.
I think both clodfobble and jinx have clearly demonstrated that people make the choices that they make based on the information they have or can acquire. your initial post insults and lumps all non vaccinators together under the label 'lunatics' and 'idiots'. ...and goes on to note that these non vaccinating lunatics typically do you the injustice of assuming that you're undereducated about them. And here you are doing that exact thing. as usual, you're talking out of your ass. you're an inflamatory hypocrite troll. Of course, I'm probably just picking on you because I'm mean.
but hey...you're very creative and artsy and independant....so maybe you're just ahead of your time and misunderstood?
It all depends on what you want to see, and what elements you latch onto.
latch onto
thisI think both clodfobble and jinx have clearly demonstrated that people make the choices that they make based on the information they have or can acquire. your initial post insults and lumps all non vaccinators together under the label 'lunatics' and 'idiots'. ...and goes on to note that these non vaccinating lunatics typically do you the injustice of assuming that you're undereducated about them. And here you are doing that exact thing. as usual, you're talking out of your ass. you're an inflamatory hypocrite troll. Of course, I'm probably just picking on you because I'm mean.
but hey...you're very creative and artsy and independant....so maybe you're just ahead of your time and misunderstood?
I love how, if you can't actually refute points you disagree with, you simply resort to personal attacks, which you then gleefully drag around from thread to thread pretending you're being "friendly".
You're not especially bright, and it shows. :D
^^^^^See that, LJ? That's a personal attack, against you, a person. Not a general opinion such as "I think people who don't vaccinate are irresponsible idiots who are a threat to society". That's not a personal attack, it's a strongly-worded opinion.
ur a poop
:lol:
At least Flint has style.
I love how, if you can't actually refute points you disagree with, you simply resort to personal attacks, which you then gleefully drag around from thread to thread pretending you're being "friendly".
You're not especially bright, and it shows. :D
^^^^^See that, LJ? That's a personal attack, against you, a person. Not a general opinion such as "I think people who don't vaccinate are irresponsible idiots who are a threat to society". That's not a personal attack, it's a strongly-worded opinion.
oh wayull shazammmm.....thanks for edjumacatin me, thar tiki....you suuuure is smart. yoooo must be wunna dem collidge gerls....
I may not be all that bright, but I'm smart enough to recognize an arrogant twat when i hear one.
oh wayull shazammmm.....thanks for edjumacatin me, thar tiki....you suuuure is smart. yoooo must be wunna dem collidge gerls....
I may not be all that bright, but I'm smart enough to recognize an arrogant twat when i hear one.
Good job of proving my point... when unable to come up with an actual rebuttal, resort to childish name-calling. What exactly is up with the chip on your shoulder regarding education, anyway? You realize that I have a
third-grade education, right... that I never went to high school, let alone graduated it, never took my GED, and I am so excited about going to college now because I'm thirty-eight and have no degree at all? I have sixteen credits in miscellaneous classes I've taken at PCC over the last 20 years, and that's it.
Everything I know, I know because I like to read about things, and I like to know as much as possible about something before I form an opinion. I also like to continue learning about things I'm interested in so that if I'm mistaken about something I can change my mind. I don't think that's a bad thing, and it's a trait I admire in other people.
So if you want to ignore the actual relevant content of my posts and fixate on your apparently terribly insecure perception of me as some smug ivory-tower twat, go for it, but in that case we really have nothing further to say to each other, ever, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped taking cheap pot-shots at me in every thread I post in.
Actually, that doesn't make sense. In most cases the children who got the whooping cough were not deliberately unvaccinated, they were younger than the vaccine schedule would have them immunized. In my friend's case, there's no question that she got the disease from her mother. Except her mother was vaccinated as a child, just like we all were. Her mother got the disease because, as doctors will freely admit, a vaccine doesn't give you lifelong immunity like having the disease does. It wears off. It is the millions of adults walking around who are now susceptible to the disease again because their childhood vaccines have worn off, rather than the handful of unvaccinated children. There's been a big push in this country--for over three years, at least, because I got all the handouts when my first one was born--for new parents to re-immunize themselves against whooping cough, so they won't pass it to their baby. We've set ourselves up to need lifelong "booster shots."
Whether it makes sense or not, that's what is being reported.
A resurgence in the disease has been attributed to less people immunising over the last 10 to 15 years, so it's more prevalent in general, which means it's more likely that an unimmunised child/baby could come into contact with the disease.
I may not be all that bright, but I'm smart enough to recognize an arrogant twat when i hear one.
That's a usertitle waiting to happen.
Whether it makes sense or not, that's what is being reported.
A resurgence in the disease has been attributed to less people immunising over the last 10 to 15 years, so it's more prevalent in general, which means it's more likely that an unimmunised child/baby could come into contact with the disease.
As I understand it, there has to be roughly 95% vaccination rates for them to be effective at a societal level. Currently, the NorthEast of England is running at about 85% takeup (with some areas of the NE even lower): worryingly, this region is currently experiencing its biggest measles outbreak for 20 years.
That sounds about the same as the figures we get over here Dana.
It's a concern. So much so that I worry about taking Max out in crowds because he could get whooping cough. I know it's alarmist to base my reaction on an isolated case, but my aunts friend just had to bury her 1 month old due to the disease. I don't want to take the chance, and it's a shame that there's a higher risk now than there was previously simply because some people choose not to immunise.
I do think that the medical profession could go a long way to alleviating the situation if they were more sympathetc to those parents who wish to stagger the vaccinations. By trying to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, they are pushing away people who are open to the idea, but have concerns about multiple vaccination.
I've never heard of any docs over here having a problem with it. There are guidlines for how to make the immunisation effective, but honestly, if it means an extra few visits to the docs, surely that's financially beneficial to them anyway, and I suspect that's how most of them here would view it.
Max is having his immunisation today. He'll be having all the scheduled 2 month shots.
Sort of a red herring, don't you think? I had already admitted to being wrong about bacterial vaccines, and it doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand, which is about whether vaccines prevent disease.
No, see, it's not a red herring... It started with you suggesting that Jenny McCarthy and all her anti-vaccine minions are causing MMR uptake to decline - which would then cause measles epidemic and OmGZ!!!11! polio too!!!
I posted statistics which show that measles(along with several other communicable diseases) was in decline (98% decrease) for decades prior to the introduction of the applicable vaccines, if any were even introduced at all. I also posted information showing that there were measles epidemic years post vaccine introduction but pre-Wakefield. My intended point being; we might not suddenly return to the 1800's if we take a minute and do some safety studies on the vaccines we use today.
You then declared the information I shared to be completely irrelevant
because of your ignorance of the existence of bacterium based vaccines
and what you thought that implied about the importance of hygiene.
Presented with new (to you) information you didn't even pause to
consider, you jumped right back into arguing. You may have
admitted to being wrong, but only before launching into another tirade about how illogical "my argument" was. Since it's not all about you, I went
ahead and posted complete, accurate information, for others who may be
following along.
For the record, my argument is; first, do no harm. My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.
I do think that the medical profession could go a long way to alleviating the situation if they were more sympathetc to those parents who wish to stagger the vaccinations. By trying to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, they are pushing away people who are open to the idea, but have concerns about multiple vaccination.
With all three of my kids, my doctors have been very accommodating, and offered (without my asking) to special-order single vaccines they don't stock.
It was really a non-issue.
No, see, it's not a red herring... It started with you suggesting that Jenny McCarthy and all her anti-vaccine minions are causing MMR uptake to decline - which would then cause measles epidemic and OmGZ!!!11! polio too!!!
I posted statistics which show that measles(along with several other communicable diseases) was in decline (98% decrease) for decades prior to the introduction of the applicable vaccines, if any were even introduced at all. I also posted information showing that there were measles epidemic years post vaccine introduction but pre-Wakefield. My intended point being; we might not suddenly return to the 1800's if we take a minute and do some safety studies on the vaccines we use today.
You then declared the information I shared to be completely irrelevant
because of your ignorance of the existence of bacterium based vaccines
and what you thought that implied about the importance of hygiene.
Presented with new (to you) information you didn't even pause to
consider, you jumped right back into arguing. You may have
admitted to being wrong, but only before launching into another tirade about how illogical "my argument" was. Since it's not all about you, I went
ahead and posted complete, accurate information, for others who may be
following along.
For the record, my argument is; first, do no harm. My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.
Unless I missed an entire post of yours, I already explained why the statistics you posted weren't relevant, Jinx, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you still think they are. You and LJ have consistently gone with hysteria and namecalling over rational discussion, and I really just can't take you seriously at all.
This, however, is totally relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v_85tAey9sThat's a usertitle waiting to happen.
You, madame, are genius.
I do think that the medical profession could go a long way to alleviating the situation if they were more sympathetc to those parents who wish to stagger the vaccinations. By trying to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, they are pushing away people who are open to the idea, but have concerns about multiple vaccination.
It's far easier for parents here to exempt their children from all vaccines than it is to selectively vaccinate. It's nothing like 10 years ago though, thanks to doctors and school officials becoming better informed (school officials used to think it was their business).
Good job of proving my point... when unable to come up with an actual rebuttal, resort to childish name-calling. What exactly is up with the chip on your shoulder regarding education, anyway? You realize that I have a third-grade education, right... that I never went to high school, let alone graduated it, never took my GED, and I am so excited about going to college now because I'm thirty-eight and have no degree at all? I have sixteen credits in miscellaneous classes I've taken at PCC over the last 20 years, and that's it.
Everything I know, I know because I like to read about things, and I like to know as much as possible about something before I form an opinion. I also like to continue learning about things I'm interested in so that if I'm mistaken about something I can change my mind. I don't think that's a bad thing, and it's a trait I admire in other people.
oh look!... more reasons you're so great! yay tiki! you win at life!
So if you want to ignore the actual relevant content of my posts and fixate on your apparently terribly insecure perception of me as some smug ivory-tower twat, go for it, but in that case we really have nothing further to say to each other, ever, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped taking cheap pot-shots at me in every thread I post in.
In the last two days, I've addressed you in two threads, tiki. and in the other one it actually did begin as friendly poking...you insisted on taking it to heart and got all bent. even after i pointed out that i was just kidding around. whatever.
as far as rebutting your points, it's been done already. as i said.....clobble and jinx
have done. the issue
I was rebutting...that you seem to be ignoring...is this:
When you say:
I find that a typical reaction to my pro-vaccination opinion is to assume that I simply haven't read enough.
after having labeled them lunatics .....YOU'RE BEING A HYPOCRITE!
you are making the same assumption you accuse them of making. you don't consider that maybe these people have done EVEN MORE research than you have done. seems like jinx might have done at least as much homework as you have, maybe?
On top of that, your whole tone is abrasive and shitty, and whether you intend to or not, you come off like you know better than the rest of us. I don't give a fuck if you educated yourself ....i have zero issue with your education. I have an issue with your smug super hippie attitude. you're the MOST creative...you're the MOST feeling.....You're the MOST sensitive.
barf
you wanna be strangers?
great!
Funny how Clod has been able to post, for the most part, with a minimum of courtesy and intelligence rather than filling her posts with personal insults and namecalling.
I may have used strong verbiage in my OP, but it wasn't personally directed at anyone. I was stating a strong opinion, rather than targeting an individual for personal insults.
Every interaction I've had with you since I came here - since before I came here, in fact - has involved you insulting me, Jim. Maybe you think it's "cute" or "friendly" to constantly make personal jabs at people, but I don't, and neither do any other adults I associate with. My repartee with you has nothing to do with me thinking I'm more "creative", "sensitive", or "feeling" than anyone else here... it had everything to do with you saying something shitty to me and me jabbing back at you.
Frankly, I think you're a bad person, and I don't want you to talk to me. You clearly don't like me, and I don't like you either. At all.
Thanks.
I see you've finally taken "Fuck you Jim" out of your user title.
It stopped being funny when I realized you actually aren't a nice person.
i've stopped being nice to you, that's true.
I'm still a nice person in a general sense, though.
It's a concern. So much so that I worry about taking Max out in crowds because he could get whooping cough. I know it's alarmist to base my reaction on an isolated case, but my aunts friend just had to bury her 1 month old due to the disease. I don't want to take the chance, and it's a shame that there's a higher risk now than there was previously simply because some people choose not to immunise.
But the question is, do you not believe immunizing him will raise his risk of autism and a variety of other neurological and immunological disorders, or is it that you have weighed the risks given your family history and find that the risk of catching the disease is greater than the risk of the possible side effects?
My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.
Here in lies the problem with most people when it comes to health care and any issue surrounding it, whether it be factual data about the risks and issues or the politics. The majority of Americans are quite ignorant about the issues, risks, benefits, and or relevant data available. I would estimate that a good 85% of patients get their information from the baby channel, CNN, or their equally ignorant family. Yea it's a big problem.
Clod, the latter, although I don't believe there is enough concrete data to suggest there is a link between autism and immunisation. I believe all our lifestyles have changed so dramatically since immunisation really began that there are a huge number of other factors these possible side effects could be attributed to.
For one thing, look at all the other chemicals we regularly expose our bodies to, and that's just around the home. then consider all the chemicals in processed foods etc, aside from exposure to pesticides in the air from farming etc.
I'm sure you get my point. I just don't think autism et al, can be attributed to immunisation. certainly not all cases, and possibly none.
i've stopped being nice to you, that's true.
I'm still a nice person in a general sense, though.
I'd like to think so, Jim.
But you sort of stopped being nice to Tiki for no reason, and you've been a bit of a shit to her, also for no reason that I can see.
WTF?
Clod, the latter, although I don't believe there is enough concrete data to suggest there is a link between autism and immunisation. I believe all our lifestyles have changed so dramatically since immunisation really began that there are a huge number of other factors these possible side effects could be attributed to.
For one thing, look at all the other chemicals we regularly expose our bodies to, and that's just around the home. then consider all the chemicals in processed foods etc, aside from exposure to pesticides in the air from farming etc.
I'm sure you get my point. I just don't think autism et al, can be attributed to immunisation. certainly not all cases, and possibly none.
I think there has been a lot of sensationalism around the issue. The majority of large studies have not found a cause and effect relationship. There is still so much we don't know.
I'd like to think so, Jim.
But you sort of stopped being nice to Tiki for no reason, and you've been a bit of a shit to her, also for no reason that I can see.
WTF?
I would suggest that you lack information.
I turned the other cheek longer than i normally would, believe me.
not putting up with the cyclical nature of this particular crazy chick's mood swings anymore, thankyouverymuch.
I would suggest that you lack information.
I turned the other cheek longer than i normally would, believe me.
not putting up with the cyclical nature of this particular crazy chick's mood swings anymore, thankyouverymuch.
WTF. Why don't you just leave me alone and stop poking me with a stick, if you don't want to "put up with" me? What information is there, that isn't visible on the board, except the occasions when you called me a liar in chat?
It would really be pretty easy to simply stop making shitty comments about/to me, or the over-the-top name-calling. It's not necessary and I don't enjoy it, and you don't seem to enjoy my retorts, either.
It's easy. I don't go around the board randomly saying shitty things to or about you, or calling you a liar in chat. If you stopped doing it to me, then I would most likely never have any reason to talk to you, let alone to be pissy with you, and we could co-exist in peace without EVER talking to each other or acknowledging each other's existence.
You clearly think I'm horrible
I think you're horrible
Let's ignore the shit out of each other.
Let's ignore the shit out of each other.
you have a deal.
on the count of 3, ignore....
1....
2.....
wait....
I'll count to 3, and then where 4 would go, we'll ignore. ready?
1....
2....
3....
ignore!
Just some food for thought, for those who still believe that the entire Wakefield scandal is about one journalist with a personal mission:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5070670.stm
I do put some blame for the reemergence of measles at the feet of delusional celebrities (and if you don't know why I call Jenny McCarthy a "delusional celebrity", it's likely that you have been lucky enough to have missed seeing her old website and the bizarre statements she made there - ooh, remember when she was all into the "indigo" thing?)
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.htmlFor one thing, look at all the other chemicals we regularly expose our bodies to, and that's just around the home. then consider all the chemicals in processed foods etc, aside from exposure to pesticides in the air from farming etc.
I'm sure you get my point. I just don't think autism et al, can be attributed to immunisation. certainly not all cases, and possibly none.
There are many factors involved, I absolutely agree. There is usually no one cause of autism even in a specific individual, let alone across all cases. But you can control for all those factors when you study the data, in order to isolate whether one factor is contributing or not. And in the link I provided earlier,
they did just that. They surveyed 9,000 families living in roughly the same geographical area, the same culture, the same chemicals. The ones who didn't vaccinate had significantly lower rates of not just autism, but ADHD and asthma as well. This is the only major study that has compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children, which is really the question. All of the other studies compare autistic children to other autistic children, which as you point out, only leads to the conclusion that there are many causes of autism. But that's like saying there are many causes of cancer--you can still reasonably conclude that all the people with lung cancer probably got it from smoking, but only when you compare people who smoke to people who don't, not people who have lung cancer to people who have cervical cancer.
I'm afraid I have a very hard time unskeptically accepting data from privately funded surveys conducted by organizations with an agenda, just as I have a very hard time unskeptically accepting data from privately funded studies conducted by corporations with a bottom line.
I was just trying to find the study that showed a strong likelihood of bias in privately finded studies, but I couldn't find it online. :(
Ah, so you finally got around to answering my earlier question, which is to say that you think they faked the data in that study?
Fair enough.
With regard to my family history, and I'm talking my small sample study of around 100 people, we have all been fully vaccinated, and there are none of us with any of the health issues possibly associated with vaccination.
I'd also like to point out that there are 'cancer clusters' sometimes associated with geographical areas. Also note the fact that non breast fed babies are more likely to suffer from asthma, and possibly take into account that there could be a link between parents who choose not to breast feed but choose to vaccinate. I see a logical connection there because I believe there are similar motivations behind breast feeding and not vaccinating.
It's also possible that they had a greater response to their survey from parents who are anti vaccination simply due to the fact people who are against vaccination in general seem to me to be more vocal.
Also, the people with kids who were vaccinated were probably too busy chasing their hypo kids to do a survey. ;)
I note also that there are a couple of points in the course of the article worth consideration, such as 'All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR)'. It'd be interesting to know what that unusual result was. They also suggest that they don't consider this survey to be proof of the link, only that it proves there should be more research into the issue.
Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...
I note also that there are a couple of points in the course of the article worth consideration, such as 'All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR)'. It'd be interesting to know what that unusual result was. They also suggest that they don't consider this survey to be proof of the link, only that it proves there should be more research into the issue.
I think it's really odd, and interesting, that they removed the county with the highest population and the only major metropolitan area in the state.
I am also concerned at the lack of addressing a single very important built-in bias in the survey that is linked to it being a survey and therefore reliant on the accuracy of self-reporting; that families who choose not to vaccinate, unless they are carefully screened, may also be less likely to have their children tested for neurodevelopmental issues. The exclusion of Multnomah County heightens this possibility due to the reduced likelihood of developmental disorder screening in rural areas, and it is compounded, if you restrict the survey to suburban and rural areas, by the correlation between non-vaccinators and homeschoolers, as homeshoolers are far less likely to screen for mild neurodevelopmental disorders.
Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...
because reason doesn't have any money. and
truth doesn't make a noise.
the pharma companies that fund vaccine development, marketing and apparent brainwashing of physicians.......stand to make money selling their snake oil.
there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.
Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...
But the CDC is continuously collecting health data nationwide. They don't "do" a study as much as collection of statistical data is ongoing.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal.htmbecause reason doesn't have any money. and truth doesn't make a noise.
the pharma companies that fund vaccine development, marketing and apparent brainwashing of physicians.......stand to make money selling their snake oil.
there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.
And people selling Nissans tend to advocate the advantages of Nissans because they stand to make money from selling Nissans. It doesn't mean there's anything evil about the people selling Nissans. Just that it's in their best interest to promote their product.
The point is that it doesn't help the argument from either side to demonize any of the stakeholders.
As clod mentions, there isn't really any conclusive evidence (due to lack of non-biased research) and there should be.
Why has this thread begun to sound like a discussion between supporters and opponents of gay marriage, abortion, or Bush?
Because there's two sides (at least) and both have some very valid points which the other side (in general) doesn't want to acknowledge. ;)
*Nods* That's my understanding of how it works over here as well Jinx.
With my eldest niece, my brother and SiL were extremely reluctant to let her have the MMR jab. She had childhood eczema, very much like I did at that age. This was before the autism thing. They tried to get individual, staggered jabs and faced pretty much a brick wall on it. Not sure what the situation was like a few years later when Soph was born, but I have also heard of other parents having problems.
Not sure where I read it now, but a couple of years ago when this was doing the rounds of the cellar before, I went checking out some stuff and found an artcle in which medical professionals were arguing that the problem was parents trying to stagger the jabs, because in their opinion, many parents never take their child to complete the programme, once the first one is done. Which, they said, was why they were strongly encouraging parents not to opt for the single jabs. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe there were very few circumstances in which the NHS would provide single jabs. In order to get single jabs, these parents would have to pay private fees, where parents accepting the MMR would get it for free. Not sure whether that's still the case. I suspect it's another of those postcode lottery situations, where it depends on your local health authority.
So, parents who wanted to stagger their child's jabs, were treated as a problem. And, made to feel that they were being individually, and socially, irresponsible for not simply accepting the MMR as matter of course.
The medical profession, especially after the autism thing, haven't responded to parents with doubts as if they are rational responsible adults; they have instead responded with judgmental hysteria. Parents, who have accepted their wisdom on the need to vaccinate, but who have sought to personalise that according to unknown risks (unknown to the medical profession as well) and their own responsibility to their children, have been configured in the press and by medical professionals as hysterical, irrational and socially dangerous. Rather than facilitating increase in take up, they have pushed away people who were in fact open to their ideas. By insisting that their way was the only way, they made the situation far worse.
Funny how Clod has been able to post, for the most part, with a minimum of courtesy and intelligence rather than filling her posts with personal insults and namecalling.
I may have used strong verbiage in my OP, but it wasn't personally directed at anyone. I was stating a strong opinion, rather than targeting an individual for personal insults.
Every interaction I've had with you since I came here - since before I came here, in fact - has involved you insulting me, Jim. Maybe you think it's "cute" or "friendly" to constantly make personal jabs at people, but I don't, and neither do any other adults I associate with. My repartee with you has nothing to do with me thinking I'm more "creative", "sensitive", or "feeling" than anyone else here... it had everything to do with you saying something shitty to me and me jabbing back at you.
Frankly, I think you're a bad person, and I don't want you to talk to me. You clearly don't like me, and I don't like you either. At all.
Thanks.
funny....i know i said i'd ignore you....but i just happened upon
this thread and that deal is now off.
it was posted some 13 hours before the OP....where you use 'strong verbiage' not personal insults. see....i was offended by the tone of the 1st post in this thread because i knew we'd argued about this in the past, and felt like it might be directed at me and my family. now i see that it was, indeed.....even though you've claimed to be speaking in general since i've pointed it out.
fucking lying reality bending hypocrite jerkoff. i cant wait until you get back on your meds.
There are many factors involved, I absolutely agree. There is usually no one cause of autism even in a specific individual, let alone across all cases. But you can control for all those factors when you study the data, in order to isolate whether one factor is contributing or not. And in the link I provided earlier, they did just that. They surveyed 9,000 families living in roughly the same geographical area, the same culture, the same chemicals. The ones who didn't vaccinate had significantly lower rates of not just autism, but ADHD and asthma as well. This is the only major study that has compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children, which is really the question. All of the other studies compare autistic children to other autistic children, which as you point out, only leads to the conclusion that there are many causes of autism. But that's like saying there are many causes of cancer--you can still reasonably conclude that all the people with lung cancer probably got it from smoking, but only when you compare people who smoke to people who don't, not people who have lung cancer to people who have cervical cancer.
What I find interesting about that study is that the highest percentage of children diagnosed with ASD or AD falls under the partially vaccinated category. Its not a large difference, but for some individual categories, autism for example, partially vaccinated cases double the unvaccinated, fully vaccinated, and fully+ vaccinated categories.
I'm wondering if this is just a statistical error due to a smaller sample size or if there might be a correlation.
there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.
I don't think that line of thinking is productive, or at least, it's not something you should draw direct conclusions from. You might say "There is a systematic bias against my hypothesis." But you should never say "There is a systematic bias against my hypothesis, therefore my hypothesis is true."
Unprofitable studies happening at CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vsd/vsd_studies.htm
Including:
In response to public concerns, VSD researchers have begun a case-control study to examine the association between thimerosal and autism rigorously. The study aims to determine whether exposure to thimerosal in infancy or in utero is related to development of autism. The study will also evaluate whether exposure to thimerosal in infancy is related to development of the subclass of autism predominantly associated with regression. As part of the study, researchers will use automated data and registries to identify children with autism (cases) and without autism (controls). In-person examinations, telephone interviews, medical chart reviews, and immunization tracking systems will be used to collect information on vaccine history and other possible covariates. Recommended by the Institute of Medicine, this VSD study will be the first rigorous, epidemiological study conducted on the issue of thimerosal and autism. Data from this VSD study should provide the best available scientific information on whether a causal association between exposure to thimerosal and the development of autism is possible.
This study is in the data collection phase.
I don't think that line of thinking is productive, or at least, it's not something you should draw direct conclusions from. You might say "There is a systematic bias against my hypothesis." But you should never say "There is a systematic bias against my hypothesis, therefore my hypothesis is true."
Unprofitable studies happening at CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vsd/vsd_studies.htm
Including:
[url="http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vsd/thimerosal_outcomes/"][b]
it was just a comment about how things get done. not really about biases. if there is money to be made, it makes sense that many people will want to do it. if not....then it's a lot harder to get money behind that kind of stuff ....especially with all the other areas of research going on.
maybe if there were little ribbons to create awareness.
I think it's really odd, and interesting, that they removed the county with the highest population and the only major metropolitan area in the state.
I think it's really odd that they removed data that they felt was proven invalid and didn't invalidate the entire survey.
families who choose not to vaccinate, unless they are carefully screened, may also be less likely to have their children tested for neurodevelopmental issues.
Less likely to test for and acknowledge ADHD, I will grant you. But less likely to test for asthma? I find that unlikely. And with autism, well, that just isn't possible, as anyone who has actually lived with an autistic child can tell you. There are a handful of autistic children who are developmentally delayed, but generally calm. The vast majority are a daily struggle of tantrums and are often literally unable to be taken out in public.
What I find interesting about that study is that the highest percentage of children diagnosed with ASD or AD falls under the partially vaccinated category. Its not a large difference, but for some individual categories, autism for example, partially vaccinated cases double the unvaccinated, fully vaccinated, and fully+ vaccinated categories.
I'm wondering if this is just a statistical error due to a smaller sample size or if there might be a correlation.
Part of that may be because parents often stop the vaccination schedule of younger siblings of autistic children as soon as they realize their older child has a problem. But genetically, those siblings are still far more likely to be autistic than your average vaccinated or unvaccinated kid.
The medical profession, especially after the autism thing, haven't responded to parents with doubts as if they are rational responsible adults; they have instead responded with judgmental hysteria.
They're not the only ones.. you can see right here in this thread how most people act. It's as if most people don't want a sound discussion on the topic, they've made up their mind and their goal is only to defend their position.
Just some food for thought, for those who still believe that the entire Wakefield scandal is about one journalist with a personal mission:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5070670.stm
I do put some blame for the reemergence of measles at the feet of delusional celebrities (and if you don't know why I call Jenny McCarthy a "delusional celebrity", it's likely that you have been lucky enough to have missed seeing her old website and the bizarre statements she made there - ooh, remember when she was all into the "indigo" thing?)
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html
Bump.
So just to clarify for myself. The main issue that needs to be investigated about the vaccinations/vaccination schedule is not whether not it causes the disease, but whether or not it amplifies the severity of a pre-existing condition?
I could see how that might be a possibility, and also why it would be so difficult to track down.
So just to clarify for myself. The main issue that needs to be investigated about the vaccinations/vaccination schedule is not whether not it causes the disease, but whether or not it amplifies the severity of a pre-existing condition?
I could see how that might be a possibility, and also why it would be so difficult to track down.
Actually all of those issues need to be researched more completely.
It turns out a shitload of studies have been done on MMR, thimerosal, and simultaneous vaccination.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/596476
Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism. These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufficient to detect even rare associations. These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child’s immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more‐promising leads.
So just to clarify for myself. The main issue that needs to be investigated about the vaccinations/vaccination schedule is not whether not it causes the disease, but whether or not it amplifies the severity of a pre-existing condition?
I could see how that might be a possibility, and also why it would be so difficult to track down.
That's my understanding with stuff like childhood eczema. Certainly that was posited by medical peeps when I was growing up. Our GP considered it a possible reason for my sudden (as in days after) jump from normal childhood eczema, to hospitalised and bandaged head to foot.
The trouble is, because someone has tried to jump the gun and offer proof that wasn't really proof of a correllation with one condition (autism) anybody suggesting any potential link between vaccines and any other condition is shouted down.
Here's what UT's article says
In the United States, using the Vaccine Safety Data Link, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined 140,887 US children born during 1991–1999, including >200 children with autism [25]. The researchers found no relationship between receipt of thimerosal‐containing vaccines and autism.
Here's what the study referenced says
OBJECTIVE: To assess the possible toxicity of thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) among infants. METHODS: A 2-phased retrospective cohort study was conducted using computerized health maintenance organization (HMO) databases. Phase I screened for associations between neurodevelopmental disorders and thimerosal exposure among 124 170 infants who were born during 1992 to 1999 at 2 HMOs (A and B). In phase II, the most common disorders associated with exposure in phase I were reevaluated among 16 717 children who were born during 1991 to 1997 in another HMO (C). Relative risks for neurodevelopmental disorders were calculated per increase of 12.5 micro g of estimated cumulative mercury exposure from TCVs in the first, third, and seventh months of life. RESULTS: In phase I at HMO A, cumulative exposure at 3 months resulted in a significant positive association with tics (relative risk [RR]: 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-3.38). At HMO B, increased risks of language delay were found for cumulative exposure at 3 months (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01-1.27) and 7 months (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13). In phase II at HMO C, no significant associations were found. In no analyses were significant increased risks found for autism or attention-deficit disorder. CONCLUSIONS: No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.
i was offended by the tone of the 1st post in this thread because i knew we'd argued about this in the past, and felt like it might be directed at me and my family.
this surely isn't the old LJ we've known and loved all these years.
get over it NANCY
Less likely to test for and acknowledge ADHD, I will grant you. But less likely to test for asthma? I find that unlikely. And with autism, well, that just isn't possible, as anyone who has actually lived with an autistic child can tell you. There are a handful of autistic children who are developmentally delayed, but generally calm. The vast majority are a daily struggle of tantrums and are often literally unable to be taken out in public.
Part of that may be because parents often stop the vaccination schedule of younger siblings of autistic children as soon as they realize their older child has a problem. But genetically, those siblings are still far more likely to be autistic than your average vaccinated or unvaccinated kid.
Full-blown autism, sure, but what about Aspergers? It's gone untested-for until recently. My best friend's son, who is also my son's best friend, has a mild form of autism, and until recently most of his TEACHERS were unwilling to recommend him for testing because they said he was just shy and needed to apply himself. I've known this kid for years and it's clear to me that he's not like other kids... nor is my youngest daughter... but I could easily see people in a more socially isolated setting, with holistic views (which I have no problem with) seeing these children as simply variations on normal, and not needing testing.
I don't think there is a single thing wrong with viewing ADHD or Aspergers as variation on normal rather than as diagnosable disorders, but you have to admit that replying on accurate self-reporting and excluding the only metropolitan area in the state could have a major effect on the survey, which for these reasons I cannot consider a valid study.
funny....i know i said i'd ignore you....but i just happened upon this thread and that deal is now off.
it was posted some 13 hours before the OP....where you use 'strong verbiage' not personal insults. see....i was offended by the tone of the 1st post in this thread because i knew we'd argued about this in the past, and felt like it might be directed at me and my family. now i see that it was, indeed.....even though you've claimed to be speaking in general since i've pointed it out.
fucking lying reality bending hypocrite jerkoff. i cant wait until you get back on your meds.
Paranoid much?
Not only was my OP not directed at you and your family, but it wasn't even originally composed for this board... I posted it at CoG first, and then realizing that almost everybody there is underage and has no interest in the topic, I reposted it here.
You can keep on with your hysterical high-school-girl namecalling and persecution complex, but I suggest you reconsider your delusional belief that anyone spends that much time thinking about you.
Here's what the study referenced says
CONCLUSIONS: No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
To understand why they came to that conclusion, I expect one would need coursework in statistics. Nevertheless, that was the conclusion of the researchers, and you are merely cherry-picking their work to try to come to a different conclusion, which I think you shouldn't do.
Frankly, the onus should be on medical science to prove that it is safe. At the moment the onus seems to be on people having to prove that it isn't.
UT Ithink the key words there are consistent and significant. They also suggested areas of concern where results were slightly different.
It is very difficult to prove a consistent cause of eczema and asthma. There are a variety of 'triggers' that set off a flare. As yet they've been unable to find a consistent cause. There are a number of possibilities. But immuno conditions are a bitch to figure out. It's entirely possible conditions like autism are just as tricky. If we're relying on consistent results, then I doubt they will ever be confident enough to point to anything as a cause.
You guys are working really hard to interpret the science differently than the science interprets itself. You shouldn't do that.
I should add, I love you guys. If I am wrong I hope you still love me.
I pushed you cause
I loved you guys
I didn't realize
You weren't having fun
I dragged you up the stairs
And I told you to fly
You were flapping your arms
You started to cry
You were too high
Too high
-- Ben Folds Five, My Philosophy
Here's what UT's article says
Here's what the study referenced says
What I get from those sitations is that there is no proof that these are not normal variations seen in populations where there could be other causes not studied by the original research. They see the variations but that does not mean there is a truely causative relationship.
Frankly, the onus should be on medical science to prove that it is safe. At the moment the onus seems to be on people having to prove that it isn't.
It has always been like that because people want solutions to their problems and people who have disease are willing to accept risk-benefit ratios that are directed to a greater extent to easing or curing disease, not thinking to much about the very small group that is affected by rare unintended effects. The medical commuinty thinks the same way. Can we fix problem x with solution y and are 99% of the people relieved.
You guys are working really hard to interpret the science differently than the science interprets itself. You shouldn't do that.
I disagree but thanks for your perspective. That study was offered under the context of dismissing an autism connection. It clearly doesn't dismiss anything when it calls for more accurate research.
In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated the vaccination records of 100,572 children born during 1988–1997, using the General Practice Research Database, 104 of whom were affected with autism [27]. No relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism diagnosis was observed.
And we can tell that by studying just one of several vaccines an infant receives at once? That's what the reference says...
CONCLUSIONS: With the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via DTP/DT vaccines causes neurodevelopmental disorders.
It should also be noted that Paul Offit (author of article) holds the patent on 2 vaccines; one currently on the schedule, and one that was taken off due to babies dying from intusception.
It should also be noted that Paul Offit (author of article) holds the patent on 2 vaccines; one currently on the schedule, and one that was taken off due to babies dying from intusception.
That is quite interesting. Thanks for that bit.
That covers the overview and (partially) one of the studies, what of the other 19?
Just FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit
and about the withdrawn vaccine, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotavirus_vaccine:
Clinical trials in the United States, Finland, and Venezuela had found it to be 80 to 100% effective at preventing severe diarrhea caused by rotavirus A, and researchers had detected no statistically significant serious adverse effects. The manufacturer of the vaccine, however, withdrew it from the market in 1999, after it was discovered that the vaccine may have contributed to an increased risk for intussusception, or bowel obstruction, in one of every 12,000 vaccinated infants.
I don't normally cite Wikipedia but, in this case, it seemed the source least likely to reflect bias.
I do have the ability to pull original articles in their complete format if you need me to.
1 in 12,000 is a pretty high incidence in medicine. And most likely due to the severity of intussusception for the infants that get it, not worth the risk-benefit ratio.
I do have the ability to pull original articles in their complete format if you need me to.
Ooooh really? I might hit you up for that. There have been a number of times when I have been thwarted by being unable to access articles. Thanks!
That covers the overview and (partially) one of the studies, what of the other 19?
I'm not done reading them, but I'm out of time for right now.
Tiki, are you contributing to the tip jar? [COLOR="White"]. . . [SIZE="1"]'cause you keep gettin' serrrved[/SIZE][/COLOR]
1 in 12,000 is a pretty high incidence in medicine. And most likely due to the severity of intussusception for the infants that get it, not worth the risk-benefit ratio.
Yes, it makes sense that it was withdrawn, and replaced by a safer version of the vaccine, also developed by Offit.
You knocked that out of the park.
Tiki, are you contributing to the tip jar? [COLOR="White"]. . . [SIZE="1"]'cause you keep gettin' serrrved[/SIZE][/COLOR]
What does "served" mean?
I will contribute to the tip jar (Faust at PD can testify) when I am no longer flat broke. :P
This thread is the awesomest.
Ooooh really? I might hit you up for that. There have been a number of times when I have been thwarted by being unable to access articles. Thanks!
I would have to pull them down load them and then send them to you via email. I don't think we have the bandwidth to post multipage documents as attachments to threads.
I don't think anyone would argue that a rotavirus vaccine itself is a bad thing, or that Offit is some kind of profiteering monster for making the development of one his life's work:
http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/burden/rotavirus_estimates/en/index.htmlI would have to pull them down load them and then send them to you via email. I don't think we have the bandwidth to post multipage documents as attachments to threads.
OK... if I find something I really MUST have and my housemate can't access it for me through her lab, I'll PM you. :) Thanks!
There's an easy test to see if your child has robovirus: hit them in the head with a hammer.
Well I have had rotavirus myself and I have taken care of infants with it. I know plenty of people who have gotten it. I can tell you, it ain't pretty. Most kids who get it in developed countries survive. I am sure it would be quite devastating for those who did not have access to rehydration sources.
There's an easy test to see if your child has robovirus: hit them in the head with a hammer.
Call this guy:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8356/robocopCD.jpgYes, most of the deaths are in underdeveloped, impoverished countries. It's pretty sad.
You two are turning this into a real bummer.
Glad you edited that. How dare you call us that. :D
I don't think there is a single thing wrong with viewing ADHD or Aspergers as variation on normal rather than as diagnosable disorders, but you have to admit that replying on accurate self-reporting and excluding the only metropolitan area in the state could have a major effect on the survey, which for these reasons I cannot consider a valid study.
They addressed the concern in the study's methodology anyway: they used the exact same questions and parental-reporting standards that the CDC uses for their overall incidence statistics. I don't know what problem they saw with the county they thought was abnormal, but they provided the numbers with it both included and excluded, and the difference was still there.
That covers the overview and (partially) one of the studies, what of the other 19?
You have to remember to distinguish between three suspected problems: thimerosal, the MMR vaccine without thimerosal, and the overly-aggressive vaccination schedule in general.
The majority of the studies are on only thimerosal, which is basically a moot point by now, because most countries have removed it from almost all childhood vaccines anyway. But if you're truly interested (which, no offense, but I suspect you actually aren't, because you don't have a kid in the game)--
this book systematically debunks the methodologies used in each of the studies you are referencing. They range anywhere from using bad data to deliberately altering the survey parameters four different times until they could come up with a result they liked. I can't cite all of the information in it, because it's a book's worth of information. But as one example, an often-cited study from Britain showed that after thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the UK, new autism cases continued to rise. However, looking at the data shows that they were counting newly
diagnosed cases, including children who were 3 years and older--
meaning they'd had the shots. If you separate the data by birth year rather than when they were diagnosed--the exact same data set that this study used, not a new survey--there was a clear downtick in the number of cases after they removed the thimerosal. (And yet, again, it obviously did not end autism altogether--even the anti-thimerosal advocates agree that it was just one contributing factor, not a silver bullet. If you are being stoned to death, which one stone is the one that kills you?)
The majority of the studies are on only thimerosal
7 of the 20.
this book systematically debunks the methodologies used in each of the studies you are referencing
Really. How many of the 20. A majority? More than 7?
I suspect you actually aren't, because you don't have a kid in the game
No offense, but it's precisely because I don't have a kid in the game that I can be brutally objective in a way that you cannot. I could admit both that some of what Jinx said had a basis... and that telephone surveys taken by minimum wage slaves calling a bunch of people in Oregon, don't produce as reliable studies as scientists writing peer-reviewed articles do.
Really. How many of the 20. A majority? More than 7?
Skimming back through, I count six pro-thimerosal studies that the book presents the methodological problems with, as well as three anti-thimerosal. I also count at least 12 MMR studies discussed, both for and against. It's harder to identify those just skimming through, because they're separated by the biological problems caused by the measles virus itself, and the studies regarding widespread use of vaccines, so some are referenced twice.
No offense, but it's precisely because I don't have a kid in the game that I can be brutally objective in a way that you cannot. I could admit both that some of what Jinx said had a basis... and that telephone surveys taken by minimum wage slaves calling a bunch of people in Oregon, don't produce as reliable studies as scientists writing peer-reviewed articles do.
What, you think when the CDC does a study they get the executives hunkered down for an all-nighter on the phone banks? The phone survey I linked to was performed by a professional survey company, and the study designers were very specific in using the exact same methods that the CDC uses for every step of the way, so the final numbers could be compared to the national incidence rates that the CDC reports.
You can't be brutally objective in a way I cannot unless you're looking at the same data I'm looking at. PM me your address, I'll send you a copy of the book. Or get it from your library; that's where I got my first copy, because I used to roll my eyes at people just like me, and didn't want to give some quack any of my money. But I did want to know about several other things he talks about that are unrelated to vaccines--which, for what it's worth, my kid is living proof of his credibility in that department. Read the book, and let us all know what your conclusions are.
In the end, it won't matter a bit whether I convince you, or anyone else on this particular forum, because the problem is rapidly becoming a crisis.
1 in 90 boys is now autistic. The rate of new cases is growing at 10% a year; i.e. it's accelerating. People like me and jinx don't matter, but every time a doctor's kid gets autism, every time a lawmaker's kid gets autism, shit starts getting done. Did you know, incidentally, that the guy who wrote the book I've linked, the doctor who is successfully treating my son--he used to be an ER surgeon? Then his child was diagnosed with autism, and his wife started researching all this crazy nonsense on the internet. Being a doctor, he set out to disprove her with sound medical science, and ended up finding more information than he was prepared for, and ultimately abandoning his ER career to treat autistic children instead. We've just got to hit critical mass, we just need one prominent lawmaker to have a child diagnosed with autism, and then everything will change.
I have made joking comments in this thread, but this is not one of them. And this is not a trolling or shit-stirring comment either, but rather a product of my natural curiosity and Devil's Advocacy. The question is: are there actually more cases of Autism, as opposed to more diagnoses of Autism?
Exactly my thought Flint.
If a child is undiagnosed, then no one ever asks how it happened, but when they are, people ask questions.
When we get bad news, we always want someone or something to blame for it.
:lol:
Last year, no one in my family was autistic. Now FIVE of us are.
What changed?
I can't seem to find any information on the company that actually did the statistical interpretation on that survey. Anybody else find that?
The question is: are there actually more cases of Autism, as opposed to more diagnoses of Autism?
The book covers that too. There is no question that these children with the autism diagnosis have a developmental delay: they do not meet the criteria for entrance into kindergarten, and they wouldn't have met them 20 years ago either. (With Asperger's or ADHD, the lines are blurrier, and that's also seen in the fact that those kids aren't usually diagnosed until they're older, and they almost always attend a normal school classroom. But though people talk about "autism spectrum disorders," "autism" is still an actual diagnosis in and of itself, and as I mentioned, anyone who has actually lived with an autistic child would laugh at the idea that someone who behaved this way could ever go undiagnosed. Nor would the schools pay all the extra money to have them in a special education classroom if there was any chance they could be mainstreamed.) So then the question becomes, if there are only more
diagnoses of autism today, then decades ago they must have been diagnosed as something else. So you would expect to find an equivalent decrease in the diagnoses of things like mental retardation, pathological speech delay, etc. There hasn't been one.
Well, well, well. Your book is kicking my ass. I guess I missed the distinction between Autism "spectrum" and Autism. You know, I've been told I'm Asperger's, but I wouldn't have known that before I knew what that was. What I was thinking was: the day I figured it out, there wasn't "another" case of Asperger's. There was the same amount as before. And I think, actually, Asperger's has become a "popular" diagnosis. That doesn't (necessarily) mean that people have physiologically changed, it could just be that we're applying different or more specific labels.
I think decades ago (at least over here) they were simply seen as problem children and spent a lot of time being caned.
I think decades ago (at least over here) they were simply seen as problem children and spent a lot of time being caned.
Yep.
So then the question becomes, if there are only more diagnoses of autism today, then decades ago they must have been diagnosed as something else. So you would expect to find an equivalent decrease in the diagnoses of things like mental retardation, pathological speech delay, etc. There hasn't been one.
I think it might be a bit of a reach to lump "mental retardation, pathological speech delay, etc." as the only sources of mis-diagnosis of autistic children in a historical sense. We have come a long way in the last 30 years from when I first entered health care in the categorization of and appropriate diagnosis and treatment of various psychological and physiological disorders in children. I support your attempts at research and respect your tenacity.
I think decades ago (at least over here) they were simply seen as problem children and spent a lot of time being caned.
Yep.
Like I said, you've never lived with one. Surely, you've seen this by now?
[youtube]10XofXCoctw[/youtube]
And that, my friends, is a
high-functioning autistic child. Seriously, think about it from the schools' perspective. Special Education costs much,
much more than regular education. If a little discipline would keep these kids in line, they would do it. Or they would kick them out. When your child
doesn't ever speak in words, that is not the same as a miscreant. If you'd like, get rid of the diagnostic labels all together: there is now a record number of children who are completely unable to function in a classroom setting, and must be in a special ed class. And the numbers are not holding steady, they are growing.
I think it might be a bit of a reach to lump "mental retardation, pathological speech delay, etc." as the only sources of mis-diagnosis of autistic children in a historical sense. We have come a long way in the last 30 years from when I first entered health care in the categorization of and appropriate diagnosis and treatment of various psychological and physiological disorders in children. I support your attempts at research and respect your tenacity.
As I've said, every rational argument you can imagine has been made by plenty of people before, and they are all covered in the book I linked. All of them. Even the argument that California had a disproportionate number of autism cases because all the nerds had moved there for the computer industry and were inter-breeding. It takes the time to disprove that theory too. I am eagerly awaiting Undertoad's opinion of it.
My best friend's son, who I watched daily for two years and who has been a close part of my life, as my son's best friend, for four years, is autistic and he was in school, undiagnosed, until third grade. Many of his teachers refused to believe he was autistic and not just "weird" because he performs acceptably in class.
He is also off-the-charts brilliant, and extremely intelligent high-functioning autistic children are harder to diagnose because, while doing very poorly for them, they tend to function at a level that's closer to a "normal" child of their age. Highly intelligent high-functioning autistics are finally being recognized and diagnosed, when often they weren't before.
Also, I think you should watch who you're accusing of never having lived with an autistic child. :lol: My youngest is still in assessment at OHSU, but despite being highly intelligent and doing well in school, she has some clear neurodevelopment issues and a language delay, and has had three-hour screaming fits because it was getting dark and she didn't want it to get dark. Another good one was her hours-long screaming, choking, sobbing meltdown because she wanted me to get all of the water out of the house. :lol:
That clip wasn't very impressive, simply because I've never had a two-year-old who DIDN'T act like that. I have three.
As I've said, every rational argument you can imagine has been made by plenty of people before, and they are all covered in the book I linked. All of them. Even the argument that California had a disproportionate number of autism cases because all the nerds had moved there for the computer industry and were inter-breeding. It takes the time to disprove that theory too. I am eagerly awaiting Undertoad's opinion of it.
I don't want you to think I am being a smart ass here but who has peer reviewed the book. The book needs to be peer reviewed to have that much validity to reverse decades of previously peer reviewed research. It needs to be backed up by some pretty big names or there is no way to prove that the authors observations and research is valid.
My youngest is still in assessment at OHSU, but despite being highly intelligent and doing well in school, she has some clear neurodevelopment issues and a language delay, and has had three-hour screaming fits because it was getting dark and she didn't want it to get dark. Another good one was her hours-long screaming, choking, sobbing meltdown because she wanted me to get all of the water out of the house.
And as you say, she is "in assessment" for what is clearly abnormal behavior. You believe that 30 years ago, such a thing would have simply been accepted as normal? That 30 years ago, she would have fit in just fine, and no one would have suspected she had a problem?
That clip wasn't very impressive, simply because I've never had a two-year-old who DIDN'T act like that. I have three.
Yes, and your children scream for three hours because they don't want it to get dark, too.
I don't want you to think I am being a smart ass here but who has peer reviewed the book. The book needs to be peer reviewed to have that much validity to reverse decades of previously peer reviewed research. It needs to be backed up by some pretty big names or there is no way to prove that the authors observations and research is valid.
Martha R. Herbert, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School. She's listed on the back; I don't know who else might support it. But you have to understand, there is no new research here. It is itself a peer review of existing studies.
Martha R. Herbert, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School. She's listed on the back; I don't know who else might support it. But you have to understand, there is no new research here. It is itself a peer review of existing studies.
That is a peer review of one. Peer review in the field of medical research is done by a panel of peers who are not connected in anyway to the author. I would say that a good measure of what she may be on to is that others cite her book as a source for the stimulus of original research on ideas she puts forth, that is the ultimate recognition of of the general validity of her ideas. Maybe it is to new for that.
*shrug* I dunno. It's copyright 2007. This thread's given me a massive headache and reminded me why I was trying to stay emotionally detached from it in the first place. I've got other shit to do right now.
*shrug* I dunno. It's copyright 2007. This thread's given me a massive headache and reminded me why I was trying to stay emotionally detached from it in the first place. I've got other shit to do right now.
Ok, cool. I enjoyed it. I learn quite a bit from this thread. One of the better in a long time.
And as you say, she is "in assessment" for what is clearly abnormal behavior. You believe that 30 years ago, such a thing would have simply been accepted as normal? That 30 years ago, she would have fit in just fine, and no one would have suspected she had a problem?
<shrug> I was exactly the same way 33 years ago, at least according to my sister and my mom. I was just thought of as "difficult" or "spoiled", and that was the norm for the time. Some kid were just "difficult" or "high-strung". If you don't believe me, look at old parenting books. I was not diagnosed with ADHD until 1990, because when I was little, kids didn't have ADHD... they were just "bad". Do you see what I'm getting at?
Even my smallest's teacher thought that maybe she just had a hearing problem. She is almost completely silent and very withdrawn when we are not at home. It was after we had her hearing tested, and she went to a language development specialist who said that her development is not delayed enough to be considered abnormal, that we decided to take her to the neurodevelopmental center. She is not "clearly abnormal" unless a context is offered other than "high strung", "spirited", or "difficult". I have those books. I decided to pursue the possibility that there is more to it than that.
My older kids acted like that at age two and three, but are very social and outgoing in school... they do very well socially and academically. I don't think there's anything wrong with them at all.
People like me and jinx don't matter, but every time a doctor's kid gets autism, every time a lawmaker's kid gets autism, shit starts getting done.
Absolutely. Thimerosal was removed from most vaccines on the childhood schedule in the US becuase Rep. Dan Burton's grandson developed autism.
Thimerosal containing vaccines were not recalled however, they were used up eventually.
[youtube]8f_s8WcfUMM[/youtube]
Tiki, if you're interested, look up how Dr. Offit voted (FDA advisory committee) on the addition of Rotashield to the childhood schedule. Also look up how he voted on the removal of it after it caused several infant deaths.
I did a bit of searching but have been unable to find that information other than references on anti-vaccination websites.
It was after we had her hearing tested, and she went to a language development specialist who said that her development is not delayed enough to be considered abnormal, that we decided to take her to the neurodevelopmental center.
And thus you have provided additional evidence that even today, kids who are a little "off" behaviorally, but not significantly developmentally delayed, are not diagnosed with autism when they shouldn't be. ADHD, perhaps. But we're not talking about the rates of ADHD, we're talking about the rates of autism.
And thus you have provided additional evidence that even today, kids who are a little "off" behaviorally, but not significantly developmentally delayed, are not diagnosed with autism when they shouldn't be. ADHD, perhaps. But we're not talking about the rates of ADHD, we're talking about the rates of autism.
Sigh. No, you're not reading. The
language development specialist at the school said that her
language is not significantly delayed, but that she thought there was something going on, nonetheless. We were suspicious because of her behavior at home, which in the past would have been considered "high strung" or "difficult", as I was as a child. Therefore, we took her to a neurological center, where they confirmed that there is a significant neurodevelopmental delay and sent us on for further testing.
We discussed it with her pediatrician and the next step is finishing the intake process at OHSU and getting her tested at the neurodevelopment center. The pediatrician suspects high-functioning autism. It's up in the air until after the testing at OHSU, other than the fact that she has a very high IQ and a neurodevelopmental delay of some kind. The high IQ helps to "hide" the delay. I suspect strongly that high-functioning, highly-intelligent children are being diagnosed now due to higher awareness and better diagnostics, when they would have slipped through the cracks in the past.
Anyway, the only reason I brought it up was that you stated that I have never lived with a high-functioning autistic child. The fact of the matter is, my best friend's son is autistic and I had him after school every day for two years, plus he spends two nights a week here because my son is his best friend, and it is very possible that my youngest daughter is also autistic, so your statement was inaccurate.
I can easily see, from my own experience, how these children would have failed to be diagnosed in the past. Greater awareness and more resources mean that they are being diagnosed and helped now, rather than living their lives at half-potential.
I have two other friends with high-functioning autistic children... perhaps birds of a feather flock together? But I have never spent much time with their sons.
Oh, and my sister who was recently diagnosed with Asperger's is 45. We grew up together and have always been very close. I feel like I do have a little personal experience with dealing with people who have autism-spectrum disorders to draw from, you know?
A few good friends of mine have high level functioning Asp kids. One mother is also most likely Asp as well although it was not being diagnosed per se at that time in any capacity.
And thus you have provided additional evidence that even today, kids who are a little "off" behaviorally, but not significantly developmentally delayed, are not diagnosed with autism when they shouldn't be. ADHD, perhaps. But we're not talking about the rates of ADHD, we're talking about the rates of autism.
I don't believe there are any studies that have looked at this specifically. Do you have any links to anyone who has studied the rate and diagnosis or misdiagnosis of ADHD, Developmentally delayed, vs autism of any kind?
I do not have any online links, no. What I have is this:
The California Legislature commissioned the University of California's Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (MIND) Institute in Sacramento to study the possible causes of the rise in the numbers of reported cases of autism in California.
...
In cohort #1, 88% met the current criteria for autism compared to 89% for cohort #2. There was no meaningful change in the CDER or ADI-R criteria over the intervening decade. Their conclusion: "There is no evidence that a loosening in diagnostic criteria has contributed to the increased number of autistic clients served by the Regional Centers."
...
They found that some children in the mental retardation group did in fact meet the DSM-IV criteria for autism. There were 18% in Cohort #1 and 19% in Cohort #2. Since both cohorts had similar numbers, misclassification could not explain the rise.
...
Their final conclusion was: "Without evidence for an artificial increase in autism cases, we conclude that some, if not all, of the observed increase represents a true increase in cases of autism in California, and the number of cases presenting to the Regional Center system is not an overestimation of the number of children with autism in California."
Finally, in 2004, the CDC published an autism "ALARM," acknowledging that the current rate of ASD in the US was one in 166. They also noted that a developmental disability and/or behavior problem was being diagnosed in one child out of every six.
No way to know how many are misdiagnosed, but if only 1 in 166 is being given the actual autism label, when that many are being diagnosed with other things, I'd say it's pretty likely the autistic kids actually have autism.
[size=1]You get one guess where I copied those quotes from.[/size]
"high strung" or "difficult", as I was as a child.
No, really? :eek:
Sigh. No, you're not reading. The language development specialist at the school said that her language is not significantly delayed, but that she thought there was something going on, nonetheless. We were suspicious because of her behavior at home, which in the past would have been considered "high strung" or "difficult", as I was as a child. Therefore, we took her to a neurological center, where they confirmed that there is a significant neurodevelopmental delay and sent us on for further testing.
We discussed it with her pediatrician and the next step is finishing the intake process at OHSU and getting her tested at the neurodevelopment center. The pediatrician suspects high-functioning autism. It's up in the air until after the testing at OHSU, other than the fact that she has a very high IQ and a neurodevelopmental delay of some kind. The high IQ helps to "hide" the delay. I suspect strongly that high-functioning, highly-intelligent children are being diagnosed now due to higher awareness and better diagnostics, when they would have slipped through the cracks in the past.
Anyway, the only reason I brought it up was that you stated that I have never lived with a high-functioning autistic child. The fact of the matter is, my best friend's son is autistic and I had him after school every day for two years, plus he spends two nights a week here because my son is his best friend, and it is very possible that my youngest daughter is also autistic, so your statement was inaccurate.
I can easily see, from my own experience, how these children would have failed to be diagnosed in the past. Greater awareness and more resources mean that they are being diagnosed and helped now, rather than living their lives at half-potential.
If there is no significant language delay, it is not autism, by medical definition. Your daughter may end up with a diagnosis of Asperger's, ADHD, or any number of other diagnoses which are not autism, and they may rightly apply. If she ends up with a diagnosis of pure autism, then you must be correct, the diagnosis is being watered-down by some inexperienced medical professionals, because she does not have autism.
The fact remains that I have sat in a conference room with 50 other Pre-K autistic children all from my school district, all of whom had serious and obvious developmental delays, most of whom were completely nonverbal. Given the size of my school district, that works out to slightly less than the national rate of 1 in 150 (1 in 90 boys, because boys are affected 4 times more often than girls,) because of course this was a PPCD meeting and it didn't include any of the older autistic kids already in the system. If you could have sat in that room with me, you would understand the despair. None of these children could have slipped through the cracks in years past, ever. There are always going to be a handful of borderline cases that could persevere and cope on their own, but they are insignificant in the face of the total numbers. At any rate, I'm done discussing the topic with you, Tiki. I get enough of the "they'll grow out of it" head-in-the-sand bullshit from my older relatives, I don't need to subject myself to more of it here.
If there is no significant language delay, it is not autism, by medical definition. Your daughter may end up with a diagnosis of Asperger's, ADHD, or any number of other diagnoses which are not autism, and they may rightly apply. If she ends up with a diagnosis of pure autism, then you must be correct, the diagnosis is being watered-down by some inexperienced medical professionals, because she does not have autism.
The fact remains that I have sat in a conference room with 50 other Pre-K autistic children all from my school district, all of whom had serious and obvious developmental delays, most of whom were completely nonverbal. Given the size of my school district, that works out to slightly less than the national rate of 1 in 150 (1 in 90 boys, because boys are affected 4 times more often than girls,) because of course this was a PPCD meeting and it didn't include any of the older autistic kids already in the system. If you could have sat in that room with me, you would understand the despair. None of these children could have slipped through the cracks in years past, ever. There are always going to be a handful of borderline cases that could persevere and cope on their own, but they are insignificant in the face of the total numbers. At any rate, I'm done discussing the topic with you, Tiki. I get enough of the "they'll grow out of it" head-in-the-sand bullshit from my older relatives, I don't need to subject myself to more of it here.
Delays in communication and social interaction are part of the diagnosis, not just language development.
Language delay is subjective for each child, based on where the child *should* be for their abilities. That is my point; that is why very intelligent, high-functioning autistic children have great difficulty being correctly diagnosed, and why there is reason to believe that in the past many did not get diagnosed with anything at all. Aspergers is included in the overall statistical rise in autism figures, as it is a form of autism.
The school language development specialist said there is no significant delay compared to statistics for her age group (there is a slight delay compared to average, but not enough to be considered pathological) but when assessed as an individual by the neurology center and by our pediatrician, she was found to have significant delays compared to where she should be based on her IQ. She was performing at an average for the general population, but was delayed for where she, as an individual should be. J, my friend's child, had the same difficulty with getting the school to recommend testing... because his extremely high intelligence was masking his disorder, he was able to function at a reasonable average despite the fact that without the disorder he would have been performing far beyond his peers in all areas, including communication.
This is why there is a disconnect between what schools will perceive as an indication of a disorder, and what specialists, treating each child as an individual, will perceive as an indication of a disorder. The schools are basing their expectations on an average, and any child who meets that average is assumed to have nothing wrong with them.
There is a question about whether high-functioning autism can really be distinguished as a separate disorder from Asperger's, because, as a spectrum disorder, there is no clear line at the high-functioning end that divides the two. J, for instance, has a diagnosis of autism rather than Aspergers largely because he exhibits classic hand-flapping, pacing, and aversion to touch. He is also unbelievably articulate for a ten-year-old, though there are long pauses in his conversation.
You might find some of these links interesting:
http://www.autism-help.org/points-autism-epidemic.htm
http://ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/Archives/CJP/2003/september/tidmarsh.asp
http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1049&a=3337
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-symptoms-of-high-level-autism.htm
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/definition.html
http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/aspergers.html
http://www.autism-help.org/No, really? :eek:
Have you gotten your daily dose of personal pot-shots in today?
You might find some of these links interesting:
Yes, because if there's one thing I haven't done, it's research on the internet. :rolleyes:
Yes, because if there's one thing I haven't done, it's research on the internet. :rolleyes:
Some of your statements indicated to me that your understanding of the autism diagnosis was incomplete, so I thought I'd try to be helpful by providing more information. Sorry about that.
I know. Posting informative links that reinforce what I'm trying to convey about autism diagnosis was bad, wasn't it? My mistake.
I know. Posting informative links that reinforce what I'm trying to convey about autism diagnosis was bad, wasn't it? My mistake.
I think it was the part where you tried talking down to someone with superior knowledge that got you in trouble.
I think it was the part where you tried talking down to someone with superior knowledge that got you in trouble.
Cite, please.
She has a diagnosed child in her home. That trumps web searches. Based of previous discussions she knows the disability, Tiki was taking a potshot because clod didn't cut and paste the entire DSMIV.
Cite your assertion of superior / inferior knowledge, please. How do you know?
Clod lives with the disability. She has immersed herself completely in it. I've been away a while, maybe I missed the part where Tiki actually has any training or background in this at all. I was getting chippy because as someone who is degreed and works in the field, I work with parents of special needs kids who get talked down to constantly by folks who should have a little empathy, but instead accuse them of bad parenting. (this is all apart from the vaccine bit where Tiki seems to know a fair amount)
It's a bit like people without kids telling you what you're doing wrong with your kids is what you mean right Griff?
Tiki, I don't know if you've read the thread or not, but have a glance through
this one if you have a half hour to spare. It might give you a deeper understanding of what people are trying to tell you.
I'm not trying to jump on you. I understand why you're saying the things you are and I agree with some of it, but honestly, if I were in Clods shoes, I'd find some of the suggestions you've made pretty hurtful. I'm sure you haven't meant it that way, but that's how it looks. Maybe I'm wrong about Clod's feelings, but she has a massive burden to bear at the moment, and I think you're being just a little bit inconsiderate. Of course, you can't be expected to know everything about everyone here because you're fairly new, so I just thought it might be helpful for you to know.
Have a blessed day. :)
She has a diagnosed child in her home. That trumps web searches. Based of previous discussions she knows the disability, Tiki was taking a potshot because clod didn't cut and paste the entire DSMIV.
What previous discussions? Am I supposed to be automagically up to date on every conversation ever had on this forum?
And the fact that Clod has an autistic kid and has researched autism as it related to her family doesn't, actually, have a lot of bearing on whether she's research autism as it relates to MY family. If we are dealing with two different points on the spectrum, why would she have read up on my end of the spectrum? I certainly haven't read up on hers.
My personal experience is four years of being very close (daily caregiver, frequent overnights & weekends) with one now-ten-year-old high-functioning autistic boy who was not diagnosed for several years because the "experts" in the school refused to believe that a child could be autistic and yet be as functional as J is, one older sister with recently-diagnosed Aspergers, and one six-year-old daughter with a PDD which has not yet been pinned down. Of course, while caring for J, and during his diagnosis, I have done a lot of research on high-functioning autism.
You can scream that I'm being condescending for bringing up my research and my personal opinion, or that I should just shut up because Clod knows more because one of her kids is autistic, but frankly, none of that makes any sense.
I know what I've researched, and the lines between HFA and Asperger's are not very clearly defined, and there is additional complication that very intelligent children, like J, function well enough that sometimes they are not recognized by educators as having a problem, even though once in the hands of specialists they are easily diagnosed.
Clod was trying to tell me that because the language development specialist at my daughter's school said that she was within averages for linguistic development, therefore she is by definition not autistic. She also said that something seemed wrong, and referred us to a neurologist. Both the pediatrician and the neurologists say she definitely has a pervasive developmental delay despite testing within average. It will take more testing to figure out what form, exactly, the PDD is in.
I clearly am not doing a very good job of explaining this, but some of the links I posted did a better job. Some children evade diagnosis because their extreme intelligence causes them to appear not to have a delay, when in fact they do.
There is also something distinctly odd about her father, who is an extraordinarily brilliant programmer, a former award-winning competetive jazz pianist, and a true musical savant who can play several instruments, and hear a song once and then play it perfectly... however, his ability to relate to other people is minimal, he has very little empathy, and his "life skills" kind of make me fear for his ability to make it on his own. So who knows. Maybe it's some inheritable thing.
It seems like the only thing we are arguing here is whether some people with autism have in the past evaded diagnosis. I have posted my reading and my experiences which explain why I am sure they have. Clodfobble disagrees, but instead of posting an actual argument why, I'm getting "she knows better than you, so shut up".
How does that help anything, or anyone?
Tiki, I don't know if you've read the thread or not, but have a glance through this one if you have a half hour to spare. It might give you a deeper understanding of what people are trying to tell you.
I'm not trying to jump on you. I understand why you're saying the things you are and I agree with some of it, but honestly, if I were in Clods shoes, I'd find some of the suggestions you've made pretty hurtful. I'm sure you haven't meant it that way, but that's how it looks. Maybe I'm wrong about Clod's feelings, but she has a massive burden to bear at the moment, and I think you're being just a little bit inconsiderate. Of course, you can't be expected to know everything about everyone here because you're fairly new, so I just thought it might be helpful for you to know.
Have a blessed day. :)
Thanks for linking me to the thread, Ali.
Can I ask what suggestions I've made that are hurtful? All I'm trying to convey is that I find it very easy, from my experience, research, and observations, to see why and how some autistic children may not have been diagnosed in years passed, but similar children are being diagnosed now, because of higher awareness of autism and the ways it can be identified in high-intelligence, high-functioning autistic children... children who are still struggling, but have not historically gotten the recognition or help they need.
I am not saying anything negative about Clodfobble's parenting. This is purely about why I think better diagnosing is adding to the increased incidence of autism. I think it's also important to keep in mind that autism as a diagnosis didn't exist
at all until the 1940's, and until the 1960's it was usually diagnosed as schizophrenia! So of course I think recognition rates and correct diagnoses are higher now.
No problem. Can I give you one more little tiny bit of advice?
Maybe it's some inheritable thing.
It is, in fact, demonstrably genetic. Siblings of autistic children have a 2-8% chance of being autistic, somewhere between 50 to 200 times the rate of the general population. But the debate rages over whether it is purely genetic, or whether it is the susceptibility which is genetic, and that without the environmental triggers it would remain dormant, so to speak. (As a comparison, diabetes is also known to be genetic, but the rate of diabetes is much higher today than it used to be because of environmental triggers setting off the disease, like poor diet and lack of exercise.) If one acknowledges that the actual rate of autism is rising, mathematically speaking they must acknowledge that there is an environmental factor, because there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic. This is why many institutions are desperate to prove there are not
actually more cases of autism now than there used to be, because if there are, it means there's a cause.
It seems like the only thing we are arguing here is whether some people with autism have in the past evaded diagnosis. I have posted my reading and my experiences which explain why I am sure they have. Clodfobble disagrees, but instead of posting an actual argument why, I'm getting "she knows better than you, so shut up".
It's a question of overall prevalence. No doubt
some people with autism have escaped diagnosis in the past, just as some do today, and I acknowledged that earlier. But it is impossible that
all of the people currently diagnosed today would have escaped diagnosis in the past, because there are just too many of them. Far, far too many of them. I have posted my reading on the subject repeatedly--which Undertoad has also agreed to read, as an objective non-parent, and let us know what he thinks--as well as my own personal experience: as I said, I have personally sat in a room
full of local autistic children who are not at a functioning level. They are not the handful of hyper-intelligent ones who manage to get by in school for a few years, they are the non-communicative, self-injurious, classically autistic ones, all diagnosed before the age of three, and they
all live within my school district. This number of them simply could not have abounded in the past like they do now.
These children would have been diagnosed. There are more cases today than there were in the past, and what's more, the rate appears to be accelerating.
Sure.
OK, well I'll try and be as gentle as I can with it because I don't want you to feel persecuted in any way. In fact, I hope you feel welcome here and enjoy the community because it has a lot to offer, and there are some amazing people here, which leads me to my point. Because of the unique nature of this forum, a lot of people have been here for many many years. This of course you already know. There are always going to be disputes between long standing members, and also between newer members. That's always been part of the allure for me personally. That people here can discuss an issue and have a differing view, but not resort to personal attacks (in general).
The problem you have as a new poster is not knowing the history of the older members, and I think that some of the older members could benefit from remembering that too. It's not always easy to find your place here. God knows it's taken me some time, and I've definitely had my ups and downs, with some of the same people you're currently at logger heads with, but the thing that is best to keep in mind is that the older members probably aren't going to go away or change for your benefit, and I'd say most of the forum wouldn't want them to. What I'm getting at is that you need to try and find the positive things, even about the people that annoy you, or you'll have a very bad time here, and none of us wants to see that happen. We'd all love to see you have a positive experience here, but it doesn't seem like that's what you're having lately.
The best advice I have for you, and that which I've learned from personal experience, is that the status quo is not going to change for your benefit no matter how much you fight for it. It might sound harsh, but unless you can find a way to reconcile yourself to those you don't particularly like or find amusing even, you're not going to have a very good time here, and I'd ask why you'd bother if that is the case.
Just try and be a bit more gentle on yourself and on others. We all want to like you, so why not let us?
I appreciate the advice, but I'd have a lot less fun if I was just lurking around quietly, because 90% of the time this forum is dead boring for me. I hope I'm not unforgivably insulting anyone by saying that, but most forums, without interesting topics, lively debate, and a bit of controversy, become basically group Livejournals. I think there are interesting people here, and I enjoy rousing them a bit and challenging them to show off how interesting they are.
Until I can get them to talk, I don't know.
I've been here a few months and I'm never going to find my place here by lurking. If I tried, I would probably just get bored reading about what a bunch of strangers had for lunch, and drift away. I could certainly do that if everyone still finds my presence unwelcome in another few months, but it's just as likely that you will have gotten used to me, I will have gotten used to you, I will have found a place, and everything will be just fine.
I don't think suppressing my natural personality is going to work very well. I went through a very abrasive phase for several months after my husband left, but... this *is* the softer version of me. :(
I don't want anyone else to go away, either, but if people are going to poke at me for fun, I'm going to do my level best to make it not fun for them.
Tiki, you just basically said that you like the arguments and if there are none then it's boring.
If that's the case, then don't take offence when people get personal.
Sure a bit of drama every now and then makes things a bit more lively, but not every single topic you choose to discuss surely?
eta: There are always going to be shitstirers who really have nothing more to contribute than smart arse remarks. Why bother with them? It only makes it unpleasant for everyone if you lower yourself that far.
Um, that's not actually what I said. At all. :( I said "interesting topics, lively debate, and a bit of controversy". That doesn't have to include ad-hominem and namecalling.
Well, I submit to you that there are plenty of "interesting topics, lively debate, and a bit of controversy" around here, so I'm not really sure where you're coming from. Perhaps you have a different definition of what those things are which would explain why you don't understand how you're rubbing people up the wrong way around here.
You're talking to real people who, if you choose to stay here, you'll probably end up hoping are on your side at some stage.
Anyway, that's it for me. I'm not going to lecture you any more. I was just trying to help.
I have to confess that I probably do define those things a bit differently... I stay out of the politics threads for the most part, so in the last three months almost all of the posting activity I've seen has been of the "What I'm eating today" and "word association" variety. Silly games, and blog-type posts. Not very much lively discussion or debate. Maybe it's all in the political threads, but I have little interest in politics.
Here's a sample of the first page of threads with unread posts:
On Tour in the USA
What's mildly irritating you today?
Explosive Diarrhea or Hyperglycemia?
I will be mean to you in this thread
The Last Word
The brain is a vicious little bugger
Vaccination & epidemic
May 22, 2009: K-9 Andy
Betting tips
let me give you a new user title
The 24 hour engorgement
The 24 hour engagement.
How good is your memory?
Ya Stoopit Potato!
May 21, 2009: Solar Stadium
Ginger or Mary Ann?
Word Association, part deux.
Do you have stuff from your childhood?
The WTF NSFW thread
Innie or Outie?
I finally bought my hot dog cart!!!
Be a post whore!
Steele's Speech to the RNC, 19 May
What I Learned Today
I cant believe I just ate.....
Some of those threads may not be about what you think they're about.
Very possible. I try to streamline my forum time by only clicking on threads that have titles suggestive that the content might be interesting to me. I'm online often, but usually only for short periods during the day.
I've looked at most of them, but not all of them.
This thread is about Vaccination & epidemic.
Having not read pages 11 to 15 thinking I'd find far too many more things to quote about I might have missed some information that makes my posting now inane. well maybe they're inconsequential anyway. I wanted to comment further on the over diagnosis of the 'autism spectrum'
I have made joking comments in this thread, but this is not one of them. And this is not a trolling or shit-stirring comment either, but rather a product of my natural curiosity and Devil's Advocacy. The question is: are there actually more cases of Autism, as opposed to more diagnoses of Autism?
I think that many kids are put under that 'autism umbrella' which are the pdd-nos diagnosis. That means kids who with 2 or 3 traits of autism but not any of the other traits are classified as such and put into special programs. It is my belief only that we as people/kids are a multi-special brew of humanity and most kids who fall or deviate from the norm to not benefit from being in a special classification at all.
Well, well, well. Your book is kicking my ass. I guess I missed the distinction between Autism "spectrum" and Autism. You know, I've been told I'm Asperger's, but I wouldn't have known that before I knew what that was. What I was thinking was: the day I figured it out, there wasn't "another" case of Asperger's. There was the same amount as before. And I think, actually, Asperger's has become a "popular" diagnosis. That doesn't (necessarily) mean that people have physiologically changed, it could just be that we're applying different or more specific labels.
In my estimation I think you are absolutely correct. Perhaps, just perhaps, I was wondering if some schools if they were smaller and more intimate would be more inclusive of others differences.
Did you know, incidentally, that the guy who wrote the book I've linked, the doctor who is successfully treating my son--he used to be an ER surgeon? Then his child was diagnosed with autism, and his wife started researching all this crazy nonsense on the internet. Being a doctor, he set out to disprove her with sound medical science, and ended up finding more information than he was prepared for, and ultimately abandoning his ER career to treat autistic children instead.
What book? It sounds interesting.
@sky: If I am reading you correctly, you are touching upon some of my thoughts, that, wrapped up in this issue is the nature of our fast-paced, cookie-cutter society having become callous and indifferent towards the uniqueness of people. The Onion ran the joke,
Ritalin Cures Next Picasso.
What book? It sounds interesting.
Post 153. You must have missed it because it was on page 11. :rolleyes:
@sky: If I am reading you correctly, you are touching upon some of my thoughts, that, wrapped up in this issue is the nature of our fast-paced, cookie-cutter society having become callous and indifferent towards the uniqueness of people. The Onion ran the joke, Ritalin Cures Next Picasso.
exactly..I love that sarcasm. To watch tv like all the normal kids what an acievment!
does anything profound come from mediocricy? And frankly I haven't met any special education teachers, except from State schools that actually understood that.
ORLY?
I was not commenting on the figures. I am not a fact gatherer. I was commenting from the experience of what I see in emotional growth classrooms as a TA. Kids with pdd-nos which falls under the autism spectrum umbrella as far as the educational setting goes. Alludes to the cookie cutter society flint commented about.
I have found that since pdd-nos is so differential some teachers will grasp onto any text book definition they can find so they can approach these kids in a way they understand without really understanding the true nature of the kid.
Post 153. You must have missed it because it was on page 11. :rolleyes:
Having not read pages 11 to 15 thinking I'd find far too many more things to quote about I might have missed some information that makes my posting now inane.
This thread is about Vaccination & epidemic.
But overall it seems like societal hygiene is an excellent preventative for many diseases, so WASH YOUR GODDAMN HANDS, YOU DIRTY HIPPIES. That goes for you white trash barefoot uneducated crackers as well. And double for you Euro punters, because we all know you filthy buggars'll pee right in the middle of the street and not change out your underwear for a week.
much more interesting than the puplic service announcement was
It's a question of overall prevalence. No doubt some people with autism have escaped diagnosis in the past, just as some do today, and I acknowledged that earlier. But it is impossible that all of the people currently diagnosed today would have escaped diagnosis in the past, because there are just too many of them. Far, far too many of them. I have posted my reading on the subject repeatedly--which Undertoad has also agreed to read, as an objective non-parent, and let us know what he thinks--as well as my own personal experience: as I said, I have personally sat in a room full of local autistic children who are not at a functioning level. They are not the handful of hyper-intelligent ones who manage to get by in school for a few years, they are the non-communicative, self-injurious, classically autistic ones, all diagnosed before the age of three, and they all live within my school district. This number of them simply could not have abounded in the past like they do now. These children would have been diagnosed. There are more cases today than there were in the past, and what's more, the rate appears to be accelerating.
But it is indisputable that all of them evaded diagnosis in the past, or were misdiagnosed, because the diagnosis itself didn't exist until the 1940's and was not really in clinical use until the 1960's. It's come a long way in just the last twenty years, for that matter... my friend M is a social worker who specializes in working with severely autistic people, and in the past 20 years he's seen the diagnostic criteria, and treatment, change a lot... for the better, in his opinion. The definition of autism has been revised significantly, meaning far more people are now diagnosed with it.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/330/7483/112-d
A lot of disorders, such as ADHD, OCD, and depression, are sharply on the rise, and it's possible (perhaps even likely) that there are environmental factors, but I also suspect that diagnostic tools are simply getting a lot more refined and more people who would formerly not have been diagnosed at all, now are.
the diagnosis itself didn't exist until the 1940's
The diagnosis didn't exist--or the disease itself basically didn't exist? When did widespread vaccination use begin, again? Oh yes, the 1940s.
A lot of disorders, such as ADHD, OCD, and depression, are sharply on the rise, and it's possible (perhaps even likely) that there are environmental factors, but I also suspect that diagnostic tools are simply getting a lot more refined and more people who would formerly not have been diagnosed at all, now are.
Many people suspect that. It's called the "Hidden Horde" theory. Because what is undeniable is the vast majority of these autistic individuals are not capable of caring for themselves into adulthood (please recall again that in this case I am talking about diagnoses of pure autism--not PDD, not Asperger's, not ADHD. All of those are rising too, as you say, but those individuals are often capable of caring for themselves and confound the data, so we look at the data without them to get a clearer picture.) So if these people were formerly not diagnosed at all, there must be hundreds of thousands of adults, aged anywhere from 30 to 70, either in institutions with a different diagnosis, homeless on the streets, or being cared for by relatives completely removed from the social services system.
Burd et. al. did a prevalence study of all autistic children born in North Dakota between the years 1967 and 1983 and found a rate of 3.4 per 10,000. A follow up study on the same cohort done twelve years later showed that the original study detected 98% of the cases of autism (they missed only one individual.)
Nylander and Gillberg screened adults at outpatient psychiatric faclities in Sweden, looking for undiagnosed cases of autism. They presumed they'd find people who had never been evaluated for autism in the past, at least using modern criteria. They did find nineteen people who met autism criteria who'd previously been undiagnosed as such, but that brought their prevalence rate to only 2.7 per ten thousand, similar to the other population rates quoted before 1980.
I can type out the footnote references to the actual studies if you really need me to, but there are dozens of them.
ETA: Just to make sure the reference is all in one post: the current prevalence rate as of 2009 is 67 per 10,000.
I love how if just one person is sufficiently obsessed with learning about something,
the internet lets us all know as much about that thing as that person has time to type.
The diagnosis didn't exist--or the disease itself basically didn't exist? When did widespread vaccination use begin, again? Oh yes, the 1940s.
Many people suspect that. It's called the "Hidden Horde" theory. Because what is undeniable is the vast majority of these autistic individuals are not capable of caring for themselves into adulthood (please recall again that in this case I am talking about diagnoses of pure autism--not PDD, not Asperger's, not ADHD. All of those are rising too, as you say, but those individuals are often capable of caring for themselves and confound the data, so we look at the data without them to get a clearer picture.) So if these people were formerly not diagnosed at all, there must be hundreds of thousands of adults, aged anywhere from 30 to 70, either in institutions with a different diagnosis, homeless on the streets, or being cared for by relatives completely removed from the social services system.
I can type out the footnote references to the actual studies if you really need me to, but there are dozens of them.
ETA: Just to make sure the reference is all in one post: the current prevalence rate as of 2009 is 67 per 10,000.
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/history-of-autismTiki, seriously. Come on now. If I am typing out large passages from highly technical books about autism, do you really think I've never read the webmd page on the subject? The detailed history of autism has entire chapters dedicated to it, in multiple books that I have read. Want to post some wikipedia links for me too, and get it out of your system? We're beyond general definitions at this point in the discussion--do you, or do you not, have evidence of a study that can prove the existence of the "hidden horde?" Because it is the holy grail of researchers who believe the same things you do. They are increasingly desperate to prove that autism has been with us all along. The first one who could would be shouting it from the rooftops.
The crown falls deathly ill... silent I mean silent.
Tiki, seriously. Come on now. If I am typing out large passages from highly technical books about autism, do you really think I've never read the webmd page on the subject? The detailed history of autism has entire chapters dedicated to it, in multiple books that I have read. Want to post some wikipedia links for me too, and get it out of your system? We're beyond general definitions at this point in the discussion--do you, or do you not, have evidence of a study that can prove the existence of the "hidden horde?" Because it is the holy grail of researchers who believe the same things you do. They are increasingly desperate to prove that autism has been with us all along. The first one who could would be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think this has become a religious discussion, at this point. Your books contradict the majority of the body of knowledge and history of autism, but you continue to argue that they are more valid than all other study on the subject, because...
... well, because.
If a 200-word webMD article constitutes the history of autism from your perspective, then perhaps you ought to consider expanding your sources. The article mentions Leo Kanner in passing--I have read excerpts of Kanner's actual notes from his actual cases when he first began seeing autistic individuals in his practice. My books do not contradict the body of knowledge about autism, because they are for the most part nothing but collections of the body of knowledge about autism. They put all the studies in one accessible place, and point out methodological flaws where they see them. It is the current body of knowledge itself which contradicts what the CDC and various other institutions are telling the public. Either they can back up their assertions with study data, or they can't. And so far, they can't.
In order for there to be new levels of diagnosis of autism, there would have to be reduced diagnoses of other things... that would spring out if we had the right numbers to look at, but the numbers are hard to find... but surely other people have looked at numbers.
You'll see it, pages 24 through 41. I already posted a photo of just one of the charts showing that other diagnoses have held steady.
OK cool. That gets us an awfully long way.
What I think is interesting about your graph is how it has no sudden shifts, it's all just up and up, slowly over time. It's quite even.
There are no bumps in your graph, therefore the introduction of one single vaccine, or change in one particular vaccine, is probably not the cause. If it was, there would be a spike 2 years after the change, followed by a plateau once the percentage of affected children had been diagnosed. Would you agree?
That graph only shows the increase from 1994 to 2002. The other graphs show a steady level starting in the 1960s, then a bit of a slope upward starting around 1971, a more significant jump up in 1979, a huge spike upward after 1984, and another increase in slope after 1987.
It is interesting to note that as recently as 2007 the CDC used to post historical vaccination schedules on their site. They have now taken them down. But post #2 from this page is a basic rundown of the years that certain vaccines were added:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=655582
1984 is when the aggressive addition of new vaccines every few years began.
this surely isn't the old LJ we've known and loved all these years.
get over it NANCY
see...i noticed that TGRR came to the defense of his friend Tiki.
Jenny McCarthy is Amanda Peete. These are really difficult questions with spokesmodels randomly choosing up sides. It is like Al Gore being the face of Global Warming. His (lack of) credibility probably shouldn't be part of the conversation, but the science is so difficult people look for a short-cut finding someone they trust to do their thinking for them. We've had too damn much side-choosing over the last several years, hopefully we can get at the truth. If we cannot sort the science ourselves, at the least, we should put our trust in folks with a history of intelligence and intellectual honesty. Look for respected people who change sides.
"There are no fundamental philosophical differences; there is bad grammar."
"There are no fundamental philosophical differences; there is bad grammar."
...which is apparently "ruining the English language."
Not half so much as the bloody spelling. I don't know why we put up with, I really don't.
What we need is a visionary leader.
We need tough legislation. And a mascot. How about the Langwage Bare...he goes from school to school teaching the children to not learn spelling.
Wouldn't that be the langwij ber?
Yabbut, that looks too much like Lager Beer...and you know how those kids are. ;)
I have the book and am now digesting it. er so to speak.
this book systematically debunks the methodologies used in each of the studies you are referencing.
I have now reached the point in the book where this is done for the MMR studies. It gives valid reasons why Taylor 1999 is flawed, and Madsen 2002. Then it goes (footnotes are in parens):
Other investigators have examined the MMR-autism debate.(11) Several studies compared rising prevalence of reported autism and coverage rates of MMR and found no correlation. (12)(13)(14)(15)(16) Others have failed to find a temporal association of the timing of administration of the MMR vaccination and a clustering of autism diagnoses.(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22) Several studes looked for a relationship between developmental regression, GI symptoms, and MMR vaccine, and were unable to detect an association.(23)(24)(25)(26) But each of these studies has been widely criticized in the literature for incomplete case ascertainment, methodological flaws, and inherent biases.(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)
I like the book because it is footnoted beautifully. So far it makes a persuasive case on many things. I am particularly convinced of Clod's earlier point that there is a genetic basis that is aggravated by some other condition. "Oh yeah now I get it"
I was originally skeptical that the book addressed the majority of the studies, but in fact all but one of the MMR studies I mentioned are footnotes 12-26.
However, this is far from a "systematic debunking". And (35) is not a peer-reviewed article, and references PDD, not autism. And two of the footnotes (31 and 32) are actually the same reference. So, we have 15 footnotes referencing studies which find no MMR-autism link, and 7 footnotes that criticize the studies. So I would say he has listed strong criticisms of 2 studies, and given one unpersuasive sentence vaguely dismissing the other 15.
(I would not use the term "debunking" at all in the context of scientific investigation. It's a highly biased and imprecise word.)
So we don't know yet - to really know, what I'd need is the text of the cites. Was there someone willing to retrieve studies for us?
I believe that was Mercenary.
How many could you do Merc? We have here roughly 15-20 cites... I'm particularly interested in BMJ 2001 Jul;323(7305):163-4 and N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 6;348(10):951-4
Isn't Merc on vacation at the moment?
I think Pie has access to some medical studies, but I don't know if it's all of them.
I am particularly convinced of Clod's earlier point that there is a genetic basis that is aggravated by some other condition.
This is really the crux of everything. If it has a cause--and it obviously does--the CDC has an obligation to be looking for it. They are steadfastly
not looking for it, at the moment. Some might surmise this is because they know what they will find.
I was discussing this with my mom the other day, and her take on it was, "Why won't they just admit there were mistakes made and move on? Hiding something only makes it worse in the long run." What I had to explain to her is the very real financial side of it--not from the pharmaceutical companies' perspective, from the government's. Current law says that anyone damaged by a vaccine is entitled to compensation. This fund was set up from the very beginning, because they always knew there would be a very small number of people who would have complications from these shots they were mandating--anything from triggering recognized genetic conditions (as opposed to triggering autism, which is not recognized in this fashion yet) to a staph infection at the injection site spreading and causing significant damage.
The minute they acknowledge that vaccines can exacerbate autism, nevermind trigger it, they are opening themselves to quite literally billions of dollars in litigation.
Here is what is going to happen: the outcry will slowly but surely grow until, just like with thimerosal, another few Congressmen have themselves autistic grandchildren. And then Congress will pass a law requiring the CDC to moderate the vaccination schedule, regardless of what the CDC says its studies have found. The CDC will shrug and comply, insisting all the way that there is no link. Autism rates will go down, research will be able to grow without the political baggage because the decision's already been made, and in another 30 years they will be comfortable saying perhaps there was a link after all. By that point we will know so much more about treatment and recovery, and the current autistic population will have aged so much that they will not be on the hook for nearly as much money anymore.
Meanwhile the news over here is that they are considering making MMR vaccine a requirement for registering with a school.
Really really a requirement, or just a "requirement" like it is over here, where every school official will tell you it is definitely a legal requirement, except that's a total lie and you can file an exemption form and no one can do anything about it?
Still at the discussion stage, but they're looking at making it a legal requirement for kids to be vaccinated before starting school, and for schools to have to check before admitting a child.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8080681.stmHow many could you do Merc? We have here roughly 15-20 cites... I'm particularly interested in BMJ 2001 Jul;323(7305):163-4 and N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 6;348(10):951-4
Just got back from a 7's tourny. I will hook you up in the am from work.
Cheers
Awesome!
Is this as much as a rarity as it seems? A well-informed internet discussion...
Pie sent them along, I just have to delve into them yet. I will have other requests...
Pie sent them along, I just have to delve into them yet. I will have other requests...
No problem. It might be better if you send your requests to me via PM. Considering how much this thread deteriorated and became the focus of much conflict I have avoided reading it since attempting a neutral position.
It's cool, Merc. [size=1]It got better after Tiki left.[/size]
[size=1]It got better after Tiki left.[/size]
[SIZE="6"]
Why don't you say what you really feel, huh?
[/SIZE]
:D
[SIZE="1"]I fully agree with you[/SIZE]
N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 6;348(10):951-4
Fever in the Neonate and Young Child
Is this the one you wanted? Many of these are too long to post here due to the 1000 charater limit.
Autism
James Robert Brasic, MD, MPH, Research Associate, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Updated: Sep 10, 2008
Introduction
Background
Autism is a condition that manifests in early childhood and is characterized by qualitative abnormalities in social interactions, marked aberrant communication skills, and restricted repetitive and stereotyped behaviors.
Most individuals with autism also manifest mental retardation, typically moderate mental retardation with intelligence quotients (IQs) of 35-50 (approximate numbers). Although often difficult to evaluate with intelligence tests, three fourths of children with autism function in the mentally retarded range. Generally, the lower the IQ, the greater the likelihood of autism. However, the low functioning level hinders assessment for key characteristics of autism in individuals with profound mental retardation and IQs below approximately 20. Thus, diagnostic instruments for autism may give spurious results in children with profound mental retardation.
The diagnosis of autism in a child with profound mental retardation requires an experienced clinician. This article addresses the problems of individuals with mental retardation. For information concerning individuals with autism spectrum disorders and related conditions without mental retardation, please see Pervasive Developmental Disorder: Asperger Syndrome.
Seizure disorders are common in individuals with autism. Movement abnormalities are a prominent feature in a subset of individuals. Motion anomalies have been reported at birth in some individuals. Motion analysis may provide evidence of autism in early infancy before other manifestations occur. Although autistic disorder was initially reported in children of high social class, subsequent research has established that autistic disorder equally afflicts all social classes.
The motion anomalies demonstrated by children with autism are often highly characteristic. Children with autism who exhibit motion anomalies often stand out as odd in crowds because of the motions. An example of a motion typical in autism occurs when the child places a hand with fingers separately outstretched before the eyes and rapidly moves the hand back and forth. This action is described as self-stimulation because it produces a visual sensation of movement. Many of the motions of children with autism appear to be attempts to provide sensory input to themselves in a barren environment. Through special education, children may learn not to perform movements. The movements may then be exhibited at times of particular stress or excitement.
Although the etiology is unknown, hypotheses include genetic abnormalities; obstetric complications; exposure to toxic agents; and prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal infections. Maternal rubella is associated with significantly higher rates of autism and other conditions in children. Additionally, tuberous sclerosis is associated with autism as a comorbid disorder. On the other hand, anecdotal reports that autism may be linked with vaccinations for measles, mumps, and rubella have not been confirmed. Approximately 10% of children with a pervasive developmental disorder exhibit a known medical condition.
Effective treatment of associated behavioral problems includes intensive behavioral, educational, and psychological components. Interventions initiated at the time of diagnosis increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome. Regular screening of infants and toddlers for symptoms and signs of autistic disorder is crucial because it allows for early referral of patients for further evaluation and treatment.
Although psychoanalytic approaches to treatment of children with autism were common in the mid-20th century, these approaches were not found to be effective and are no longer used. The initial clinical descriptions of autism suggested that cold, rejecting parents ("refrigerator mothers") caused autism in offspring; however, careful study of children with autism and their parents has disproved this hypothesis. Autism is not caused by a lack of warmth and affection in parents. Autism is not due to any emotional or psychological deficits in the parents. Blaming parents for the development of autism in their children is inappropriate.
A major problem in the public health of children with autism and other pervasive developmental disorders is the inconsistent diagnosis of autism. Criteria for the diagnosis of autism are included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR[TM]) and the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, Fourth Edition.1,2 Although the criteria for autism and other pervasive developmental disorders differ between the DSM-IV-TR(TM) and the ICD-9-CM, they are both widely accepted and are used around the world by clinicians and researchers.
A discussion of the differences in the criteria for autism and related conditions in the DSM-IV-TR(TM) and the ICD-9-CM and other nomenclatures is beyond the scope of this article. The key point for pediatricians and other clinicians is that the criteria for autism and related conditions in the DSM-IV-TR(TM) and the ICD-9-CM are presented in an outline form without a discussion of the terms used.
The DSM-IV-TR(TM) and the ICD-9-CM are poor textbooks of child development and child psychopathology; they do not fully describe the concepts incorporated in the criteria for autism and related conditions. Therefore, an inexperienced clinician is likely to incorrectly apply the criteria for autism and related conditions in the DSM-IV-TR(TM) and the ICD-9-CM.
Several instruments have been developed to diagnose autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. To administer tools for the diagnosis of autism and related conditions in a reliable and valid manner, extensive training and experience is needed. Therefore, unless they have vast experience with children with autism and understand the concepts implicit in the diagnostic criteria and rating scales, pediatricians and other clinicians are advised to refer patients with possible autism to experienced clinicians for definitive diagnostic evaluations. One goal of this article is to convey fundamental concepts related to autism and related conditions. Readers of this article must obtain considerable additional training before they can reliably and validly apply diagnostic criteria and rating tools.
Pharmacotherapy is ineffective in treating the core deficits of autism but may be effective in treating associated behavioral problems and comorbid disorders. The possible benefits from pharmacotherapy must be balanced against the likely adverse effects on a case-by-case basis.
Pathophysiology
Neuroanatomic and neuroimaging studies reveal abnormalities of cellular configurations in several regions of the brain, including the frontal and temporal lobes and the cerebellum. Enlargements of the amygdala and the hippocampus are common in childhood. Findings vary in each person. Hughes (2007) has observed the presence of underconnectivity in the brains of children with autism and related conditions.3 This finding provides a basis for further investigation of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders.
Abnormalities in affiliative behaviors of other species, which are associated with dysfunction of serotonin and the neuropeptides, oxytocin, and vasopressin, suggest that there may be a neurophysiological dysfunction involving one or more of these substances in autism in humans.
Elevations of whole blood serotonin occur in one third of patients. Increased levels are also reported in the parents and siblings of patients. Individuals with autistic disorder and their mothers show elevated levels of C-terminally directed beta-endorphin protein immunoreactivity. The basis and importance of these findings is unknown. Test findings suggest that low-functioning children with autism may have impairment in the metabolism of phenolic amines. Therefore, symptoms of autistic disorder are possibly aggravated by the consumption of dairy products, chocolates, corn, sugar, apples, and bananas; however, no large population studies have confirmed this.
Many individuals with autism and related conditions experienced untoward events in the prenatal and neonatal periods and during delivery. The possible role of obstetric complications in the pathogenesis of autism and related conditions is unclear. Brasic and Holland (2006, 2007) and Brasic and colleagues (2003) have reviewed the literature on autism and obstetric complications.4,5,6 In particular Roberts and colleagues (2007) and Samson (2007) have reported an association between exposure to dicofol and endosulfan, organochlorine pesticides, in the first trimester of pregnancy in the Central Valley of California and the subsequent development of autism spectrum disorders in the child.7,8 Potential mothers can wisely be advised to avoid exposure to organochlorine pesticides.
Some children developed autism after immunizations, including inoculations for measles, mumps, and rubella. However, several population studies have demonstrated no association between childhood immunization and the development of autism and related conditions.9 Thompson and colleagues (2007) detected no causal association between exposure to vaccines that contain thimerosal and neuropsychological deficits at age 7-10 years.10 Parents can administer the recommended childhood immunizations without fear of causing autism and related conditions.11
Many other hypotheses, such as the consumption of folic acid in pregnancy, have been proposed as possible causes of autism. None has been established as a definite etiology of autism.
Frequency
United States
Autistic disorder and related conditions affect up to 10-20 individuals per 10,000 population. Estimates of the prevalence of autism suggest that as many as 400,000 individuals in the United States have autism and related conditions. Autism spectrum disorder is one of the most common childhood developmental disabilities. Current epidemiological studies are needed to identify the incidence, prevalence, and distribution of autistic disorder in the United States.
Epidemiological studies of relatively uncommon conditions such as autism spectrum disorders are expensive. A suitable strategy is the performance of multiple screenings on a population, each time identifying more likely subjects for detailed investigation. For example, a checklist such as the Autism Screening Checklist can be distributed to all parents and guardians of a target population. The Autism Screening Checklist identifies those children with characteristics of autism spectrum disorders. It differentiates children with autism spectrum disorders from children with schizophrenia and other psychoses. The higher the score on the Autism Screening Checklist (see Media file 1 for a printable version), the more likely the presence of autism spectrum disorders.
International
Autistic disorder and related conditions affect up to 10-15 people per 10,000 population. Studies in Japan report much higher rates.12 Japanese investigators suggest that these findings reflect the careful evaluations performed by Japanese clinicians. Some studies suggest that infectious diseases that are prevalent in parts of Japan may account for higher rates of autistic disorder. Epidemiologic studies are needed to assess the current incidence, prevalence, and distribution of autistic disorder throughout the world. These studies may help focus on causality.
Mortality/Morbidity
The long-term outcome for individuals with autistic disorder is directly proportional to the IQ of individuals. In other words, individuals with autistic disorder and intellectual limitations have poorer outcomes. Individuals with autistic disorder and profound mental retardation may require constant care in a residential treatment facility.
Race
Japanese studies often indicate the more common occurrence of autism in Japan than in other countries.12 The high rates of autism reported in many Japanese studies may reflect higher incidence and prevalence in Japan. Alternatively, because Japanese clinicians are highly skilled to diagnose autism, they may identify cases that are overlooked in other countries. Some studies suggest that some cases of autism in Japan result from GI infections and other infections due to the ingestion of seafood and other aquatic sources of food characteristic of Japan.
Sex
The male-to-female ratio is 3-4:1.
Autistic disorder is most common in boys who have the 46,XY karyotype (ie, the karyotype of healthy normal boys). In some studies, fragile X is reported in approximately one tenth of males with autistic disorder.13,14,15,16,17,18
Age
Autistic disorder manifests in early childhood. Using contemporary criteria, the absence of abnormalities in the first 30 months of life rules out autistic disorder. For information about individuals with later onset of symptoms consistent with autistic disorder, see Pervasive Developmental Disorder: Childhood Disintegration Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder: Rett Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder: Asperger Syndrome, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder (not otherwise specified).
Many parents report normal development in their child until age 2 years before noticing the deficits in social and communicative skills.
Individuals with autism spectrum disorder and unspecified pervasive developmental disorder typically benefit from behaviorally oriented therapeutic programs developed specifically for people with autistic disorder. Therefore, children who manifest symptoms of autistic disorder, other pervasive developmental disorders, and other autism spectrum disorders are likely to benefit from the highly specialized intensive intervention programs designed for children with these disorders.
Because optimal results occur when intensive interventions are administered early in childhood, autistic children should be placed in specialized programs as soon as the diagnosis is entertained. Delays in placement of a young child in a specialized program for children with autistic disorder may reduce the effectiveness of those interventions. Parents, pediatricians, other health care providers, and educators are advised to seek the assistance of people who are familiar with early intervention programs for children with autistic disorder. The Autism Society of America can help parents obtain appropriate referrals for optimal interventions.
Clinical
History
Environmental exposures: Roberts and colleagues (2007) and Samson (2007) have reported that women in the Central Valley of California who were exposed to endosulfan and dicofol, organochlorine pesticides, during the first trimester of pregnancy were more likely to have children with autism spectrum disorders.7,8 Thus, obstetricians and other health workers can wisely advise women who are likely to become pregnant to avoid contact with pesticides and other environmental contaminants.
Protodeclarative pointing
Protodeclarative pointing is the use of the index finger to indicate an item of interest to another person. Toddlers typically learn to use protodeclarative pointing to communicate their concern for an object to others.
The absence of protodeclarative pointing is predictive of the later diagnosis of autism. The presence of protodeclarative pointing can be assessed by interview of the parent or caregiver. As a screening question, Baron-Cohen and colleagues (1992, 1996) have demonstrated that the absence of a positive response to an inquiry about protodeclarative pointing is predictive of the later diagnosis of autism.19,20 Screening questions include "Does your child ever use his or her index finger to point, to indicate interest in something?" The absence of a positive response to this question suggests the need for a specialized assessment for possible pervasive developmental disorder.
Environmental stimuli
Parents report unusual responses to environmental stimuli, including excessive reaction or an unexpected lack of reaction to sensory input.
Sounds, such as vacuum cleaners or motorcycles, may elicit incessant screaming from a child with autistic disorder. Playing a radio, phonograph, or television at a loud level may appear to produce auditory stimulation of a painful magnitude. Sometimes parents must rearrange the family routine so that the child is absent during noisy housekeeping activities.
Children with autistic disorder may also display exaggerated responses or rage to everyday sensory stimuli, such as bright lights or touching.
Social interactions
Separation from parents may elicit a lack of appropriate eye contact and other symptoms that are typically seen in individuals with autism. Media files 5-6 illustrate the apparent indifference of a boy with autistic disorder to the departure and return of his father and his brother.
An absence of typical responses to pain and physical injury may also be noted. Rather than crying and running to a parent when cut or bruised, the child may display no change in behavior. Sometimes, parents do not realize that a child with autistic disorder is hurt until they observe the lesion. Parents frequently report that they need to ask the child if something is wrong when a change in the child's mood occurs. When injured, a child may not run to the parent to seek help. The parent may need to examine the surface of the child's body to detect the injury.
Difficulties in social interactions are common. Children may have problems making friends and understanding the social intentions of other children. Instead, they may show attachments to objects not normally predicted to be child oriented. Although children with autistic disorder may want to have friendships with other children, their actions may actually drive away other children.
Communication: Speech abnormalities are common. They take the form of language delays and deviations. Pronominal reversals are common, including saying "you" instead of "I."
Play
Baron-Cohen and colleagues (1992, 1996) have demonstrated that the absence of symbolic play in infants and toddlers is highly predictive of the later diagnosis of autism.19,20 Therefore, screening for the presence of symbolic play is a key component of the routine assessment of well babies. The absence of normal pretend play indicates the need for referral of specialized developmental assessment for autism and other developmental disabilities.
Odd play may take the form of interest in parts of objects instead of functional uses of the whole object. For example, a child with autistic disorder may enjoy repeatedly spinning a wheel of a car instead of moving the entire car on the ground in a functional manner. The nonfunctional play of a boy with autism is illustrated in Media files 4-6.
Children with autistic disorder may enjoy repeatedly lining up or dropping objects from a particular height.
Children may be fascinated with items that are not typical toys, such as pieces of string. Media file 5 illustrates the fascination of a boy with autism with a string of yarn. They may enjoy hoarding rubber bands, paper clips, and pieces of paper. They may spend hours watching traffic lights, fans, and running water.
Some parents report that they must lock the bathroom door to prevent a child from flushing the toilet all day long.
Response to febrile illnesses
Children with autistic disorder may show a decrease in their odd behaviors during a febrile illness. Parents may report that when their autistic child has a fever, the child's behavior appears to be improved. Parents may say, "When he is suddenly an angel, I know that he has an ear infection." Some behavioral abnormalities that plague the parents when their autistic child is well, such as self-injurious behaviors, aggression toward others, property destruction, temper tantrums, and hyperactivity, may diminish and resolve temporarily during a febrile illness. Children who typically display uncontrollable behavior at school and at home may seem more manageable and obedient.
This inhibition of negative behaviors may occur with various febrile illnesses, including ear infections, upper respiratory tract infections, and childhood illnesses. The recovery of the child from the febrile illness may be accompanied by an abrupt return of the child's usual problem behaviors
Physical
Screening well babies for signs predictive of autistic disorder is important. Baron-Cohen and colleagues (1992, 1996) observed that abnormalities in gaze monitoring, protodeclarative pointing, and pretend play noted in toddlers during well child visits in the United Kingdom was useful in predicting the later diagnosis of autistic disorder.19,20 Baron-Cohen and colleagues (1992, 1996) developed the Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT) to screen newborns and toddlers to rule out autism.19,20
CHAT screening
Although the CHAT has been reported to identify infants and toddlers in Britain who develop autism, the reliability and the validity of the CHAT have not been confirmed by other investigators with other populations. In particular, an item on the CHAT about pretending to pour tea from a toy teapot into a toy teacup is not likely to be meaningful to minority North American children because the cultural connotations may not be relevant to children outside the United Kingdom. However, a tea party with toy teacups and a toy teapot involves symbolic play. Because children with autism spectrum disorders may be unable to engage in symbolic play as other children, an item to assess the ability to participate in a tea party is useful in cultures in which a tea party is widely understood. The possible cultural biases of the CHAT limit its usefulness outside the United Kingdom. For this reason, direct application of the full CHAT is not recommended. Additionally, the specificity and sensitivity of the CHAT remain to beascertained in various cultures.
The items of the CHAT that are highly correlated with the diagnosis of autistic disorder are recommended. This discussion is limited to those items. Instead of asking the child to pretend to pour tea from a toy teapot into a toy teacup, the child is asked to pretend to drive a miniature car. Driving a car is important to minority North American children, whereas pouring tea is not. Although pretending to drive a car is not tantamount to pretending to pour tea, it is a good screen for minority North American children. The failure of a minority North American child to pretend to drive a miniature car constitutes a definite deficit in pretend play. Other make-believe play may be substituted based on cultural relevance. A child who does not respond appropriately to a pretend activity compared to most other children of the same culture merits referral for a specialized assessment to rule out autism and other developmental disabilities.
The assessment of normal gaze monitoring, suggested by Baron-Cohen and colleagues (1992, 1996), is composed of the following steps: The clinician calls the child's name, points to a toy on the other side of the room, and says, "Oh look! There's a [name a toy]!"19,20 If the child looks across the room to look at the item indicated by the clinician, then a joint attention is established, indicating normal gaze monitoring. The absence of a normal response merits referral for specialized assessment to rule out autism and other developmental disabilities.
Baron-Cohen and colleagues (1992, 1996) have established a protocol to assess for the presence of protodeclarative pointing in the evaluation of well babies as follows: "Say to the child, 'Where's the light?' or 'Show me the light.' Does the child point with his or her index finger at the light?"19,20 If the child does not respond appropriately to the light, the procedure may be repeated with a teddy bear or any other unreachable object. The child must look up at the clinician's face at the time of pointing to establish a normal response for this item. Absence of the expected response merits specialized clinical evaluation to rule out autism and other developmental disorders.
Unlike many other children with mental retardation, children with autistic disorder are typically physically normal in appearance, without dysmorphic features. Thus, among children with developmental disorders, children with autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders may be remarkable for their pulchritude. For this reason children with autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders may be vulnerable to sexual and physical abuse. Since children with autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders may be unable to report abuse to authorities, parents and guardians must examine their children for evidence of abuse especially when behavioral changes are present.
Body movement
Some children with autistic disorder display choreoathetotic movements that resemble the movements seen in Sydenham chorea and other movement disorders. Stereotypies (patterned repetitive movements, postures, and utterances) constitute a common finding in many individuals with autistic disorder.
Common abnormal motor movements that occur in children with autism include hand flapping, a motion in which the upper extremity is rapidly raised and lowered using a flaccid wrist so that the hands flap like flags in the wind.
Hand flapping typically occurs when the child is happy or excited. Hand flapping may occur in combination with movement of the entire body, such as bouncing (ie, jumping up and down) and rotating (ie, constantly spinning around a vertical axis in the midline of the body).
Children with autistic disorder also often display motor tics and are unable to remain still. Because children with autistic disorder are often mentally retarded and nonverbal, expressing subjective experiences associated with the movement is often impossible for them. Because the verbalization of the subjective desire to be in motion is necessary for the diagnosis of akathisia, akathisia cannot be diagnosed in individuals without the ability to express those subjective experiences in words. The high activity level and apparent lack of ability to remain still, resembling akathisia, has been termed pseudoakathisia when the individual cannot verbally express a sensation of inner restlessness and an urge to move.
Head features
The head circumference is increased in a subgroup of children with autistic disorder without known comorbid conditions. Increased head circumference is more common in boys and is associated with poor adaptive behavior. The increase in head circumference becomes pronounced in the first few years of life. The head circumference may then return to normal in adolescence.
Aberrant palmar creases and other dermatoglyphic anomalies are more common in children with autistic disorder.
Rating procedures
Patients with autistic disorder merit a careful assessment of movements (see Body movement).
The caregiver and clinicians may be asked to look for any motions in the mouth, face, hands, or feet of the patient and, if so, may be asked to describe them and how they bother the patient. The patient may be asked to sit on the chair with legs slightly apart, feet flat on the floor, and hands hanging supported between the legs or hanging over the knees. The patient may be asked to open his or her mouth and then twice to stick out the tongue. If the subject does not perform the requested action, the examiner then repeatedly performs the actions in the direct view of the subject to demonstrate the desired actions. For additional information about the rating of movement disorders, please see Tardive Dyskinesia.
The patient may be asked to sit, stand, and lie on a sheet on the floor for 2 minutes in each position. The patient is asked to remain motionless in each posture. In each position, the patient is asked, "Do you have a sensation of inner restlessness?" and "Do you have the urge to move?" These questions require an appropriate developmental level for a useful response. Therefore, most children with autism cannot respond appropriately. In the absence of a clear verbal response, the subjective items are not rated. Nevertheless, the objective behavior of the child can be observed and rated. For additional information about the rating of movement disorders, please see Tardive Dyskinesia.
Because the verbalization of inner restlessness and an urge to move are required for the diagnosis of akathisia, the observation of the movements typical of akathisia in an individual who does not verbalize the subjective experience of akathisia merits the diagnosis of pseudoakathisia or probable objective akathisia. For additional information about the rating of movement disorders, please see Tardive Dyskinesia.
Assessing stereotypies
Movements observed in individuals with autistic disorder are frequently classified as stereotypies (eg, purposeless, repetitive, patterned motions, postures, and sounds). Stereotypies are divided into the following 3 topological classes:
Oro-facial (eg, tongue, mouth, and facial movements; smelling; sniffing; and other sounds)
Extremity (eg, hand, finger, toe, leg)
Head and trunk (eg, rolling, tilting, or banging of the head; rocking the body)
Stereotypies occur in nonautistic infants and children with mental retardation. Regularly assessing stereotypies is a valuable practice because stereotypies may bother other people and interfere with performance at school, work, and home. Routine assessment of stereotypies before, during, and after treatment is valuable in determining the effects of interventions.
Stereotypies are assessed for clinical purposes through regular use of the Timed Stereotypies Rating Scale. For this procedure, the occurrence of stereotypies is noted during 30-second intervals over a 10-minute duration. For additional information about the rating of stereotypies, please see Tardive Dyskinesia.
Self-injurious behaviors
A particularly serious form of stereotypy is self-injurious behavior. Self-injury may take the form of skin picking; self-biting; head punching and slapping; head-to-object and body-to-object banging; body punching and slapping; poking the eye, the anus, and other body parts; lip chewing; removal of hair and nails; and teeth banging.
Self-injury can result in morbidity and mortality. For example, eye poking and head banging may cause retinal detachments resulting in blindness. Although only a minority of the population of children with autism manifest self-injury, they constitute some of the most challenging patients in developmental pediatrics.
Clinical examples
A 6-year-old boy with autistic disorder who is treated with 75 mg clomipramine (Anafranil) by mouth daily at bedtime exhibits nonstop stereotypies. He frequently peers out of the corner of his eye, tilting his head. He often twiddles his fingers, moving an action figure in a nonfunctional manner. He occasionally grimaces. He repeatedly touches the slits of the blinds at the corner of the window. He rubs his fingers on the blinds, the cabinet drawer, and the chair. At 8:30 pm he rocks briefly and utters indeterminable vocalizations. He may be falling asleep.
A 7-year-old boy with autistic disorder took daily vitamins and no other medications at the time of assessment. The examiner repeated movements of the telephone receiver and tapping on the telephone receiver initially exhibited by the subject. The examiner repeated the subject's actions several times in an attempt to elicit repetition of the movement by the subject. Instead, the subject does not acknowledge the presence of the examiner. The subject spins by rotating on a central vertical axis in his body. He exhibits nonfunctional play with the telephone. He displays frequent finger wiggling and the other hand stereotypies. He frequently vocalizes indecipherable sounds and rocks briefly (see Media file 4).
The examiner may attempt to establish a sequence of taking turns hitting a plate with a block. The examiner says, "My turn," and then taps the plate. The examiner gives the block to the subject and says, "Your turn." The subject may be physically assisted in the activity if the desired response does not occur. The following is a clinical example: A 7-year-old boy with autistic disorder took daily vitamins and no other medications at the time of assessment. The examiner attempted to elicit turn-taking by hitting the plate with a block. The child repeatedly jumps and rotates. He exhibits nonfunctional play with the telephone. He tilts his head and peers out of the corner of his eye. He is interested in the feel of the stick. He exhibits quick hand movements with small toys (see Media file 5).
Causes
Decades ago, researchers conjectured that infantile autism resulted from rejection of the infant by cold parents ("refrigerator mothers") who were blamed for the occurrence of the social deviations of their young children. Careful family studies have disproved the hypothesis that the development of autistic disorder in children is due to faulty parenting. Communicating repeatedly to the parents of the autistic child that they are not responsible is important. For additional information for parents and people with autism and related conditions, please visit the Autism Society of America.
The causes of autistic disorder are unknown. Hypotheses include obstetric complications, infection, genetics, and toxic exposures.
Obstetric complications are associated with an increased risk of autistic disorder. Whether obstetric complications caused autistic disorder or whether autism and obstetric complications resulted from another problem is unclear.
An infectious basis for autistic disorder in some individuals is suggested by the large number of children with autistic disorder born to women who were infected in the rubella epidemic. This finding supports the hypothesis that this infection triggers a vulnerability to develop autistic disorder in the fetus.
A genetic contribution to the development of autism has been hypothesized.
Multiple family studies have suggested genetic components to many cases of autism. For example, many studies have demonstrated that some asymptomatic first-degree relatives of some probands with autism have abnormalities in serotonin and other chemicals similar to the probands with autism. However, a particular individual with autistic disorder may not exhibit familial traits seen in populations.
Finding genetic bases for autism is a promising research goal. However, the clinical usefulness of the assessment of families of individuals with autism has not been established.
Toxic exposures have been hypothesized to cause autism.
Exposures to toxins, chemicals, poisons, and other substances have been hypothesized to cause autism. Although anecdotal case reports suggest that exposures to toxins and other substances may play a role in isolated cases of autistic disorder, a causative role for toxins in the development of autism in general has not been demonstrated. Local regions may have toxic exposures that exert a geographical influence. For example, the high incidence of autism in portions of Japan has been hypothesized to be due to a toxic effect of fish. Although toxins may play a role in the development of isolated cases of autism in Japan, toxins have not been proved to be causative of autism in Japan in general. Another possible explanation for the high rates of autism in Japan is the excellent training of Japanese clinicians. Low rates of autism in countries outside Japan may reflect the limited abilities of clinicians to make the diagnosis of autism.
In particular, the development of autism after immunization to measles, mumps, and rubella led to the hypothesis that autism was caused by immunization. Careful research has not demonstrated an association between immunization for measles, mumps, and rubella and the subsequent development of autism and related conditions in the general population. General immunization for measles, mumps, and rubella is recommended. Immunization for the general population is highly recommended. The rate of autism in children who receive immunizations does not appear to be increased.
Differential Diagnoses
Acanthocytosis
Down Syndrome
Anxiety Disorder: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Eating Disorder: Pica
Anxiety Disorder: Trichotillomania
Fragile X Syndrome
Biotin Deficiency
Gaucher Disease
Child Abuse & Neglect: Dissociative Identity Disorder
Hearing Impairment
Child Abuse & Neglect: Failure to Thrive
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection
Child Abuse & Neglect: Physical Abuse
Hypomelanosis of Ito
Child Abuse & Neglect: Psychosocial Dwarfism
Learning Disorder: Reading
Child Abuse & Neglect: Reactive Attachment Disorder
Toxicity, Lead
Cognitive Deficits
Tuberous Sclerosis
Cornelia De Lange Syndrome
Cri-du-chat Syndrome
Other Problems to Be Considered
44,XXX karyotype
47 chromosomes
(7;20) balanced chromosomal translocation
Angelman syndrome
Deletion 1p35
Duplication of bands 15q11-13
Extra bisatellite marker chromosome
Habit disorder
Hydrocephalus, infantile
Interstitial deletion of (17)(p11.2)
Inv Dup (15)(pter->q13)
Language disorder: mixed
Language disorder: phonology
Language disorder: receptive
Language disorder: stuttering
Long Y chromosome
Minamata disease
Moebius syndrome
Nonketotic hyperglycinemia (NKH)
Partial 6p trisomy
Seizures
Seizures, frontal lobe
Spasms, infantile
Tourette disorder
Trisomy 22
This continues through the "how to" do the work up.
It is really long.
Let me know what you are looking for and maybe I can isolate it for you.
I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that posting that amount of an article online may broach some copyright rules. I don't know for sure; but I'd advise caution.
Maybe that should be removed and perhaps handled via PM for whomever wants THAT specific info. The last thing we need is any more......issues.
Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR Journalist's Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper's Web Site
Work by Reporter Brian Deer is at Center of Investigation Being Conducted by Medical Regulators
(Austin, Texas) - The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) of London, an independent body that oversees journalism fairness in the UK, has issued an interim order calling for the Sunday Times to remove stories written by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield from its web site. Dr. Wakefield had filed an extensive complaint with the PCC regarding errors of fact in Deer's reportage on the MMR vaccine and its possible relationship to autism. The General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK is presently hearing evidence involving Dr. Wakefield and two of his colleagues following a complaint to the GMC by Deer himself. The PCC decision today appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories.
The PCC complaint by Dr. Wakefield provides clear evidence that Deer's allegations of "data fixing" by him are false. The complaint also accused Deer of an undisclosed conflict of interest since Deer also failed to reveal in his articles that he was the person who made the original complaint to the GMC, misleading the newspaper's readers over the accuracy of his reporting.
Bumped. I finally got around to looking at the studies
BMJ 2001 Jul;323(7305):163-4
and
N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 6;348(10):951-4
and it appears Pie has sent me the original studies, and not the criticism of them. Pie, what I have is BMJ edition 322, not 323, and NEJM 347, not 348.
I read the studies, or at least what I could understand of them without 300-level courses in statistics. In the NEJM study, roughly of 80% of about 500,000 children in Denmark were MMR-vaccinated, and roughly 80% of autism cases in the same group of children were of MMR-vaccinated children. (IOW, 20% of autism cases were in non-vaccinated children.)
It will be interesting to see how this is criticized.
No one ever claimed that the MMR is the sole and exclusive trigger of autism. It's not just about the MMR, it's about the aggressiveness of the entire schedule, and the way vaccinations are intended to work. Even vaccine opponents aren't sure why the MMR seems to have a higher risk than other vaccines.
It is, in short, all about the
adjuvants. The immune response is an extremely complex biological process, but in layman's terms, it's somewhat like this: the immune system works in stages. The first antibody response is supposed to be from IgA antibodies, which live almost exclusively in the lungs and digestive tract. This is how most diseases enter the body. The IgA antibodies are the ones that organize the overall response to the pathogen, and call in the IgE antibodies (which are what give you a typical allergic response of itchy eyes, sneezing, etc.) to do the dirty work of fighting the pathogen. They also are the ones that best "remember" the pathogen for the future, so that the body has immunity.
When you inject the pathogen directly into the bloodstream, you completely bypass this IgA part of the immune system (and that is one reason why blood-borne diseases are usually so much more devastating than airborne.)
This is an acknowledged drawback of injected vaccines, and it is precisely why they include an adjuvant with the injection, usually the heavy metal aluminum. An adjuvant is a substance which, for an unknown reason, hyperstimulates the IgE response. We can't get the IgAs to remember the pathogen, since we've excluded them from the process, so instead we just throw the IgEs into overdrive, significantly overproduce antibodies to fight the pathogen, and that way plenty are left over after the disease is defeated. But these antibodies die off over time, and this is why injections don't provide lifelong immunity while getting the actual disease does, and why we need booster shots after a few years.
Is it really so hard to imagine that artificially stimulating the IgE antibodies would lead them to be more likely to mistake harmless substances (like, say, peanut proteins) as pathogens, thus creating an allergy to peanuts? It's not just about the MMR, and it's not just about autism. All autoimmune disorders are sharply on the rise, because we are screwing with our immune system and forcing it to work in ways it isn't designed to. The only reason the autism advocates are the only ones screaming is because having a kid with a severe peanut allergy just isn't that big a deal (I know, I have a stepson with one.) All the lesser diseases, while they might be lifestyle-altering, still leave you with your kid intact. But they are all a reflection of the problem--asthma, allergies, autism, ADHD, celiac disease, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis...
Incidentally, it's quite possible to administer vaccines in an airborne fashion, breathing them in through a mask. When they do this, no adjuvant is needed, and indeed, that's how they do vaccinations in Africa, because they have to re-use all their medical equipment down there, and re-using needles in an AIDS-ridden population is a big no-no. Guess who doesn't have an autism epidemic like we do? Of course, detractors will say that's because African doctors are too stupid to recognize autism when they see it, and African parents are too stupid to know whether their child knows how to talk or not.
I don't think most people think African parents are too stupid. Possibly not educated enough to pick the symptoms, and most likely not wealthy enough to seek help anyway.
Is it really so hard to imagine that...
It's not hard to imagine, no.
Yes, very cute HM. There are studies to back it up, but that shit's just not available for free on the internet, sorry. If you're interested, it's not hard to find books on the subject.
I don't think most people think African parents are too stupid. Possibly not educated enough to pick the symptoms, and most likely not wealthy enough to seek help anyway.
As I alluded, it does not take an education to determine that your child is or is not speaking, or is or is not smacking themselves in the face all day long. The symptoms are subtle at the age of 2-3. They are not subtle at ages 4, 5, 6, or all the rest of the years of their lives as this disease continues to affect them.
A lot of African people who live a tribal life would believe their child was possessed if they exhibited those types of symptoms. That is my point when I suggest that education is part of the issue. Sure they'd know something wasn't right, but they'd have a whole different way of thinking about what was wrong with their child than you or I might.
eta: The same goes for any other culture which still lives a tribal way of life.
Right. And they would hold exorcism ceremonies, or have whatever methods of treatment they thought might be successful--the point being that they would recognize the disease and know who had it and who didn't. And outsiders could tabulate how many "possessed" children there were in a group of people, and know what they were really counting. And in the end, they have done all this, and determined that the rate of autism in Africa is vastly lower than in America, both in areas where they vaccinate (through breathing treatments) and areas where they don't.
The whole thing is much more complicated, but that is a good synopsis of how it works with the immune response.
My point was that not all detractors of the theory you're presenting necessarily assume people from Africa are stupid.
This is a better synopsis of how the immune system works if anyone is really interested in understanding it better. It is quite complicated but efficient. The human body is amazing...
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Human_Physiology/The_Immune_System#Defenses_Against_InfectionI don't think in re: Africa the issue is one of education or health awareness, but more the question of where children rank, culturally. We're pretty children-centric, all overpopulation aware and trying to get the infant mortality rate down more than it already is.
Not my area of limited-enough-to-bullshit awareness, but I read
Dancing Skeltons once. What I got was: the poor health of developing children was due largely to the fact that their nutrition was considered after that of others.
Flip the coin around: if children should be seen and not heard, would a child not developing verbal skills be noticed?
Yes, we can throw guesses out all day long as to why the results of a study that none of you have read might or might not have cultural flaws that our own educated and trained scientists are unable to compensate for.
Or, we can take the simplest route: the government has already admitted, twice, that in certain cases, vaccines and the MMR in particular can and did trigger certain types of autism in certain children. With 5,000+ identical cases waiting in line on the docket behind those two, and hundreds of thousands waiting in the wings, they had every motivation in the world not to set that precedent unless they absolutely had to, unless the evidence presented to them (which took years to present, by the way, it wasn't just a casual conversation on a message board) was so undeniable there was just no way around it.
The main consensus of scientific opinion on this subject is shifting, as science always does, and it is moving towards my side, not yours.
It would appear in the case of Hannah Poling that the government has "admitted" (by settling out of court) that thimerosal was responsible. That's not your position.
The NY Times Poling story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/08vaccine.html
“Let me be very clear that the government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism,” Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Thursday. “That is a complete mischaracterization of the findings of the case and a complete mischaracterization of any of the science that we have at our disposal today.”
Do you have a link to the government admitting it was thimerosal specifically?
JULIE GERBERDING, DR., CDC DIRECTOR: "Well, you know, I don't have all the facts because I still haven't been able to review the case files myself. But my understanding is that the child has a -- what we think is a rare mitochondrial disorder. And children that have this disease, anything that stresses them creates a situation where their cells just can't make enough energy to keep their brains functioning normally. Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism."
Actually, no one knows if she was predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, or if she developed it, along with autism, after receiving 5 vaccines against 9 antigens in one day because she had fallen behind the mandated schedule due to illness.
[youtube]Dh-nkD5LSIg[/youtube]
Uh well no actually... there's no full published record of the court's proceedings as far as I can tell, but that was the father's position and largely the position of the 5,000 cases that Clod mentions. Mercury is damaging to mitochondria.
Since 2002, petitioners have filed approximately 4,900 claims arguing that vaccines caused the petitioners’ autism. The Court is holding hearings before Special Masters on three different theories: (1) that the Mumps-Measles-Rubella vaccine together with thimerosal causes autism; (2) that thimerosal alone causes autism; and (3) that MMR alone causes autism.
Poling was in this group. Now here's all you need to know about the "omnibus autism courts" set up for the 5,000 claims:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901344_2.html
The shift from laboratory to courtroom means the outcome will hinge not on scientific standards of evidence but on a legal standard of plausibility -- what one lawyer for the families called "50 percent and a feather." That may make it easier for the plaintiffs to sway the panel of three "special masters," which is why the decision could not only change the lives of thousands of American families but also have a profound effect on the decisions of parents around the world about whether to vaccinate their children.
Bold mine. Despite this fact, the 5,000 cases
have been dismissed via the Omnibus after the special masters found no evidence in three test cases (Poling was not one of the test cases).
It would appear in the case of Hannah Poling that the government has "admitted" (by settling out of court) that thimerosal was responsible. That's not your position.
There is no such thing as "settling out of court" in this case. It is not a civil suit, it is a specially-commissioned body that rules for or against compensation to the victim. They ruled in favor of compensation to cover her medical expenses.
And in the
Bailey Banks case, his vaccines did not contain thimerosal.
In sum, the Court’s factual findings are fourfold:
1. Bailey did show evidence of ataxia in the period surrounding his seizure, following his vaccination;
2. Such ataxia, when considered in conjunction with the radiological results and some other “soft indicia”, together support the Court’s finding that Bailey did, in fact, suffer from ADEM.
3. Bailey’s ADEM was caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is wellunderstood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court finds, on the record filed herein, that it did actually cause the ADEM.
4. Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. Additionally, this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.
What's more, the Bailey Banks legal proceedings also reference two previous rulings that I had never even heard of:
Petitioner cites to two previous cases heard by this Court where the Special Master found that the MMR vaccine had caused ADEM: Tufo v. Secretary of HHS, No. 98-0108V, 2001 WL 286911, 2001 US Claims LEXIS 46 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 2, 2001) and Lodge v. Secretary of HHS, No. 92-0697V, 1994 WL 34609, 1994 US Claims LEXIS 19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan 25, 1994). Petitioner also cites to the 1994 report of the IOM, which found the theory that a vaccine can “induce...an autoimmune response...by nonspecific activation of the T cells directed against myelin proteins” to be “biologically plausible.”
there's no full published record of the court's proceedings as far as I can tell
I don't know about the Hannah Poling records, but the full court proceedings in the Bailey Banks case are included in the link I posted.
There is no such thing as "settling out of court" in this case. It is not a civil suit, it is a specially-commissioned body that rules for or against compensation to the victim. They ruled in favor of compensation to cover her medical expenses.
I think what he means is that the CDC conceded the biological plausibility of the Poling's [expert's] claims without an an evidentiary hearing.
The Polings’ expert testified in court that the five vaccines administered had “stressed” her already weakened system and worsened her developing autism. The court was persuaded, without even holding a hearing, that the claim was biologically plausible and ruled in the Poling family’s favor. Damages have not yet been determined.
Note also that the ruling did not address what vaccine or what additive, ie, thimerosal, was the villain in this case;
link
Links regarding vaccinations and their effect on the autoimmune system (and demyelination)
here.
(The site is drcarley.com. She was an MD, and speaks out specifically against Vaccines. Alot of folks dismiss her as a quack, and she has had her license taken away because of her stance on these issues, but I want to point out that what she is saying in these articles on her website are the same things that are being said in these court cases that have been sourced in this thread. I wanted to post that up front, before anyone tries to dismiss her findings simply because of her politics.)
There are videos of her on youtube that are particularly informative, and clod's explanation of how vaccines bypass the inital IgA stage of the immune system is a paraphrase of Dr. Carley's explanation.
I also want to point out this:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html
and
in Czech and
in Czech and
in Czech
as well as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs
Now the CDC has recommended over half the Americal population get the H1N1 flu shot.
The flu shot they are recommending is three injections. The first totally wipes out your immune system, so that you feel great (because your body isn't fighting anything any more). The second shot bypasses your normal immune system function and gives you whatever disease they want you to have, and the third shot turns your immunesystem back on. Either you'll die immediately (within 3 days) or your body will exhaust itself fighting off the disease, and most of the people will die anyway. (That's Dr. Carley.)
Now we're hearing about the possibility of mandatory H1N1 vaccinations? I don't think so.
No offense OC, but when you're trying to garner credibility for your cause, referencing people who claim that the majority of people who receive the H1N1 vaccine are going to die... it doesn't really help.
I mean, come on. Is the flu shot a bad idea? Yes, I absolutely think so. Is it going to outright kill the majority, or even a significant percentage of the people who get it? No way.
Actually, no one knows if she was predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, or if she developed it, along with autism, after receiving 5 vaccines...
[SIZE=2][B]Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to
thimerosal and other metal compounds[/SIZE][/B]
Thimerosal-induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies. Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined.
Interesting. But:
1. They were In Vitro studies.
2. And I agree with the conclusions, "Future studies need to be conducted to evaluate additional mechanisms underlying Thimerosal-induced cellular damage and assess potential co-exposures to other compounds that may increase or decrease Thimerosal-mediated toxicity." This is a single study.
3. I am glad to see someone taking a closer look at the science of it all.
I thought thimerosal was ruled out.
You better call the authors and tell them... boy, are they gonna feel pretty stupid...
I thought it was ruled out because it's not in vaccines any longer.
It's been taken out of most routine childhood vaccines. It's still in the flu shot, which pediatricians recommend for babies of all ages every winter, as well as a handful of others.
Wikipedia says "
some formulations of the inactivated influenza vaccine for children
older than two years".
Removed from vaccines 10 years ago. Surely the numbers should be changing if thimerosal is the (main) culprit.
No one ever said it was the main culprit, it is one of many. In most cases they replaced the thimerosal with aluminum, which has fewer studies proving its toxicity as a heavy metal, but the studies that have been done show it is only minimally better than mercury. And as shown in one of the studies in the book you bought, the rate did slow down a bit (not the overall numbers, but the rate, because remember again that the numbers are accelerating,) but the study authors changed the data parameters again and again until they got the numbers to say what they wanted. Look at their own publicly available data in a more logical way, and there is clearly an effect from removing thimerosal.
Wikipedia can say what it wants, I personally know two mothers whose 6-month-old babies were given flu shots with thimerosal. There is a huge disconnect between the cover-your-ass age recommendations they may or may not put on the bottle, and what the pediatricians dole out. Because remember, they fundamentally believe the thimerosal isn't a problem, so why would they be careful with it?
Don't forget about pregnant women getting the flu shots.
There's an extensive list of combinations of toxins and metals in a long list of vaccines. Assuming that one component in causing one problem is... well that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you've uncovered information in your research of vaccines that would change my mind though...
Removed from vaccines 10 years ago. Surely the numbers should be changing if thimerosal is the (main) culprit.
Thimerosal containing vaccines were not recalled. How long did it take to use up the old stock before ordering the new (more expensive) versions?
I dunno, a year? Surely not two years, these things have shelf lives and it's expensive to have big inventory.
Clod you've taken both sides of this now because in
post 153 you said
The majority of the studies are on only thimerosal, which is basically a moot point by now, because most countries have removed it from almost all childhood vaccines anyway.
Either a study focused on thimerosal is useful, or it's moot. Why were the seven studies that reject your point moot, while jinx's is not?
Why cherry-pick the studies in this way? That study, not valid. That study, not valid. 150,000 kids in Denmark, eh probably wrong. But now, THIS study, AHA J'ACCUSE!!!!
Look at their own publicly available data in a more logical way, and there is clearly an effect from removing thimerosal.
Clearly an effect. Shall we have the correlation/causality discussion again?
My point in posting the study was to further question the CDC/HHS position that children with an underlying mitochondrial disorder are susceptible to vaccine damage resulting in PDD/autism-like symptoms. What are they basing the underlying part on?
This study shows thimerosal can cause mitochondrial damage. Were children damaged by their vaccines, their mothers vaccines... did damage from one vaccine set them up for further damage by another. Nobody fucking knows.
Good questions. It is still one study done In Vitro. Doesn't mean that much at this point. More research is certainly warranted.
Either a study focused on thimerosal is useful, or it's moot. Why were the seven studies that reject your point moot, while jinx's is not?
Why cherry-pick the studies in this way? That study, not valid. That study, not valid. 150,000 kids in Denmark, eh probably wrong. But now, THIS study, AHA J'ACCUSE!!!!
A moot point can still be completely valid, it's just not as relevant to the discussion as a whole. Old studies on thimerosal in childhood vaccines are less relevant now because thimerosal is no longer in those vaccines. New studies on thimerosal in completely different vaccines administered to pregnant women are interesting because up until now no one has considered the pre-natal environmental exposures to be particularly significant. Maybe thimerosal has a moderate effect on a baby, but a very strong effect on a fetus--like, say, thalidomide. The point is we don't know, because the CDC is generally loathe to do any kind of research on this topic. A grand total of 16 studies is not enough to confirm anything, in any medical investigation, ever. Other diseases get literally hundreds of studies done, some conflicting, but after hundreds have been done it's easier to see what the pattern is. Congress actually ordered the CDC to do a comprehensive comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations in 1982. They haven't done it.
Another pre-natal condition that's getting a lot of examination is Vitamin D levels in the mother. I am actually registered to participate in a study on this and several other parameters, should I ever get pregnant again.
People don't go out in the sun enough so they don't absorb Vit D naturally, which means their body cant absorb calcium which of course can lead to some issues with babies.
Beyond that, there is a suspicion that some mothers of autistic babies have a genetic impairment in their production of vitamin D, even if they do go out in the sun. The study I've signed up for (assuming I get pregnant again in the next 4 years, which is by no means a guarantee) plans to test vitamin D levels bi-weekly during the third trimester in women with at least one diagnosed autistic child, and supplement with direct injections as necessary to keep the numbers in a solidly healthy range.
No offense OC, but when you're trying to garner credibility for your cause, referencing people who claim that the majority of people who receive the H1N1 vaccine are going to die... it doesn't really help.
I mean, come on. Is the flu shot a bad idea? Yes, I absolutely think so. Is it going to outright kill the majority, or even a significant percentage of the people who get it? No way.
Let me ask you this:
What if the govt and the drug companies that make the vaccines know exactly what they are doing to children and the rest of the population, and are doing it on purpose? (Don't go into the whys just yet. Just..what if they are doing it on purpose?)
Just think about that for a minute. As a mental exercise, if you like.
If you accept the
possibility of that statement, let me go one more:
What if they wanted to get more adults than children involved? Children are covered with the childhood vaccines, what if they wanted to target adults?
Is it so crazy to even consider the
possibility that the H1N1 virus was man-made, released into the wild, over media hyped on purpose, just to get people afraid enough to take another vaccine?
A few things to think about:
Do you really believe that the bioengineers are so bad at keeping records that they "find" 9200 vials of extremely deady shit? How do you know something is missing if you don't even know what you have??
Vaccines get
contaminated all the
damn time.
(if anyone has a philly.com archive subscription, please pull this article in it's entirety, I'm interested to see it:)
---
Karl Stark
Published on 2008-05-01, Page A01, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)
It is truly a stretch to think that all of these different companies have "accidental" contaminations of all these different "vaccines" from all these different plants over the years.
I mean, really. Can you just picture it?
"oops! uh, John, I um..."
"yes, betty?"
"well, I had a spill here."
"really, what happened?"
"well, I was doing some work on the AIDS virus, and then turned to look at my polio vaccine, and --whoopsie!-- some of the HIV went into the vaccination vat!! What ever will we do?"
"Don't panic, Betty. No one will ever know. And if they do find out, we'll just sell it to the Europeans. Something like this happened to Jerry over in MMR. Don't worry. He didn't get fired. In fact, they gave him a promotion!!"
Out of all the people that post on this thread, Clod, you of ALL people should be open minded enough to see that contaminated vaccines exist, that the govt is doing nothing about it, and it's only one step further to the idea that they are doing it on purpose, and advancing their agenda with a man-made virus and pushing their vaccination.
I told you on the post not to look at her politics, but the content of what she had to say about vaccines. Do not dismiss her as a kook, like a few people on this board did to you, Clod. Don't make that mistake and miss it.
eta: some of those links I posted in my first post, but I want to be clear, these are not isolated incidents. I don't understand why no one is even thinking about this facet of vaccinations.
From HuffPo:
Autism Rate Now at 1% of All US Children?
According to data from the 2007 telephone survey of parents of nearly 82,000 US children, the odds of a child receiving an ASD diagnosis are one in 63. If it is a boy, the chances climb to a science fiction-like level of one in 38, or 2.6% of all male children in America.
If there is an environmental component to autism, hopefully scientists will want to know which exposures might have increased between, say, 1992 and 1996.
One possible answer is the Hepatitis B vaccine, (which also contained 25 micrograms of mercury containing thimerosal).
Introduced in 1991, it was the first vaccine ever given on a population basis to newborn babies (within the first three hours after delivery) in human history.
But according to the CDC's National Immunization Survey (which also includes parental telephone interviews), only 8% of infant children received the Hep B vaccine in 1992, when that birth cohort showed an ASD rate of 60-per-10,000.
By 1994, the number of children receiving Hep B vaccine had reached just 27% -- and the cohort showed an ASD rate of 66-per-10,000.
By 1996, the Hep B coverage rate had risen to 82%, when that cohort's ASD rate exploded to around 100-per-10,000.
Correlation, obviously, does not equal causation. And no one is suggesting that Hepatitis B vaccine is the singular "cause" of autism. But the uptake rate of that particular immunization is at least one environmental factor that did demonstrably change during the period in question.
A study published last October in the journal Neurology found that children who received the Hepatitis B vaccine series were 50% more likely to develop "central nervous system inflammatory demyelination" than children who did not receive the vaccine.
Most of this increase was due to the Engerix B brand of the vaccine, manufactured by the UK's GlaxoSmithKline. That brand increased the risk of demyelination by 74%, and patients with confirmed multiple sclerosis were nearly three times more likely to develop the disorder.
Engerix-B also uses MF59 (
squalene based adjuvant).
"squalene has been used extensively as an adjuvant in animal models
to
induce autoimmune diseases” (Asa, Cao & Garry 2000, p 61).
Watch the testimony of Barbara Loe Fisher among others before the House on Hep B on youtube.
10 years ago...
part 1
[YOUTUBE]09H6Gp-Y9XQ[/YOUTUBE]
A study published last October in the journal Neurology found that children who received the Hepatitis B vaccine series were 50% more likely to develop "central nervous system inflammatory demyelination" than children who did not receive the vaccine.
Most of this increase was due to the Engerix B brand of the vaccine, manufactured by the UK's GlaxoSmithKline. That brand increased the risk of demyelination by 74%, and patients with confirmed multiple sclerosis were nearly three times more likely to develop the disorder.
Christ on a cracker!! This makes me temporarily insane.
source
Lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg has said that there are many risks associated with the vaccine for the H1N1 virus.
He has grave reservations about the firm Novartis who are developing the vaccine and testing it in Germany. The vaccination is injected “with a very hot needle”, Wodarg said.
The nutrient solution for the vaccine consists of cancerous cells from animals and "we do not know if there could be an allergic reaction".
But more importantly, some people fear that the risk of cancer could be increased by injecting the cells.
The vaccine - as Johannes Löwer, president of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, has pointed out - can also cause worse side effects than the actual swine flu virus.
Wodrag also described people’s fear of the pandemic as an "orchestration": “It is great business for the pharmaceutical industry,” he told the ‘Neuen Presse’.
Swine flu is not very different from normal flu. “On the contrary if you look at the number of cases it is nothing compared to a normal flu outbreak,” he added.
The chairman of the health committee in the European Council has urged for a careful and calm reaction to the virus.
Up until now, the producers of the vaccine did not know how many orders they would have by the autumn, but the German Government is now a guaranteed customer.
Even the pharmaceutical companies are trying to exploit the fear of the swine flu pandemic.
source
A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.
The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.
It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.
The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications.
It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:
More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.
500 cases of GBS were detected.
The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.
The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.
The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.
Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.
It is being developed by pharmaceutical companies and will be given to about 13million people during the first wave of immunisation, expected to start in October.
Top priority will be given to everyone aged six months to 65 with an underlying health problem, pregnant women and health professionals.
The British Neurological Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out.
One senior neurologist said last night: ‘I would not have the swine
flu jab because of the GBS risk.’
There are concerns that there could be a repeat of what became known as the ‘1976 debacle’ in the US, where a swine flu vaccine killed 25 people – more than the virus itself.
A mass vaccination was given the go-ahead by President Gerald Ford because scientists believed that the swine flu strain was similar to the one responsible for the 1918-19 pandemic, which killed half a million Americans and 20million people worldwide.
The swine flu vaccine being offered to children has not been tested on infants
Within days, symptoms of GBS were reported among those who had been immunised and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000 people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.
More than 40million Americans had received the vaccine by the time the programme was stopped after ten weeks. The US Government paid out millions of dollars in compensation to those affected.
The swine flu virus in the new vaccine is a slightly different strain from the 1976 virus, but the possibility of an increased incidence of GBS remains a concern.
Shadow health spokesman Mike Penning said last night: ‘The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS. We need a vaccine but we also need to know about potential risks.
‘Our job is to make sure that the public knows what’s going on. Why
is the Government not being open about this? It’s also very worrying if GPs, who will be administering the vaccine, aren’t being warned.’
Two letters were posted together to neurologists advising them of the concerns. The first, dated July 29, was written by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA’s Immunisation Department.
It says: ‘The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use.
‘GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out.
‘Reporting every case of GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared with the background risk.’
The second letter, dated July 27, is from the Association of British Neurologists and is written by Dr Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, chair of its surveillance unit, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, chair of its clinical research committee.
Halted: The 1976 US swine flu campaign
It says: ‘Traditionally, the BNSU has monitored rare diseases for long periods of time. However, the swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic has overtaken us and we need every member’s involvement with a new BNSU survey of Guillain-Barre Syndrome that will start on August 1 and run for approximately nine months.
‘Following the 1976 programme of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS.
‘Active prospective ascertainment of every case of GBS in the UK is required. Please tell BNSU about every case.
‘You will have seen Press coverage describing the Government’s concern about releasing a vaccine of unknown safety.’
If there are signs of a rise in GBS after the vaccination programme begins, the Government could decide to halt it.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, leaving them unable to transmit signals to muscles effectively.
It can cause partial paralysis and mostly affects the hands and feet. In serious cases, patients need to be kept on a ventilator, but it can be fatal.
Death is caused by paralysis of the respiratory system, causing the victim to suffocate.
It is not known exactly what causes GBS and research on the subject has been inconclusive.
However, it is thought that one in a million people who have a seasonal flu vaccination could be at risk and it has also been linked to people recovering from a bout of flu of any sort.
The HPA said it was part of the Government’s pandemic plan to monitor GBS cases in the event of a mass vaccination campaign, regardless of the strain of flu involved.
But vaccine experts warned that the letters proved the programme was a ‘guinea-pig trial’.
Dr Tom Jefferson, co-ordinator of the vaccines section of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, an independent group that reviews research, said: ‘New vaccines never behave in the way you expect them to. It may be that there is a link to GBS, which is certainly not something I would wish on anybody.
‘But it could end up being anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies we’ve extracted have any research on it at all.’
He said squalene, a naturally occurring enzyme, could potentially cause so-far-undiscovered side effects.
Jackie Fletcher, founder of vaccine support group Jabs, said: ‘The Government would not be anticipating this if they didn’t think there was a connection. What we’ve got is a massive guinea-pig trial.’
Professor Chinnery said: ‘During the last swine flu pandemic, it was observed that there was an increased frequency of cases of GBS. No one knows whether it was the virus or the vaccine that caused this.
‘The purpose of the survey is for us to assess rapidly whether there is an increase in the frequency of GBS when the vaccine is released in the UK. It also increases consultants’ awareness of the condition.
Panic over? The number of swine flu cases has fallen sharply in the past few weeks
‘This is a belt-and-braces approach to safety and is not something people should be substantially worried about as it’s a rare condition.’
If neurologists do identify a case of GBS, it will be logged on a central database. Details about patients, including blood samples, will be collected and monitored by the HPA. It is hoped this will help scientists establish why some people develop the condition and whether it is directly related to the vaccine.
But some question why there needs to be a vaccine, given the risks. Dr Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth About Vaccines, said: ‘For people with serious underlying health problems, the risk of dying from swine flu is probably greater than the risk of side effects from the vaccine.
‘But it would be tragic if we repeated the US example and ended up with more casualties from the jabs.
‘I applaud the Government for recognising the risk but in most cases this is a mild virus which needs a few days in bed. I’d question why we need a vaccine at all.’
Professor Miller at the HPA said: ‘This monitoring system activates pandemic plans that have been in place for a number of years. We’ll be able to get information on whether a patient has had a prior influenza illness and will look at whether influenza itself is linked to GBS.
‘We are not expecting a link to the vaccine but a link to disease, which would make having the vaccine even more important.’
The UK’s medicines watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, is already monitoring reported side effects from Tamiflu and Relenza and it is set to extend that surveillance to the vaccine.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘The European Medicines Agency has strict processes in place for licensing pandemic vaccines.
‘In preparing for a pandemic, appropriate trials to assess safety and the immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
‘It is extremely irresponsible to suggest that the UK would use a vaccine without careful consideration of safety issues. The UK has one of the most successful immunisation programmes in the world.’
I COULDN''T EAT OR SPEAK... IT WAS HORRENDOUS
Victim: Hilary Wilkinson spent three months in hospital after she was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome
When Hilary Wilkinson woke up with muscle weakness in her left arm and difficulty breathing, doctors initially put it down to a stroke.
But within hours, she was on a ventilator in intensive care after being diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
She spent three months in hospital and had to learn how to talk and walk again. But at times, when she was being fed through a drip and needed a tracheotomy just to breathe, she doubted whether she would survive.
The mother of two, 57, from Maryport, Cumbria, had been in good health until she developed a chest infection in March 2006. She gradually became so weak she could not walk downstairs.
Doctors did not diagnose Guillain-Barre until her condition worsened in hospital and tests showed her reflexes slowing down. It is impossible for doctors to know how she contracted the disorder, although it is thought to be linked to some infections.
Mrs Wilkinson said: ‘It was very scary. I couldn’t eat and I couldn’t speak. My arms and feet had no strength and breathing was hard.
I was treated with immunoglobulin, which are proteins found in blood, to stop damage to my nerves. After ten days, I still couldn’t speak and had to mime to nurses or my family.
‘It was absolutely horrendous and I had no idea whether I would get through it. You reach very dark moments at such times and wonder how long it can last.
But I’m a very determined person and I had lots of support.’
After three weeks, she was transferred to a neurological ward, where she had an MRI scan and nerve tests to assess the extent of the damage.
Still unable to speak and in a wheelchair, Mrs Wilkinson eventually began gruelling physiotherapy to improve her muscle strength and movement but it was exhausting and painful.
Three years later, she is almost fully recovered. She can now walk for several miles at a time, has been abroad and carries out voluntary work for a GBS Support Group helpline.
She said: ‘It makes me feel wary that the Government is rolling out this vaccine without any clear idea of the GBS risk, if any. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and it certainly changed my life.
‘I’m frightened to have the swine flu vaccine if this might happen again – it’s a frightening illness and I think more research needs to be done on the effect of the vaccine.’
Hotline staff given access to confidential records
Confidential NHS staff records and disciplinary complaints could be accessed by hundreds of workers manning the Government’s special swine flu hotline.
They were able to browse through a database of emails containing doctors’ and nurses’ National Insurance numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, mobile phone numbers and scanned passport pages – all details that could be used fraudulently.
And private and confidential complaints sent by hospitals about temporary medical staff – some of whom were named – were also made available to the call-centre workers, who were given a special password to log in to an internal NHS website.
It could be a breach of the Data Protection Act.
The hotline staff work for NHS Professionals, which was set up using taxpayers’ money to employ temporary medical and administrative staff for the health service.
The not-for-profit company runs two of the Government’s swine flu call centres – with 300 staff in Farnborough, Hampshire, and 900 in Watford, Hertfordshire.
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley described the revelations as ‘disturbing’.
Anne Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Unison, said: ‘There’s no excuse for such a fundamental breach of personal security. Action needs to be taken as soon as possible to make sure this does not happen again.’
A spokeswoman for NHS Professionals would not confirm whether access to the confidential files had been granted.
Looks like biomedical treatments for autism are about to get a huge spotlight on NBC this weekend. Matt Lauer is dedicating the full hour of Dateline NBC this Sunday night to an in-depth examination of Dr. Wakefield, the rest of the medical team at Thoughtful House, vaccine safety, and biomedical treatments in general. This will include interviews with families that have been treated at Thoughtful House.
No one knows for sure how objective the final coverage is going to be, but the Thoughtful House folks said in the mailing list announcement that they feel they were treated fairly in interviews and they're hopeful it will be a favorable story. (Initially, they declined to participate in the story at all, but Matt Lauer and his producer Ami personally convinced them it would be an objective piece.)
Anyway, the summation of all show times is: there will be a 10-minute segment on the Today Show this Friday morning featuring a portion of the interview with Dr. Wakefield, then a longer segment on Nightly News Weekend either Saturday or Sunday (they're not sure yet which schedule the piece will be fit into.) Then the grand culmination of coverage will be a full hour on Dateline NBC, Sunday Aug. 30th at 7:00 PM EST.
As you can imagine, my PVR is set to record all of the above.
I got to see the last 5 minutes - Grrrrrr Pissed I missed it.
That's okay, I'm pissed I didn't miss it. They spent 5 goddamn seconds on the fact that "ohAndHisParentsSayHe'sGettingBetter--let's talk about vaccines some more." I know for a fact they interviewed half a dozen families for this, but they decided that children recovering from a disease that there is supposedly no possible recovery from wasn't the story they wanted to tell.
Matt Lauer can eat a dick.
He probably did to get the job he has - I never liked him or Katie makemepuke
To be fair, it was probably the most balanced presentation of Wakefield and his career history that I've ever seen in a major news outlet, and gave him the chance to answer all the various false charges that Brian Deer has pulled out of his ass over the years. But it was very much a personality/history piece, they didn't go into the actual validity of the vaccine studies at all--and really, no one expected them to. That's a career-ending position to take, and Matt Lauer just isn't going to do it even if he were personally convinced by the evidence. But they specifically promised they were going to cover the treatments themselves going on at Thoughtful House, which in my opinion they didn't honestly do.
Case in point: today I just purchased one of Betty Crocker's brand new Gluten-Free baking mixes. On the side of the box it says:
Why go gluten free? Not long ago, two of our co-workers found themselves in the gluten free world. Linc was diagnosed with Celiac disease, and Colleen's family switched to the diet for her son's well-being.
Their experiences opened our eyes to the challenges families face following the diet... etc.
Colleen's son is autistic, you can bet your ass on it. But their lawyers have made them too chickenshit to come out and say it. God forbid we tell anyone about this.
Is it true that Wakefield had a patent application for a single dose measles vaccine filed before he published his Lancet paper?
They addressed that accusation in the NBC piece: his single-dose measles shot was not a preventative vaccine, but rather a treatment for those who already had a chronic measles infection in their gut; i.e. the autistic kids he was working with. It would have in no way competed with the MMR or benefited from its discontinuation--in fact, it would have been a far more successful product if more kids continued to get vaccinated with the MMR and developed the condition his shot was intended to treat.
Thoughtful House's
response to the NBC piece:
We are aware of the time limitations in a news broadcast of this nature; inevitably, crucial questions go unanswered and important facts are omitted. Quick answers and segues leave questions open, and can even lead to misunderstanding.
Among the most crucial incorrect statements were that “(experts) have taken this study and blown it to bits…that despite studies showing otherwise…Dr. Wakefield insists autism and bowel disease are linked…” This is in fact not the case, and NBC was given the correct information in great detail. Five separate studies in five countries have confirmed the presence of a novel bowel disease in children with autism. Additional publications confirming these findings are in process. This hypothesis was the crux of the 1998 Lancet paper, as well as several subsequent publications by Dr. Wakefield.
And from
Wakefield himself:
The shortcomings and the flaws of the studies quoted by Dr. Offit, claiming to disprove an association between vaccines and autism, were not discussed in the program. In my interview with Mr. Lauer I took as an example a paper from Dr. DeStefano from the CDC claiming to exonerate MMR that actually showed that a
younger age of vaccination with MMR is associated with a greater risk of autism. This study confirms the association and has been falsely portrayed as vindicating the vaccine. This should have been included in order to provide balance to the program.
Dr. Offit cited a large population study of autism and MMR from Denmark in support of his claim to ‘certainty that there is no link.’ This study was so flawed that it was rejected from consideration by the gold standard scientific review by the highly influential Cochrane Collaboration.
...
Reference was made to an autistic child in the vaccine court whose claim for MMR damage was overturned by the judge. No reference was made to the successful vaccine court case on behalf of the child Bailey Banks, coming just one week after the unsuccessful claim described by Mr. Lauer, in which the judge ruled that MMR vaccine can cause autism. Therefore, in the view of vaccine court, it is not a question of whether or not MMR can cause autism, but rather
how many children are affected.
...
It was not disclosed that I have repeatedly invited Dr. Offit to take part in public debate on the safety of MMR vaccine and the false and misleading claims that he has made in the media and his book. He has refused to accept this invitation and has continued to hide from an open and honest debate.
All vaccines are preventative, and he described it as a "safer vaccine" in his patent application?
This study was so flawed that it was rejected from consideration by the gold standard scientific review by the highly influential Cochrane Collaboration.
Does this discredit the study? Where can we read the reasons for rejection?
No reference was made to the successful vaccine court case on behalf of the child Bailey Banks
Remember how the case was not decided on the basis of science? I think we looked at that in the Other Thread.
No that was the Hannah Poling case.
edit:... that we discussed in the other thread.
Biological plausibility = biology = science
All vaccines are preventative, and he described it as a "safer vaccine" in his patent application?
No they're not - there are therapeutic vaccines as well as prophylactic. Look it up.
Huh, true, and interesting.
Wakefield's vaccine was dual-purpose: "The present invention relates to a new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and measles virus and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (Inflammatory Bowel Disease); particularly Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis and regressive behavioural disease (RBD)."
elimination of MMR and measles virus
Depends on whether you interpret this as the elimination of another vaccine on the market, or the elimination of the virus from the body. It is an awkward wording in either sense.
Does this discredit the study? Where can we read the reasons for rejection?
I'm not sure which Danish study he's referring to.
It's either
this one, whose flaws are noted
here, or
this one, flaws noted
here. I don't know which one was rejected by the Cochrane Collaboration, but it's worth noting they rejected it even though they continue to support the overall use and safety of the MMR (i.e., they rejected their own side's study.)
later in the
patent application
"What is needed is a safer vaccine that does not give rise to these problems... I have now discovered a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer to neonates and others by way of vaccination, but which can also be used to treat IBD whether as a complete cure or to alleviate symptoms."
There's also another NEJM Danish population study Pie sent me, based on the Jepson book.
OK, the Bailey Banks finding came from the same Vaccine Court from the Poling case, in which the finding has to be "50 percent and a feather" -- not scientific standards.
later in the patent application
"What is needed is a safer vaccine that does not give rise to these problems... I have now discovered a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer to neonates and others by way of vaccination, but which can also be used to treat IBD whether as a complete cure or to alleviate symptoms."
Then I guess it looks like he had a small conflict of interest, in that he
might make money by the removal of the MMR, just like the people on the other side had a large conflict of interest in that they stood to lose billions in existing MMR shots, not to mention a loss in overall vaccination rates with their other products after the trust was gone.
On the other hand, it's been over ten years. As far as I can tell he wasn't awarded the patent, and certainly the prophylactic treatment he was working on didn't pan out because if it had they would be using it at his clinic. He is not a billionaire like his opponents still are (and still stand to lose.) And
yet, he hasn't stopped his research, hasn't stopped putting himself out as a figure of public abuse as he tries again and again to get the message out there. Surely you must acknowledge that whether or not you believe his theories are right,
he obviously believes he is doing the right thing. If he were motivated by money he would have moved on long ago to something that actually produced it for him, don't you think?
Here's my question, Tony. Can you, or can you not admit that "science," "medical research," "scientific standards," and every other ideal you keep holding up on a pedestal, are corruptible? Not in an ideal world, of course, we all know they're supposed to transcend that pettiness to find the golden
truth in their pure white lab coats. But we don't live in an ideal world. Science is politics and money, just like every other institution that man has ever created.
Congress ordered the CDC to do a study of unvaccinated children in the early 1980s. They haven't done it. There are thousands of children who have recovered from their disease, with video proof of their symptoms before and after, and they all say they used the same set of treatments. Yet the CDC won't even acknowledge the treatments, let alone research them. Half a dozen other countries have found results, using "scientific standards," that completely contradict ours. The CDC ignores them. Please explain to me how any of this is possible, if we're adhering even loosely to these idealized standards you think you are witnessing. Don't scientific standards call for
investigating these discrepancies?
In the short run, yes, all those things you put into scare quotes are corruptible. Less corruptible than in almost every other institution, but yes.
In the long run, no. Truth will out. Redundant studies will find conflicting results, new theories will be advanced and tested.
The guy who discovered that stomach ulcers are caused by a virus was going heavily against medical consensus... and faced some battles at first... but the truth was evident. The guy who invented the MRI faced an uphill battle, as nobody believed he could be coming up with something useful. In the end, truth won.
Why doesn't the CDC operate in the way you'd prefer? Dunno. Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.
The explanation that you desire requires more and more extraordinary narratives over time. This makes me more skeptical. The underlying mechanisms change - it's specifically MMR! No? Then, it's surely mercury! No? Well then it's squalene, or density! It's gut-related, no, it's brain-related as vaccines cause encephalitis! This makes me more skeptical.
Meanwhile, notice that the Amish are a genetically closed community, and Autism has a proven genetic link. So a study of the mere numbers would not be significant. Why not just compare numbers of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated children? That's been done, as in the Danish studies, and similar rates found in both groups. Oh but those studies are bad? ALL of the studies that disprove your theory are faulty in some way? ALL OF THEM? This makes me more skeptical.
OK, the Bailey Banks finding came from the same Vaccine Court from the Poling case, in which the finding has to be "50 percent and a feather" -- not scientific standards.
Understanding the NVICP
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is an innovative federal no-fault
program enacted in 1986, (and since amended), which was designed to resolve a perceived crisis
in vaccine tort liability claims that threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines
nationwide. In mandating that vaccine injury claims be considered first under VICP, the statute
was intended to reduce lawsuits against physicians and manufacturers, while providing those
claiming vaccine injuries a reduced burden of proof. Claimants under the VICP need not prove
negligence, failure to warn, or other tort causes of action; they must only prove that a covered
vaccine caused injury.
As in any product liability case, the initial question for decision is causation. There are two
ways to prove causation under the Act. The VICP contains a Vaccine Injury Table, which is
designed to minimize difficulties petitioners face in proving that their injury resulted from a
vaccine. The Vaccine Injury Table lists certain injuries and conditions which, if found to occur
within a prescribed period of time following vaccination, create a rebuttable presumption of
causation. In such “on-Table” cases, petitioners do not need to adduce proof of actual causation.
For example, if a petitioner proves that her child received a DPT vaccine and that the child
suffered an encephalopathy (brain injury) within three days thereafter, causation is presumed.
The Act’s Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation further define the compensable conditions.
Assuming a petitioner is able to meet the Table’s requirements, the respondent (the Secretary of
HHS) may still defeat the compensation claim by establishing that the condition was more
probably than not caused by a “factor unrelated” to the vaccine.
Less corruptible than in almost every other institution, but yes.
I don't buy it. Just as corruptible, no more no less. What would make it less corruptible? Scientists are just better people than all the rest of us? They have morals that the rest of us simply don't? Bullshit. Science is a good process overall, just like capitalism is a good process, and both weed out the bad folks in the long run. But we still have Enron, and we still have Wyeth getting caught paying ghostwriters to publish "research" studies with no evidence to back them up.
Why doesn't the CDC operate in the way you'd prefer? Dunno. Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.
Well, in a literal sense it is indeed unlawful. Congress ordered them to do something and they have not. They don't get to decide if the Amish are a reasonable population to study or not. They get to follow the orders of Congress just like the rest of us.
I don't believe it is a conspiracy so much as it is bull-headed denial, just like all the people who denied the stomach ulcer guy, and the MRI guy--except in this case there's a lot more money involved (both pharmaceutical money and government money, since as we have discussed the government has already accepted default monetary liability for anyone they find to have been injured by a vaccine,) so the denial is inherently going to be stronger. How long did it take the stomach ulcer guy to prevail? More than a few years, I'd imagine. And it only happened because he fought. So we fight.
The explanation that you desire requires more and more extraordinary narratives over time. This makes me more skeptical. The underlying mechanisms change - it's specifically MMR! No? Then, it's surely mercury! No? Well then it's squalene, or density! It's gut-related, no, it's brain-related as vaccines cause encephalitis! This makes me more skeptical.
You are confusing me with other anti-vaccine proponents. I have not moved from one problem to the next; there are problems with all of the above and they combine to create a host of very different autistic conditions. My main concern is, as I have said before, the use of adjuvants in vaccinations. Squalene is just one type of adjuvant, but it does seem in some studies to be worse than others. The MMR contains triple the amount of adjuvants as single-dose vaccines, so it's going to cause more of a problem in this regard. It is widely documented that autistic patients have a reduced--or complete lack of--ability to detoxify, thus, adding more mercury (thimerosal) to their systems does not trigger the disease, but it does make their symptoms worse.
Autism is an extremely complex disease, because it's not really a disease, it's a set of neurological symptoms. If you sneeze, you might have a cold, you might have the flu, you might have allergies, or you might have some rare form of nose cancer. The smoker with lung cancer and the woman with cervical cancer had very different causes for their apparently similar symptoms, and they will require different treatments. But still we say they both have cancer. I could, incidentally, run a study of cancer patients that concluded there was absolutely no link between smoking and cancer, because look at all these people with cervical cancer who didn't smoke!
Some autistic children have an underlying mitochondrial disorder, many do not. Most have underlying digestive problems, some do not. Some are verbal, go to school, and live relatively normal lives. Some sit in the corner banging their head on the wall and wearing diapers when they're teenagers. When you take chelation drugs, they measure the output of metals in your urine: some kids could put their pee straight into thermometers, so much mercury comes out. Others don't really have any mercury, but they are full of lead. Some have their biggest problem with aluminum. Each of these is eliminated by a different metabolic process, but if any of the processes is messed up then you end up with the same symptoms of heavy-metal poisoning, which overlap considerably with autistic symptoms.
Here is a reasonably laid-out chart showing all the relationships we've found so far:
What would make it less corruptible?
Because the output is scholarship. Everyone in the scholar's community and all competing communities are open to published peer review, the running of similar studies, open debate, etc. Because the results have to be observable and reproduce-able.
If a falsehood lingers, it becomes easier to shoot down over time. Progress in unrelated areas leads to progress in the related area. The MRI makes it possible to study brain inflammation, and voila, a new set of facts shines new light on the old ones. Genetics suddenly opens a new understanding, not available ten years ago. We climb to the top of a mountain and suddenly we can see over seven different hills.
and we still have Wyeth getting caught
Precisely. That's success in the system. In the long run truth will out.
Don't take my word for it. You can see it working. We know more and more, we understand more and more, even just in the last 20 years. Cancer now no longer the terrible death sentence. HIV now no longer the terrible death sentence. Major mental illnesses, now highly treatable. Tremendous progress in surgery, now making dangerous operations routine and cutting hospital stays from weeks into days.
The system you criticize is the same system that produces those results.
Each of these is eliminated by a different metabolic process, but if any of the processes is messed up then you end up with the same symptoms of heavy-metal poisoning, which overlap considerably with autistic symptoms.
You'd be an advocate for squalene then as it is non-metallic.
An adjuvant is anything your immune system has to fight off. We are literally inhaling them at all times.
The system you criticize is the same system that produces those results.
No, I criticize their handling of this specific case. It is rare to find a topic where the funding is so imbalanced (70% of funding available for studying genetic causes of autism, only 30% available for those who want to study environmental triggers) or where additional study is not encouraged. How many other health issues are told, "We don't need any more studies." Scientists should always want to do more studies. How many hundreds of cancer studies get funded each year? Yet we're supposed to be satisfied with a little over a dozen in the last decade, half of which were just large-scale medical record examinations done in other countries?
You'd be an advocate for squalene then as it is non-metallic.
An adjuvant is anything your immune system has to fight off. We are literally inhaling them at all times.
As I have explained, the problems with adjuvants and heavy metals are separate. They are both bad, for different reasons. You must be in favor of low-tar cigarettes because, hey, there's less tar.
And if adjuvants are that cut-and-dried, please explain why the viruses themselves that get injected are not enough to make your immune system fight it off? Obviously these particular adjuvants do
something different, or they wouldn't be used. Are inhaling a cold virus and inhaling some arsenic gas equivalent?
Precisely. That's success in the system. In the long run truth will out.
Don't take my word for it. You can see it working. We know more and more, we understand more and more, even just in the last 20 years. Cancer now no longer the terrible death sentence. HIV now no longer the terrible death sentence. Major mental illnesses, now highly treatable. Tremendous progress in surgery, now making dangerous operations routine and cutting hospital stays from weeks into days.
The system you criticize is the same system that produces those results.
[SIZE="1"]Sorry this is so disjointed, my vaccine-injured child is having a bad day and is being very distracting.[/SIZE] :haha:
Here's my problem with this attitude: you have set yourself up to always be right. If there is no evidence of falsehood yet, well clearly it's because science is on the right track. If it turns out there
is evidence of falsehood, well then we found it because the system worked, you're right again!
The system only works because individual people speak up when they see falsehoods being perpetrated. It works in cases like these because of people like me, not because of people like you. The system will cease to work if I just sit back quietly and wait for it to magically work on its own.
[SIZE="1"]
The system only works because individual people speak up when they see falsehoods being perpetrated. It works in cases like these because of people like me, not because of people like you. The system will cease to work if I just sit back quietly and wait for it to magically work on its own.
Well said Clod.
Right now, I remain unconvinced by either side of the debate. Because neither side has fully proved its position. That, to me, is a reason for more, not less, investigation. Especially as one side appears to be severely handicapped by a lack of investment and support for further study.
Can't they both be right to some degree? I'm not sure its really 100% either/or. Perhaps in certain circumstances (A) is the result and in others (B) ...
And if adjuvants are that cut-and-dried, please explain why the viruses themselves that get injected are not enough to make your immune system fight it off?
As I understand it, vaccination effectiveness fell off when the conditions became so hospital-clean that the immune system only had to fight off one thing, the vaccine; adding additional "dirty" elements would help to activate the immune system, so that it would wake up and notice that it was time to work harder because it had things to fight off.
Speaking of which. If there's an environmental change in our world, it's not the contaminates, but rather the lack of them. It's in the cleanliness of people's infant homes.
The other day this gent invited me into his house where he had a 1 year old, and the place was made immaculate for the child. We were all forced to take off shoes outside so as to not contaminate anything. All surfaces were not only clean and dust-free, they were pristine. Anti-bacterial wipes for every surface, soaps for every sink. Disposable nappy diapers went into their own sealed bin. Even the cat was bathed. All I could think was, these uber-nazi-clean conditions are
totally new to us as a species. We have never had it like this. I don't know but I wager this is not actually ideal for the child.
Well...I wasn't raised in a super-clean house whne I was little. I grew up in a normal house with pets and normal amount of dirt and a Dad who fixed bits of engine on the Kitchen table. I played in an old air raid shelter in the grounds of a disused chicken packing factory. My immune system was still fucked up and I tended towards allergies and intolerances. My bro on the other hand never had an allergy in his life.
Here's my problem with this attitude: you have set yourself up to always be right. If there is no evidence of falsehood yet, well clearly it's because science is on the right track. If it turns out there is evidence of falsehood, well then we found it because the system worked, you're right again!
By the very same reasoning, you have set yourself up to always be wrong. If there is no evidence of falsehood yet, it's because the right criticisms of the studies haven't been found. If there IS evidence of falsehood, well then OMG FOUL SYSTEM BROKEN!
The system only works because individual people speak up when they see falsehoods being perpetrated.
I agree but only where we determine "falsehoods" though careful, diligent study using the scientific method. The system works because competing theories add or override the body of work of previous study.
It works in cases like these because of people like me, not because of people like you. The system will cease to work if I just sit back quietly and wait for it to magically work on its own.
In the late 80s-early 90s there was a group of docs who came to believe that AIDS was not caused by HIV. They honestly believed the AIDS-HIV link was a "falsehood". They had theories. They published. They were angry as hell that they could not find traction. They blamed it on funding and bias and culture and "the system", etc.
The scientific community came to reject their ideas on scientific bases. Today AIDS is no longer a death sentence because HIV positive people have their HIV levels controlled. Those other docs were completely wrong. Did the life-saving treatment come about because those doctors had a competing pet theory? No. It came about because the scholarship system looked at them, figured out they were full of it, and proceeded to develop other medical knowledge until the problem was solved.
When you find yourself in disagreement with a lot of the rest of the vaccine-skeptical Autism community, what basis will you use to determine that you are right and they are wrong? How do you KNOW you are right? How do you know what you know? What is your
epistemology?
[SIZE=1](my god i have not had so much fun composing Cellar posts in a while... thanks clod)[/SIZE]
Linking a wiki definition of epistemology? No, that's not the least bit patronising lol.
If there IS evidence of falsehood, well then OMG FOUL SYSTEM BROKEN!
Once again, the system is not failing because there are falsehoods. The system is failing (in this case) because those falsehoods are being steadfastly
unexamined. Not examined and proven false... unexamined. The CDC will not currently examine the possibility of
any environmental trigger, not just vaccines. You yourself said you had been convinced that the current epidemic is a combination of a relatively common genetic predisposition coupled with a new environmental trigger. Why is no one at the CDC interested?
When you find yourself in disagreement with a lot of the rest of the vaccine-skeptical Autism community, what basis will you use to determine that you are right and they are wrong? How do you KNOW you are right? How do you know what you know? What is your epistemology?
The first step for me in determining which side was right was the fact that the biomedical treatments were working. The very basis of these treatments is that autism is rooted in immune dysfunction--they couldn't possibly work if it is not (as the CDC maintains,) and the fact that they are confirms that it is. That got me to the point where you are; that it is most certainly environmental and triggered externally sometime after birth, but I was not sure yet what that trigger might be. Then step two: my daughter got her MMR shot and she stopped talking. I watched it happen, just like they said it could. After 12 months of normal bowel movements and normal speech development, she suddenly had 4 straight weeks of diarrhea and lost all her words. To this day her digestion is severely unbalanced and we must use a careful combination of foods and supplements to keep her regular.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the MMR itself was not as big of a contributor to my son's autism--he was already showing some signs by 3 months--but it was the tipping point for my daughter. This informs my position on the relative and overall dangers of different shots. I know I am right because I watched it happen. And yes, now is when you say "correlation does not equal causation," and it's where I tell you that at some point the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I'll go so far as to acknowledge that maybe my daughter is the only one in the world that it happened to--but I know it happened to her, and all the rest of the autism moms are saying the exact same thing happened to their kids.
So I'm faced with one side that corroborates my experience, predicted it in several cases, and offers treatments that are currently, empirically, working. And the other side dismisses my experience as impossible, predicts the exact opposite of what I'm seeing, and not only offers no treatments, steadfastly says that the other side's treatments
aren't working, in the face of said empirical evidence. Every moment of my life for the last year has shown one side to be true, and the other to be false, without exception. That is how I know I am right.
I will know I am wrong if the medical community manages to isolate a different environmental cause, removes it from the population, and the autism rate goes down. But I'm confident it won't happen, if for no other reason than they are
refusing to look at any environmental causes, so of course they will not find one.
Huh, true, and interesting.
Huh, yeah, it's true. I didn't just pull something out of my ass or post my argumentative yet uninformed opinion as fact. Incidentally, why did
you?
Nobody's understanding of the world is perfect, jinx. Through our common bonds we examine the world together.
You are sitting in front of a computer that can access all information available on the internet. It would have taken what... 2 or 3 minutes to check yourself before you posted?
But I'm confident it won't happen, if for no other reason than they are refusing to look at any environmental causes, so of course they will not find one.
I'm sure you agree with David Kirby, here are seven studies in progress
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/06/front-page-huffpo-david-kirbys-seven-studies-to-watch.html
ETA: It would have taken what... 2 or 3 minutes to check this.
Four of those studies have only been recommended by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, not yet guaranteed or approved by particular health organization. The Amish study also fell into this category, except they went so far as to mandate it rather than recommend it. Still didn't get done.
Of the remaining three, one is a joint effort by the department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. Good thing we have the EPA to step in and do medical research where the CDC won't. Another is from the NIH, who has historically been more favorable towards autism research--their former director has come out vocally in favor of Wakefield and his work. Only one is an actual study that has just barely been begun by the CDC, still collecting study participants, and it is planned to be 5 years long. That's nice and all, but there's plenty of information out there right now that could be utilized for much faster studies to actually get some shit done.
Huh, yeah, it's true. I didn't just pull something out of my ass or post my argumentative yet uninformed opinion as fact. Incidentally, why did you?
Somebody's got to play the Devil's advocate, or you guys wouldn't post all this good shit.:)
It's hard to do it without getting personal though, huh? I went through my shit carefully before posting and took out anything bitter or related to our lives etc.
Actually that's a damn good point bruce.
(soz about the patronising jibe toad :P)
Somebody's got to play the Devil's advocate, or you guys wouldn't post all this good shit.:)
You're absolutely right B, it's a good thing. But if you're gonna bring it, bring it for real - none of that sugarpop shit.
if you're gonna bring it, bring it for real - none of that sugarpop shit.
:eek: :p
none of that sugarpop shit
As the most informed Cellar poster on this topic, Jinx, you should take a more active role in the discussion.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings again, Tony.
I'm sorry for sucking enough to allow it! Moving on...
Information Pertaining to Labeling Revision for Gardasil
Thanks for that. I am getting ready to give my son's GF her second shot.
shit i'm due for my 3rd in november
We have gone ahead with it. One of my girls got it, one declined. I personally encourage it. But this is purely a personal decision for each person.
Agreed.
I think it's important to note though, that as well as adverse health events associated with the vaccine, it also has limitations which aren't mentioned in the advertisements. There are 15+ strains of hpv that are considered oncogentic - Gardasil contains recombinant examples of 2 of them (the ones that may cause 50% or more cervical cancers).
Regular pap smears, hpv testing, and especially condoms are still imperative - vaccinated or not.
edit
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=4][COLOR=#003366]Marketing HPV Vaccine[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]The new vaccine against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, like other immunizations appears to be a cost-effective intervention with the potential to enhance both adolescent health and the quality of their adult lives. However, the messages and the methods by which the vaccine was marketed present important challenges to physician practice and medical professionalism. By making the vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to adolescents was maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored. The vaccine manufacturer also provided educational grants to professional medical associations (PMAs) concerned with adolescent and women's health and oncology. The funding encouraged many PMAs to create educational programs and product-specific speakers' bureaus to promote vaccine use. However, much of the material did not address the full complexity of the issues surrounding the vaccine and did not provide balanced recommendations on risks and benefits. As important and appropriate as it is for PMAs to advocate for vaccination as a public good, their recommendations must be consistent with appropriate and cost-effective use.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Agreed.
I think it's important to note though, that as well as adverse health events associated with the vaccine, it also has limitations which aren't mentioned in the advertisements. There are 15+ strains of hpv that are considered oncogentic - Gardasil contains recombinant examples of 2 of them (the ones that may cause 50% or more cervical cancers).
Regular pap smears, hpv testing, and especially condoms are still imperative - vaccinated or not.
No doubt. But from my readings it was with HPV types 16, 18, 6, 11 and HPV types 16 and 18 currently cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases. HPV types 6 and 11 cause about 90% of genital warts cases. To me that is a pretty big deal and leaves only a chance that you will get one of the remaining 30% that are not covered by the vaccine and only 10% of HPV that causes genital warts, which I see on people all the time. And they are quite disruptive, yet highly contagious. I guess if they ever get a vaccine for Genital Herpes I would encourage them to get that since that is an even more common type of infection.
From the Risk and Benefits JAMA article
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]The theory behind the vaccine is sound: If HPV infection can be prevented, cancer will not occur. But in practice the issue is more complex. First, there are more than 100 different types of HPV and at least 15 of them are oncogenic. The current vaccines target only 2 oncogenic strains: HPV-16 and HPV-18. Second, the relationship between infection at a young age and development of cancer 20 to 40 years later is not known. HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection, with an estimated 79% infection rate over a lifetime5-6 The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system.7-8 In a few women, infection persists and some women may develop precancerous cervical lesions and eventually cervical cancer. It is currently impossible to predict in which women this will occur and why. Likewise, it is impossible to predict exactly what effect vaccination of young girls and women will have on the incidence of cervical cancer 20 to 40 years from now. The true effect of the vaccine can be determined only through clinical trials and long-term follow-up.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.15 So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit. Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed. The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT]
Which is what Barbara Loe Fisher was talking about...
The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system.7-8 In a few women, infection persists and some women may develop precancerous cervical lesions and eventually cervical cancer. It is currently impossible to predict in which women this will occur and why.
This may be true. But current guidelines are that women who develop evidence of abnormal cervical cells, which are then graded in severity, should be treated. This consists of Laser ablation of the cervical cells, or CKC (cold knife cone) bx, or in some cases both. That is why you should get PAP smears yearly. Both of those procedures require anesthesia and should be performed in an OR, unless you are really brave. So we are willing to put you under the knife, or laser, and subject you to an anesthestic for these abnormal cells but we still don't know if you will be one of those who develop cervical cancer. We do 3 or 4 CKC's or Laser Vap of the cervix a week and this is a small but busy practice. 4 or 5 a year come in with near cancerous cells and everyone of these girls is in their 20's or early 30's. The incidence of HPV is common in women in the US, whether or not is causes problems for you is why you get the PAP's (although there are other potential causes of cervical Ca). It is a simple screening tool. Anyone here want to take a chance and just bag it hope that your immune system just catches the bad stuff? I don't think so. This vaccine has the potential to do a lot of good for women's health. It comes down to a personal decision. I think women should be encouraged to get it.
New Research Study Shows Developmental Delays in Monkeys Given Hepatitis B Vaccines
A new research study published today in a leading scientific journal, NeuroToxicology, found that a Hepatitis B vaccine containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal caused significant delays in the acquisition of critical survival reflexes in newborn rhesus macaque monkeys. In this first-ever study comparing vaccinated animals with unvaccinated controls, thirteen of the animals were given a Hepatitis B vaccine containing a standardized amount of thimerosal to match that given to babies; four received a saline placebo, and three were not given any shots. The unvaccinated animals developed normally. Delays in vaccinated infants involved three critical reflexes associated with feeding, which are essential for survival in the wild.
"Infants of lower birth weight and gestational age were at greater risk" explained Dr. Laura Hewitson of the University of Pittsburgh, one of the principal investigators of the study. "The reflexes affected in this study are controlled by the brainstem, which regulates functions like heart rate, breathing, and intestinal activity, so these findings give us cause for concern, especially for low birth weight and pre-term infants who might be more susceptible to functional brain injury from this vaccine."
According to Hewitson, the study was not designed to determine whether it was the thimerosal preservative or another component of the vaccine that caused the observed delays. Although the FDA and American Academy of Pediatrics recommended in 1999 that thimerosal be removed as soon as possible from vaccines in the US, it is still used as a preservative in flu shots, including the recently licensed H1N1 vaccines. Flu shots are currently recommended for pregnant women and children 6 months of age and older.
Citation:
Delayed Acquisition of Neonatal Reflexes in Newborn Primates Receiving a Thimerosal-Containing Hepatitis B Vaccine: Influence of Gestational Age and Birth Weight.
Hewitson L, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L, White ER and Wakefield AJ.
NeuroToxicology, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 30 September 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuro.2009.09.008.
I have just learned something that makes my heart sing.
The above study is only a very small part of a very large study involving many, many monkeys, which will be testing the entirety of the current vaccine schedule both with and without thimerosal (because as the study notes, while thimerosal has been removed from most childhood vaccines in the US, it is still in wide use in developing countries.) Hep B is the shot given on the day of birth, so it's the first part of the study with conclusive results. The rest is coming. Boy, is it ever coming.
Yes, it is.
"Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys." The authors used U.S. probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 datasets.[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/new-study-hepatitis-b-vac_b_289288.html[/COLOR][/LEFT]
I respect your views but you are not going to win converts by linking Huffington Post to any valid review of any medical issue. Just my 2 cents.
The full manuscript has not been published yet. The abstract is available in the Annals Of Epidemiology, Sept 2009. It costs $36 or so to view it
online... I didn't think anyone would bother, but the information is worth noting regardless of your personal politics.
Understood. I may be able to get it for free. Give me a few days and if I get it I may need to send it to you via EM.
Damm. Which one is it that you want?
I see a number of linked articles.
Can you send me the links of the ones you want?
Just post them here.
It's just the abstract...
Annals of Epidemiology Sept 2009: 19(9); 659
Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and AutismGot it. Give me till early next week. I have a busy next few days. I promise you a response most likely via pm.
Great, thanks again.
I found it but couldn't open it. I will see if we can order it.
I found these and can get these:
Journals / MEDLINE®
Title Citation
1 The clinical content of preconception care: immunizations as part of preconception care. PreviewAbstract Full Text PDF Find Similar Articles MEDLINE® is the source for the citation and abstract of this record Coonrod DV - Am J Obstet Gynecol - 01-DEC-2008; 199(6 Suppl 2): S290-5
2 Mercury exposure and public health. Review PreviewAbstract Full Text PDF Find Similar Articles MEDLINE® is the source for the citation and abstract of this record Clifton JC 2nd - Pediatr Clin North Am - 01-APR-2007; 54(2): 237-69, viii
3 Special immunization considerations of the preterm infant. Review PreviewAbstract CrossRef Find Similar Articles MEDLINE® is the source for the citation and abstract of this record Gad A - J Pediatr Health Care - 01-NOV-2007; 21(6): 385-91
Show All 3 Results
The Clinics
Title Citation
1 Mercury exposure and public health. Review PreviewAbstract Full Text PDF Find Similar Articles MEDLINE® is the source for the citation and abstract of this record Clifton JC 2nd - Pediatr Clin North Am - 01-APR-2007; 54(2): 237-69, viii
the last one is interesting and is about 45 pages long from the Pediatric Clinics of North America. I saved the PDF and can email it to you if you want. Just pm me where I can em a big assed file.
Here are some others from Medscape:
Autism Resource Center
Autism, an early childhood condition characterized by symptoms of abnormal social interaction, communication, or behavior, is one in a group of disorders comprising autism spectrum disease. The causes of autism are unknown. Early signs of autism include unusual responses to environmental stimuli, unusual social interaction, and language delays. Behavioral, educational, and psychological therapies are the most effective autism treatments. Autism awareness and early diagnosis are crucial for effective treatment. Autism Overview
Autism Diagnosis
Autism Treatment
Autism Follow-up
Autism Pictures
Autism CME/CE
Featured Autism Articles
Do Children With Autism Experience High Rates of Gastrointestinal Problems?
A study published in the August 2009 issue of Pediatrics compares the long-term data on children with autism and those without.
Medscape Pediatrics, September 2009
Citalopram Ineffective in Children With Autism
A National Institutes of Health trial has found that citalopram is ineffective in treating repetitive behavior in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders.
Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health, July 2009
Autism Medication Found to be Ineffectual in Treatment of Autistic Children
In his latest video blog, Dr. Robert Findling reports on a NIH study that finds that citalopram is no better than placebo in treating autistic children with repetitive behavior.
Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health, June 2009
Autism, ADHD, and Medicated Births
Could the extensive use of medication during birth be contributing to the recent increase in developmental disorders?
Medscape Ob/Gyn & Women's Health, May 2009
Can Mirtazapine be Used to Treat OCD Symptoms Associated With Asperger's Syndrome?
Dr. Bethany DiPaula addresses whether Mirtazapine can be effectively used to Asperger's Syndrome patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health, April 2009
Body Expressions of Emotion Do Not Trigger Fear Contagion in Autism Spectrum Disorder
Emotion perception deficits in ASD may be due to compromised processing of the emotional component of observed actions.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, March 2009
Mirror Neurons and Their Clinical Relevance
One of the most exciting events in neurosciences over the past few years has been the discovery of a mechanism that unifies action perception and action execution.
Nature Clinical Practice Neurology, January 2009
Advanced Parental Age and the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder
What are the effects of maternal and paternal age on risk of autism spectrum disorder?
American Journal of Epidemiology, December 2008
Impact of Innate Immunity in a Subset of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Case Control Study
This study assessed whether clinical features of ASD subset are associated with atopy, asthma, food allergy, primary immunodeficiency, or innate immune responses important in viral infections.
Journal of Neuroinflammation, November 2008
Pharmacology and Genetics of Autism: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment
What is the current state of the molecular genetic causes of autism? How can we extend the pharmacological principles pioneered in fragile X and Rett syndromes to the broader group of autism patients?
Personalized Medicine, November 2008
Autism Spectrum Disorder-associated Biomarkers for Case Evaluation and Management by Clinical Geneticists
The authors provide a brief cataloging of the rapidly emerging, clinically available biomarkers that the clinician can use to evaluate autism spectrum disorders.
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, November 2008
Autism Spectrum and Psychiatric Comorbidities
What psychiatric conditions occur most often in patients with autism spectrum disorders? In his latest video blog, Dr. Robert Findling discusses the most common presentations.
Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health, September 2008
California Data Do Not Support a Link Between Thimerosal in Vaccines and Autism
A study published in the January 2008 issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry looks at California Department of Developmental Services data.
Medscape Pediatrics, August 2008
New Developments in Autism Spectrum Disorders
Eric Hollander, MD, Professor and Chairman of Psychiatry; Director, Seaver and New York Autism Center of Excellence, NY, describes the newest information on autism.
The Medscape Journal of Medicine, June 2008
Abnormal Cerebral Effective Connectivity During Explicit Emotional Processing in Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder
These study provides evidence that abnormal long-range connectivity between structures of the 'social brain' could explain the socio-emotional troubles that characterize the autistic pathology.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, June 2008
Chronic Bacterial and Viral Infections in Neurodegenerative and Neurobehavioral Diseases
Can chronic bacterial or viral infections be a common feature of progressive neurodegenerative and neurobehavioral diseases?
Laboratory Medicine, May 2008
Rett Syndrome: From Recognition to Diagnosis to Intervention
This review details the clinical picture of Rett syndrome and the diagnostic strategies required, explores the critical medical issues and recent advances in molecular neurobiology, and provides an overview of intervention strategies.
Expert Review of Endocrinology and Metabolism, May 2008
Thimerosal in Vaccines: Some Reassuring Data
Whether thimerosal increases prevalence of autism remains controversial even though most vaccines no longer contain this preservative. Has there been a decrease in reported autism since its removal?
Journal Watch, January 2008
Thimerosal in Vaccines and Neuropsychological Outcomes?
A study published in the September 27, 2007 issue of NEJM fails to find a link between prenatal or postnatal thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological functioning in childhood.
Medscape Pediatrics, January 2008
Highlights of the 115th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association
Why is it more difficult to treat anxiety than depression in children? How can you prevent adolescent suicide? What psychosocial interventions are best in later life?
Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health, January 2008
More
Guidelines and Summary Guidelines
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network - Assessment, diagnosis and clinical interventions for children and young people with Autism Spectrum Disorders
American Academy of Neurology - Screening and Diagnosing Children With Autism
American Academy of Pediatrics Guidelines - American Academy of Pediatrics Guidelines 2007
Ohio Developmental Disabilities Council - Service Guidelines for Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder/Pervasive Developmental Disorder (ASD/PDD)
Practice parameter: screening and diagnosis of autism. Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Child Neurology Society
Practice parameter: evaluation of the child with global developmental delay: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and The Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society
A retrovirus (similar to HIV) has been tentatively
connected to autism:
Last week, researchers from the University of Nevada, the National Cancer Institute and The Cleveland Clinic announced the startling discovery of antibodies to a little known retrovirus in 95% of patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), a debilitating neuro-immune disease impacting more than a million people in the United States.
...
Researchers tested blood samples from a "small group of children" with autism and found that 40% of them were positive for XMRV, according to a statement from the Nevada Commission on Autism Spectrum Disorders. More testing is underway which, the Commission said, "could dramatically increase that 40% positive finding." (Given the small sample size, such a statement is purely speculative).
...
"On that note, if I might speculate a little bit," she said, "This might even explain why vaccines would lead to autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and grow in lymphocytes -- the immune response cells, the B and the T cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your immune system into overdrive. That's its job. Well, if you are harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you've now broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system could no longer control other infections, and created an immune deficiency."
these viruses live and divide and grow in lymphocytes -- the immune response cells, the B and the T cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your immune system into overdrive. That's its job. Well, if you are harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you've now broken the balance between the immune response and the virus.
So is it a matter of timing, introducing the vaccine before the virus has been defeated?
If the virus is never defeated, and it's a never ending battle, then wouldn't any infection, anything the immune system is called on to battle, cause the virus to spread?
In theory, yes, just like a normal disease can set off Type 1 diabetes in a child predisposed to it. But the vaccine's adjuvants throw the whole system into a far larger response than it normally would give to any real infection. So the chances of a vaccine causing the virus to spread are much higher than an appropriately-modulated immune response to a normal pathogen. Not to mention that in the real world, you don't usually get Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Hepatitis B, and influenza all in the same day.
Have you heard about Desiree Jennings yet?
A routine flu vaccination triggered a severe, permanent neurological reaction in this otherwise healthy woman. But the doctors would like to reiterate that the chances of a neurological reaction to a vaccine are only one in a million, y'all. They're totally positive about that.
[youtube]mh5F5wP8RdU[/youtube]
If the virus is never defeated, and it's a never ending battle, then wouldn't any infection, anything the immune system is called on to battle, cause the virus to spread?
I think that is a bit of a stretch. Much of that thinking is theoretical.
A routine flu vaccination triggered a severe, permanent neurological reaction in this otherwise healthy woman. But the doctors would like to reiterate that the chances of a neurological reaction to a vaccine are only one in a million, y'all. They're totally positive about that.
And how many people are going to get vaccinated just this year alone?
Oh hey, I forgot to mention, you know what two of the most common comorbid symtoms of autism are? Dystonia and seizures.
Apparently the neurology department at the U of Maryland is using this video to demonstrate
psychogenic dystonia. She isn't making it up, but it's in her head.
link
eta: which do you trust more, Inside Edition or local Fox affiliates?
[youtube]zDdh7LkKQLQ[/youtube]
The brain is a delicate and complicated thing. A lot of people believe social anxiety is all in one's head, too.
can't even get the flu shots ifn you want em.
BD#1 (8 mos pregnant) was told yesterday by her doctor to get the shots, only to find out they ran out of h1n1 yesterday.
Apparently the neurology department at the U of Maryland is using this video to demonstrate psychogenic dystonia. She isn't making it up, but it's in her head. link
eta: which do you trust more, Inside Edition or local Fox affiliates?
[youtube]zDdh7LkKQLQ[/youtube]
Are you ƒucking kidding me?
This is what I learned from watching the video you posted:
The doctors who have actually examined her believe she has dystonia. Then "some guy" on the news
who hasn't examined her, but has seen some videos of her, thinks she might have this other condition.
A lot of people believe social anxiety is all in one's head, too.
Yes, stupid people. Psychiatric doctors believe differently, and as a result, they routinely cure people of it.
This is what I learned from watching the video you posted: The doctors who have actually examined her believe she has dystonia. Then "some guy" on the news who hasn't examined her, but has seen some videos of her, thinks she might have this other condition.
Yes, where "some guy" is Dr. Stephen Grill, who spent three years in a neurology residency; four years in a fellowship on movement disorders with the National Institutes of Health; is a Medical Advisor for the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation; is lead physician at the Parkinson's & Movement Disorders Center of Maryland; and is a tenured professor at Johns Hopkins, where Desiree was diagnosed.
Here's what the Dystonia Foundation has to say:
http://www.dystonia-foundation.org/pages/psychogenic_dystonia/85.php
[LIST]
[*]The diagnosis of psychogenic dystonia can be exceedingly difficult. Secondary dystonias and psychogenic dystonias, in particular, may have similar characteristics.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*] In most cases only an experienced movement disorder expert can identify the subtle aspects of an individual’s history and physical examination that support a psychogenic cause for the symptoms.
[/LIST]
There is still no way that someone can make a diagnosis of psychogenic dystonia by simply watching the video. There is A lot more work involved, AND EVEN THEN, getting a conclusive diagnosis is not easy. This guy is only on the show to say that psychogenic dystonia is a possibility (did he mention that it is usually only the case 3 % of the time, however?).
This is not the first time Dr. Harper [lead researcher in the development of Gardasil] revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old “is a great big public health experiment.”
At the time, which was at the height of Merck’s controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, “but no one will print it.”
...
Since the drug’s introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.
...
The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.
It just makes me cry.
Here's another one about how researchers are finally being heard about the fact that the flu vaccine (both seasonal and pandemic) has
zero efficacy.
It's scary. I had a friend who died from cervical cancer some years ago, and when gardisil first came out I thought "wish that had been around when I was younger."
I just trusted that, if they put it on the market, it's OK.
I've learned a lot from this thread.
And I don't get flu shots, either.
The Dystonia Foundation follows up on Desiree Jennings:
Because of the concern of individuals with dystonia as to whether or not to get a flu shot because of this reported case, we have sought the opinion of dystonia experts on this case. Based on the footage that has been shared with the public, it is their unanimous consensus that this case does not appear to be dystonia.
We have here a case of media failure. Who said the shot was causal? No doctors, no experts... Desiree made that connection, and the media cascaded along. 1000 stories in Google News said "Woman has shot, gets ill." Reporters don't take science classes, they don't take logic classes, and they and their editors are biased to cover stories that sound scary and alarming.
And then they make them scarier and more alarming. Inside Edition didn't interview any experts in their story. Did they ask a neurologist and not get a scary enough narrative out of it? Or did they simply not try?
The HPV vaccine article doesn't give us the total number of people who have received the injection, so when they say that x large number have experienced side effects, you can't compare it to the total number to see if it's a lot of people or not. Then they go on to say that the side effects
include all these nasty things. What they don't say is how many of the side effects reported were redness at the injection site, and how many were sudden death. To absorb this information we need a chart. Boing Boing ran a
link to a chart a few weeks ago. The chart shows that the vaccine is very safe for the overwhelming majority of girls.
99.9% of girls injected with the vaccine experience no side effects at all
99.993% of girls injected with the vaccine experience no
serious side effects
99.9999% of girls injected with the vaccine don't die from it
the lifetime risk for a woman dying of cervical cancer is one in 500.
the lifetime risk for a woman dying from the HPV vaccine is one in 145,000.
It sucks if you are that one person in 145,000, but look at the overall numbers and compare risk.
I'm no expert in the HPV vaccine, but we will need to make the choice soon about whether our daughter should get it. It helps to have charts that show the risks, not scare articles that throw numbers around without any context. Sure, if you focus on the one girl who dropped dead an hour later, it's scary as hell, but what about 20 million who are just fine after getting the vaccine?
I still lean towards supporting it. We got it for our girls and my sons girl friend.
the lifetime risk for a woman dying of cervical cancer is one in 500.
Cite please? The article linked above indicated that it was far, far lower than that, even moreso when you consider that 4 out of 5 cases are in developing countries. 1 in 500 women in America does not die of cervical cancer, even measured over a lifetime.
The question is not just how dangerous is it, the question is how effective is it. If it does not actually do anything to lower the rate of cervical cancer, it doesn't matter how safe it is or isn't.
She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that “even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US.”
There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.
We have here a case of media failure. Who said the shot was causal? No doctors, no experts... Desiree made that connection, and the media cascaded along. 1000 stories in Google News said "Woman has shot, gets ill." Reporters don't take science classes, they don't take logic classes, and they and their editors are biased to cover stories that sound scary and alarming.
And then they make them scarier and more alarming. Inside Edition didn't interview any experts in their story. Did they ask a neurologist and not get a scary enough narrative out of it? Or did they simply not try?
Her neurologist says she has dystonia, as that is what he diagnosed her as having. She did not just head over to WebMD and diagnose her own symptoms. Frankly it's irrelevant whether it is specifically dystonia or not; she sure as fuck has something neurological going on. You are correct that no one can prove the flu shot caused it, either directly or indirectly. But so far no one can prove another cause for it either--and severe neurological diseases do not suddenly show up one day in normal healthy people. Historically it's already been proven that severe neurological impairments
can sometimes occur
as a result of rushed, poorly tested flu vaccines.
As glatt pointed out, it's a question of risk versus benefit, as is everything in life. But what if there is no benefit at all? There's a lot of evidence that the flu shot does not protect you from the flu, and the lead research developer of Gardasil says that it isn't going to measurably reduce the rate of cervical cancer in this country. 44 girls should not have to die for that, even if they're only 44 out of 20 million.
Cite please?
The cite was the chart I linked to. The other numbers in that chart pretty closely matched the numbers in the article.
Well the blog author doesn't say how he calculated the 1 in 500 number (he acknowledges that at least some of the risk numbers were calculated himself, and he has already adjusted those numbers 3 times at the bottom of the post after commenters pointed out his faulty math.) He does generically cite the CDC as a source.
The
CDC says that:
In 2003, 3,919 women died from cervical cancer.
That's deaths actually in the US (compared to 250,000 worldwide, according to the
National Cancer Institute.) I have a hard time believing that 4,000 out of roughly 150 million total population of women equals a 1:500 chance of cervical cancer death over one's lifetime, but I'd be happy to see the math.
Keep in mind though, that you have to compare equal populations--according to your link, there were roughly 750 cases of severe side effects (like blood clots and transverse myelitis) after 20.4 million doses. Multiply by a factor of 7.35 to see the number of side effects that would be seen if the entire population of women were vaccinated, and you've now got just over 5,500 women severely damaged by this vaccine, compared to under 4,000 who are dying from it. Some might say you should also multiply by three at this point, because one must get at least 2 more booster shots of the vaccine to retain immunity over the years, but on the other hand someone who's already been vaccinated once with no side effects is probably less likely to suffer side effects later on. Not impossible, but less likely. So now we're at somewhere more than 5,500, but less than 16,500. In the meantime, the number of deaths from the vaccine has also gone up to somewhere between 150 and 450 (using your site's numbers of 20 deaths) or somewhere between 320 and 970 (using my site's numbers of 44 deaths.)
Now also, don't forget that fully 30% of those 4,000 cervical cancer deaths are
caused by other types of HPV that are not included in the HPV vaccine. So really, only 2800 people are dying each year from the type of HPV that could be prevented by the vaccine. And the National Cancer Institute still notes that the majority of those could also be prevented by getting regular pap smears and sticking to a few monogamous relationships over one's lifetime.
Let's use your numbers. The vaccine has killed 44 people since its inception a few years ago. It's been out for a few years now, so it's like 10 deaths or so a year. (a guesstimate) On the other hand you have 2,800 cancer deaths in a year. That's the fair comparison. 10 vs 2,800. Death vs. death. Cancer is 280 times deadlier than the vaccine.
The chart said that the odds of dying of cervical cancer are 1 in 500 and dying of the vaccine are 1 in 145,000. According to that chart, cancer is 290 times deadlier than the vaccine.
The chart talks about lifetime risks, and your numbers are annual risks, but the comparison winds up in the same ballpark. Cancer is 280 times deadlier according to your numbers and 290 times deadlier according to the chart's numbers.
When you compare injuries to death, the results can be wildly different but then you aren't comparing apples to apples. If you want to talk about the number of serious side effects, then on the other arm of the scale, you should be talking about women who have survived cancer.
Compare deaths to deaths, and injuries to injuries. Compare annual risks to annual risks, and lifetime risks to lifetime risks.
You have to add some anal cancers, such as what Farrah Fawcett died from.
Frankly it's irrelevant whether it is specifically dystonia or not; she sure as fuck has something neurological going on.
Something neurological OR something psychosomatic. Sure as fuckity-fuck!
You are correct that no one can prove the flu shot caused it, either directly or indirectly. But so far no one can prove another cause for it either--and severe neurological diseases do not suddenly show up one day in normal healthy people.
This sentence seems like an argument from logic but isn't. I parse it as, "Something had to have caused it, because something caused it."
Something neurological OR something psychosomatic.
And yet you are so personally offended (and rightly so, in my opinion) when someone suggests
your symptoms are psychosomatic, and yours don't even have overt physical symptoms. You are dismissing this woman's problem as psychosomatic
only because she has made the connection that the vaccine happened just before onset, which is exactly the reason the dystonia foundation has "reviewed the videos" and come to that conclusion as well. Except for you, the reason is only cognitive dissonance--you know vaccines are safe because you believe pharmaceutical researchers have been honest with themselves and with you, so it must not be possible that this vaccine damaged her in the way she says it has. (Which is funny, since the CDC will readily admit such things are possible, they just point out the numbers are very small and the benefits outweigh the risks.) In the case of the dystonia foundation, it is both cognitive dissonance and political pressure. Maybe some had doubts, maybe some didn't, but it would certainly be a career-ender for any member of that team to come to any conclusion other than the one they did.
This is a woman who received a flu vaccine every single year up to this point; she was not an anti-vaccine proponent looking for a scandal. You want to tell me that 'them's the breaks, one woman with a severe muscular disorder is worth it for thousands of people to be saved from the flu,' then fine, I'll accept that you feel that way. But it is hypocritical for you to broadly declare that all she needs is a little talk therapy, and just as offensive to me as when someone says it to you.
Let's use your numbers. The vaccine has killed 44 people since its inception a few years ago. It's been out for a few years now, so it's like 10 deaths or so a year. (a guesstimate) On the other hand you have 2,800 cancer deaths in a year. That's the fair comparison. 10 vs 2,800. Death vs. death. Cancer is 280 times deadlier than the vaccine.
The chart said that the odds of dying of cervical cancer are 1 in 500 and dying of the vaccine are 1 in 145,000. According to that chart, cancer is 290 times deadlier than the vaccine.
The chart talks about lifetime risks, and your numbers are annual risks, but the comparison winds up in the same ballpark. Cancer is 280 times deadlier according to your numbers and 290 times deadlier according to the chart's numbers.
When you compare injuries to death, the results can be wildly different but then you aren't comparing apples to apples. If you want to talk about the number of serious side effects, then on the other arm of the scale, you should be talking about women who have survived cancer.
Compare deaths to deaths, and injuries to injuries. Compare annual risks to annual risks, and lifetime risks to lifetime risks.
That's a fair numbers-to-numbers comparison. It would be interesting to know what the rate of lifelong complications are among cervical cancer survivors. But I would still point out that getting cervical cancer is not a purely statistical chance. The rate of cervical cancer deaths has not gone down yet despite the use of the vaccine, because the people responsible enough to go to the doctor to get vaccinated are by and large not the people who are getting the disease in the first place. If you believe your daughter will attend her annual gynecological exams, and have a responsible sex life as an adult, then her personal risk of cervical cancer is far, far lower than the national average. No one can yet pinpoint the risk factors for vaccine reaction though, so her risk for that is going to stay just as high as it is now until someone can.
Everyone's got to make their own call about their own risk level. But it's not a game of Russian Roulette, individual behavior
does play a role.
Look at you getting way personal two moves ahead! So that we don't oversimplify social phobia for the sake of winning an Internet argument: like all mental illnesses, there are certainly biological and psychological components which overlap to a great degree. The mind even has the ability to change its own chemistry, which makes the matter very complicated.
You are dismissing this woman's problem as psychosomatic only because she has made the connection that the vaccine happened just before onset
No
You are accepting this woman's problem as evidence of harm via vaccine... why? There's no actual evidence. You say things like, nobody else proved any other cause! But that explanation doesn't make any sense, you know?
I am offering an alternate explanation for why she is experiencing her symptoms. I am skeptical of the explanation that you and
Inside Edition offered, because I find it to be weak, and I seek facts to understand it more completely.
Skepticism is healthy, and you should welcome challenges to your beliefs. When your point of view is challenged, either you will find that you are correct and thus your view is strengthened, or you find that you are incorrect and thus you change your view. In either case you are improved by it.
You know that thing Flint's always saying, about how when people piss you off it's because they remind you of you?
You make me lose my shit on this topic because you are everything I used to be, before I learned the hard way I was wrong. Do some searching and you'll find me making your exact same arguments as recently as a year and a half ago right here on this board. You think this argument is precisely on par with evolution versus creation. Because I did too. You think you have Science on your side, while I have nothing but desperation and irrational scapegoatism. Because I did too. We could have competed over who could be the most magnanimously smug, the most brutally martyred by our objectivity.
You are accepting this woman's problem as evidence of harm via vaccine... why?
No, let's back up. I'm accepting this woman's problem, and I am only pissed because you are not. Maybe her dystonia wasn't triggered by the vaccine, that's certainly a possibility. But we left that topic several posts ago to instead discuss whether she even has dystonia. You say you are offering an "alternate explanation" for her symptoms, when in fact you are relegating her symptoms into nonexistence. I will readily face the argument that her dystonia was some sort of genetic time bomb just waiting to go off, and the timing of the vaccine was a coincidence. But don't try and tell me this is psychogenic. Psychogenic dystonia is a result of severe depression, anxiety, and/or existing personality disorders. The Dystonia Foundation themselves say that:
Given the complexities of the diagnosis of dystonia in general, the diagnosis of psychogenic dystonia can only be made by a physician with considerable experience in the field of dystonia and other abnormal movement disorders, often working in partnership with a psychiatric expert in conversion disorders. Patients must be evaluated several times or over a prolonged period before a definitive diagnosis of psychogenic dystonia can be made. A single psychiatric interview is not sufficient to demonstrate the underlying psychiatric dysfunction.
The group of doctors who came to the conclusion that her dystonia was psychogenic based on less than 5 minutes of video footage are playing a political game. It is not possible for them to come to that conclusion, and they should have said so when they were asked. But their entire goal with this assessment was damage control--when else would a group of doctors voluntarily start diagnosing patients via video, for free?--and once asked, it would be career suicide for them to conclude otherwise.
I am getting personal because I have experience being dismissed by doctors for political reasons. You are doing the exact same thing my pediatrician did when she told me my son doesn't actually have chronic diarrhea. She only narrowly missed trying to tell me that was psychological on his part too. You are not "seeking facts" to understand her condition, you are finding ways to pretend she doesn't have a condition. I can accept that it might be a coincidental case of dystonia. I will not let you try and claim that it's all in her head.
Oh, and
Skepticism is healthy, and you should welcome challenges to your beliefs. When your point of view is challenged, either you will find that you are correct and thus your view is strengthened, or you find that you are incorrect and thus you change your view. In either case you are improved by it.
Don't fucking patronize me. I know what it's like to view science as a religion and pretend it's healthy skepticism. My point of view
was challenged, and I found I was incorrect. I've switched sides, and I'm not coming back.
I
know nothing I say is ever going to convince you, because nothing anyone said on this topic would have convinced me either. I was so much better at being skeptical than they were, you see. But I say it anyway, just like people kept saying it to me, because that's all I can do. Somebody's always listening, even if it's not people like me.
That's a fair numbers-to-numbers comparison.
Thanks. I was trying to be as fair as possible.
Everyone's got to make their own call about their own risk level. But it's not a game of Russian Roulette, individual behavior does play a role.
Absolutely! But it's hard to even begin to get a sense of what a personal risk level might be when articles like the one posted above can put such a sensational spin on the overall numbers.
And you don't have a crystal ball. Try as you might, to send your kid down the right path, they'll live their own life. This is just one of the choices you have to make about preparing them.
Sensationalism doesn't generally help, I agree. But sometimes sensationalism can be an understandable response to the number of people in denial--people who, for example, can and do claim that the dozens of deaths were all completely coincidental. Sometimes it's useful to bring up the healthy girl who dropped dead an hour later, because it's harder to write off. The extremes help prove the middle ground.
No, let's back up. I'm accepting this woman's problem, and I am only pissed because you are not. Maybe her dystonia wasn't triggered by the vaccine, that's certainly a possibility.
You have
changed your mind! This is HUGE! Originally you said:
A routine flu vaccination triggered a severe, permanent neurological reaction in this otherwise healthy woman.
Now you say:
I will readily face the argument that her dystonia was some sort of genetic time bomb just waiting to go off, and the timing of the vaccine was a coincidence.
*kisses*
We are in agreement.
But don't try and tell me this is psychogenic. Psychogenic dystonia is a result of severe depression, anxiety, and/or existing personality disorders.
Wait. You are against diagnosis that doesn't come from direct examination. How is it that you have made this conclusion? Against your own counsel, you are making sweeping assumptions about Desiree's condition.
The group of doctors who came to the conclusion that her dystonia was psychogenic based on less than 5 minutes of video footage are playing a political game. It is not possible for them to come to that conclusion, and they should have said so when they were asked. But their entire goal with this assessment was damage control--when else would a group of doctors voluntarily start diagnosing patients via video, for free?--and once asked, it would be career suicide for them to conclude otherwise.
You would have to be an expert on dystonia to say what conclusion they could draw. Are you? I am not an expert, but I can easily imagine how the video could have evidence that experts can see, that may not have even been seen by the original doctors; who may or may not have been experts in dystonia themselves (we don't know).
You are not "seeking facts" to understand her condition, you are finding ways to pretend she doesn't have a condition. I can accept that it might be a coincidental case of dystonia. I will not let you try and claim that it's all in her head.
On the contrary, I *am* seeking facts and will *only* allow *facts* in my understanding of the situation. I am not claiming it's in her head. I'm claiming that's possible, maybe even probable, based on what we know.
I know you are angry about your own situation. It seems to inform you on everything you see on the topic. You're like a woman I met, who
just knew that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill,
because a black man had sexually harassed her. Q.E.D.? Not so fast. I am sorry for your situation and what you have gone through, and I understand that your experiences inform you in ways I am not informed. However, all that only matters in your own case. In other cases, it proves little to nothing.
I know nothing I say is ever going to convince you, because nothing anyone said on this topic would have convinced me either.
You want to change my mind? Come up with an argument better than "Sure as fuck." Draw real causal relationships. I cannot defend against consistent, logical argument. That is the only thing that really changes my mind, and by the way, it happens all the time when I am discussing things with people who make such arguments.
I have a google news alert set for desiree jennings. I will post any updates I find, no matter whose "side" they seem to be on.
I am not claiming it's in her head. I'm claiming that's possible, maybe even probable, based on what we know.
You have
changed your mind! This is HUGE! Originally you said:
She isn't making it up, but it's in her head.
Now you say:
I am not claiming it's in her head.
*kisses*
We are in agreement.
You would have to be an expert on dystonia to say what conclusion they could draw. Are you? I am not an expert, but I can easily imagine how the video could have evidence that experts can see, that may not have even been seen by the original doctors; who may or may not have been experts in dystonia themselves (we don't know).
You misunderstood, I am not saying which conclusion they must draw, I am saying it is impossible for them to have come to any conclusion, and they should have admitted that. I do not find it imaginable that a video clip could have subtle evidence for experts to find when the Dystonia Foundation says that
multiple, extended psychiatric evaluations are necessary before reaching the conclusion they say they reached in five minutes of video. It's unethical and irresponsible for doctors who haven't examined her to announce to the press that she doesn't have what her doctor says she has.
Wait. You are against diagnosis that doesn't come from direct examination. How is it that you have made this conclusion? Against your own counsel, you are making sweeping assumptions about Desiree's condition.
Her doctor did give her a direct examination. He diagnosed her with dystonia. Until I hear *facts* otherwise, that's the conclusion I'm sticking with.
I know you are angry about your own situation. It seems to inform you on everything you see on the topic. You're like a woman I met, who just knew that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill, because a black man had sexually harassed her. Q.E.D.? Not so fast. I am sorry for your situation and what you have gone through, and I understand that your experiences inform you in ways I am not informed. However, all that only matters in your own case. In other cases, it proves little to nothing.
I have been trying to honestly evaluate whether my distrust has unfairly spread, and I don't believe it has. Your friend was harassed by a different man. Merck Pharmaceuticals makes the Gardasil vaccine, and the MMR vaccine, among most other childhood vaccines. While it's true that "prior bad acts" are often not allowed to affect judgment in a court of law, I don't think it's on the same level of judging an entirely separate entity on the actions of another. I believe Merck to be an untrustworthy and corrupt company, who does not adequately research the safety of their vaccines before rushing them through FDA approval, and I will judge all their products, research, and actions with that in mind.
Heh heh, well played. Apparently we are both guilty of a little rhetoric.
Hoax, self-hoax, or evolving symptoms?
[youtube]Hw6aG77jWBA[/youtube]
Generation Rescue shipping her to their LA doctors. Her speech sounds much better here.
[youtube]a_Hwx3UTM7M[/youtube]
Well at least we now know what Hitler would have thought about Desiree Jennings. :rolleyes:
I find this video silly, to be honest. (edit: the first video) It basically compares three clips, claiming all three are significantly different. Except in clip 2 she is specifically saying the tongue/neck problem is new, so it doesn't seem that she's trying to hide anything. Maybe the focus of muscular spasms can shift around in real dystonia, maybe they can't, I don't know. If they can't, that would certainly be evidence that it's psychological, though still not necessarily a "lie" as the videomaker implies.
2 and 3 look the same to me; the video creator is claiming her grammar is somehow affected now when it wasn't before. But I don't find the phrase "It started with me not being able to eat without passing out" to be at all unusual. Maybe that's just because I'm from Texas, people talk like that down here.
And yeah, the video loses a lot of credibility by quoting Hitler, putting "cheerleader" in scare quotes (what--she's not really a cheerleader either?,) and overtly mocking her speech pattern.
Like I said, if the muscle spasms can't shift focus in clinical dystonia, then maybe that really was the only clue they needed to declare it was psychological. But it seems to me that a disorder of unpredictable muscle movement would cause the muscle groups to move... unpredictably.
You do see where this is going, right? If her symptoms can be improved, "mom4education" and those like her will say it is proof she was faking all along. If her symptoms can't, they will triumphantly point to it as proof that these treatments they're using on autistic kids don't really work.
The Inside Edition segment says she was training to be a Redskins cheerleader. Since then every report has said she IS a Redskins cheerleader. She's actually an "Ambassador", which means she doesn't cheer on the field but goes around the stadium greeting fans and stuff.
http://www.redskins.com/gen/articles/Desiree_59767.jspYou do see where this is going, right? If her symptoms can be improved, "mom4education" and those like her will say it is proof she was faking all along. If her symptoms can't, they will triumphantly point to it as proof that these treatments they're using on autistic kids don't really work.
[YOUTUBE]2O014fPXScU[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]TmPOS5w1UBY[/YOUTUBE]
Do some searching and you'll find me making your exact same arguments as recently as a year and a half ago right here on this board.
Did you think I was crazy? It doesn't really matter (and maybe you still do, lol) I'm just curious, in a self-absorbed kinda way....
Not crazy, just wrong. Foolishly misguided by people whose overriding philosophy was really just anti-government. I figured you were cherry-picking flawed studies that proved your point, while holding as rock-solid the assumption that my federal studies couldn't be flawed because they were done by proper scientists using proper scientific methods. When your studies did look really convincing, then I fell back on the safety net of "well of course there are dangers, everyone knows that, but the risks are tiny and the benefits outweigh them." I don't honestly remember you getting into the autism/vaccine connection specifically, more just warning of the problems with a lot of marketed drugs, which I've always agreed with. In my head, drugs for profit were one thing, and scientific studies were another, and never could one be used to influence the other.
the lifetime risk for a woman dying of cervical cancer is one in 500.
the lifetime risk for a woman dying from the HPV vaccine is one in 145,000.
what is the risk dying from cc after you've had the vaccine?
what is the risk dying from cc after you've had the vaccine?
I think it's too soon to tell, but the vaccine only eliminates some of the causes of the cancer.
Thanks clod, I appreciate the perspective.
Clod, maybe a leading question... based on your new understanding, if you yourself got, say, H1N1, would you think differently about the treatments that you were prescribed?
I think it's too soon to tell, but the vaccine only eliminates some of the causes of the cancer.
So it may be that it's no use at all. it could be that eliminating those causes leaves room for other causes to step in. We don't know. Or it could be that the women who die from cervical cancer die from the type caused by non HPV factors.
It's not as clear cut a decision as those stats would suggest is all I'm saying.
It's not as clear cut a decision as those stats would suggest is all I'm saying.
Not to mention the fact that it's 100% irrelevant until the girl is sexually active or about to be. It's not a now-or-never proposition; one can always get it later.
Clod, maybe a leading question... based on your new understanding, if you yourself got, say, H1N1, would you think differently about the treatments that you were prescribed?
It's a hard hypothetical to examine, because I feel pretty certain that I'd never know it even if I did get H1N1. The vast majority of cases display basic flu symptoms, and then they get better. I don't go to the doctor when I have mild illness, so I'd never have the chance to get tested. But if I were one of the rare ones who spiked a high fever, or developed breathing complications, and then I went to the hospital and confirmed it... nothing would change for me, because I never got the flu shot before all this happened either. I would definitely be a lot more cautious about being contagious around my kids now than I would have before, but that's a direct result of the fact that they're immuno-compromised (aside from whether a vaccine triggered it or not, their blood tests currently show severe immune dysfunction.) If one of my kids got H1N1, from me or somewhere else, it would be the same situation as if I got it, because I never gave them flu shots before either, so it's not like the events of the past year would have changed anything in that regard. So no, I wouldn't feel like I had somehow made the wrong choice, or anything.
To go ahead and follow the lead, the meat of the issue is of course what I would feel if they got a disease they might have been vaccinated against but weren't. But again, it's not a realistic hypothetical: Minifob got all his shots through age 2, so he's actually just in booster territory from here on out. And the only major one that Minifobette missed out on is Varicella A, or chicken pox. The incidence of severe complications from chicken pox in children is so low, I would honestly probably attribute any severe reaction on her part to the fact that she's already immuno-compromised, not as an indication that she should have been vaccinated after all.
Chicken pox is much more dangerous in adults, of course, so let's say my daughter gets it when she's in her twenties instead. By that time, she will either be recovered from autism, or still basically in my care. If she's recovered, I will have left the decision about whether to get the shot to protect herself late in life up to her, knowing what she knows about her genetics. If she's still in my care, I will have a good idea of what her immune system is currently doing, and can base a later decision on that. I would hope that by that time the increasing public outcry will have led to safer, perhaps airborne vaccines that do not require the use of adjuvants, at which point I would have to completely re-evaluate the safety of the new products.
It's all about the personal risk, not the average risk. I know my specific children cannot handle any kind of assault on their immune system at the moment, so there is basically a 1 out of 1 chance that a shot right now would be detrimental to them. Whatever the chances of severe complications from any actual disease are for them, they are less than that. So if they get the disease, I won't have any regrets because I took the lowest risk I could given where they are right now.
Now, let's say I have another baby, and I keep that child completely unvaccinated at least up until they are 4 or 5 (which I would.) And let's say
that child gets a devastating disease they could have been vaccinated for. I would feel terrible, certainly, but given what we know about that child's genetic tendencies, I'd still feel like we took the lowest risk option for that particular child. I think I'd honestly feel worse if I had a friend who chose not to vaccinate their child based on our experience (and we have several--not because we pressed our views on them at all, but because they knew our kids well and they watched the sudden changes in my daughter's health right alongside us) and their kid got sick.
Or it could be that the women who die from cervical cancer die from the type caused by non HPV factors.
Well, the
link Clodfobble provided in post 416 says Gardasil is "a vaccine that is highly effective in preventing infection with types 16 and 18, two “high-risk” HPVs that cause most (70 percent) cervical cancers."
So it's supposed to be "highly effective" for the viruses that cause 70% of cervical cancers.
The question, as Clodfobble has mentioned elsewhere, is if the women who would be getting the vaccine are also the same women who wouldn't be dying in huge numbers of the cancer because they would be getting regular pap screenings and might not be sleeping around so much.
You know, the whole "cervical cancer as punishment for being a slut" is really tiresome. I've read the same thing in another forum.
You can get aids from one sexual encounter.
I don't care if you slept with one guy or 5000 guys. I bet the perspective on the disease would be different if men were dying in droves. I'm surprised there's even an attempt at a vaccination: why hasn't it gone the way of ovarian cancer, in terms of breakthroughs being made? This makes the vaccine all the more suspicious, imo.
Eradicate Cervical Cancer: never ever have sex ever with anyone...never, ever.
That wasn't the lead, and I made a really bad choice of example maladies. Let's say instead that you get Lupus. The doctors prescribe for you a combination of
five different drugs: an anti-inflammatory, two corticosteroids, an immunosuppressive, and an anticoagulant. You'll take these as pills. Furthermore they want to begin a round of experimental treatment using monoclonal antibodies. (disclosure: WTF are monoclonal antibodies?)
Is there any difference between what you would say/do next now, as opposed to what you would have said two years ago?
Actually it may not be such a leading question, but like Jinx's question I am just interested in your thoughts on it. Regardless of whether it leads to more conversation.
You know, the whole "cervical cancer as punishment for being a slut" is really tiresome. I've read the same thing in another forum.
I assume you're referring to my comment about sleeping around. I guess I worded it wrong if that's how you took it. I didn't mean it that way. I meant only that each time someone has sex with a new person or a person who has has sex with a new person, they increase their odds of getting the viruses that cause cervical cancer. It's not a blame thing or a punishment thing. It just is.
Neurologist/skeptic blogger explains why GR dropped DJ:
Kurtz and Generation Rescue ran into a real patient advocacy group – Rogers Hartmann and dystonia activism. Hartmann runs an independent dystonia charity, lifewithdystonia.com. It was clear to Hartmann (as it was to anyone sufficiently familiar with dystonia) that Jennings did not have dystonia. She called Fox and Stan Kurtz – and then the furious backpedaling began. Until then [local Fox reporter] Coffey had accepted the story at face value, without any journalistic due diligence in evidence. When she learned that perhaps she had been snookered, the panicked calls to Hartmann began.
It was not until after Hartmann became involved, and the e-mails and phone calls of many other dystonia activists putting pressure on Fox, did they do follow up reporting, such as interviewing Dr. Stephen Grill about dystonia and the fact that Jennings does not have it.
It was also due to Hartmann that Generation Rescue was (partially) saved from its own stupidity and zealotry. Stan Kurtz was going full-steam ahead, as if Generation Rescue had the expertise to diagnose and treat vaccine-induced dystonia (an entity never reported in the medical literature). And then (after being contacted by Hartmann and having the truth of the matter explained to them) suddenly and without a word, Generation Rescue backed away from Jennings and took down the web page.
~snip~I meant only that each time someone has sex with a new person or a person who has has sex with a new person, they increase their odds of getting the viruses that cause cervical cancer.
I realize that, and I don't think for a minute that you would think it was punishment. It kind of points back to the subtlety in our language I alluded to in the "man's inhumanity to man, or woman" thread.
And also, you were not the first person I heard saying something like that.
It, to me, is kind of like saying that capital punishment is a deterrent. Do we really think that, with all the risks unprotected sex has always brought about, all of a sudden young women will be thinking, as a whole "no I won't have sex, I might get cervical cancer"?
This is not in keeping with the thread, and I'm sorry, but I do think there is an underlying "if you didn't sleep around so much you wouldn't have gotten cervical cancer" thought process that is just generally accepted. I find that sexist and unacceptable.
So though I know better than to think any of you really feel that way, I took the opportunity to point it out as it has been a recurring theme in other forums where I've read similar subject matter.
I didn't mean to point at you glatt. I know you're one of the good ones. I just seize opportunities to bark.
:)
OK, I'll quit hijacking.
Is there any difference between what you would say/do next now, as opposed to what you would have said two years ago?
There is, a bit. I'm not sure if you picked an auto-immune disease on purpose, but my understanding of auto-immune diseases specifically has changed pretty dramatically. The short answer is yes, I would eventually take the drugs to alleviate the symptoms, after I first attempted to fix the underlying problem through some treatments I wouldn't have known about two years ago.
It's actually a close parallel to how I feel about traditional autism therapies. They are great tools to help heal the wound, but the biomedical treatments take the knife out. Do that first, and the therapies (i.e. symptom treatment) are going to be that much more effective.
Another 22 children died from the flu this past week, at least 19 of them confirmed to be H1N1
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (possibly).
Funny thing to say, "at least 19 confirmed." It sounds like there were 19 confirmed, and maybe some others were also H1N1, but hadn't been confirmed.
Funny thing to say, "at least 19 confirmed." It sounds like there were 19 confirmed, and maybe some others were also H1N1, but hadn't been confirmed.
Some deaths might be from the regular flu. Some might be from pneumonia, which seems to get hold of people when their lungs are compromised by H1N1.
Here's an example of the stupid shit that gets research funding while the obvious avenues go unexplored.
I received an invitation today to participate in a study. They want to know if I have any home video footage of my autistic children, under the age of six months, that happens to show them crying or fussing. Because they're going to get a bunch of people in a room and see if they can isolate a difference in the sound of the cries of future-autistic babies and ones that turned out normal.
Let's even pretend for a moment that it's not stupid on its face. Say they do happen to find some completely unexpected, subtle difference in these babies' cries. This information will be diagnostically useless. How do you train every pediatrician in the country to discern the auditory difference? If your pediatrician is tone deaf, are they no longer qualified to be a pediatrician? Maybe it will become standard practice to record 5-10 seconds of crying at every baby's 4-month checkup, and then we can just send the millions of mp3s over to India for faster processing?
They're running out of ways to try and prove the autism was always secretly there from the beginning, and this is apparently what they have left to spend their money on.
But what if they play in backwards... at 78 rpm? :rolleyes:
Generation Rescue has put up an alternate Desiree Jennings page.
Here's an example of the stupid shit that gets research funding while the obvious avenues go unexplored.
I received an invitation today to participate in a study. They want to know if I have any home video footage of my autistic children, under the age of six months, that happens to show them crying or fussing. Because they're going to get a bunch of people in a room and see if they can isolate a difference in the sound of the cries of future-autistic babies and ones that turned out normal.
Let's even pretend for a moment that it's not stupid on its face. Say they do happen to find some completely unexpected, subtle difference in these babies' cries. This information will be diagnostically useless. How do you train every pediatrician in the country to discern the auditory difference? If your pediatrician is tone deaf, are they no longer qualified to be a pediatrician? Maybe it will become standard practice to record 5-10 seconds of crying at every baby's 4-month checkup, and then we can just send the millions of mp3s over to India for faster processing?
They're running out of ways to try and prove the autism was always secretly there from the beginning, and this is apparently what they have left to spend their money on.
This has probably been answered before, but are most autistic children born that way or do they become autistic because of some outside assault on brain function, i.e. flu shots or what have you?
Here's an example of the stupid shit that gets research funding while the obvious avenues go unexplored.
Because a doctor will not hear the difference, then we should remain ignorant. You are confusing fundamental research with application research. Fundamental research only determines relationships, facts, and concepts. Makes no effort to make any of it useful. That is why the laser, transistors, satellites, and Unix were developed. Nobody had a clue what practical applications these would eventually have.
Application research later takes that new knowledge to ring something useful from it. The minute one combines application and fundamental together in a conclusion, as you have done (ie "How do you train every pediatrician in the country to discern the auditory difference?"), then research is stifled.
Shameful are the so many who 'know' what causes autism only because they ‘feel’. The same "I love to screw the world" logic that also proved Saddam's WMDs. We are supposed to have learned from that history how to think logically. Blaming autism on vaccines has been demonstrated to be from the same mindset that proved Saddam's WMDs: "I feel, therefore it must be true."
Electricity leaking from electrical receptacles also causes arthritis. Same logic that so many believed 100 years ago - therefore it was true.
Electricity also causes childhood leukemia. Also proven by the same hearsay.
Hey tw? I'm not going to discuss this topic with you. Just so you know. Your discussion style is harmless and amusing most of the time, but this is not one of those times for me.
This has probably been answered before, but are most autistic children born that way or do they become autistic because of some outside assault on brain function, i.e. flu shots or what have you?
That's the whole debate. Two very opposed sides, and one side has a lot more research funding, but neither has been able to definitively prove anything to the other's acceptance.
A small handful (approximately 5-10%) have been identified as having a provable, genetic link--those who are afflicted with Fragile X Syndrome, for example, which can present with autistic symptoms. The understanding is that these account for the cases of autism that were seen in past decades, as the rate of Fragile X in the population has held steady. But the rest have been statistically ruled-out as
not having those genes.
http://www.examiner.com/x-13791-Baltimore-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2009m11d4-Records-show-case-of-dystonia-is-psychogenic-and-not-related-to-flu-vaccine
Desiree Jennings' case has found its way into the VAERS database, in which all (known) adverse effects of vaccines are cataloged.
The admitting neurologist felt that there was a strong psychogenic component to the symptomology
Remember, Desiree can tell the media whatever she wants. The original diagnosing physicians aren't going to discuss it. Why: they could lose their license. They're prohibited by medical privacy laws.
Desiree immediately much better after chelation therapy
[youtube]GD1BAxVnFdc[/youtube]
Desiree has
own website
The treatments with Dr. Buttar at the Center for Advanced Medicine and Clinical Research in Charlotte, NC are working, and the results are nothing short of amazing. Jennings can now walk and talk normally throughout the vast majority of the day and the seizures/convulsions have significantly decreased. Although her full recovery will take an undetermined amount of time, her family is now for the first time, convinced she will make a complete recovery. She is now more than ever, driven by a desire to educate others to be informed of the potential side effects caused by vaccines and prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Neurologica blog interprets:
But, unknowingly, Dr. Buttar was about to administer what can be considered a significant test of the hypothesis that Jennings’ symptoms are psychogenic. One test we can use to help confirm this diagnosis is to see if the patient’s symptoms can respond to psychological treatments or to medical treatments that should not otherwise be capable of reversing the symptoms. A response that is too quick to be plausible, for example, is one type of response that supports a psychogenic diagnosis. One dramatic example from my own experience was a patient with apparently psychogenic symptoms who believed that he needed a specific IV medication as a treatment. After extensive negative workup, we agreed to give him the treatment, and his symptoms completely resolved even before the medicine had a chance to work its way through the IV tubing and into his arm.
If Jennings really had dystonia or any biological brain injury from toxicity, removing the toxin might prevent further progression and allow the slow process of recovery to begin. But brain damage does not immediately reverse itself once the cause is removed. It is possible for dystonia to be a side effect of certain medications, and it can immediately resolve once that medication is stopped or reversed. But in that situation we are dealing with an effect of an active blood level of a pharmaceutical agent – something which is inherently reversible. We are not dealing with damage or injury.
...
However, now Jennings herself, and Dr. Buttar, report that Jennings began to improve while still sitting in the chair and receiving her chelation therapy, and within 36 hours her symptoms were completely gone. First, let me say that I am very happy Ms. Jennings’ symptoms have resolved. Hopefully now she can just go on with her life. But to me, this impossibly rapid recovery is a dramatic confirmation that her symptoms were psychogenic to begin with. It is simply implausible that brain injury from mercury toxicity could be reversed so quickly – especially when you consider that Dr. Buttar had Jennings at death’s door.
I find the speed of her treatment to be pretty implausible, too. Usually chelation is a long process and requires repeated treatments. I've seen kids improve a surprising amount with just a single chelation treatment, but for Christ's sake, you at least have to pee first.
So where are all the people who helped her plan this, like with the Heene's? They're gonna miss their 15 mins if they don't hurry up...
Desiree Jennings' doctor,
Dr. Buttar, tweets that Jennings has been seizure free for a week now, down from 60 seizures per day.
Robert Scott Bell, on the Michael Savage show, is supportive, happy that holistic and detoxification treatment medicine cured her, while Johns Hopkins can't cure dystonia, only treat it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pnI-dDH7s
Rhodes also understands that there is a lot of changing information about H1N1, most of it a result of earlier misconceptions about how deadly the virus would turn out to be.
Data released by the CDC last week show at least 22 million Americans have contracted H1N1 since the outbreak began in April and 3,900 have died, including about 540 children.
The total is about three times the number of deaths the agency had been reporting. Previous figures were based on laboratory-confirmed cases, while the new number reflects the best estimate by agency epidemiologists.
The new numbers also suggest the toll from swine flu may approach that normally associated with seasonal flu. About 36,000 Americans die each year from the seasonal flu.
If there is a silver lining to the H1N1 virus, it is that so many people now have taken up good hygiene practices that will help stop the spread of flu in the future.
Those positive signs also were reflected in the latest poll, with 97 percent saying they plan to wash their hands more often and 84 percent saying they will use hand disinfectants.
In addition, Rhodes believes public perception about the H1N1 vaccine is changing, especially as more people are vaccinated and doubts begin to fade.
''Seeing is believing,'' he said. ''If you have a very active vaccine campaign in your own hometown and work sites and nothing bad happens, it's powerful proof.''
Link
Is that really proof or just supposition?
Desiree update:
interviewed by Fox affiliate that first aired her story.
When Desiree arrived there more than three weeks ago, she was in acute respiratory distress. She could barely breathe, and there were concerns she just wouldn't make it.
"Her face was starting to get that purplish bluish tint because she couldn't get air. Twice I looked at my head nurse like we may need to call EMS," says Dr Buttar.
But 24-48 hours later, Desiree was stable. And when we paid her a visit, she was walking and laughing, and was seemingly on the road to recovery.
"Overall I think my spirits are higher. I definitely feel light-- I have a positive future. Hopefully all of this will get better," says Jennings.
She's no longer having any seizures. She can speak perfectly normal whenever talking about the past or the future but her voice changes whenever she speaks about the time period when she was sick which began in early September.
Dr. Buttar describes it as a hard drive damaged on a computer, but that too, he says, will return.
Dr. Buttar offers a lot of diagnostic detail:
Dr. Buttar diagnosed Desiree with essentially a toxic reaction to the flu shot.
"My diagnosis of her is acute viral post immunization ensephalophosphy* and secondary mecury toxicity, which we just established as of this Friday.
When asked if her diagnosis was a result of the flu shot, Dr. Buttar responded, "Absolutely. Without a doubt? Without a doubt."
He says she was showing symptoms from a number of different conditions including dystonic side effects, which is why he says so many doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong with her. Desiree's private neurologist also diagnosed her with a dystonic reaction to the seasonal flu shot. Dr. Buttar treated her in what many traditional doctors might call an untraditional way.
"We took the toxins out of her system, we supported her system, we reduced inflammation and we started treating the injuries by giving her certain nutrients that the brain needed to help repair the neuroreceptors," says Buttar.
Those treatments included, among other things, time in a hyperbaric chamber and dozens of IV treatments containing synthetic amino acids and nutrients. Dr. Buttar believes with rest and continued treatment, Desiree will fully recover.
* He probably said "encephalopathy", but the writer of this article is a moron.
VAERS describes acute encephalopathy as
For adults and children 18 months of age or older, an acute encephalopathy is one that persists for at least 24 hours and is characterized by at least two of the following:
[LIST]
[*]A significant change in mental status that is not medication related: specifically a confusional state, or a delirium, or a psychosis;
[*]A significantly decreased level of consciousness, which is independent of a seizure and cannot be attributed to the effects of medication; and
[*]A seizure associated with loss of consciousness.
[/LIST]
VAERS is not interested unless your condition is chronic, lasting six months (48 hours is RIGHT OUT):
For purposes of the Reportable Events Table, a vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered an encephalopathy only if such recipient manifests, within the applicable period, an injury meeting the description below of an acute encephalopathy, and then a chronic encephalopathy persists in such person for more than 6 months beyond the date of vaccination.
tl;dr: Desiree was turning purple but was much better after 24-48 hours of alternative medicine treatment and almost completely cured in two weeks. Typical acute encephalopathy patients recover in a matter of six months.Typical acute encephalopathy patients recover in a matter of six months.
No, "typical" acute encephalopathy patients don't recover at all. The six month mark is just when they consider the condition to be a neurologically chronic one, as opposed to a short-term physical injury that heals on its own, like from a concussion. You also seem to be confusing your timelines: it was 48 hours after the start of treatment that she showed major improvement, but how many weeks/months had the symptoms been present before she started treatment? There's your measurement for whether her condition lasted long enough to be considered chronic.
It's also important to understand that encephalopathy is an incredibly broad term that really just means some kind of neurological dysfunction. Autism, epilepsy, and a host of other diseases all fall under the encephalopathy umbrella.
There are many types of encephalopathy. Some examples include:
[LIST]
[*]
Mitochondrial encephalopathy - Metabolic disorder caused by dysfunction of mitochondrial DNA. Can affect many body systems, particularly the brain and nervous system.
[*]
Glycine encephalopathy - A pediatric metabolic disorder
[*]
Hepatic encephalopathy - Arising from advanced cirrhosis of the liver
[*]
Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy - Permanent or transitory encephalopathy arising from severely reduced oxygen delivery to the brain
[*]Static encephalopathy - Unchanging, or permanent, brain damage
[*]
Uremic encephalopathy - Arising from high levels of toxins normally cleared by the kidneys -- rare where dialysis is readily available
[*]
Wernicke's encephalopathy - Arising from thiamine deficiency, usually in the setting of alcoholism
[*]
Hashimoto's encephalopathy - Arising from an auto-immune disorder
[*]Hypertensive encephalopathy - Arising from acutely increased blood pressure
[*]
Lyme encephalopathy - Arising from the Borrelia Burgdorferi bacteria.
[*]
Toxic encephalopathy - A form of encephalopathy caused by chemicals, often resulting in permanent brain damage
[*]
Toxic-Metabolic encephalopathy - A catch-all for brain dysfunction caused by infection, organ failure, or intoxication
[*]
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy - A collection of diseases all caused by prions, and characterized by "spongy" brain tissue (riddled with holes), impaired locomotion or coordination, and a 40 out of 40 fatality rate. Includes
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease),
scrapie, and
kuru among others.
[/LIST]
Encephalopathy alters brain function and/or structure. It may be caused by an infectious agent (
bacteria,
virus, or
prion),
metabolic or
mitochondrial dysfunction,
brain tumor or increased
intracranial pressure, exposure to toxins (including solvents, excess animal protein, drugs,
alcohol, paints, industrial chemicals, and certain metals), radiation, trauma, poor nutrition, or lack of
oxygen or blood flow to the brain.
The hallmark of encephalopathy is an altered mental state. Depending on the type and severity of encephalopathy, common neurological symptoms are loss of cognitive function, subtle personality changes, inability to concentrate, lethargy, and depressed consciousness. Other neurological signs may include
myoclonus (involuntary twitching of a muscle or group of muscles),
asterixis (abrupt loss of muscle tone, quickly restored),
nystagmus (rapid, involuntary eye movement), tremor,
seizures, jactitation (restless picking at things characteristic of severe infection), and respiratory abnormalities such as Cheyne-Stokes respiration (cyclic waxing and waning of tidal volume), apneustic respirations, and post-hypercapnic apnea.
[COLOR=Black]
I don't believe that autism falls under encephalopathy.
I can understand your angle of of toxic-metabolic encephalopathy in regards to autism which would be symptomatic but autism in itself is asymptomatic. [/COLOR]
You just Googled that 15 minutes ago, didn't you?
I don't believe that autism falls under encephalopathy.
Sorry, but you're not a neurologist. My son's current official diagnosis is actually "encephalopathy with autistic symptom presentation." The underlying hypothesis of the treatments we are pursuing is that most cases of autism are actually combinations of mitochondrial encephalopathy, atypical Glycine encephalopathy, and toxic encephalopathy. In addition, many autistic kids have been found to have chronic Lyme infections and thiamine deficiencies, both of which can also lead to encephalopathy, but these seem to be relatively small contributors compared to the other conditions.
I have no idea what "autism in itself is asymptomatic" is supposed to mean.
You just Googled that 15 minutes ago, didn't you?
lol yes flint I can too be an instant expert hehheh
asymptomatic =
People can be on the autism spectrum without having any symptoms. In other words there is nothing to cure.
It is not a disease.
No I am not a neurologist.I am not talking about your experience. I get that.
I am not sure how pointing that out is helpful or respectful since you don't even know who you are talking to. As far as you know I could be a parent just like you with a child deemed autistic/pdd/aspergers.
I might be a special ed IA working with autistic kids.
You just never know and your experiences are true for you as I said but you are about treating organically the toxins that create reactions in your kids. I say great!
People can be on the autism spectrum without having any symptoms.
No, by definition they can't. They cannot prove what causes autism spectrum disorders, and there is no test for it. It
is by very definition the presentation of the symptoms. There are many on the spectrum who can certainly function in day-to-day life just fine, and who would not be considered in any way disabled, but they still have certain classifiable symptoms, or they are not on the spectrum.
It's not about one experience versus another. You wrote an incorrect statement regarding the neurological definition and scope of encephalopathy. It wouldn't matter if you were an ASD parent, a special ed IA, or an actual degreed neurologist, your statement would still be factually wrong.
I should have said not having any symptoms of a disease.
Just because some people have trained themselves to function day to day they still may be on the autism spectrum. One can train oneself not to present those traits but still be on the autism spectrum.
I am trying to say and not very well is that the encephalopathy is a symptom and the autism is not. One is symptomatic and one is not.
So I agree with UT. The symptoms of encephalopathy can be treated but autism in itself is not a treatable disease. Autism isn't a symptom so it is not a disease referring what you said here:
[/quote clodfobble]
It's also important to understand that encephalopathy is an incredibly broad term that really just means some kind of neurological dysfunction. Autism, epilepsy, and a host of other diseases all fall under the encephalopathy umbrella. [/quote]
ps. I'm tired so lets just agree to disagree. :) -peace
I'm sure UT is thrilled to have you lend your credence to his side.
I can understand your angle of of toxic-metabolic encephalopathy in regards to autism which would be symptomatic but autism in itself is asymptomatic.
Whoa, wait a damn minute here.
asymptomatic = adjective: having no symptoms of illness or disease.
If there are millions of kids with Autism, and Autism in asymptomatic, how the fuck do we know they have Autism? That makes no sense at all. :headshake
Thanks for the corrections C. Desiree developed symptoms in early September and was treated by Dr. Buttar in late October.
Totally unfair leading question: based on what you know, would you have Dr. Buttar treat your son?
Based on what I know, I'd consider it, but I'd have to meet with him individually and discuss things with him to know for sure. He is following a general treatment path that I agree with; however, like any medical procedure, it's entirely possible to screw it up in very dangerous ways. The thing that is novel is not the treatments he's using, but rather what he's using them for. Chelation drugs have been around forever, and are the standard accepted treatment for known cases of heavy metal poisoning. Anti-inflammatories are accepted as routine for a host of diseases. Mitochondrial dysfunction has likewise been on the medical books for decades. The only "alternative" part about it is that he (and hundreds of other doctors around the country) is using these treatments on conditions that are not generally accepted to be rooted in heavy metal poisoning, or inflammation, or metabolic imbalance. But there are of course lab tests to definitively confirm these conditions, and responsible doctors in Dr. Buttar's field perform them and treat based on their results. (On the other hand, it's been my experience that mainstream doctors will refuse to even consider testing for these other, known conditions, because that would be a tacit admission that they could somehow be connected to the neurological symptoms, which is a great big political minefield that they all want to avoid.)
So I would need to find out what sort of tests he runs and what medical justification he uses for each treatment. For example, there are some DAN doctors who will immediately prescribe antifungals for any autistic child who comes to see them, because that is a commonly needed treatment. But if they are not running the stool and urine cultures to determine that there actually is an infection, what strain it is, and what is the most appropriate drug and dosage to use in that case--which is something I can (and would continue to do, in this hypothetical case) confirm with other mainstream doctors, even while they shake their heads at the lab reports and marvel at what a complete coincidence it is that my son happened to have all these underlying conditions like I said he did--then I would not let him treat my child.
Actual conversation with my pediatrician:
Me: So if I brought my daughter to you, and said that I caught her eating paint off an old building, what would you do?
Her: Well, we'd want to run some tests on the paint to see if it contained lead.
Me: What if we ran across it on our vacation, hundreds of miles away, and you couldn't test the paint?
Her: In that case we would need to go ahead and test her for lead poisoning.
Me: How would you do that?
Her: The only way to do it would be to give her a small amount of the drugs used to pull lead out of the body, and if elevated levels of lead came out in her urine, then we'd know she needed to continue to be on those drugs until it was gone.
Me: So if I showed you a lab report that showed she had a bunch of lead in her system, you would be totally fine with treating that?
Her: Yes, that would be proof the paint had lead in it.
Me: What if I lied, and she hadn't eaten any paint?
Her: Well the lab test would then show--
Me: No, the lab test still shows she has tons of lead in her system, but I'm telling you she didn't come in contact with any major known sources of lead in the last few weeks.
Her: Well the lead must have come from somewhere.
Me: Right. So would you order the tests for her right now?
Her: No, if she isn't showing symptoms of lead poisoning, and you didn't see her come in contact with any, then there's no point in ordering the test.
Me: What are the symptoms of lead poisoning?
Her: Well, they're hard to detect, but things like confusion, abdominal problems, cognitive problems...
Me: My daughter has all those things.
Her: But your daughter has autism, so that explains them.
Me: So if I got another doctor to order the lab tests, and brought them to you, would you be willing to treat her for lead poisoning then, if the tests showed she needed it?
Her: Well... no I would recommend you have that doctor treat her. I'm not going to be comfortable treating her for a condition I know she doesn't have.
Me: Even if the lab tests--the same lab tests you would order if I lied and said she had eaten lead paint--showed she did have the condition?
Her: Yes.
Assuming Dr. Buttar is responsible in his use of testing, the only difference between him and the rest of the medical community is he's actually bothering to investigate what might be wrong, rather than writing it off as something tragic and unknowable.
Based on what I know, I'd consider it
Followup A: Do you believe Desiree had acute encephalopathy?
Followup B: Do you believe that Dr. Buttar's treatments solved it?
No, by definition they can't. They cannot prove what causes autism spectrum disorders, and there is no test for it. It is by very definition the presentation of the symptoms. There are many on the spectrum who can certainly function in day-to-day life just fine, and who would not be considered in any way disabled, but they still have certain classifiable symptoms, or they are not on the spectrum.
There are others as well. Lupus for example. There is no "test" just a Dr's opinions based upon symptoms.
I am attempting to answer Bruce's question. I apologize for interrupting again. ( UT and Clod )
Sorry, but you're not a neurologist. My son's current official diagnosis is actually "encephalopathy with autistic symptom presentation." The underlying hypothesis of the treatments we are pursuing is that most cases of autism are actually combinations of mitochondrial encephalopathy, atypical Glycine encephalopathy, and toxic encephalopathy. I
If there are millions of kids with Autism, and Autism in asymptomatic, how the fuck do we know they have Autism? That makes no sense at all.
forget about my asymptomatic fumble. I used it meaning lacking a disease like encephalopathy. I used it badly but that doesn't make me wrong.
My summary of what I read last night.
Her son has an encephalopathy. She is focused on that area of symptomology.She and whomever 'are pursuing an hypothesis of
toxic encephalopathy'.
She is pursuing a hypothesis.
It is a theory which is true in her situation but she is using too broad a brush to include all of autism which I disagree with.
Then She said autism was under the encephalopathy
umbrella.
oh stop. - No toxic encephalopathy IS but autism is not.
(
my point)
You asked, how to people tell if someone has autism?
This is the official criteria for that disability.
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR 299.00 AUTISTIC DISORDER
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at
least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)
Autism, which affects thought, perception and attention, is not just one disorder with a well defined set of symptoms; autism is a broad spectrum of disorders that ranges from mild to severe. In addition, the behavior usually occurs across many different situations and is consistently inappropriate for their age.
In the diagnostic manual used to classify disabilities, the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), “autistic disorder” is listed as a category under the heading of “Pervasive Developmental Disorders.” A diagnosis of autistic disorder is made when an individual displays 6 or more of 12 symptoms listed across three major areas: social interaction, communication, and behavior. When children display similar behaviors but do not meet the criteria for autistic disorder, they may receive a diagnosis of Pervasive Developmental Disorder-NOS (PDD not otherwise specified).
Problems in social relatedness and communication.
(Difficulty in mixing with other children; prefers to be alone; aloof manner; difficulty in expressing needs; uses gestures or pointing instead of words ).
Abnormal responses to one or a
combination of senses; such as sight, hearing, touch, balance, smell, taste, reaction to pain.
Sustained odd play.
Uneven gross/ fine motor skills.
Not responsive to verbal cues
acts as deaf.
Little or no eye contact.
Insistence on sameness; resist changes in routine.
Noticeable physical over activity or extreme under activity.
Tantrums; displays extreme distress for no apparent reason
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR 299.00 AUTISTIC DISORDER
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at
least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)
(1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
a) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to
developmental level
c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing,
bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the
description, it gives the following as examples: not actively
participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary
activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or
"mechanical" aids )
(2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language
(not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic
language
d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social
imitative play appropriate to developmental level
(3) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior,
interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the
following:
a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in
intensity or focus
b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional
routines or rituals
c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole body movements)
d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
B. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:
(1) social interaction
(2) language as used in social communication
(3) symbolic or imaginative play
C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder
The critera for aspergers/PDD-Nos is a shorter list but simular.
Statement by Dr. Geri Dawson
Chief Science Officer, Autism Speaks
mitochondrial dysfunction
[B]What percentage of children with autism suffer from this? [/B]
There have been very few cases of mitochondrial disorders reported in autism. However, since individuals with mitochondrial dysfunction may not show symptoms, it is difficult to determine how prevalent it really is.
[B]What are the signs that a child has it?
[/B]It may present as low muscle tone and recurrent deteriorations. But
in many (if not most) cases it is probably asymptomatic.
[B]How would a vaccine influence a child with MD to cause autism? [/B]
An immune stimulation (including any infection) may increase the oxidative stress in cells (which could cause a child with a so far undiagnosed, asymptomatic mitochondrial dysfunction to now show evidence of the dysfunction). But it is also important to remember, an infection is a much greater immune stimulus than a vaccine inoculation.
Followup A: Do you believe Desiree had acute encephalopathy?
Followup B: Do you believe that Dr. Buttar's treatments solved it?
A.) Yes, insomuch as I believe her neurological symptoms were real and not psychogenic, that automatically puts them under the category of acute encephalopathy. Like I said, it's not really a very useful diagnostic term. The important question is what caused it.
B.) I believe they improved the symptoms, yes. She isn't cured yet by his own account, and I don't know that she ever will be. Many metabolic processes can be permanently thrown out of balance--perhaps she will eventually be symptom-free, but only with continued medication, I don't know. Given that he indicates they "established as of this Friday" her mecury poisoning, I would assume that he is referring to lab tests confirming the presence of mercury and they are therefore pulling it out of her system, so one would expect additional improvement as the levels go down. It would be impossible to have large amounts of mercury in your system that weren't having some kind of effect, otherwise it would not be known as a poisonous substance.
He started chelation on the first day he saw her and she was reported to be 95% symptom free within 36 hours. You were skeptical of these results in post #464... still?
From what I can see, the reporter writing that article indicated she was 95% symptom-free, while the actual doctor only said significant improvement. Your most recent article again indicates that the doctor says she is doing well, but not fully recovered.
Heavy metal tests and other metabolic screenings are almost always done by an outside lab, and can be ordered without seeing the doctor in person. Most doctors of this nature, because they are often in different states than their patients, order the tests remotely and then only see the patient when they get the results back and it is time to treat. If he started treating her with anything without the correct lab testing to back it up, then yes, I would consider that very irresponsible, though still possibly resulting in a successful treatment as even a stopped clock is sometimes right. I don't know what exact procedures she received, or what (if anything) her lab tests showed to justify it.
It was Dr. Buttar and Desiree themselves who reported that she was 95% symptom-free after 36 hours, and this was the video (which I posted earlier) that they made on day two:
[youtube]GD1BAxVnFdc[/youtube]
48 hours before, according to Buttar, she was seizing to the point where she could barely breathe.
Buttar
tweeted on Nov 8 that Desiree was seizure-free for a week. That would be day five of treatment. Buttar reported on
The Robert Scott Bell Show on Nov 4 that he treated her with chelation.
Sorry, I don't know how I missed that video earlier.
The purported severity of her seizure 48 hours ago doesn't raise any red flags with me, because the very nature of seizures is that they come and go and can vary in severity. More damning would be the idea that she is perhaps a typical epileptic rather than a new case of dystonia, because a real epileptic will tell you that they can be hit out of nowhere with a seizure severe enough to cause them to lose bowel control, and mere minutes later the seizure might be over and they will appear normal. My understanding of dystonia is that the seizures are more low-level and constant, but the severity can come and go there as well, as discussed by the dystonic patient in the video jinx posted earlier.
We're basically at an impasse, here. I find her story credible, because I have seen similar symptoms in other people starkly reduced in a similar manner with similar treatments. I'm not going to make a definitive proclamation one way or the other about her specific medical condition, because I haven't seen her lab tests (both before and after treatment,) and I don't know her or her doctor personally. Is it possible the whole thing is a huge scam? I suppose it is, but that would be silly, because there are hundreds if not thousands of other patients out there who have received similar, documented relief from these treatments. This one just happened to get picked up by the media. Not everyone wants to have their life thrown out there, you know--just last Thursday, I was sitting at a table with a dozen other women with autistic children who are in the process of recovering or are already completely recovered, and we were talking about the fact that I have been posting progress videos of my son on YouTube. As I was surprised to learn that night, I am the only one at the whole table who has done this. The rest of the women felt that they were so exhausted by just living with the process, they didn't have the time or energy to deal with showing anyone else what they were seeing. They felt it was enough that they had demonstrated results to their own relatives, and their children's individual teachers and therapists. The vast majority had stopped going to see their pediatrician and neurologist at all, because there's only so many times you can be called delusional to your face. I sent my videos to my pediatrician. By her own admission, she did not watch them. Desiree Jennings is not the only one this has ever happened to, she's just one of the few who's willing to become a huge target by putting her evidence out there.
My life experiences indicate to me that her experience is a credible one. Yours indicates to you that it is not. But you must admit that you do not have experiences to indicate that hers is false--you don't know anyone with dystonia who has been unable to improve with these treatments. You simply lack any corroborating experiences. Which is fine. But if you find yourself inching over from healthy skepticism into vilification and accusation, then you will only help make it more unlikely that others will come forward with their stories.
Dr. Buttar's diagnosis was "a number of conditions including but not limited to Acute, Viral Post Immunization Encephalopathy and Mercury Toxicity with secondary respiratory and neurological deficits". Dystonia may have been one of her conditions, but it didn't make the headline.
Here's Dr. Buttar's own timeline, mostly via the Robert Scott Bell show, which is
partly transcribed on Wikipedia:
- Jennings reports to Buttar Monday morning, having a seizure every forty-five to sixty seconds.
- Buttar contemplates sending her to a hospital because she is stopping breathing for 15-30 second intervals.
- Buttar gives her "a couple of different IVs to stimulate the lymphatics to help build her nutritional status up".
- By noon she is able to breathe without going into a seizure.
- Tuesday morning she returns, feeling better, looking better, but still unable to talk.
- They start chelation and antioxidants and "hitting her for natural forms of antivirals".
- 30 minutes after starting the second IV, she is able to speak.
- Tuesday night the Robert Scott Bell show is recorded, and Buttar reports that she's walking and talking normally and "There's not one single neurological deficit with her now."
- Thursday she records the video.
You simply lack any corroborating experiences.
Direct experience is only one way to determine truth.
We're basically at an impasse, here. I find her story credible, because I have seen similar symptoms in other people starkly reduced in a similar manner with similar treatments.
Observation alone is classic junk science. Missing is the necessary control subject. Where is an example where an offending material is removed and the defect disappears? Just another example of what one does before knowing anything. To have a fact, supporting and existing knowledge must also exist to explain the relationship. You don't have anything necessary to have a fact. What is necessary to form a hypothesis? You don't have that. Your logic is classic junk science.
Even your hypothesis is only wild speculation. A hypothesis only from observation (without any control subject or underlying concepts) is classic junk science.
What causes autism? One report suggested that people exposed to trace amounts of mercury (ie when a fluorescent bulb breaks) years previously can cause it. Observation also proved that to be true. So you would instead blame medication?
What is traced to some forms of heart disease? Chlamydia. Yes, exposures to a sexual disease ten and twenty years ago may cause diseases today. Need we also mention Mad Cow disease? Another disease due to exposure years previously. But somehow you know autism is traceable to something immediate; only using observation. By ignoring other possiblities. A classic science mistake. "I would not have seen it if I had not known it was there." Clodfobble is doing just that. A conclusion based only in a few observations and wild speculatioin.
Clodfobble will not read this. I have a bad habit of demanding conclusions based in logic - not in junk science reasoning. Some will refuse to read to remain in denial - not learn from their mistakes. Foolishly pretend that observation is sufficient to 'know'. Any hypothesis or conclusion based only in observation is classic junk science. Any facts sufficient to have a hypothesis were condemned even in the Lancet. Avoiding that reality is further evidence of junk science reasoning. A relationship between medication and autism is classic junk science. As Clodfobble admits, the conclusion comes only from observation - which is the symptom of junk science.
Dr. Buttar's diagnosis was "a number of conditions including but not limited to Acute, Viral Post Immunization Encephalopathy and Mercury Toxicity with secondary respiratory and neurological deficits". Dystonia may have been one of her conditions, but it didn't make the headline.
Dr. Buttar is not qualified to diagnose dystonia. Dystonia is a type of encephalopathy. Having encephalopathy is like saying you have bronchitis--that does not specify whether you have the flu, or a viral cold, or a bacterial infection. It just says your bronchial tubes are inflamed. Saying she had encephalopathy is equivalent to saying she had "a neurological problem of some sort." As could be expected, he seems unconcerned with diagnosing what specific neurological symptoms she was displaying, because his philosophy is that the underlying root of the problem is
not neurological, but elsewhere. It's like you're trying to pin him down over whether she is coughing
this way or
that way, while he is only concerned with giving her the antibiotics that the lab test confirmed she needed.
Observation alone is classic junk science. Missing is the necessary control subject. Where is an example where an offending material is removed and the defect disappears?
Absolutely. Please go ask the CDC where their control subject is. I'd love nothing more than to see studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated control subjects. That's what my community has been demanding for twenty years now.
What causes autism? One report suggested that people exposed to trace amounts of mercury (ie when a fluorescent bulb breaks) years previously can cause it. Observation also proved that to be true. So you would instead blame medication?
You're not even making sense. Do you understand that the "medication" we're discussing here
contains mercury?
You're not even making sense. Do you understand that the "medication" we're discussing here contains mercury?
Do you understand that foods you eat, air you breath, and water you drink also contain mercury? You have again done what junk science and political extremists do. Promote a fear subjectively. Not provide numbers.
If mercury in that medication was so destructive, then fluorescent bulbs must be killing people.
Your posts contain subjective reasoning, devoid of the always required numbers, and are based only on statistically insignificant observation. Subjective claims and proof based only in observation are classic symptoms of junk science. The exact same reasoning also proved Saddam had WMDs.
Amazing how many know science intentionally wants to subvert us. Ironically, those who most promote these myths have no science background. Often are educated in religion, politics, English, or other subjective disciplines.
Same reasoning also proved that childhood leukemia was directly traceable to AC electric lines. Once the data was finally provided, that myth (just like an autism myth) was completely debunked.
Do you understand that foods also contain radioactive material? Where is your campaign to eliminate naturally grown foods because radiation is so dangerous? Another example of fears based only in hearsay because numbers and perspective were not provided.
Worse, your every proof is based only subjective observations. Observation alone is a symptom of junk science. But your observation are also subjective – even less reliable. At least the myth about childhood leukemia was based in numbers – before it was discovered to be another junk science conclusion.
Stop eating fluorescent bulbs!
Not everyone has a problem removing the mercury from their body, and not everyone has severe neurological symptoms.
The numbers are evident in the urinary toxic screenings. Other mothers have shared theirs with me. Their kids had no mercury output in their urine (which isn't normal, since as you say it's everywhere around us and should be coming out in equal quantities,) then they were administered a dose of chelation drugs and peed off-the-charts amounts of mercury--or in some cases, lead, aluminum, arsenic, etc. And lo and behold, after these kids peed out these huge amounts of metals, their autistic symptoms were suddenly improved dramatically.
Not all autistic kids suffer from heavy metals toxicity. It's just one possible part of an overall condition. But if my son does, you have my word that I will scan his lab results and post the numbers for you alongside the before-and-after videos of his symptoms.
Stop eating fluorescent bulbs!
But it lights up my life?
Not everyone has a problem removing the mercury from their body, and not everyone has severe neurological symptoms.
The numbers are evident in the urinary toxic screenings. Other mothers have shared theirs with me. Their kids had no mercury output in their urine (which isn't normal, since as you say it's everywhere around us and should be coming out in equal quantities,)
Now you are discussing scientifically. Such studies would be useful, informative, and how one goes about developing a hypothesis. If demonstrated that some human bodies do not detoxify themselves of particular heavy metals, then a useful fact has been provided. I have never heard of this. But then such strange medical exceptions can occur.
Review dystonia. According to medical professionals I discussed this thread with, dystonia can be a reaction by some even to traditionally safe antibiotics. A general rule. There is always someone allergic to something. And many useful, safe, and effective drugs can still even kill some. Does that mean all drugs should be banned? That would be the subjective conclusion.
Meanwhile, are there bodies that cannot remove a particular heavy metal? Some heavy metals are not removed quickly or at all. Do some bodies not remove a particular heavy metal? To know, both the intake and outbreak of those metals must be measured. Only measuring outgoing concentrations is too subjective - if for no other reason because the concentrations may not be detectable at all by that testing standard. Only then may we have a fact from which the next hypothesis might be constructed.
Speculation that some bodies do not detoxify one particular metal is rather interesting.
Now you are discussing scientifically. Such studies would be useful, informative, and how one goes about developing a hypothesis. If demonstrated that some human bodies do not detoxify themselves of particular heavy metals, then a useful fact has been provided. I have never heard of this. But then such strange medical exceptions can occur.
Yes, such studies would be useful, informative, and scientific. Several small-scale versions have been done, with the conclusions I have outlined above, but the funding for such things is extremely limited. If only someone big--like, I don't know, the CDC--could be bothered to look into it.
To know, both the intake and outbreak of those metals must be measured. Only measuring outgoing concentrations is too subjective - if for no other reason because the concentrations may not be detectable at all by that testing standard.
Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to measure the daily intake of metal, and it's unethical to the extreme to deliberately dose someone with a known poison. However, it's easy to determine normal versus abnormal results: In a normal person, a certain amount of metals can be measured in the urine, and then following a challenge dose of chelation drugs, that baseline amount should stay the same. The drug does nothing because the body is already outputting everything that goes in. If, on the other hand, the drug causes a large increase in the amount excreted, one can assume there is a certain backlog of metals in the body, because you can generally be certain that the individual was not suddenly exposed to such high levels of anything in the previous six hours.
Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to measure the daily intake of metal, and it's unethical to the extreme to deliberately dose someone with a known poison. However, it's easy to determine normal versus abnormal results: In a normal person, a certain amount of metals can be measured in the urine, and then following a challenge dose of chelation drugs, that baseline amount should stay the same.
If measurements are sufficiently accurate, then all food can be sampled for their metal content. If not, then no accurate measurements can exist of metals also flushed out.
A second method is periodic tissue sampling. For example, if a metal concentration increases, then hair samples can measure that concentration AND provide a timeline for those concentrations.
But again, measurements must have sufficient resolution so that what exists in food is also quantified.
A friend negotiates power plant sales. Some lands adjacent to power plants cannot be developed due to routine mercury output by fossil fuel (electric) plants. And yet these lands are safe for golf or other visitation. One who cannot detoxify heavy metals could be adversely harmed by playing golf on that course. A body that cannot flush out heavy metals would be at great risk at many public locales - speculation based in subjective reasoning.
A body that cannot flush out heavy metals would be at great risk at many public locales - speculation based in subjective reasoning.
That's correct. Usually, once a parent discovers that their child has a continuing problem with a specific metal, they have to make certain lifestyle changes to keep the exposure risk as low as possible. Usually this just means spending extra on certified lead-free cookware, making sure to drink filtered water, that sort of thing. But I know one family who replaced all their carpeting with hardwood floors after they discovered it was off-gassing something their kid was sensitive to, another who petitioned their school's janitorial staff to switch brands of cleaning chemicals, and another who went so far as to move away from their urban industrial home to an area with significantly less air pollution--though to be fair, part of that decision was also rooted in getting into a better school district as well.
When they feed chemical compounds to laboratory rats, measure the results, and determine if that compound is safe to use, they used the percentage of rats affected and how. Standard methodology.
But rarely are all the rats affected the same way, and these are rats that are specially bred to be as identical as possible. They calculate the percentage of rats, that have what type of reaction, to determine the odds.
Humans are all unique, and their reactions to elements/compounds, will vary much more than those rats. So all the statistical analysis is crap, if your child happens to be one that reacts badly to something. Unfortunately first hand action and reaction is about the only way to tell why a kid has a problem.
Do you understand that the "medication" we're discussing here contains mercury?
Desiree update: not necessarily. I went and looked at the VAERS report that is alleged to be hers and found that her vaccine was made by Sanofi Pasteur. The S-P flu vaccine is offered in different formulas. The multi-dose version has Thimerosol, the single-dose version does not.
DJ was injected at a Safeway. I tried to determine if Safeway specifies one version or the other, and only found one person saying that single-dose was
available at her Safeway, which doesn't tell us anything much.
I'm impressed at the detective work. In general the places that do offer the single-dose vials are saving them for babies under 6 months and the people who specifically request them, for whatever that's worth.
The multi-dose version has Thimerosol, the single-dose version does not.
What is and what would be the significance of (or the significance of not containing) Thimerosol?
I looked up all other VAERS entries that came from the same lot number. There were no other neurological-related reports from that lot. The vast majority of them were pain and swelling at the injection site.
Thimerosol is a antiseptic mercury salt. It's used in the multi-dose because of the possibility of multiple needles accidentally putting some biological agent into the remaining vaccine.
Dr. Buttar addresses the National Autism Association
by video.
"Basic fundamental primer, I'm going to reiterate what I have been saying for a number of years about Autism. Autism is nothing more than mercury toxicity onboard a physiology that is a genetic predisposition for the inability to excrete, or mercury toxicity onboard a physiology that can't get rid of the metal. Essentially, that's all it is."
Dr. Buttar is incorrectly overgeneralizing. Certainly, some cases of autism are mostly, or even entirely, a result of mercury poisoning. But others are a result of different metals, while others are more rooted in immune dysfunction, or metabolic dysfunction.
What he is saying is an outdated theory, and is easy to refute with individual autism cases that do not fit that profile. He is not helping. Perhaps this is one reason that Generation Rescue backed the hell off the Desiree Jennings case, because she chose this guy rather than one of the DAN doctors they recommended for her.
Is he saying, if it's not from mercury toxicity, then it's something other than Autism? Like Autism is my name, go get your own?
Polio vaccine causing polio outbreaks in Nigeria.
LONDON - Polio is spreading in Nigeria and health officials say in some cases it's caused by the vaccine used to fight the paralyzing disease.
In July, the World Health Organization
issued a warning that this particular virus might extend beyond Africa. So far, 124 Nigerian children have been paralyzed this year — about twice those afflicted in 2008.
Nigeria and most other poor nations use an oral polio vaccine because it's cheaper, easier, and protects entire communities. But it's made from a live polio virus which carries a small risk of causing polio. In even rarer instances, the virus in the vaccine can mutate into a deadlier version that ignites new outbreaks.
A virologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says genetic analysis proves such mutated viruses have caused at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria.
Are you ƒucking kidding me?
This is what I learned from watching the video you posted: The doctors who have actually examined her believe she has dystonia. Then "some guy" on the news who hasn't examined her, but has seen some videos of her, thinks she might have this other condition.
Desiree followup:
Actually, Flint, according to the VAERS report, it turns out that the doctors who originally examined her listed dystonia as one of maybe 30 possible descriptions of her malady (along with "psychosomatic illness" as I posted earlier). But reviewing the
Wikipedia entry on Desiree*, the first news item that ever occurred on her was
in her local paper, in which they state:
Desiree has seen her primary care physician, physical therapists, speech therapists, neurologists, neuropsychologists, psychiatrists and a bevy of nurses.
Amazingly, it was her physical therapist who provided the clinical diagnosis: Dystonia.
Her physical therapist...! Not "
doctors who have actually examined her".
If it isn't clear by now, part of my fascination with this case is really how information travels. What do people find relevant, what do they repeat? How do errors get introduced into the narrative, and do they ever correct themselves? When Flint wrote
Are you ƒucking kidding me?
This was a very motivational demand, and somehow it made me want to follow this through to the most bitter end, in tw-like fashion.
Why did Desiree repeat the diagnosis of dystonia given by her physical therapist, and not any of the scores of other possibilities given by actual physicians and specialists? I don't think she was ever faking, so I'd say we don't know. Maybe that was just the weird word she remembered. Maybe the physical therapist was more personal and convincing than the Johns Hopkins neuropsychologists.
Why did the newspaper say "
Amazingly, it was her physical therapist" and not "Despite a bevy of possible explanations from specialists, Desiree chose her physical therapist's call as the right one"? Because reporters for small local dailies are often not the best journalists.
Why did Inside Edition press that as the narrative? Because Inside Edition is TV tabloidism and their goal is to quickly and cheaply develop exciting and controversial stories, not to dig for the truth. Did they make a follow-up call to Johns Hopkins? ƒuck no, that's the boring part! We don't need to understand the story, just to be alarmed by
pretty girl who can only walk backwards. That's how you score ratings amongst the people who watch syndicated tabloid TV in early nighttime. A self-selecting audience of the gullible.
And my Google alert on DJ shows a handful of new bloggers every day, spreading the news that DJ is permanently disfigured, even though she's been all better now for a month.
*The DJ controversy entry is marked to be deleted as not relevant enough for Wikipedia. If it is removed, this thread will remain the most extensive and documented discussion on DJ on the net, from what I have seen.
Does that mean an influx of Inside Edition viewers, or dystonia researchers?
And vaccine alarmists. I welcome all.
You know what? I stand by my original irritation. You turn on the boob tube and some guy is (with a straight face) actually making a medical diagnosis based on watching some videos. My "fascination with how information travels" meter starts going off at that point. Doesn't yours?
You said "some guy" again.
Yes, where "some guy" is Dr. Stephen Grill, who spent three years in a neurology residency; four years in a fellowship on movement disorders with the National Institutes of Health; is a Medical Advisor for the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation; is lead physician at the Parkinson's & Movement Disorders Center of Maryland; and is a tenured professor at Johns Hopkins, where Desiree was diagnosed.
So: what's the motivation for a neurologist with a specialty in movement disorders to lie about this or make something up? He puts his reputation on the line for... the sake of a few minutes of local news air time?
As someone with deep training and experience, this some guy sees things that we don't. The woman has lost muscular control except when she speeds up, or goes backwards instead of forwards. Her knees cannot not support her to get to the starting line of a 10 k race... and then immediately work perfectly to run the race... and then immediately can't support walking again. Her knees work walking backward, but immediately not forward... and then immediately work again walking backward. Can dystonics suffers ever do that? I can easily imagine an expert drawing broad conclusions on that basis.
[COLOR="Olive"]Similarly, which I haven't posted about: Dr. Buttar reported that soon after her cure, she only lost speech abilities when talking about her condition. The change in her ability to speak wasn't an inability to say certain syllables, requiring muscle control. It's not that she couldn't get her tz's out. It was the *meaning* of the words, the *emotion* behind the words, her very beliefs that changed her ability.
Like running versus walking, it's using the same muscles but in a different psychological state. So, psychosomatic? I think you think it was.[/COLOR]
The woman has lost muscular control except when she speeds up, or goes backwards instead of forwards. Her knees cannot not support her to get to the starting line of a 10 k race... and then immediately work perfectly to run the race... and then immediately can't support walking again. Her knees work walking backward, but immediately not forward... and then immediately work again walking backward. Can dystonics suffers ever do that? I can easily imagine an expert drawing broad conclusions on that basis.
Did you watch the
second video I linked back in post 435? Seems to be the same kinda thing going on, although much less dramatic.
So: what's the motivation for a neurologist with a specialty in movement disorders to lie about this or make something up? He puts his reputation on the line for... the sake of a few minutes of local news air time?
You have it backwards. He is not putting his reputation on the line, he is solidifying his reputation by speaking up in favor of the accepted medical doctrine. To stay silent on the matter, or to say that he can't know for sure what's going on, would be to put his reputation on the line. The doctors doing the unconventional things are the ones putting their reputations on the line; this guy is just trying to throw them under the bus. If he turns out to be wrong, what happens? Nothing, because then practically everyone would have been wrong right along with him.
Edit to add: I don't believe he's lying or making anything up. I believe he's protecting what he's always believed, and what he's built his career on. It wouldn't look very good for "a Medical Advisor for the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation; lead physician at the Parkinson's & Movement Disorders Center of Maryland," etc. to have no understanding of this woman's dystonia. So he insists (and honestly believes) that he does have an understanding of it, one that makes it fit in with what he already believes.
So: what's the motivation for a neurologist with a specialty in movement disorders to lie about this or make something up? He puts his reputation on the line for... the sake of a few minutes of local news air time?
Why wouldn't he? What makes this guy different from all the other doctors, scientists and researchers who's unscrupulous behaviour has been discussed or documented here? Money, sex, drugs, position.... they've all had their reasons.
Why would he publicly diagnose a person, not his patient, that he's only seen on videotape?
Did you watch the second video I linked back in post 435? Seems to be the same kinda thing going on, although much less dramatic.
Sure, but it's the much less dramatic part that makes it unconvincing; at no time does this sufferer have complete control whatsoever.
Actual dystonia sufferers are apparently treated by the INJECTION (!) of botulism TOXIN (!) in order to get complete muscular control...
ETA: We could just ask the actual dystonia suffers if they believe DJ had dystonia. Well we don't need to, they already spoke up on that matter to say she didn't.
Nitpick: the botulism doesn't give complete or really even any added muscle control, it just makes the uncontrolled movements less severe because the muscles are losing their ability to tighten at all.
As a reminder, so we can keep facts straight:
People who thought DJ had dystonia:
DJ's physical therapist
People who thought neurological dystonia was not her major malfunction:
Dr. Stephen Grill
A large team of DJ's original diagnosing physicians, including neurologists and neurological psychiatrists at Johns Hopkins
The U of MD's dystonia department
The Dystonia Foundation
DJ's treating physician, Dr. Buttar
Sure, but it's the much less dramatic part that makes it unconvincing; at no time does this sufferer have complete control whatsoever.
So it's not the symptoms you described that you have issue with, it's actually the degree.
The people in the 2 videos I linked seem to have varying degrees of symptoms as well - what do you make of that?
Actual dystonia sufferers are apparently treated by the INJECTION (!) of botulism TOXIN (!) in order to get complete muscular control...
ETA: We could just ask the actual dystonia suffers if they believe DJ had dystonia. Well we don't need to, they already spoke up on that matter to say she didn't.
Wtf? Is any of this in response to the questions I asked about the doctor you find credible or....
Why wouldn't he? What makes this guy different from all the other doctors, scientists and researchers who's unscrupulous behaviour has been discussed or documented here? Money, sex, drugs, position.... they've all had their reasons.
The ones documented here?
Why would he publicly diagnose a person, not his patient, that he's only seen on videotape?
As one of the area's leading physicians, he may feel that correcting dangerous misinformation to improve the public health is part of his job.
The ones documented here?
Yes, there have been quite a few, from pharmaceutical to climate research. I hope you didn't miss them
all.
As one of the area's leading physicians, he may feel that correcting dangerous misinformation to improve the public health is part of his job.
That misinformation being that Desiree specifically was injured by a vaccine, or that it is actually
possible to be injured by a vaccine?
So it's not the symptoms you described that you have issue with, it's actually the degree.
The people in the 2 videos I linked seem to have varying degrees of symptoms as well - what do you make of that?
One of them seems to go between a 6 and an 8 (before treatment); the other woman seems to go from a 3 to a 5 and back again. DJ went from a 0 when running to a 7 when walking. She was using the same muscles...
But, also, what I make of it is not all that important. I'm only speculating on what an educated, experienced specialist might see that would convince him, within 15 seconds, that the stated diagnosis was wrong.
I'd be more easily convinced he saw something specific if he'd mentioned it.
Yes, there have been quite a few, from pharmaceutical to climate research. I hope you didn't miss them all.
My response is already in #342 in this thread.
In the short run, yes, all those things you put into scare quotes are corruptible. Less corruptible than in almost every other institution, but yes.
In the long run, no. Truth will out. Redundant studies will find conflicting results, new theories will be advanced and tested.
The guy who discovered that stomach ulcers are caused by a virus was going heavily against medical consensus... and faced some battles at first... but the truth was evident. The guy who invented the MRI faced an uphill battle, as nobody believed he could be coming up with something useful. In the end, truth won.
Why doesn't the CDC operate in the way you'd prefer? Dunno. Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.
The explanation that you desire requires more and more extraordinary narratives over time. This makes me more skeptical.
That misinformation being that Desiree specifically was injured by a vaccine, or that it is actually possible to be injured by a vaccine?
That misinformation being that the flu vaccine is dangerous.
Dangerous is a relative word, and meaningless in this case.
Do you, or do you not, agree that it is possible to be injured by a vaccine?
Of course I would agree; of course!
But since the flu shot is one of the safest vaccines, it's much more likely to prevent you from injury/serious illness/death, so to describe it as "dangerous" is silly.
It's like - once in a while, somebody gets clocked by an automotive air bag... a handful of people have died, mostly children. Dangerous? Well they've saved about 10,000 lives, so you make the call.
Meanwhile, my DJ google alert is STILL, to this day, filled with [strike]tards[/strike] reason-challenged bloggers linking the original DJ YouTube video, to tell people how dangerous the H1N1 shot is. Never mind that wasn't the vaccine she received. Never mind she's all better now, her situation is descrbied as permanent.
And now that I mention that, I recall that "permanent" was how you, Clod, described DJ's condition in post #395 of this thread.I could prevent myself from getting toenail fungus by chopping off my foot. Should I? Would it be dangerous?
Of course I would agree;
But since it's much more likely to prevent you from injury/serious illness/death, to describe it as "dangerous" is ridiculous. It like - once in a while, somebody gets clocked by an automotive air bag... a handful of people have died, mostly children. Dangerous? Well they've saved about 10,000 lives, so make the call.
See... to me....the chances of getting the disease you're inoculating against are slim to start out....and then, the chances of being killed by that disease are yet another level of slimness.
the chances of getting injured by some fucked up concoction of who knows what... that some money motivated government sponsored program decides is a good thing... in general terms....is at least equal, if not greater.
Man i gotta stop editing after posting
See... to me....the chances of getting the disease you're inoculating against are slim to start out....and then, the chances of being killed by that disease are yet another level of slimness.
The numbers are available. Regular flu: 100,000 hospitalizations per year, about 35,000 deaths per year. I could not find a death attributed to the regular flu vaccine this year. H1N1 has about 13 deaths due to vaccine -- although one is from a motorcycle injury, so I'm not sure how that works.
the chances of getting injured by some fucked up concoction of who knows what... that some money motivated government sponsored program decides is a good thing... in general terms....is at least equal, if not greater.
*shrug* maybe, worse things have happened, although not with so many eyeballs involved.
Oh yeah, there's so many eyeballs. Of course, if they see anything it's because they are wrong/crazy.
Of course I would agree; of course!
But since the flu shot is one of the safest vaccines, it's much more likely to prevent you from injury/serious illness/death, so to describe it as "dangerous" is silly.
It's like - once in a while, somebody gets clocked by an automotive air bag... a handful of people have died, mostly children. Dangerous? Well they've saved about 10,000 lives, so you make the call.
The difference is, they acknowledge the danger and work to mitigate it--after airbags killed a few children, they started offering an airbag offswitch for the passenger seat, so the driver could make the call as to whether there was a child or an adult in the seat. The child-airbag death rate has gone down; they've made an effort.
In the case of vaccines, they've made no effort. They removed thimerosal from childhood vaccines only after Congress ordered them to do so. And they still recommend that same flu shot for pregnant women and babies; what if it's not one of the "safest" for that demographic? They'd never know, because even now they're only nominally looking into it. There happens to be a pandemic rise of not one but
several diseases in children, mostly autoimmune. Exponentially more children have these debilitating diseases than ever died or were seriously injured by the diseases we're immunizing against.
Assessing relative risk is important. But they have to be willing to honestly assess it.
The numbers are available. Regular flu: 100,000 hospitalizations per year, about 35,000 deaths per year.
How many of those were already severely sick with something else? How many of those were actually vaccinated against the flu, but ended up with a different strain anyway?
In the case of vaccines, they've made no effort. They removed thimerosal from childhood vaccines only after Congress ordered them to do so.
Incorrect. There's no evidence thimerosol is dangerous, but removing it can make vaccines more dangerous, because less effective preservatives are used.
And they still recommend that same flu shot for pregnant women and babies; what if it's not one of the "safest" for that demographic?
Not at all interested in "what if's". Prefer evidence.
Assessing relative risk is important. But they have to be willing to honestly assess it.
You have the intelligence, but not the education or background to determine if they do.
How many of those were already severely sick with something else? How many of those were actually vaccinated against the flu, but ended up with a different strain anyway?
Cut those numbers in half and we still have a good case. If you want to double or quadruple those numbers or more, tell people the flu vaccine will permanently fuck them up.
Oh, you
did! Well aim high.
Cut those numbers in half and we still have a good case.
Tangental “style and tactics” note: it is really funny to watch someone else do that. I love the "cut my numbers
in half and
I still win!" routine.
We don't have to do to half. It's thought that a certain number would die anyway or would get another strain, but the numbers on those are not half.
Meanwhile, your one liners are a substitute for serious thought on the matter, and I suggest you either get serious, or fuck off out of the thread, like I fucked off out of Clod's.
I was actually paying you a compliment in regards to how you express absolute confidence in your position. I've always enjoyed using the "cut my numbers in half" routine wherever I've felt that my position was overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. And, as a tangental note to the thread, I am amused to see this technique being used by someone other than myself.
I will take it that you misunderstood my post, and not that you are a total ƒucking asshole.
One more thing: I must insist that my "one liners" are the direct result of, and an expression of, serious thought. Sometimes I do not feel that stretching my basic observations into a multi-paragraph diatribe is necessary. For example, when I am studying for a final exam on Monday.
Apologies then, it was the word
routine that threw me.
Feel free to fuck into the thread.
I apologize--I should have worded my post more carefully.
I take responsibility for the fact that its intent was unclear.
By the way, what "routine" means to me is something most like:
5. Computers.
a. a complete set of coded instructions directing a computer to perform a series of operations.
b. a series of operations performed by the computer.
:::ƒucks into thread:::
Incorrect. There's no evidence thimerosol is dangerous, but removing it can make vaccines more dangerous, because less effective preservatives are used.
Incorrect. There is enough evidence that thimerosal is dangerous that the CDC readily admits that babies under 6 months should not get the flu vaccine, or should get a non-thimerosal dose. I happen to disagree with where they've drawn the line, but they've drawn it. And other preservatives are not in any way "less effective;" what they are is more
expensive. Then of course there are several delivery methods that don't require preservatives at all.
This is kind of like your argument awhile back (in another thread, I think) that dried fruits
had to be coated in sulfur dioxide in order to prevent them from growing mold. It simply isn't true. I currently have 5 different bags of various dried fruits that are not preserved in any way. I can't tell you how long they'd last without growing mold, but I generally take at least a few months to finish them. But they
are more expensive.
Prefer evidence.
So do I. I wonder why they won't do double-blind studies with vaccinated and unvaccinated control groups?
You have the intelligence, but not the education or background to determine if they do.
It doesn't take education or background to determine whether a study exists. "Honestly assessing" risk does not involve sitting in their offices and pondering the idea.
Cut those numbers in half and we still have a good case. If you want to double or quadruple those numbers or more, tell people the flu vaccine will permanently fuck them up.
I thought you preferred evidence? There were studies linked earlier in this thread that showed that a decline in the number of flu vaccinations
did not lead to an increase in the number of flu infections or deaths. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the flu vaccine actually does anything to stop the flu, and the evidence shows it doesn't do that. Just like Gardasil doesn't lower the rate of cervical cancer.
Incorrect. There is enough evidence that thimerosal is dangerous that the CDC readily admits that babies under 6 months should not get the flu vaccine, or should get a non-thimerosal dose.
Wikipedia: (bold mine of course)
The FDA noted that while the vaccination schedule at that time might have exceeded EPA standards for mercury exposure during the first 6 months of life, it did not exceed those of the FDA, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), or WHO. The FDA also noted difficulty interpreting toxicity of the ethylmercury in thiomersal because guidelines for mercury toxicity were based primarily on studies of methylmercury, a different mercury compound with different toxicologic properties. Despite the lack of convincing evidence of toxicity of thiomersal when used as a vaccine preservative, the USPHS and AAP determined that thiomersal should be removed from vaccines as a purely precautionary measure. This action was based on the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unnecessary. The CDC and AAP reasoned that despite the lack of evidence of significant harm in the use of thiomersal in vaccines, the removal of this preservative would increase the public confidence in the safety of vaccines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thimerosal
Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is cleared from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative. A 2008 study found that the half-life of blood mercury after vaccination averages 3.7 days for newborns and infants, much shorter than the 44 days for methylmercury.
Further detail:
To illustrate, researchers cite that infants in the 6-month-old group – who, in their lifetimes, had encountered more total ethyl mercury that any other group studied – still had the same pre-vaccination blood-mercury levels before their checkups as most 2-month-olds had before theirs. This suggests that, before each round of shots, the mercury has plenty of time to be cleared.
tl;dr: The ban was precautionary, not based on evidence of harm. Some of the considerations of harm were based on studies of the toxicology of
methylmercury, even though the metabolite of Thimerosol is actually
ethylmercury. Since the ban, ethylmercury has been found to be much less accumulative than methylmercury.
I thought you preferred evidence? There were studies linked earlier in this thread that showed that a decline in the number of flu vaccinations did not lead to an increase in the number of flu infections or deaths. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the flu vaccine actually does anything to stop the flu, and the evidence shows it doesn't do that.
http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/PROFESSIONALS/VACCINATION/effectivenessqa.htm
It's confusing, because the effectiveness varies from year to year as scientists to get the exact strain for that year. So a study of effectiveness should take into account overall effectiveness, not the effectiveness of one year. Overall:
Overall, in years when the vaccine and circulating viruses are well-matched, influenza vaccines can be expected to reduce laboratory-confirmed influenza by approximately 70% to 90% in healthy adults <65 years of age. Several studies have also found reductions in febrile illness, influenza-related work absenteeism, antibiotic use, and doctor visits.
In years when the vaccine strains are not well matched to circulating strains, vaccine effectiveness can be variably reduced. For example, in a study among persons 50-64 years during the 2003-04 season, when the vaccine strains were not optimally matched, inactivated influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza was 60% among persons without high-risk conditions, and 48% among those with high risk conditions, but it was 90% against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization (Herrera, et al Vaccine 2006). A study in children during the same year found vaccine effectiveness of about 50% against medically diagnosed influenza and pneumonia without laboratory confirmation (Ritzwoller, Pediatrics 2005). However, in some years when vaccine and circulating strains were not well-matched, no vaccine effectiveness can be demonstrated in some studies, even in healthy adults (Bridges, JAMA 2000). It is not possible in advance of the influenza season to predict how well the vaccine and circulating strains will be matched, and how that match may affect the degree of vaccine effectiveness.
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/diffdx/mercurysources.html
As a sidebar, interesting: things other than vaccines that are preserved with Thimerosol:
Antitoxins (! - UT)
Cosmetics, including makeup removers, mascara, and eye moisturizers
Desensitizing solutions
Ear, eye, and nose drops
Eye ointments
Mercurochrome®
Merthiolate topical antiseptic
Soap-free cleaners
Some contact lens solutions
Topical medicated sprays
Topical medications
Tuberculin tests
Other sources of mercury:
Adhesives
Air conditioner filters
Amalgams (silver fillings)
Auto exhaust
Batteries
Bleached flour
Calomel (talc, body powders)
Cinnabar (used in jewelry)
Drinking water (tap and well), plumbing and piping
Fabric softeners
Felt
Floor waxes and polishes
Laxatives
Paint pigments and solvents
Pesticides
Processed foods
Vegetables and fruits exposed to pesticides
Wood preservatives
Of course they called it a precautionary measure. Congress had already ordered them to do it, so they put up their hands and said, "Okay, if you insist." The book you ordered spent quite a few pages discussing studies on the relative dangers of both ethyl and methylmercury, why rely on Wikipedia?
To illustrate, researchers cite that infants in the 6-month-old group – who, in their lifetimes, had encountered more total ethyl mercury that any other group studied – still had the same pre-vaccination blood-mercury levels before their checkups as most 2-month-olds had before theirs. This suggests that, before each round of shots, the mercury has plenty of time to be cleared.
Part of the problem with mercury specifically is that it doesn't just float around in the blood, it gets picked up and stored in various cells in the body. There have been several studies with autistic kids who were given blood tests that showed negligible levels of mercury; then they were given chelation drugs and they peed very high levels that were completely unpredicted by the blood tests. In fact, one big connection that's just started to be explored this year is the fact that fungus can hold up to 70% of its weight as mercury, and there is a theory that one reason most autistic kids end up with severe yeast infections is that the body is deliberately allowing the fungus to fluorish because it captures the mercury rather than letting it lodge in the brain and elsewhere. No idea if that theory will pan out, but it's being studied. The fact remains that blood tests are not a reliable indicator of the total amount of mercury stored in the body.
And you are correct, there are trace amounts of mercury in all of those things listed, or at least some brands of them. Of course, we're also not injecting pesticides, fabric softeners, or batteries directly into an infant's bloodstream. And for older children who, for some reason, have demonstrably had their metabolic processes broken, relative lifetime exposure to those products has been directly correlated to the amount of mercury they pee out when given chelation drugs.
As has been mentioned time and again, these levels of heavy metals are apparently safe for the majority of the population,
except for kids who
for some reason can't seem to process them out. Until they can identify those newborns, or determine what is happening to them that breaks the cycle sometime in their infancy, they have no business using it as a preservative when there are other alternatives available.
As for your chart, you are correct, I misspoke: increasing vaccine rates (and well-matched vaccine strains)
does reduce the overall number of
infection cases. It does not reduce the overall number of deaths. So I will not take personal responsibility for hypothetically "quadrupling" the influenza death rate as you suggested.
Wikipedia: (bold mine of course)
Why did you leave this part out?
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).[8] In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.[2]
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed.
The ban was precautionary, not based on evidence of harm.
But
here's some evidence
Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies. Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined. Future studies need to be conducted to evaluate additional mechanisms underlying Thimerosal-induced cellular damage and assess potential co-exposures to other compounds that may increase or decrease Thimerosal-mediated toxicity.
Why did you leave this part out?
Cos we're not talking about thiomersal that's inhaled, ingested, and/or in contact with skin.
But here's some evidence
That's very strong. Fetuses should not be exposed to Thiomersal via the mother.
Do you still trust the health organization that specifically recommends pregnant women get the seasonal flu shot with thimerosal, even moreso than the regular population?
The numbers are available. Regular flu: 100,000 hospitalizations per year, about 35,000 deaths per year. I could not find a death attributed to the regular flu vaccine this year. H1N1 has about 13 deaths due to vaccine -- although one is from a motorcycle injury, so I'm not sure how that works.
i met a man a couple weeks ago whose wife was paralyzed by a flu vaccine. he was a plumber. regular dude.....he and his daughter were buying a car, and the trade was in his wife's name.....i had to have the salesman go over to their house to get the title signed by her because she couldn't come to us easily. in 1999, she got a flu shot. the next day, she was in the hospital.
she's not dead, so i guess she doesnt appear either...
have you ever met anyone whose friend or relative died of the flu?
i haven't
Do you still trust the health organization that specifically recommends pregnant women get the seasonal flu shot with thimerosal, even moreso than the regular population?
Yes, that study is from this summer and requires additional confirming studies and peer review before it becomes science - but if I were pregnant, I wouldn't get the shot based on this preliminary stage of the evidence.
What if you had a baby older than 6 months? Would you give your baby the flu shot, based on this preliminary stage of the evidence?
Probably. For one thing, it's a moot point because the only flu vaccine licensed for 6 months-23 months is thimerosal-free, and the CDC estimates there is enough thimerosal-free vaccine for every child aged 2-5. But age 2 sounds like a critical point:
Research suggests that healthy children under the age of 2 are more likely than older children and as likely as people over the age of 65 to be hospitalized with flu complications
-CDC
The influenza virus is constantly mutating and so the effectiveness rate for the flu vaccines is set at 40%.
That isn't a good percentage to convince me it is helpful or worth the risk of putting toxins in my body yearly.
When it is stated that what people die from are complications of pneumonia then I wonder why not just give people the pneumonia vaccine instead?
You only need one every ten years and protects from 23 strains of pneumonia. The 23 strains that cause the vast majority of influenza deaths.
I just wonder why the medical community doesn't push the one vaccine that actually targets the culprits that will kill.
Maybe off topic a little but it's a curious fact.
A couple of weeks ago I found a mercury calculator from the National Vaccine Information Center. It's interesting.
http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/calc.htmlInvestment in partnerships and other deals to develop and manufacture vaccines has been on a tear — and accelerating since the swine flu pandemic began. Billions in government grants are bringing better, faster ways to develop and manufacture vaccines. Rising worldwide emphasis on preventive health care, plus the advent of the first multibillion-dollar vaccines, have further boosted their appeal.
While prescription drug sales are forecast to rise by a third in five years, vaccine sales should double, from $19 billion last year to $39 billion in 2013, according to market research firm Kalorama Information. That's five times the $8 billion in vaccine sales in 2004.
link
Huh. You mean there's money in vaccines? But what if they aren't as safe as the government thought way back when there were only 3 or 4 of them commonly used? What if they have injured millions of people since then? What if those people all sue?
So the government (aka politicians) can either get in bed with the liability-free vaccine makers and make a buck for themselves OR demand better testing of vaccines and vaccine ingredients and figure out where to get the money the vaccine injured people will need for medical care.
Extraordinary? Really?
Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.
The explanation that you desire requires more and more extraordinary narratives over time. This makes me more skeptical.
Investment in partnerships and other deals to develop and manufacture vaccines has been on a tear — and accelerating since the swine flu pandemic began. Billions in government grants are bringing better, faster ways to develop and manufacture vaccines. Rising worldwide emphasis on preventive health care, plus the advent of the first multibillion-dollar vaccines, have further boosted their appeal.
While prescription drug sales are forecast to rise by a third in five years, vaccine sales should double, from $19 billion last year to $39 billion in 2013, according to market research firm Kalorama Information. That's five times the $8 billion in vaccine sales in 2004.
link
Huh. You mean there's money in vaccines? But what if they aren't as safe as the government thought way back when there were only 3 or 4 of them commonly used? What if they have injured millions of people since then? What if those people all sue?
So the government (aka politicians) can either get in bed with the liability-free vaccine makers and make a buck for themselves OR demand better testing of vaccines and vaccine ingredients and figure out where to get the money the vaccine injured people will need for medical care.
Extraordinary? Really?
Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.
The explanation that you desire requires more and more extraordinary narratives over time. This makes me more skeptical.
Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.
The example of the tobacco industry suggests that this is at least possible.
link
Huh. You mean there's money in vaccines?
Oh you hippie chicks, scared of anything making money! :D
It's ok though, the story points out that
Contrast that with five years ago, when so many companies had abandoned the vaccine business that half the U.S. supply of flu shots was lost because of factory contamination at one of the two manufacturers left.
Any amount of money in it now can't inform the conspiracy theory of five years ago.
But what if
What if
What if
I'm tellin ya! Rule them out of your life, you'll be happier!
Yeah there wasn't much of a flu vaccine business before the recent flu scares.
I'm tellin ya! Rule them out of your life, you'll be happier!
Yes. And no one should have hacked the New Zealand climate data centers, because they never should have been asking "what if" the climate scientists there were lying in the first place. No scandal in history was ever exposed except by asking "what if."
Yeah the how-to-be-happier in life advice really cracked me up. I guess in that way, it worked...
There was an excellent article in Money magazine about vaccines years ago... maybe 10 years ago? I'll try to find it when I have time later.
Here it is. Just some history, for those that are interested.
Halsey's view is shared by many doctors. Says Geier: "The fact that a lot of pediatricians think whole-cell pertussis vaccine doesn't cause brain damage shows what a lot of money can do. Drug companies have paid a lot of money to people like James Cherry to put forth that image."
Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the University of California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized pertussis expert who has been a leader on advisory committees that help frame immunization policy for the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control. Back in 1979, at a symposium, he said, "All physicians are aware that pertussis vaccine occasionally produces severe reactions and that these may be associated with permanent sequellae [complications caused by the vaccine] or even death." But by 1990, Cherry had changed his mind, proclaiming in the Journal of the American Medical Association that severe brain damage caused by pertussis vaccine was nothing but "a myth." From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got about $400,000 in unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts" from Lederle. From 1988 through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle for pertussis research, and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA received $654,418 from Lederle for pertussis research. Additionally, drug manufacturers paid Cherry and UCLA $34,058 for his testimony as an expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits brought against the companies.
:mad2: Fine, I was being nice, let's try it this way. :mad2:
Does your entire argument rest on these kinds of hypotheticals? Because that automatically shoots all kinds of holes in your thinking. Can you see how we can pretty much say "what if" followed by *anything* and make up an argument out of thin air? Can you see how, because of this, the words "what if" can never be used to form a logical, provable argument? Here, let me try:
WHAT IF the government created vaccines as a way to actually encourage disease, to make us all dependent on them in a sort of mass hysteria play? WHAT IF the Cellar is a tool to help get the right word out on it? WHAT IF Undertoad is a ploy in that game to try to rescue a situation that's failing rapidly? WHAT IF the government created polio as a way to further that scenario? WHAT IF the secret is on its way out and this is a last chance opportunity to keep it hidden? WHAT IF the CDC was created as a way to make people think the right information is in good hands? WHAT IF each new head of the CDC is indoctrinated in the right way? WHAT IF one of them decided not to go with the program and was assassinated? WHAT IF the rest of the CDC fell in line thinking they might be next? WHAT IF medicine is semi-aware of the problem and hospitals are part of a program to hide vaccine-related deaths? WHAT IF vaccine-related deaths are three times as common as we think? WHAT IF AIDS is part of the plot that kind of got away from them when they couldn't figure out a vaccine-based fix for it?
Naturally, we could go on all day with this kind of shit. And it wouldn't prove ANYTHING. If we wanted to address the above paragraph, we would have to address each What If entirely and provide proof that each What If was not true. But nobody can do that, because it's hard to impossible to prove the truth or falsehood of a hypothetical. And any hypothetical that's resolved can simply be replaced with another hypothethical. ("Of course the CDC wasn't created to make people think the information is in the right hands. But WHAT IF it evolved to that mission -- and nobody outside the government figured it out?")
And when you come to believe the hypotheticals, you are in effect creating your own truth out of thin air. When you do that, you become a little DUMBER EACH TIME. It's FAULTY THINKING. OK, OK, don't stop doing it because you'll be HAPPIER. Do it because you'll be SMARTER, and less worried about STUPID LITTLE CONCERNS that can keep you engaged in fighting shadows your whole life.
Better?
OR: let's try it another way. Your argument is But WHAT IF they aren't as safe as the government thought way back when there were only 3 or 4 of them commonly used?
My counter-argument: WHAT IF they're actually safer than they were back then?
Did I just "win"? Or did we just play a little rhetorical game and prove nothing?
Actually, some of them are safer now, but most didn't exist at all. Read the article I linked. Educate yourself.
*sigh* entirely not the point.
*sigh* entirely not the point.
So its ok to "speculate" but saying "what if" requires a silly-long condescending response?
Did you read the article?
Naturally, we could go on all day with this kind of shit. And it wouldn't prove ANYTHING. If we wanted to address the above paragraph, we would have to address each What If entirely and provide proof that each What If was not true. But nobody can do that, because it's hard to impossible to prove the truth or falsehood of a hypothetical.
It's not "hard to impossible" to prove a hypothetical. It's called science, except they prefer the word
hypothesis. But you actually have to do the studies, before you can get to that point. All they'd have to do is a large-scale study with vaccinated and unvaccinated controls. But they won't. Their claim is that it would be unethical, to
not give vaccinations to babies in the interest of a clear and defined study, because they are
certain the vaccinations are good and not bad. When it's pointed out that there are already tens of thousands of people voluntarily not vaccinating, and they could use them for the study... they just continue to say it wouldn't be ethical. That's the only response they've ever given.
They could test the
hypothesis, and add to the body of science. They refuse. Why?
It's not "hard to impossible" to prove a hypothetical. It's called science, except they prefer the word hypothesis. But you actually have to do the studies, before you can get to that point.
Precisely; and it's up to the writer of the hypothetical to show proof, otherwise, the hypothetical alone is not proof of anything.
Right. At which point, it's just a question of money.
Who funds medical studies?
Clod, glad you agree that jinx shouldn't argue using hypotheticals.
Who funds medical studies? I don't know, there are a lot of them, in many nations around the world. Are you talking about the ones that made AIDS no longer a death sentence? The ones that improved cancer survival rates by 20% over the last few decades? The groundbreaking genetics work or the amazing psychiatric findings in the last ten years?
Jinx, CNN/Money is the shittiest financial periodical, and perhaps the shittiest overall periodical I have ever come across. I know it seems a total cop-out, but I have no interest in pawing through one of their turds in order to find the wisdom nuggets in it. Just tell me what they said.
Clod, glad you agree that jinx shouldn't argue using hypotheticals.
You're letting your anger make you petty, man. Everything I've said so far supports coming up with hypotheticals and then
being allowed to test them.
Who funds medical studies? I don't know, there are a lot of them, in many nations around the world. Are you talking about the ones that made AIDS no longer a death sentence? The ones that improved cancer survival rates by 20% over the last few decades? The groundbreaking genetics work or the amazing psychiatric findings in the last ten years?
Really? You want to go back to the whole "the medical field is a sainted profession that can do no wrong" stance? Obviously some scientists can, have, and will continue to do some great things. It helps when there's money in a cure, as all those medical problems above require treatment and medicines to be corrected. There's no money in it if the cure is to
stop doing something.
Of course, as you're so fond of pointing out, the truth always does come out eventually, especially if the problem is a growing one. What is your opinion of the recent study that I linked earlier in the thread, demonstrating that the Hepatitis B vaccination given at birth categorically caused developmental delays in newborn monkeys?
You're letting your anger make you petty, man. Everything I've said so far supports coming up with hypotheticals and then being allowed to test them.
But you don't support arguing with them without testing them. That was my point and you have made it.
Really? You want to go back to the whole "the medical field is a sainted profession that can do no wrong" stance?
I have not made such a statement, and haven't made it now.
Obviously some scientists can, have, and will continue to do some great things. It helps when there's money in a cure, as all those medical problems above require treatment and medicines to be corrected. There's no money in it if the cure is to stop doing something.
You will have to add that asterisk to your conspiracy theory. Tell you what, why don't you just tell us your entire theory at once so that you don't have to pull it out of me somehow. Anyone with money does what now?
Of course, as you're so fond of pointing out, the truth always does come out eventually, especially if the problem is a growing one. What is your opinion of the recent study that I linked earlier in the thread, demonstrating that the Hepatitis B vaccination given at birth categorically caused developmental delays in newborn monkeys?
It's a small sample and not double-blind, but it's an interesting counterpart to the human studies. But moot for our purposes since thimerosal is not given to human newborns.
But you don't support arguing with them without testing them. That was my point and you have made it.
No, I don't support
concluding with them without testing. But if the tests are being refused, then yes, you can argue the possibility of their existence as evidence that testing should be done.
It's a small sample and not double-blind, but it's an interesting counterpart to the human studies. But moot for our purposes since thimerosal is not given to human newborns.
First, it was double-blind, in that the researchers classifying the monkeys' developmental progress did not know which ones had been vaccinated, and the monkeys had no idea what was going on.
Second, it was not a "counterpart" to the human studies
because there have been no human safety studies with the Hepatitis B vaccination, nor most of the other vaccinations on the infant schedule, nor any combination of them together. There was one study that linked a particular brand of Hepatitis B vaccine to an increased risk of a non-autistic neurological disorder, but that would put the monkey study on the same side as the human studies, not a counterpart.
Third, I didn't realize that our purposes at this moment were still on thimerosal. I'm not sure based on your comment if you do realize that the Hepatitis B vaccine gave developmental delays to monkeys without containing thimerosal, but if so forgive me for unfairly changing the subject. But you may expect that I'll inadvertently do it again in the future, because my purposes are not limited in scope that way. I said it pages ago, and I'll say it again: It's not just the MMR, and it's not just autism. It's also not just mercury, and not just dystonia.
You will have to add that asterisk to your conspiracy theory. Tell you what, why don't you just tell us your entire theory at once so that you don't have to pull it out of me somehow. Anyone with money does what now?
You're the one who keeps calling it a conspiracy theory. I think that, just like some climate scientists, vaccine researchers are avoiding or outright fudging their data because they fundamentally believe they are right, and they feel it is a higher moral goal to convince the public they are right, even if it goes against the data.
People with money fund studies. By and large, this is pharmaceutical companies and equipment manufacturers. There are a lesser amount of public institutions that also fund studies, but they are usually hospitals and research facilities themselves that depend on the larger money from the pharmaceutical companies. And there are a handful of government agencies who are supposed to balance out the inherent bias that's going to be found in which studies get chosen by corporations. Usually they do a decent job of it, but they haven't been in this case. I suspect it's both because of the "means to an end" mentality I mentioned before, in addition to the fact that they are financially on the hook for billions of dollars if the hypothesis turns out to be true.
Almost all autism research that focuses on environmental sources has been privately funded by very small donors--and almost always there is a child with autism in the family. If I'm ever a 'person with money' in the largesse sense of the word, you can bet I'll be funding studies left and right. But until then, I rely on public funding to do good science. Instead, they're paying people to sit in a room dissecting the auditory properties of newborns' crying.
Jinx, CNN/Money is the shittiest financial periodical, and perhaps the shittiest overall periodical I have ever come across. I know it seems a total cop-out, but I have no interest in pawing through one of their turds in order to find the wisdom nuggets in it. Just tell me what they said.
Um, no.
I went looking for that 12 year old article in response to you saying
Any amount of money in it now can't inform the conspiracy theory of five years ago.
and also in response to you telling me a few month ago that you were interested in the vaccine controversy... that you had been meaning to look into it for a while actually.
If you don't want to read the article that's fine. I don't really want to read any more of your posts that are all about how intelligent and logical you are. I want to talk about vaccines.
First, it was double-blind, in that the researchers classifying the monkeys' developmental progress did not know which ones had been vaccinated, and the monkeys had no idea what was going on.
Your link didn't mention anything blind about it. (ETA: found it in the abstract, fine)
Second, it was not a "counterpart" to the human studies because there have been no human safety studies with the Hepatitis B vaccination
http://www.nfid.org/library/hepb_safety.shtml
Hepatitis B vaccines have been shown to be very safe when given to infants, children or adults (CDC, 1991 a; Greenberg, 1993). More than 20 million persons have received hepatitis B vaccine in the United States and more than 500 million persons have received the vaccine worldwide. The most common side effects from hepatitis B vaccination are pain at the injection site and mild to moderate fever (Szmuness, 1980; Francis, 1982; Zajac, 1986; Stevens, 1985; Andre, 1989; Greenberg, 1993). Studies show that these side effects are reported no more frequently among those vaccinated than among persons not receiving vaccine (Szmuness, 1980; Francis, 1982). Among children receiving both hepatitis B vaccine and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine, these mild side effects have been observed no more frequently than among children receiving DTP vaccine alone (CDC, 1991 a; Greenberg, 1993).
There's seven of them in this page alone.
Third, I didn't realize that our purposes at this moment were still on thimerosal. I'm not sure based on your comment if you do realize that the Hepatitis B vaccine gave developmental delays to monkeys without containing thimerosal, but if so forgive me for unfairly changing the subject.
You'll have to point to that study as I am unaware of it.
But you may expect that I'll inadvertently do it again in the future, because my purposes are not limited in scope that way. I said it pages ago, and I'll say it again: It's not just the MMR, and it's not just autism. It's also not just mercury, and not just dystonia.
"Look! J'accuse! This monkey study shows a problem with Hep B and thimerosal!"
"But numerous other studies show both are safe."
"What? I don't care - it's really about
all the vaccines and
all the additives!"
*sigh* then I suppose you won't bring up any more single-substance studies.
I want to talk about vaccines with people who agree with me.
FTFY.
You know that's not true, you're just being bratty.
Can you just please point to those posts where I said how intelligent and logical I am. So I can apologize appropriately.
(Posts in which I point out illogic don't count.)
http://www.nfid.org/library/hepb_safety.shtml
The Hepatitis B vaccine was much later in the schedule until 1991, when it was moved to the day of birth. So throw out every study except (Greenburg, 1993,) because they weren't testing babies getting injected on the day they're born. The Greenburg study doesn't seem to be available online, but I'd be interested to see how long they followed the babies' progress, since autistic symptoms are not usually diagnosed until two years later. Just looking for symptoms for 3-4 weeks after the shot won't reveal long-term immunological damage.
You'll have to point to that study as I am unaware of it.
Maybe I don't understand what you're asking for here... It's the same study I was talking about earlier in the post. They compared unvaccinated monkeys, monkeys giving just a plain Hepatitis B vaccine, and monkeys given a Hepatitis B vaccine containing thimerosal. The plain-vaccine monkeys showed delays, the thimerosal-vaccine monkeys showed greater delays.
"Look! J'accuse! This monkey study shows a problem with Hep B and thimerosal!"
"But numerous other studies show both are safe."
"What? I don't care - it's really about all the vaccines and all the additives!"
*sigh* then I suppose you won't bring up any more single-substance studies.
Once again, numerous studies do not show that the current adminstration methods of the Hepatitis B vaccine are safe. And numerous studies show quite the opposite of thimerosal; that it can be very unsafe, especially in younger babies and fetuses. Each individual part has its own risks, and there is a cumulative risk when you start stacking them one on top of the other. If you eat one bag of Doritos, your risk of stomach upset and atherosclerosis is there, but relatively low. If you eat a bag of Doritos every day, your risk of stomach upset and atherosclerosis is much higher. If you feed a baby a bag of Doritos every day, the effects will be much more stark than they are in an adult. I'm not sure why you seem to have a hard time understanding this.
Maybe I don't understand what you're asking for here... It's the same study I was talking about earlier in the post.
Maybe we're looking at different studies. Re-link to the one you're talking about.
I'm not sure why you seem to have a hard time understanding this.
I understand it perfectly.
Maybe we're looking at different studies. Re-link to the one you're talking about.
Ah, my mistake. The one that was linked earlier in the thread was just Hepatitis B including thimerosal. The other one doesn't seem to have been published yet; I read about it in an email alert from the research facility. They're doing the entire vaccination schedule, American (no thimerosal) and developing country (with thimerosal) versions, and they're getting completed and published one at a time.
Each individual part has its own risks, and there is a cumulative risk when you start stacking them one on top of the other.
Another day, more reading!
This review article summarizes a number of studies. Here is the section on "too many vaccines".
The notion that children might be receiving too many vaccines too soon and that these vaccines either overwhelm an immature immune system or generate a pathologic, autism‐inducing autoimmune response is flawed for several reasons:
1.
Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously [30]. Consistent with this theoretical exercise, combinations of vaccines induce immune responses comparable to those given individually [31]. Also, although the number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased during the past 30 years, with advances in protein chemistry and recombinant DNA technology, the immunologic load has actually decreased. The 14 vaccines given today contain <200 bacterial and viral proteins or polysaccharides, compared with >3000 of these immunological components in the 7 vaccines administered in 1980 [30]. Further, vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child’s immune system routinely navigates; the average child is infected with 4–6 viruses per year [32]. The immune response elicited from the vast antigen exposure of unattenuated viral replication supersedes that of even multiple, simultaneous vaccines.
2.Multiple vaccinations do not weaken the immune system. Vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not differ in their susceptibility to infections not prevented by vaccines [33–35]. In other words, vaccination does not suppress the immune system in a clinically relevant manner. However, infections with some vaccine‐preventable diseases predispose children to severe, invasive infections with other pathogens [36, 37]. Therefore, the available data suggest that vaccines do not weaken the immune system.
3.Autism is not an immune‐mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry that affects synaptic development might in part account for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated or inappropriate immune response to vaccination precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific data that address the pathogenesis of autism.
4.No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.
1.Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously
The idea is not that it overwhelms the immune system, it is that it artificially overstimulates it. It is not the viruses that are the problem, as indeed, babies encounter viruses every day. It is the adjuvants which deliberately induce an overreaction of the immune system, and they are not substances the average baby would come in contact with at all.
Also, although the number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased during the past 30 years, with advances in protein chemistry and recombinant DNA technology, the immunologic load has actually decreased. The 14 vaccines given today contain <200 bacterial and viral proteins or polysaccharides, compared with >3000 of these immunological components in the 7 vaccines administered in 1980
Again, it is irrelevant that there are fewer bacteriological proteins in the number of vaccines today, as the number of adjuvant doses has gone up in precise accordance with the number of shots. As I have pointed out before, in countries where it is the norm to deliver the vaccinations through a breathing treatment, with no adjuvant necessary, the autism rate is vastly lower.
Further, vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child’s immune system routinely navigates; the average child is infected with 4–6 viruses per year [32]. The immune response elicited from the vast antigen exposure of unattenuated viral replication supersedes that of even multiple, simultaneous vaccines.
A normal child, yes. Autistic children generally fall into one of two categories: either they are infected with 4-6 viruses about every two months (the immune system is not responding,) or they are infected with 0 viruses a year (the immune system is over-responding.)
3.Autism is not an immune‐mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38].
There is, in fact, plenty of evidence of immune activation and inflammatory lesions. The lesions are usually in the intestines. Here is
a gastroenterologist's testimony on it before Congress, including pictures of said lesions from the pill cams that he routinely sends down his autistic patients' gullets.
4.No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.
Right. No studies have been done, and our only excuse is because it would be unethical
not to give vaccines, even to volunteers, because we are so certain they are good.
Right. No studies have been done, and our only excuse is because it would be unethical not to give vaccines, even to volunteers, because we are so certain they are good.
The issues here are obviously that if they did allow a study using volunteers, there are too many variables for starters. Secondly, what if the study did show that children who didn't receive vaccines were worse off? What do you think the outcome would be then? Lawsuits? Thirdly, unvaccinated children are less at risk of the diseases in vaccines because of the greater percentage of children covered. What do you think the infant mortality and/or permanent physical or neurological damage rate was prior to vaccination, and how can a real study be done when the circumstances of with and without vaccines is impossible?
The idea is not that it overwhelms the immune system, it is that it artificially overstimulates it. It is not the viruses that are the problem, as indeed, babies encounter viruses every day. It is the adjuvants which deliberately induce an overreaction of the immune system, and they are not substances the average baby would come in contact with at all.
Another way to think of adjuvants is: anything the immune system has to fight off. So if a baby eats a something off the ground, bam, probably several hundred
adjuvants in it.
So: babies fighting off more stuff today? Or more 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago?
By the way, since we last talked about
squalene, I've learned that the human body produces it normally, in the sebaceous glands.
All higher organisms produce squalene, including humans. Squalene has been proposed to be a important part of the Mediterranean diet as it may be a chemopreventative substance that protects people from cancer.
A normal child, yes. Autistic children generally fall into one of two categories: either they are infected with 4-6 viruses about every two months (the immune system is not responding,) or they are infected with 0 viruses a year (the immune system is over-responding.)
Now you've got my attention. Cite?
There is, in fact, plenty of evidence of immune activation and inflammatory lesions. The lesions are usually in the intestines.
The article suggested that lesions in the central nervous system, not the intestines, are the indicator of autoimmune disease that affects... the things that the nervous system runs! Is the article wrong?
The article suggested that lesions in the central nervous system, not the intestines, are the indicator of autoimmune disease that affects behavior. Is the article wrong?
Yes. Because as I've said from the beginning, most if not all of the behaviors are not neurological at all, and not forcibly generated by the lesions; the behavior is in fact an entirely normal response to being in constant, searing pain 24 hours a day and being unable to communicate about it. Ask dar512 to describe his Crohn's pain at its worst, with no medications to help, and now pretend you are a toddler with no understanding of what is going on, and no way to tell anyone what hurts. Autistic kids beat their heads against walls because it is an over-sensory distraction from the pain. Autistic kids scream and fling themselves on the floor because they are in pain. Autistic kids can't focus on anything or remember anything they are taught partly because they are in pain. These are the behaviors that are improved with gastrointestinal interventions. There are other pieces to the treatment that must go hand-in-hand, but the gastrointestinal treatment is a big part of it.
My son is
thrilled to be drinking his nasty-ass liquid formula all day long. You can hold out his favorite cookie and ask him if he wants it, and he will tell you no. Because he's not in pain anymore, and he's sharp enough to recognize what made him feel better. After only two weeks on the formula, he's suddenly starting to have honest-to-God conversations with me.
Now you've got my attention. Cite?
Personal experience for the most part. I know there are cites available, though, and I will try to find one for you later this afternoon. Gotta go get dinner started right now.
I don't have access to any of the actual papers, but here is a complete list of cites regarding the autoimmune component of autism, and I bolded the ones that I would guess include examination of the over- or underactive attributes:
Ashwood P, Kwong C, Hansen R, Hertz-Picciotto I, Croen L, Krakowiak P, Walker W, Pessah IN, Van de Water J. Brief report: plasma leptin levels are elevated in autism: association with early onset phenotype? J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Jan;38(1):169-75.
Ashwood P, et al. Spontaneous mucosal lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms: mucosal immune activation and reduced counter regulatory interleukin-10. J Clin Immunol. 2004 Nov;24(6):664-73.
Ashwood P, Van de Water J. Is autism an autoimmune disease? Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Nov;3(7-8):557-62.
Ashwood P, et al. The immune response in autism: a new frontier for autism research. J Leuk Biol. 2006 Jul:80;1-15.
Bayary J, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin in autoimmune disorders: an insight into the immunoregulatory mechanisms. Int Immunopharmacol. 2006 Apr;6(4):528-34.
Boris M, et al. Improvement in children treated with intravenous gamma globulin. J Nutr Environmental Med. Dec 2006; 15(4):1-8.
Boris M, et al. Effect of Pioglitazone treatment on behavioral symptoms in autistic children. J Neuroinflammation. 2007 Jan 5;4:3.
Bradstreet JJ, Smith S, Granpeesheh D, El-Dahr JM, Rossignol D. Spironolactone Might be a Desirable Immunologic and Hormonal Intervention in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Med Hypotheses. 2006 Dec 4.
Brandtzaeg P. Current Understanding of Gastrointestinal Immunoregulation and Its Relation to Food Allergy. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2002;964:14-45.
Braunschweig D, et al. Autism: Maternally derived antibodies specific for fetal brain proteins. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Nov 6.
Bray TM, Taylor CG. Enhancement of tissue glutathione for antioxidant and immune functions in malnutrition. Biochem Pharmacol. 1994 Jun 15;47(12):2113-23.
Cabanlit M, Wills S, Goines P, Ashwood P, Van de Water J. Brain-specific autoantibodies in the plasma of subjects with autistic spectrum disorder. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Jun;1107:92-103.
Cave SF. The history of vaccinations in the light of the autism epidemic. Altern Ther Health Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):54-7.
Chinetti G, Fruchart JC, Staels B. Peroxisome proliferators-activated receptors (PPAR): nuclear receptors at the crossroads between lipid metabolism and inflammation. Inflamm Res 2000;49:497-505.
Cohly HH, Panja A. Immunological findings in autism. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2005;71:317-41.
Chmelik, E., N. Awadallah, et al. (2004). Varied presentation of PANDAS: a case series. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 43(4): 379-82.
Connolly AM, Chez MG, Pestronk A, Arnold ST, Mehta S, Deuel RK. Serum autoantibodies to brain in Landau-Kleffner variant, autism, and other neurologic disorders. J Pediatr. 1999 May;134(5):607-13.
Croen LA, Grether JK, Yoshida CK, Odouli R, Van de Water J. Maternal autoimmune diseases, asthma and allergies, and childhood autism spectrum disorders: a case-control study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005 Feb;159(2):151-7.
Croonenberghs J, Wauters A, Devreese K, Verkerk R, Scharpe S, Bosmans E, Egyed B, Deboutte D, Maes M. Increased serum albumin, gamma globulin, immunoglobulin IgG, and IgG2 and IgG4 in autism. Psychol Med. 2002 Nov;32(8):1457-63.
Croonenberghs J, et al. Activation of the inflammatory response system in autism. Neuropsychobiology 2002, 45(1):1-6.
Cross ML. Immune-signalling by orally-delivered probiotic bacteria: effects on common mucosal immunoresponses and protection at distal mucosal sites. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2004 May-Aug;17(2):127-34.
Dalton P, et al. Maternal neuronal antibodies associated with autism and a language disorder. Ann Neurol. 2003 Apr;53(4):533-7. DelGiudice-Asch G, Simon L, Schmeidler J, Cunningham-Rundles C, Hollander E. Brief report: A pilot open clinical trial of intravenous immunoglobulin in childhood autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 1999:29(2):157-60.
Denney DR, et al. Lymphocyte subsets and interleukin-2 receptors in autistic children. J Autism Dev Disord. 1996 Feb;26(1):87-97.
Dietert RR, Dietert JM. Potential for early-life immune insult including developmental immunotoxicity in autism and autism spectrum disorders: focus on critical windows of immune vulnerability.J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2008 Oct;11(8):660-80.
Drakes M, Blanchard T, Czinn S. Bacterial probiotic modulation of dendritic cells. Infect Immun. 2004 Jun;72(6):3299-309.
Droge W, Breitkreutz R. Glutathione and immune function. Proc Nutr Soc. 2000 Nov;59(4):595-600. Elchaar GM, Maisch NM, Augusto LM, Wehring HJ. Efficacy and safety of naltrexone use in pediatric patients with autistic disorder. Ann Pharmacother. 2006 Jun;40(6):1086-95.
Engstrom HA, Ohlson S, Stubbs EG, Maciulis A, Caldwell V, Odell JD, Torres A.R. Decreased Expression of CD95 (FAS/APO-1) on CD4+ T-lymphocytes from Participants with Autism. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2003 Jun 15;2:155-163(9).
Ferrante P, Saresella M, Guerini FR, Marzorati M, Musetti MC, Cazzullo AG. Significant association of HLA A2-DR11 with CD4 naive decrease in autistic children. Biomed Pharmacother. 2003 Oct;57(8):372-4.
Feinstein DL. Therapeutic potential of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists for neurological disease. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2003;5(1):67-73.
Fudenberg HH. Dialysable lymphocyte extract (DLyE) in infantile onset autism: a pilot study. Biotherapy. 1996;9(1-3):143-7.
Furlano RI, et al. Autism and the immune system. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997 Mar;38(3):337-49.Griem P., et al.; Allergic and autoimmune reactions to xenobiotics: how do they arise? Immunology Today 19: 133-141, 1998.
Gao HM, Hong JS. Why neurodegenerative diseases are progressive: uncontrolled inflammation drives disease progression. Trends Immunol. 2008 Aug;29(8):357-65.
Geier DA, Geier MR. A Clinical and Laboratory Evaluation of Methionine Cycle-Transsulfuration and Androgen Pathway Markers in Children with Autistic Disorders. Horm Res. 2006 Jul 5;66(4):182-188.
Geier DA, Mumper E, Gladfelter B, Coleman L, Geier MR. Neurodevelopmental disorders, maternal Rh-negativity, and Rho(D) immune globulins: a multi-center assessment. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2008 Apr;29(2):272-80.
Griem P, et al. Allergic and autoimmune reactions to xenobiotics: how do they arise? Immunology Today 19: 133-141, 1998.
Gupta S. Immunological treatments for autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000 Oct;30(5):475-9.
Gupta S, Aggarwal S, Heads C. Dysregulated immune system in children with autism: beneficial effects of intravenous immune globulin on autistic characteristics. J Autism Dev Disord. 1996 Aug;26(4):439-52.
Gupta S, et al. Th1- and Th2-like cytokines in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in autism. J Neuroimmunol. 1998 May 1;85(1):106-9.
Hamilton, RG, et al. In vitro assays for the diagnosis of IgE-mediated disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol 114(2): 213-25.
Hertz-Picciotto I, Park HY, Dostal M, Kocan A, Trnovec T, Sram R. Prenatal exposures to persistent and non-persistent organic compounds and effects on immune system development. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008 Feb;102(2):146-54.
Jyonouchi H, et al. Evaluation of an association between gastrointestinal symptoms and cytokine production against common dietary proteins in children with autism spectrum disorders. J Pediatr. 2005 May;146(5): 605-10.
Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Cushing-Ruby A, Quraishi H. Impact of innate immunity in a subset of children with autism spectrum disorders: a case control study. J Neuroinflammation. 2008 Nov 21;5(1):52.
Jyonouchi H, Sun S, Le H. Proinflammatory and regulatory cytokine production associated with innate and adaptive immune re-sponses in children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental regression. J Neuroimmunol. 2001 Nov 1;120(1-2):170-9.
Jyonouchi H, Sun S, Itokazu N. Innate immunity associated with inflammatory responses and cytokine production against common dietary proteins in patients with autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychobiology. 2002;46(2):76-84.
Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Zimmerman-Bier B. Dysregulated innate immune responses in young children with autism spectrum disorders: their relationship to gastrointestinal symptoms and dietary intervention. Neuropsychobiology. 2005;51(2):77-85.
Kelly GS. Bovine colostrums: a review of clinical uses. Altern Med Rev. 2003 Nov;8(4):378-94.
Kidd PM. Autism, an extreme challenge to integrative medicine. Part 2: medical management. Altern Med Rev. 2002 Dec;7(6):472-.
Kirjavainen PV, et al. New aspects of probiotics--a novel approach in the management of food allergy. Allergy. 1999 Sep;54(9):909.
Knickmeyer R, Baron-Cohen S, Raggatt P, Taylor K. Foetal testosterone, social relationships, and restricted interests in children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;46(2):198-210.
Konstantareas MM, Homatidis S. Ear infections in autistic and normal children. J Autism Dev Disord. 1987 Dec;17(4):585-94.
Koski CL, Patterson JV. Intravenous immunoglobulin use for neurologic diseases. J Infus Nurs. 2006 May-Jun;29(3 Suppl):S21-8.
Krause I, et al. Brief report: immune factors in autism: a critical review. J Autism Dev Disord. 2002 Aug;32(4):337-45.
Li X, et al. Elevated immune response in the brain of autistic patients. J Neuroimmunol. 2009 Jan 19.
Lipkin WI, Hornig M. Microbiology and immunology of autism spectrum disorders. Novartis Found Symp. 2003;251:129-43; discussion 144-8, 281-97.
Lucarelli S et al. Food allergy and infantile autism. Panminerva Med. 1995 Sep;37(3):137-41.
March JS. Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated With Streptococcal Infection (PANDAS): implications for clinical practice. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004, 158(9): 927-9.
Martin LA, Ashwood P, Braunschweig D, Cabanlit M, Van de Water J, Amaral DG. Stereotypies and hyperactivity in rhesus monkeys exposed to IgG from mothers of children with autism. Brain Behav Immun. 2008 Feb 7.
Messahel S, et al. Urinary levels of neopterin and biopterin in autism. Neurosci Lett 1998, 241(1): 17-20.
McDonald KL, Huq SI, Lix LM, Becker AB, Kozyrskyj AL. Delay in diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008
Meffert M, Baltimore D. Physiological Functions of brain NF-KB. Trends in Neurosciences. 2005;28(1):37-43.
Meyer U, Nyffeler M, Engler A, Urwyler A, Schedlowski M, Knuesel I, Yee BK, Feldon J. The time of prenatal immune challenge determines the specificity of inflammation-mediated brain and behavioral pathology. J Neurosci. 2006 May 3;26(18):4752-62.
Molloy C, et al. Elevated cytokine levels in children with autism spectrum disorder. J Neuroimmunology. 2006;172:198-205.
Mouridsen SE, Rich B, Isager T, Nedergaard NJ. Autoimmune diseases in parents of children with infantile autism: a case-control study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008 Jun;49(6):429-32.
Niehus R, Lord C. Early medical history of children with autism spectrum disorders. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2006 Apr;27(2 Suppl):S120-7.
Okada K, et al. Decreased serum levels of transforming growth factor-beta1 in patients with autism. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Oct 5.
Pardo CA, et al. Immunity, neuroglia and neuroinflammation in autism. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;17(6):485-95.
Patterson PH. Immune involvement in schizophrenia and autism: Etiology, pathology and animal models.Behav Brain Res.2008 Dec.
Pessah IN, et al. Immunologic and neurodevelopmental susceptibilities of autism. Neurotoxicology. 2008.
Plioplys AV. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment of children with autism. J Child Neurol. 1998 Feb;13(2):79-82.
Rampersad GC, et al. Chemical compounds that target thiol-disulfide groups on mononuclear phagocytes inhibit immune mediated phagocytosis of red blood cells. Transfusion 2005, 45(3): 384-93.
Reichenberg A, et al. Cytokine-associated emotional and cognitive disturbances in humans. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2001, 58(5): 445.
Schneider CK, Melmed RD, Barstow LE, Enriquez FJ, Ranger-Moore J, Ostrem JA. Oral Human Immunoglobulin for Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: A Prospective, Open-Label Study. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Jul 15.
Scifo R, et al. Opioid-immune interactions in autism: behavioural and immunological assessment during a double-blind treatment with naltrexone. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 1996;32(3):351-9.
Silva SC, et al. Autoantibody repertoires to brain tissue in autism nuclear families. J Neuroimmunol. 2004 Jul;152(1-2):176-82.
Singer HS, et al. Antibrain antibodies in children with autism and their unaffected siblings. J Neuroimmunol. 2006 Sep;178(1-2):149.
Singer HS, et al. Antibodies against fetal brain in sera of mothers with autistic children. J Neuroimmunol. 2008 Feb;194(1-2):165-72.
Singh VK. Plasma increase of interleukin-12 and interferon-gamma. Pathological significance in autism. J Neuroimmunol. 1996 May;66(1-2):143-5.
Singh VK. Th1- and Th2-like cytokines in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in autism. J Neuroimmunol. 1998 May 1;85(1):106-9.
Singh VK, et al. Circulating autoantibodies to neuronal and glial filament proteins in autism. Pediatr Neurol. 1997 Jul;17(1):88-90.
Singh VK, et al. Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with autistic behavior. Brain Behav Immun. 1993 Mar;7(1):97-103.
Singh VK, Singh EA, Warren RP. Hyperserotoninemia and serotonin receptor antibodies in children with autism but not mental retardation. Biol Psychiatry. 1997 Mar 15;41(6):753-5.
Singh VK, Rivas WH. Prevalence of serum antibodies to caudate nucleus in autistic children. Neurosci Lett. 2004 Jan 23;355(1-2):53-6.
Siragam V, Crow AR, Brinc D, Song S, Freedman J, Lazarus AH. Intravenous immunoglobulin ameliorates ITP via activating Fc gamma receptors on dendritic cells. Nat Med. 2006 Jun;12(6):688-92.
Stubbs EG, et al. Depressed lymphocyte responsiveness in autistic children. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1977 Mar;7(1):49-55.
Stubbs EG, Budden SS, Burger DR, Vandenbark AA. Transfer factor immunotherapy of an autistic child with congenital cytomegalovirus. J Autism Dev Disord. 1980 Dec;10(4):451-8.
Suh JH, Walsh WJ, McGinnis WR, Lewis A, Ames BN. Altered Sulfur Amino Acid Metabolism In Immune Cells of Children Diagnosed With Autism. Am J Biochem Biotechnol 4(2): 105-113, 2008.
Swedo SE, et al. Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections: clinical description of the first 50 cases. Am J Psychiatry. 1998 Feb;155(2):264-71.
Swedo SE, Leonard HL, Rapoport JL. The pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infection (PANDAS) subgroup: separating fact from fiction. Pediatrics. 2004 Apr;113(4):907-11.
Swedo SE, Grant PJ. Annotation: PANDAS: a model for human autoimmune disease. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Mar;46(3):227-34.
Sweeten TL, et al. Increased prevalence of familial autoimmunity in probands with pervasive developmental disorders. Pediatrics. 2003.
Sweeten TL, Posey DJ, McDougle CJ. High blood monocyte counts and neopterin levels in children with autistic disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Sep;160(9):1691-3.
Sweeten TL, Posey DJ, Shankar S, McDougle CJ. High nitric oxide production in autistic disorder: a possible role for interferon-gamma. Bio Psychiatry. 2004 Feb 15:55(4):434-7.
Todd RD, Hickok JM, Anderson GM, Cohen DJ. Antibrain antibodies in infantile autism. Biol Psychiatry. 1988 Mar 15;23(6):644-7.
Trajkovski V, Ajdinski L, Spiroski M. Plasma concentration of immunoglobulin classes and subclasses in children with autism in the Republic of Macedonia: retrospective study. Croat Med J. 2004 Dec;45(6):746-9.
Vojdani A, et al. Low natural killer cell cytotoxic activity in autism: The role of glutathione, IL-2 and IL-15. J Neuroimmunol. 2008 Dec 15;205(1-2):148-54.
Vojdani A, et al. Antibodies to neuron-specific antigens in children with autism: possible cross-reaction with encephalitogenic proteins from milk, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Streptococcus group A. J Neuroimmunol. 2002 Aug;129(1-2):168-77.
Vojdani A, et al. Infections, toxic chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue enzymes are major instigators of autoimmunity in autism. International J Immunopathol Pharmacology 16: 189-199, 2003.
Vojdani A, O'Bryan T, Green JA, Mccandless J, Woeller KN, Vojdani E, Nourian AA, Cooper EL. Immune response to dietary proteins, gliadin and cerebellar peptides in children with autism. Nutr Neurosci. 2004 Jun;7(3):151-61.
Todd RD, Hickok JM, Anderson GM, Cohen DJ. Antibrain antibodies in infantile autism. Biol Psychiatry. 1988 Mar 15;23(6):644-7.
Trajkovski V, Ajdinski L, Spiroski M. Plasma concentration of immunoglobulin classes and subclasses in children with autism in the Republic of Macedonia: retrospective study. Croat Med J. 2004 Dec;45(6):746-9.
Vojdani A, et al. Low natural killer cell cytotoxic activity in autism: The role of glutathione, IL-2 and IL-15. J Neuroimmunol. 2008 Dec 15;205(1-2):148-54.
Vojdani A, et al. Antibodies to neuron-specific antigens in children with autism: possible cross-reaction with encephalitogenic proteins from milk, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Streptococcus group A. J Neuroimmunol. 2002 Aug;129(1-2):168-77.
Vojdani A, et al. Infections, toxic chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue enzymes are major instigators of autoimmunity in autism. International J Immunopathol Pharmacology 16: 189-199, 2003.
Vojdani A, O'Bryan T, Green JA, Mccandless J, Woeller KN, Vojdani E, Nourian AA, Cooper EL. Immune response to dietary proteins, gliadin and cerebellar peptides in children with autism. Nutr Neurosci. 2004 Jun;7(3):151-61.
Vojdani A, et al. Heat shock protein and gliadin peptide promote development of peptidase antibodies in children with autism and patients with autoimmune disease. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2004 May;11(3):515-24.
Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. Colonic CD8 and gamma delta T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children with autism. Pediatrics 2001;138:366-72.
Warren RP, et al. Immune abnormalities in patients with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 1986 Jun;16(2):189.
Warren RP, et al. Detection of maternal antibodies in infantile autism. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1990 Nov;29(6):873-7.
Warren RP, et al. Reduced natural killer cell activity in autism. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1987 May;26(3):333-5.
Warren RP, et al. Immunogenetic studies in autism and related disorders. Mol Chem Neuropathol. 1996 May-Aug;28(1-3):77-81.
Wills S, et al. Autoantibodies in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Jun;1107:79-91.
Yonk LJ, et al. CD4+ helper T cell depression in autism. Immunol Lett. 1990 Sep;25(4):341-5.
Youseff S, Steinman L. At once harmful and beneficial: the dual properties of NFKB. Nature Immunology. 2006; 7(9):901-902
Zimecki M, Artym J. Therapeutic properties of proteins and peptides from colostrum and milk. Postepy Hig Med Dosw. 2005;59:309-23.
Zimmerman AW, et al. Maternal antibrain antibodies in autism. Brain Behav Immun. 2006 Oct 5.
Zimmerman AW, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid and serum markers of inflammation in autism. Pediatr Neurol. 2005 Sep;33(3):195.
Yes. Because as I've said from the beginning, most if not all of the behaviors are not neurological at all, and not forcibly generated by the lesions; the behavior is in fact an entirely normal response to being in constant, searing pain 24 hours a day and being unable to communicate about it. Ask dar512 to describe his Crohn's pain at its worst, with no medications to help, and now pretend you are a toddler with no understanding of what is going on, and no way to tell anyone what hurts. Autistic kids beat their heads against walls because it is an over-sensory distraction from the pain. Autistic kids scream and fling themselves on the floor because they are in pain. Autistic kids can't focus on anything or remember anything they are taught partly because they are in pain. These are the behaviors that are improved with gastrointestinal interventions. There are other pieces to the treatment that must go hand-in-hand, but the gastrointestinal treatment is a big part of it.
Yes neurological and yes biomedical treatment is a means of providing a healthy nervous system response but not a means to an end.
There are too many variables and too many levels of competency in individuals to lump all behaviors 'as attributed to pain.'
I've seen a lot of head bangers. Kickers screamers and hair pullers. yes Some were in pain because their stomach hurt but most were just pissed because the tag in the back of the t shirt tickled too much or someone wore perfume or maybe the light was too bright or someone was making noise.
And those are the bad behaviors. There are plenty of good behaviors too in association with autism and they are not gut related.
[edit] I should say that these people had no verbal communication skills. Not having any verbal communication skills or the ability to convey wants and needs is very frustrating and leads to aggressive and SIB behavior.
High functioning individuals have fewer episodes of aggression if behavior modification and training take place. A person who can self monitor their diet is even in a better place as far as positive behaviors but I've never seen a diet be the end all for a person/child with true autism.
Behaviors is a large vague word. Behaviors are multi faceted and interconnected on so many physiological levels.
I do agree that the stomach and intestines can be messed up and if curing/soothing/balancing that piece removes a child/person from the autism spectrum because all behaviors of that diagnosis no longer appear then that child never had autism to begin with.
I do get and see where you are coming from but saying most behaviors are not neurological is disinformation.
It's all connected, sidhe. Yes, my son also had major sensory issues aside from pain, including visual, tactile, vestibular, and proprioceptive. And you know what? When we pulled the allergens out of his system... about 90% of those sensitivities--and the behaviors they subsequently led to--went away. I've known other kids whose sensory issues didn't go away until they peed a thermometer while on chelation drugs.
Consider it this way: when you are drunk, is it neurological? Yes, in the sense that it is your brain that is impaired. But what is actively messing up the brain? Something you ingested. It is not an inherent, pre-existing neurological condition.
You may also note I did not "lump all behaviors" in together. I listed three very specific behaviors that resulted from pain, in fact, and noted that other treatments were an integral part. And you still don't seem to understand that a diagnosis of autism is the presence of behaviors, and nothing else. To say that someone never had autism to begin with is akin to saying that because you are no longer sneezing, you never sneezed to begin with. But thanks once again for your deep insight.
I don't have deep insight. Just two cents. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not sure what I think about vaccinations causing autism however and so I avidly read everyone's comments on it and appreciate them very much. Makes for good reading.
anyway,
Mostly I am very happy you have had so much success with your son. I really am. :)
I don't mean to lesson the importance of what you say by being short but I have to go watch a movie with a special someone.
Desiree update:
Her website is gone. (It had been sponsored and designed by a maker of portable hyperbaric units.) She had promised regular updates.
The Wikipedia entry on her controversy is removed as not being notable enough.
Krause.
Please don't ever lampoon me for posting links which support my views on things in the politics thread again. Eva. Thanks, bye.
wow clod. I didn't read well enough your response.
oh well
Never argue with a parent.
Um, Merc? I don't lampoon your sources in the politics forum. I skim the threads at best, and hop in on occasion when you say something that seems completely at odds with other things you yourself have said. I definitely don't read anything anyone quotes in those threads, because politics bores me. Secondly, if you can only nitpick 1 out of 115 separate studies cited, I'm cool with that.
Desiree update:
Her website is gone. (It had been sponsored and designed by a maker of portable hyperbaric units.) She had promised regular updates.
The Wikipedia entry on her controversy is removed as not being notable enough.
I find the wiki decision odd. Much on there is of very little "notability" - biographies of sportspeople, data about little towns here and there, and so on. With Desiree, there is at least some controversy and people will want some source of facts to check.
Oh well.
It's okay, now we can quit rehashing the individual case in which neither side has any first hand facts, and go back to discussing overall medical evidence.
I find the wiki decision odd. Much on there is of very little "notability" - biographies of sportspeople, data about little towns here and there, and so on. With Desiree, there is at least some controversy and people will want some source of facts to check.
Oh well.
I imagine you would need to be careful quoting Wiki as a source for controversial subjects.
Is there a documented case of an unvaccinated individual having autism?
Yes, there are many, because while "autism" is a set of behaviors, they have isolated a few individual genetic conditions that can be the underlying cause of the behaviors, such as Fragile X syndrome. About 5% of autism cases can be genetically confirmed as being Fragile X babies, and they don't respond to most, if any, of the biomedical treatments. The rate of Fragile X has stayed pretty steady in the population, because that's how genetic trends work, and it's believed they account for nearly 100% of cases prior to the current epidemic. The other 95% of children currently with autism can similarly be ruled out as not being Fragile X babies.
Issac Newton? Einstein?
I'm glad they didn't get Chelation therapy.
Although this is what I read next.
"One can imagine geniuses who are socially inept and yet not remotely autistic. Impatience with the intellectual slowness of others,
narcissism and passion for one's mission in life might combine to make such an individuals isolative and difficult." Elliott added that Einstein had a good sense of humor, a trait that is believed by some to be uncommon in people with severe Asperger syndrome.
[41]
[FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=3]This paragraph again makes me think that the label of austim is highly overused.
Someone I know is brilliant and funny and successful and his diagnosis is pdd which they say when one has one or two traits of autism but not really autistic or aspergers at all. He will accomplish great things. I love him just the way he is and there isn't anything to fix that his intelligence can't figure out for himself.The world, the schools label too much. It's society that needs the fixing. Talented/gifted isn't so great a label either.[/SIZE][/FONT]
This paragraph again makes me think that the label of austim is highly overused.
We've already addressed the issue of whether the prevalence is real; the numbers show conclusively that you're wrong. But if you don't want to slog through statistical proofs, just ask a special ed teacher who works in a public school. The schools know what's going on better than anyone: they're going broke creating new special education classrooms for all these autistic kids. If there is
any way these kids can make it in a regular classroom, they try to force them in, because they can't afford all the extra teachers, aides, and therapists these kids require. In turn, you can also ask any general education teacher who's been doing it for 30 years--they, too, will tell you that the kids today are not like the kids were when they first started teaching, and that the low-level spectrum kids that are forced to try to make it in a real classroom are nothing like the social misfits they used to have (and still have in the same numbers today.)
It is the law that all children get a chance at being mainstreamed. No one is being FORCED. You have got it backwards.
It's called the The least restrictive environment ( LRE) according to the Individuals with Disabilities Act.( IDEA) It's cheaper to have a separate class and parents have to fight to get services to provide mainstreaming but the law is on their side.
It wouldn't matter to you that I have been a special ed TA for the last twenty years because you are always right even when what you say flies in the face of law and reason.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htmYes. Because as I've said from the beginning, most if not all of the behaviors are not neurological at all, and not forcibly generated by the lesions; the behavior is in fact an entirely normal response to being in constant, searing pain 24 hours a day and being unable to communicate about it. Ask dar512 to describe his Crohn's pain at its worst, with no medications to help, and now pretend you are a toddler with no understanding of what is going on, and no way to tell anyone what hurts.
This is a new theory on your behalf, because I haven't found a post of yours mentioning both "pain" and "autism" before this one, and one might have found it germane to what we were all discussing.
One might have mentioned it when discussing the neurological effect of heavy metals for example. All that is pretty irrelevant. Anything "brain injury" is now a red herring, isn't it? For example, the Bailey Banks case of "acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis", neurological damage, now irrelevant to the discussion.
It's also pretty much against all the theories about how gut disorders lead to autism. The chart of connections you posted - doesn't mention pain. The alternative autism theory you have seemed to favor, says the gut disorders lead to problems in nutrient deficiency (leading to neurological problems), or by the opiate receptors being taken up (leading to neurological problems).
In fact, the entire GFCF theory is out. Jepson pages 96-97 bold mine:
A leaky gut means that molecules that wouldn't normally gain access can enter the bloodstream. This can lead to immune activation and tissue damage and effects on the brain, including damage to brain tissue. Over the years many patients have reported that their child's behavior improved measurably after gluten and casein were removed from the diet. Gluet is a protein found in grains and casein is a protein found primarily in cow's milk. These proteins have been shown to be highly immune-reactive in children with autism, particularly those with GI symptoms. There is also strong evidence that parts of these protein molecules act directly on the opiate receptors in the brain.
Goodwin et al. were among the first to document an abnormal brain response to gluten from food in autistic children with GI symptoms. Starting in the mid 1980s, several researchers found an elevation of molecules consistent with gliadomorphine (derived from gluten) and casomorphine (derived from casein) peptides in the urine of autistic subjects; these are substances that attach to the opiate receptors in the brain. They also showed that children who maintained a GFCF diet did much better neurologically (improved cognition, language, etc) than those who did not.
They hypothesized that these opioid peptides disrupt normal neurotransmitter function in the brain, creating or contributing to behaviors such as decreased socialization, decreased response to pain, abnormal language, and self-abuse or repetitive behaviors. They also proposed direct effects on the neuronal structure of the brain tissue and on the immune system. They suggested that people with autism are more likely exposted to these opioids because of abnormal digestive enzyme activity, most probably genetically influenced.
So: no neurological opioid connection, no need for GFCF.
How certain are you about this pain theory?
It is the law that all children get a chance at being mainstreamed. No one is being FORCED. You have got it backwards.
It's called the The least restrictive environment ( LRE) according to the Individuals with Disabilities Act.( IDEA) It's cheaper to have a separate class and parents have to fight to get services to provide mainstreaming but the law is on their side.
It wouldn't matter to you that I have been a special ed TA for the last twenty years because you are always right even when what you say flies in the face of law and reason.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm
Then how come I keep seeing articles in the paper about parents disrupting school board meetings, and even filing lawsuits, to create and get their kids into, special ed classes? :confused:
I have no idea. I don't know the particulars of the articles you have seen nor have I seen any.
On second thought the only angry parent articles I have seen revolve around the talented and gifted programs but then I am not looking for them either.
I just have to refer to the public law 94-142 and IDEA again. Every child has the right to be in a classroom with their non disabled peers.
edit
[SIZE=2]
Eligibility for services
Having a disability does not automatically qualify a student for special education services under the IDEA. IDEA defines a "child with a disability" as a child . . . with
mental retardation,
hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments,
visual impairments (including blindness),
serious emotional disturbance . . ., orthopedic impairments,
autism,
traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; AND, who . . . [because of the condition] needs special education and related services."
[7] Children with disabilities who qualify for special education are also automatically protected by Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, all modifications that can be provided under Section 504 or the ADA can be provided under the IDEA if included in the student's IEP.
Students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education services under the IDEA may qualify for accommodations or modifications under Section 504 and under the ADA. Their rights are protected by due process procedure requirements.
[/SIZE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act#Least_Restrictive_Environment
The best way to fight is to be familiar with the law and the resources and procedures to work within that law.
Forced may have been too strong a term, but I believe Clod's sentiment is still correct. If a school system's finances are lacking, then special needs kids are put into regular classroom settings. Im seeing it firsthand with my stepson. We will soon have to go to the state to get his school to cooperate.
Thirded - Pico! I have seen the statistics of kids identified or diagnosed as ADD or ADHD . . . virtually double in our high School. In the middle school its much worse. A decade ago it was probably about 1/3 of what it is now.
This is a lot like lupus - there is not magic bullet test that says "YES." It comes down to an interpretation of symptoms and the elimination of other causal factors.
pico
I understand that what people want for their children and educational law make for complicated bed partners.
UT
His savoir - faire makes for some fine reading.
@ classic ...Exactly my point. Diagnosis are doubled and tripled and not everyone just by the virtue of having a diagnosis is going to get special services. It depends upon what the educational law guidelines say.
Actually I am not even arguing with anything but the word forced and the over diagnosing. Oh and the 'not neurological' assertion which was my original reason for posting.
I think the orac blog link makes for a much better subject of debate than what I think. I don't want to quibble so much over semantics.
For archival purposes, I have made a local copy of Google's cache of Wikipedia's deleted Desiree Jennings page:
Desiree JenningsSo: no neurological opioid connection, no need for GFCF.
How certain are you about this pain theory?
Jesus Christ on a cracker, UT. How many different ways can I explain that there are
multiple pieces of internal dysfunction,
multiple sets of symptoms, and
multiple treatments that do not all work for every child? The chart that I attached awhile back didn't specifically mention "pain," because that's not a measurable symptom--instead it mentioned things like "inflammation," which any moron can realize leads to pain.
I haven't been discussing treatment of symptoms because
you haven't been discussing it; you've been hammering alternately on vaccines and thimerosal. Pages and pages ago, in fact, the thread did take a little tangent off into treatments, with reference to the idea that if these treatments
are working, it is de facto additional evidence that the disorder is autoimmune and the cause is environmental.
But since you're suddenly interested in the treatment of existing cases of autism, I'll give you a basic rundown of the biomedical model.
There are three major components, which all lead to a display of neurological symptoms in their own way: gastrointestinal, immunological, and toxicological. Every autistic child I have met has dysfunction in at least two, if not all three categories, with varying severity. But again, every kid is different.
My son, for example, is highly gastrointestinal and to a lesser degree immunological. The GFCF diet improved his symptoms, but it wasn't a cure. Removing all the foods he was allergic to made him even better, but it still wasn't a cure. A temporary stint on the liquid diet--which serves two purposes, incidentally, both to remove 100% of potential food allergens from his system, as well as to allow digestive damage to heal--is showing even more improvement, but it still is not a cure. (What's more, it does have the negative side effect of promoting intestinal infections, as the formula is the perfect food for bacteria as well. So it generally needs to be tempered with antibiotics so that you don't substitute one digestive problem for another.) But, while he did develop all these food allergies, and didn't get a single illness--not a cold, not a fever, nothing--for almost 2 years, he doesn't seem to have a significant myelin auto-immune component (which is what about half of those autoimmune cites I gave you are talking about--the fact that a huge number of autistic children show de-myelinization in the brain due to the immune system incorrectly targeting the myelin cells, just like it incorrectly targets small intestine cells in a person with celiac disease.) The treatment for de-myelinization is methylated B12 shots, which is what the body uses to repair and create new myelin. My son has not shown significant improvement with these shots, thus we are deducing no significant de-myelinization. We'll be doing the lab tests in another few weeks to find out if he has toxicological problems, but my personal instinct is that I think he probably will not.
On the other hand, my daughter is only very mildly gastrointestinal. Her primary symptom was constipation, rather than diarrhea. Foods did not seem to affect her behavior much, even when the food was causing obvious gastrointestinal problems, such as bright green stools with whole pieces of food completely undigested. And likewise, the liquid diet has shown some small improvements for her, but nothing like what my son has shown. She also had a few allergies, but nowhere near as many as he did, and she gets sick on a normal basis. But, she does seem to have a strong de-myelinization component, as she's been showing very significant improvements in just the last few days, after starting the B12 shots. She's not ready to do the toxicological labs yet, but my personal instinct is that I think she will have a significant toxicological problem, because her blood work has already shown she has an extremely low concentration of glutathione, which is the body's natural substance for removing toxins from the bloodstream. My son, on the other hand, had normal levels of glutathione.
I personally suspect that in 30 years, when these treatments have become more mainstream and had a chance to get real funding to be studied on a large scale, they will determine that there are several identifiable disorders at play here. One disorder that leads to an autoimmune attack on the myelin sheath, another disorder that leads to lesions in the digestive tract, another that breaks the metabolic cycle that removes toxins from the body... the overriding theme being varying levels of chaos in the immune system. Aside from the components that are not well understood yet, many kids with autism have other identifiable immune dysfunction, including celiac disease, Crohn's disease, severe food allergies, environmental allergies... and they've also confirmed that autism runs more strongly in families where the parents have various autoimmune disorders of their own. A mother with celiac disease, for example, is three times more likely to have an autistic child. What this ostensibly shows is a genetic predisposition for immune dysfunction. At which point the question becomes, what environmental factor has changed in the last thirty years, that is causing all of these disorders to be triggered in ever-growing numbers?
Of course you know my opinion on it: a specific type of insult to the immune system, leading to a variety of forms of immune dysfunction, accounting for the rise in not just autism, but also asthma, allergies, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, Crohn's, rheumatoid arthritis, etc. But just like the treatments for these autoimmune diseases are completely different, there are a variety of treatments that alleviate the multiple components of autism.
Also, I read the Orac article, and in my estimation it plays a whole ton of the "what if" game that you're so against, UT. It doesn't find fatal flaws in the study, it merely asks questions about the methodology (Did they account for this thing here? Did they use the same monkeys for study A as in study B?) and then proceeds with an assumption that the answer is negative.
We're ruling out the morons here, C - the morons think inflammation always leads to pain, but smart people like you know that inflammation and pain are two separate things.
For example, the only inflammation your
chart points to is inflammation of the
brain. As a very smart person, you know that inflammation of the brain is a neurological problem but pain is
not one of its symptoms.
Again I ask, how
certain are you about this pain theory? I mean, given that there's so many different paths to the behavior. When you said "the behavior is in fact an entirely normal response to being in constant, searing pain 24 hours a day and being unable to communicate about it", did you mean that:
- All autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?
- Most autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?
- Some autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?
- Some autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction, and some is the result of pain plus other, non-painful problems, neurological or otherwise?
- Both of your offspring's behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?
- One of your offspring's behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?
- Something else entirely? (explain) (show all work)
Remember, I'm just trying to clarify your statement, so there's no need to get defensive or snippy about it.
Also, I read the Orac article, and in my estimation it plays a whole ton of the "what if" game that you're so against, UT. It doesn't find fatal flaws in the study, it merely asks questions about the methodology (Did they account for this thing here? Did they use the same monkeys for study A as in study B?) and then proceeds with an assumption that the answer is negative.
I'll re-read it for that, but in the meantime, we'll know if the monkey count is identical in your
next email update. Promise to let me know?
For example, the only inflammation your chart points to is inflammation of the brain.
Nitpick: it points to gut inflammation leading to inflammation of the brain.
- Some autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction, and some is the result of pain plus other, non-painful problems, neurological or otherwise?
This one, plus 'some behaviors are a result of neurological dysfunction and not related to pain at all.' My mistake was in listing specific symptoms that can be a result of pain (head-banging, screaming, posturing) and forgetting that not everyone knows the entire set of symptoms and would understand this was merely a few of them.
One of my children has/had obvious gut pain. The other does not seem to, but I can't ask her because she doesn't talk. (Some autism mothers have also reported that their older children, even once they learned to talk, didn't tell anyone about their moderate levels of pain until much later because at some point they had decided it was normal, that everyone felt this way.) Both have neurological symptoms beyond the pain, which we are working to address through other known causes. It is possible we will never know all the causes of the neurological damage; or that we will, but be unable to totally repair the damage; or that we can repair it, but will only be able to maintain that level with a steady dose of drugs and supplements to address permanent underlying disorders. I don't know. The only thing I fundamentally do not believe is that this is a wholly genetic condition that they were born with from day one. The neurons were working, and then they stopped working.
I'll re-read it for that, but in the meantime, we'll know if the monkey count is identical in your next email update. Promise to let me know?
Yeah, if they mention it. But I bet I won't see that kind of detail until the article is published, same time you will.
Inflamation of the brain doesn't cause pain in the brain itself, but it certainly causes pain in the head area because it restricts blood vessels etc. This is why people with brain tumours and concussion suffer from pain. It's not the brain itself that's hurting. It's all the other stuff up there.
Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children
Main results
Fifty-one studies with 294,159 observations were included. Sixteen RCTs and 18 cohort studies were included in the analysis of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. From RCTs, live vaccines showed an efficacy of 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71% to 89%) and an
effectiveness of 33% (95% CI 28% to 38%) in children older than two compared with placebo or no intervention. Inactivated vaccines had a lower efficacy of 59% (95% CI 41% to 71%) than live vaccines but
similar effectiveness: 36% (95% CI 24% to 46%).
In children under two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo. Variability in study design and presentation of data was such that a meta-analysis of safety outcome data was not feasible. Extensive evidence of reporting bias of safety outcomes from trials of live attenuated vaccines impeded meaningful analysis.
Authors' conclusions
Influenza vaccines are efficacious in children older than two but little evidence is available for children under two. There was a marked difference between vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. No safety comparisons could be carried out, emphasizing the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies.
It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required. Hello? They don't have to do a study because they already told us it's safe. What the hell is it with you conspiracy-spouting hippies and your infernal "what if" scenarios? How about this: "what if" you just shut up and do what you're told. Inject this shit into your baby for no reason.
Speaking of efficacy, did anyone else see the story yesterday about all the recalled H1N1 vaccine that had apparently lost its mojo.
lemme dig around.
Here we go.
About 800,000 doses of swine flu vaccine for children are being recalled because tests found the strength of the shots had dropped since shipment, officials announced Tuesday.
....
Most of the vaccine, which was distributed nationwide in November, has probably already been used.
IOW, the live/weakened nasal flu vaccine was efficacious, because it prevented flu 82% of the time, but was not effective, because it only prevented "flu-like symptoms", from viruses other than influenza, 36% of the time. The dead, injected vaccine was only 59% efficacious, so the nasal, live/weakened version is better at combating flu.
Flu vacine efficacy is measure by antibody or titer response - beneficial results under ideal (lab) conditions. Effectiveness indicates the vaccines ability to work (ie. prevent flu) in real world conditions.
I'm going by what the
Summary says:
The review authors found that in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus (82% of illnesses were prevented) than injected vaccines made from the killed virus (59%). Neither type was particularly good at preventing 'flu-like illness' caused by other types of viruses (33% and 36% respectively).
Saying "82% of illnesses were prevented" sounds awfully similar to saying "over a million jobs were saved".
Here is a perfect example of how political this bullshit is.
From the AP, via boston.com:
Panel finds no digestion problem specific to autism
An advisory panel says there is no rigorous evidence that digestive problems are more common in children with autism compared with other children or that special diets work, contrary to claims by celebrities and vaccine opponents.
Painful digestive troubles can trigger problem behavior in children with autism and should be treated medically, according to the panel’s report, published in the January issue of Pediatrics and released today.
Nevermind that sentence two seems to directly contradict sentence one, the article continues as you would expect and uses sparse quotes from the panel's findings.
Here is a
press release from the National Autism Association regarding
the exact same advisory paper:
An article published today in the journal Pediatrics confirms what parents and advocacy organizations have been saying for years: many individuals with autism suffer from gastrointestinal disease that can contribute to behaviors and symptoms associated with autism.
Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus Report is the result of expert panel study and discussion led by Dr. Timothy Buie of the Harvard Medical School Department of Pediatrics. The panel's findings point out not only the existence of underlying GI disturbances that can manifest as behavioral problems, but also notes that such medical issues have often gone undiagnosed or been ignored in the past by physicians treating patients diagnosed with autism.
But the NAA includes much larger portions of the panel's findings, so you can decide whose interpretation is more accurate:
The panel arrived at several conclusions regarding current clinical practice guidelines and made recommendations for future medical and research priorities. These include:
Current treatment guidelines do not routinely consider potential medical problems
Problem behaviors including self-injury, aggression, irritability, and sleep disturbance may be manifestations of abdominal pain
Behavioral treatment should not substitute for medical treatment
Gastrointestinal symptoms should be considered an urgent indication for medical investigation
Immunologic dysfunction, inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, and allergies are all potentially associated with autism
Research is needed to determine the role of abnormal GI permeability in neuropsychiatric manifestations of autism
Greater awareness is needed among health care providers of the atypical manifestations of GI disorders
Awareness of unrecognized medical conditions in autism must become a priority of professional societies including the American Academy of Pediatrics
Diagnostics should be performed to accurately identify co-morbid allergic disease
Research is needed to determine the role of immune dysfunction in autism
Saying "82% of illnesses were prevented" sounds awfully similar to saying "over a million jobs were saved".
Yea but it was 600k! :D :lol2:
Panel finds no digestion problem specific to autism
Just picked up a new kid with the diagnosis... major digestive issues suprise suprise.:headshake
Here are my son's DMSA results. First, the "before" data; i.e., urine collected for six hours immediately prior to giving the dose of medication. Note especially the Lead and Tungsten numbers.
And the "after" data; i.e., urine collected in the very next six hours on the same day, following a dose of DMSA. As you can see, most things are increased a little, nothing huge, but Lead has spiked way up. Even more than the graph makes it appear, actually, because they squashed each scale to fit on one page. Cadmium output, for example, is "elevated," but it's only a value of .7 when it should be a maximum of .5, so it's about 40% out of range. Lead, on the other hand, is at 33 when it should be at a maximum of 5, so it's 660% out of range, or six times higher than what is considered a safe amount of lead in the body.
Meanwhile, you may notice that Tungsten was a little elevated before the drug, and stayed right at the same level after the drug. From this we can infer that there's some higher-than-average source of Tungsten somewhere in his environment, but he's successfully processing and peeing it out without a problem, thus there was no extra Tungsten for the drug to grab.
The big question now, of course, is whether there is an ongoing source of Lead in his environment, or if this is just old buildup from years of being unable to properly metabolize and excrete this metal. We've begun testing things in the house with at-home kits, like all his crappy toy cars made in China, and the bathtub, and the dishware, but so far nothing's come up positive. Our house is only 10 years old, so we're pretty sure it's old buildup and not a recent source, but we're going to check everything to be sure.
Interesting data.
You and your spouse share his environment, but presumable process metals better. For diagnostic purposes, would it be time and cost effective to do a similar test on yourselves to get a baseline reading of your environmental intake? (My experience with consumer-grade home test kits has been pretty lackluster.)
Time-wise it could be done over a weekend, no problem, but cost-wise would be over $100 for each of us. That's not too huge in the grand scheme of the kids' medical care, but realistically we don't share his environment as much as one might think. We sleep in our bed, not his (different mattresses purchased almost 10 years apart,) we don't go to his school each day, we don't handle his toys all day, and we don't put our hands in our mouths, which is the primary way this stuff is going to be getting into him.
Hypothetically, if we found abnormal quantities of lead in our urine, that would still leave us with needing to find the source in the environment somehow. And if we didn't, we'd still have to check all the parts of his environment that we don't come into contact with to be sure. Really the best way of knowing if it's in his environment is going to be if the amount the drug excretes goes down on subsequent doses. I know, for example, one mother whose son only needed 3 doses, then the levels went down, and though they've continued to test periodically once a year or so, his levels have not gone back up. On the other hand, I know a mother who continued regular doses for years, because her daughter's levels never went down. They live in an old house and confirmed the presence of lead not just in the paint, the bathtub, and the plumbing pipes, but quite a fair amount that had leached into the soil as well. So they replaced the tub, uprooted the home garden up into large pots with purchased soil, and put filters on all the faucets and showerheads in the house... but they can't afford to strip off all the old paint, nor can they afford to move, so in the meantime the drugs are going to forever be playing catchup. Those parents didn't test themselves, but they did get their neurotypical daughter tested to make sure her levels were normal, and they were.
Orac on this use of chelation:
The second rationale is a dubious, unreliable, and unproven diagnostic test in which children are given chelating agents and then the levels of mercury and other metals are measured in urine samples. Surprise, surprise! These levels are virtually always elevated (mainly because that's what chelation therapy does, binds metals and leads to their excretion in the urine, even in normal children). These "provoked urinary toxic metals tests" are virtually guaranteed to show "elevated" levels of various metals, particularly because often the "normal" ranges used for these tests are based children who have not recently had a chelating agent administered:[INDENT]Nobody knows what normal results of this test would look like, toxicologists say. There is no accepted reference range. Nonetheless, the lab sends back color-coded charts that show alarming peaks of metals graphed against a meaningless reference range that was calculated for people who had never been given a chelator.
"That is exactly the wrong way to do it," said Dr. Carl R. Baum, director of the Center for Children's Environmental Toxicology at Yale- New Haven Children's Hospital. "There is a whole industry that preys on people's fears of heavy metal poisoning."
Though most labs note that the reference range used is for unprovoked results, the apples-to-oranges comparison still can set off panic in parents.[/INDENT]
Quackwatch on the use of this exact Doctor's Data report, and the disclaimer at the bottom that Clod did not include (I'm not saying intentionally):
When testing is performed, the levels are expressed as micrograms of lead or mercury per grams of creatinine (µg/g) and compared to the laboratory's "reference range." Several years ago, a well-designed experiment tested workers who had industrial exposure to mercury. The researchers found that provocation with DMSA raised the 24-hour average urine mercury level from 4.3 µg/g before chelation to 7.8 µg/g after chelation [2]. Because most of the extra excretion occurs toward the beginning of the test, it is safe to assume that the provoked levels would have been 2-3 times as high if a 6-hour collection period had been used.
Practitioners who use the urine toxic metals test typically tell patients that provocation is needed to discover "hidden body stores" of mercury or lead. However, the above experiment proved that provocation raises urine levels as much in exposed workers as in unexposed control subjects and that rise is temporary, should be expected, and is not evidence of "hidden stores."
Doctor's Data uses a reference range of less than 3 ug/g for mercury and 5 ug/g for lead. Standard laboratories that process non-provoked samples use much higher reference ranges, which means that if all other things were equal, Doctor's Data is far more likely than standard labs to find "elevated" levels. But that's not all. A disclaimer at the bottom of the above lab report states—in boldfaced type!—that "reference ranges are representative of a healthy population under non-challenge or nonprovoked conditions." In other words, they should not be applied to specimens that were obtained after provocation. Also note that the specimen was obtained over a 6-hour period, which raised the reported level even higher.
The researchers found that provocation with DMSA raised the 24-hour average urine mercury level from 4.3 µg/g before chelation to 7.8 µg/g after chelation [2]. Because most of the extra excretion occurs toward the beginning of the test, it is safe to assume that the provoked levels would have been 2-3 times as high if a 6-hour collection period had been used.
My understanding is that the difference in volume of a 6-hour versus 24-hour collection is accounted for. But regardless, the main point seems to be that an average person will go about 50% out of range (at least for mercury) when provoked. And indeed, my doctors are not concerned about the "elevated" levels that are only slightly out-of-range, like Cadmium for example, or even 2-3 times out of range. They are concerned about the one that is 6.6 times out of range.
Standard laboratories that process non-provoked samples use much higher reference ranges,
And what would that reference range for lead be? Is it less than 33 ug/g?
It is certainly possible that some people could take what amounts to an average provoked sample, and panic and be convinced (or convince themselves) that they need ongoing intensive chelation treatments. The doctor is supposed to have the education and experience to correctly interpret the lab results, just as with any lab results, but there are both bad and good doctors out there.
The important thing to remember is that just because some people are hypochondriacs, doesn't mean others don't have a legitimate condition. The link notes that the average person will give a range of 7.8 ug/g of mercury after provocation, and this requires no special treatment. That's fine. I have personally seen lab results of an autistic child whose provoked mercury sample was in the 30s, and spoken to others who said theirs were higher. They required treatment, and their symptoms were measurably improved with treatment. (Clearly my son is not in that category, however, so we're not treating him as if he has mercury poisoning.)
But regardless, the main point seems to be that an average person will go about 50% out of range (at least for mercury) when provoked. And indeed, my doctors are not concerned about the "elevated" levels that are only slightly out-of-range, like Cadmium for example, or even 2-3 times out of range. They are concerned about the one that is 6.6 times out of range.
The main point is not that an average person will go about 50% out of range for mercury. That's not even suggested...
The main point is that when chelation drugs are taken, heavy metal are leeched out of the blood and secreted in urine, and so it is absolutely natural and expected to see "out of range" levels in the urine at that time, as there is no "range" for the levels that chelation produces. The "range" given is for people not taking chelation drugs.
Earlier you came to the conclusion that
Meanwhile, you may notice that Tungsten was a little elevated before the drug, and stayed right at the same level after the drug. From this we can infer that there's some higher-than-average source of Tungsten somewhere in his environment, but he's successfully processing and peeing it out without a problem, thus there was no extra Tungsten for the drug to grab.
This is incorrect.
DMSA is meant to leech out "soft" metals such as lead, mercury, tin and cadmium, but tungsten, not so much. The levels of tungsten are not higher because the drug doesn't grab it.
(And apparently it reverse-leeched titanium, as the "after" levels are
zero but the "before" are halfway into the "normal". But note that titanium is a hard metal, so DMSA would not affect it.)
I looked up Lead Poisoning and found some other things I did not know. I thought maybe others may be interested too.
Clod...When you say elevated levels of lead you do not mean lead poisoning correct?
and as far as this article I found, lead levels are naturally higher at the age of two.
and a well balanced diet helps eliminate lead and
the effects of lead poisoning do not appear until the age of 6 according to this article. Do you disagree?
Have your children had blood tests for lead poisoning?
Information regarding lead poisoning from webMD
http://children.webmd.com/news/20070815/lead-poisoning-and-kids
Is Your Child at Risk of Lead Poisoning? continued...
There is a sure way to know whether your child has accumulated dangerous amounts of lead: a simple blood test. Such tests cost about $15 or $20. Results come back in two days, says Emory University pediatrician Robert J. Geller, MD, medical director of the Georgia Poison Center and chief of pediatrics at Grady Health System, Atlanta. Rosen says, "To be cautious, if a child has been playing with a leaded toy for about one month or more, it is suggested that a child should be tested for lead."
"The average American blood level is 2 to 3 micrograms/dL," Geller tells WebMD. "Your body does get rid of lead very slowly. So a small amount that gets in will be excreted. It is not a permanent blood level."
What to Do for Children With Lead Poisoning
Unfortunately, once a child has absorbed a dangerous amount of lead, there's no quick way to make the lead go away.
Children with dangerously high blood lead levels -- 45 micrograms/dL or more -- can be treated by chelation (pronounced key-LAY-shun). Chelation involves giving a child one of two drugs that quickly remove lead from the blood.
Chelation can save the life of a child with acute lead poisoning. But it does not remove all lead from the body. Most ingested lead is stored in the bones and leaches back into the bloodstream -- and brain -- over time.
"Chelation stops lead poisoning from being life-threatening," Rosen says. "Has damage already been done to the brain? Yes. Chelation does not reverse the adverse effects of lead on the brain. What it does do is save lives. Chelation is of no value -- and may actually harm -- children with lead levels under 45 micrograms/dL."
The USPS panel notes that repeated chelation may temporarily lower blood lead levels, but these reductions are not sustained. The panel found no evidence that these temporary reductions improve health or behavioral outcomes.
What Is Lead Poisoning? continued...
To fully test children to see if there are any adverse outcomes from lead poisoning cannot be done until they reach their sixth birthday," Rosen says. "Many of these symptoms don't manifest until age 6 or 7 years. What a parent might know before that might well be some common complaints such as speech delay, hyperactivity, not being able to sit/listen/learn in school, and not being able to focus. Those observations may be the result of earlier childhood lead poisoning."
Is Your Child at Risk of Lead Poisoning? continued...
There is a sure way to know whether your child has accumulated dangerous amounts of lead: a simple blood test.
A recent U.S. Preventive Services (USPS) Task Force panel noted in a 2006 report that children's blood-lead levels usually peak at about age 2 and go down after that.
What to Do for Children With Lead Poisoning continued.
What does work? Rosen says the first thing to do is to have the child's pediatrician work with local health authorities to find and remove the source of lead poisoning.
Second, Rosen recommends making sure children with high lead levels get a diet rich in calcium and iron. This, he says, helps prevent intestinal absorption of lead and speeds elimination of lead from the body.
"We are recommending a diet replete in calcium-rich foods such as milk and cheese and iron-rich foods such as fresh green vegetables and some red meat," he says.
Rosen admits that frustrated parents may want to do more. But he says that if lead has been removed from the child's environment and the child gets a healthy diet, lead levels will naturally decrease over time.
Rosen also suggests that children who have had high blood lead levels should be assessed by a neuropsychologist at age 6 years to evaluate the need for educational interventions.
"I have supervised 30,000 cases of child lead poisoning, and I have not seen a case of symptomatic lead poisoning for many years," Rosen says.The "range" given is for people not taking chelation drugs.
The range Doctor's Data references is for people not taking chelation drugs. Your article referenced a "well-designed" study that gave a mercury range for people who
had taken chelation drugs: 7.8 ug/g, or 2.8 ug/g higher than the acceptable range according to Doctor's Data. And that's fine, I find it very plausible that the drug merely moves out the mercury faster and harder, when the normally-processing body would have gotten to it shortly after, and for people within that 7.8 range, there is no need to treat, even though the Doctor's Data lab results would call that range "elevated."
But at some point, there is inarguably a level at which the patient does pee out more mercury than is acceptable, and should continue to be treated. What do you believe that level to be? Certainly 7.8 ug/g is too low, and your article seems to indicate that maybe even 2-3 times that, or 15.6-23.4, would be acceptable, since they seem to think a 6-hour urine test will be more concentrated than a 24-hour. (My understanding is this is not the case, that the 6-hour vs. 24-hour tests are accounted for to put the results on comparable footing. I have a link later in the post stating that this is the case for lead, but I don't know about mercury.) But what about a mercury level in the 30s? That's definitively higher than your article indicates is even possibly normal for a patient who has taken chelation drugs. There are quacks out there who believe that everyone is suffering from some sort of overall toxic stress from our big bad industrial society, and I don't agree with them. But I do believe that there are certain individuals who do have severely abnormal levels, and those individuals should be treated, especially if they show severely abnormal neurological symptoms that one might expect to see with heavy metal poisoning.
When you say elevated levels of lead you do not mean lead poisoning correct?
By technical definition, yes, too much lead in the blood is lead poisoning. I do not know in my son's case whether it came from a specific large source (i.e., chewing on a lead-painted toy,) which is what one usually would consider to be a "poisoning" incident, or perhaps is just buildup from years of drinking unfiltered tap water and being unable to remove it like a normal person's body would.
and as far as this article I found, lead levels are naturally higher at the age of two.
My son is almost 4.
and a well balanced diet helps eliminate lead
This assumes one is absorbing the nutrients from their well-balanced diet. People with chronic digestive diseases suffer from malabsorption, and can become undersized and underweight for their age (among other symptoms of malnutrition,) because they are not actually getting any of the nutrients that their body needs for all its processes, no matter how well they eat.
the effects of lead poisoning do not appear until the age of 6 according to this article.
No, the proof of lead poisoning cannot be fully
tested for until the age of six. According to your article (bold mine,)
What a parent might know before that might well be some common complaints such as speech delay, hyperactivity, not being able to sit/listen/learn in school, and not being able to focus. Those observations may be the result of earlier childhood lead poisoning.
Have your children had blood tests for lead poisoning?
No, because the theory is that this is not some coincidentally recent source, this is long-term lead that my son's body has been unable to remove over time. As your article notes,
Most ingested lead is stored in the bones and leaches back into the bloodstream -- and brain -- over time.
So we would expect his current blood level to be low. But your article seems to indicate that chelation drugs only pull lead out of the blood, not other stores, and that is not correct.
This study from the NIH indicates that DMSA pulls lead from soft tissue and some types of bone as well. That same study also notes, UT, that
DMSA-chelatable lead excreted in the 24-h portion correlated well with the excretion in the 6-h portion.
That study suggests that a "cortical Bone-Pb" would be a more valid test to determine the level of long-term stores in the body, but I don't think that the trauma and risk of a bone biopsy is in my son's best interest, compared to cautiously examining ongoing lead levels and whether they plummet dramatically in another treatment or two, thus indicating that the store has been depleted. If one were to accept the idea that this kind of elevated number is completely normal following a chelation dose, then one would have to expect that the high numbers would never go down, because the chelation drug would produce the same result every time.
But at some point, there is inarguably a level at which the patient does pee out more mercury than is acceptable, and should continue to be treated. What do you believe that level to be?
I'm saying the levels after chelation treatment don't tell you very much of interest.
The Wikipedia article on diagnosis of mercury poisoning says it too: "It is difficult or impossible to interpret urine samples of patients undergoing chelation therapy, as the therapy itself increases mercury levels in the samples.
[27]"
It's kind of funny because, from one standpoint, the answer to this question is "No amount of mercury in the urine is unacceptable", because that's where the body gets rid of it. I mean, if I drank an entire bottle of it, I would hope my pee an hour later would be 100%, shimmering silver.
(next is the boring part)
Certainly 7.8 ug/g is too low, and your article seems to indicate that maybe even 2-3 times that, or 15.6-23.4, would be acceptable, since they seem to think a 6-hour urine test will be more concentrated than a 24-hour. (My understanding is this is not the case, that the 6-hour vs. 24-hour tests are accounted for to put the results on comparable footing. I have a link later in the post stating that this is the case for lead, but I don't know about mercury.) But what about a mercury level in the 30s? That's definitively higher than your article indicates is even possibly normal for a patient who has taken chelation drugs.
7.8 ug/g was an average for this one particular group of factory workers, not for everybody. So, if the average was 7.8 ug/g but the measured numbers extend to 10.0 ug/g, there's your 30. If it extends to 13, there's your 40. Easily within the range of normal.
Not hard to believe the numbers could vary and still be normal. Your boy measured changes in metals not affected by DMSA. Here we have evidence of wide ranges of normal.
The statistic for those graphs uses creatinine levels as a denominator; but what's strange about that is, creatinine levels vary greatly from person to person.
Creatinine levels in your boy will be greatly less than the levels in those factory workers.
If creatinine is not a reliable denominator - the numbers could be off the charts and still not tell us anything interesting at all.
There is so much missing here.
The levels measured in that study were for workers regularly exposed. What if the exposure is sudden? (Did somebody inhale near a broken fluorescent light bulb? Did somebody eat an ashtray? Did somebody have tuna for dinner?)
The Wikipedia entry on mercury poisoning notes that even pre-chelation urine levels are only interesting if the exposure is chronic.
Does the body process sudden exposure differently than long-term consistent exposure? Is the elimination of mercury into the urine consistent over time, or is it "here and there"? Do certain meals encourage it? Does exercise?
Do certain people react differently to chelation? Are some more resistant than others? Do obese people give off more mercury during chelation because it's stored in fat and not in the bloodstream? Or do they give off less? Are these factors relevant in children?
So many missing pieces for us, because we have not studied medicine in detail.
It's kind of funny because, from one standpoint, the answer to this question is "No amount of mercury in the urine is unacceptable", because that's where the body gets rid of it. I mean, if I drank an entire bottle of it, I would hope my pee an hour later would be 100%, shimmering silver.
And what if your urine turned shimmering silver with mercury, and you
hadn't drunk an entire bottle of mercury? Wouldn't that warrant further investigation? The conundrum you're describing is precisely why you must take both a "before" and "after" sample. It is not the raw levels which are important, but the comparison between the two. True, some discrepancy is to be expected. But the difference between .8 and 33? That's big enough to be relevant, because I spend 24 hours a day with my son and I can assure you he did not drink an entire bottle of lead that weekend.
7.8 ug/g was an average for this one particular group of factory workers, not for everybody. So, if the average was 7.8 ug/g but the measured numbers extend to 10.0 ug/g, there's your 30. If it extends to 13, there's your 40. Easily within the range of normal.
Only assuming that you're able to multiply the numbers by a factor of 2-3 to account for the difference between a 6-hour test and a 24-hour test. NIH says that's not a valid step when considering lead results, because lead in 6-hour and 24-hour samples is comparable. Are mercury levels in a 6-hour and 24-hour test comparable? I don't know--and I also don't really care, because my son didn't pee mercury. He peed lead.
Not hard to believe the numbers could vary and still be normal. Your boy measured changes in metals not affected by DMSA. Here we have evidence of wide ranges of normal.
True. And the lab marked all of them as normal, or barely above it. Not concerned with those numbers, or those metals. I'm concerned with lead. Seriously, I'm done talking about mercury, because I haven't researched it, and don't have time to research things that aren't germane to my son's condition. If my daughter pees mercury, I'll come back to it. You want to talk lead, though, I'll talk lead.
The Wiki page on Lead Poisoning is a much better place to look anyway, because it's not steeped in controversy like mercury is. It says:
Chelation therapy is used in cases of acute lead poisoning,[18] severe poisoning, and encephalopathy,[116] and is considered for people with blood lead levels above 25 µg/dL.
My son has symptoms of encephalopathy, and had a post-provocation urine level of 33 µg/dL. That includes lead stored in soft tissues that would not be registered on a blood test; but nonetheless, he did the equivalent of peeing a non-shimmery, dull lead-colored stream of pee. But he didn't do it until he had a drug that made him do it, because apparently, his body does not process lead appropriately like a normal, non-encephalopathic person's body does.
So many missing pieces for us, because we have not studied medicine in detail.
Absolutely. That's why we have doctors to study medicine in detail for us. And I have at my disposal two types of doctors to listen to.
One type says a variety of things about my son's condition that I know to be completely false, including the notions that he never actually had chronic diarrhea, that he could not have shown improvement from mere dietary changes, and that he could not possibly have had nutritional deficiencies that lab tests confirmed he had. This same type of doctor outright refuses to run established, acceptable tests for heavy metal poisoning, on the sole grounds that my child is autistic, therefore it must be completely impossible that he has heavy metal poisoning, even as an entirely coincidental condition. This type of doctor is terrified to be caught testing an autistic child for metals, even if I told them I just watched him eat a fistful of lead paint with my own two eyes.
The other type of doctor knows the difference between bright green liquid and a brown log, not only believes but predicted all the ways I saw my son improve with dietary restrictions, and continues to successfully treat and improve his symptoms with established medications (that the first type of doctor acknowledges are quite effective at what they do, but merely meaningless to my son's condition.) This other type of doctor runs tests, and bases treatments on the results. He is very experienced in the administration and risks of chelation drugs, and knows that neither high-dose nor long-term treatments are appropriate.
The medical community is split on this issue, and I have to choose who to listen to. Misuse of chelation therapy is certainly a problem, just like the misuse of many other drugs. But when done appropriately, it is an established and accepted treatment for known symptoms and confirmable test results. So I'm going with the doctors who have a proven track record in my own personal experience.
Quackwatch
Are you a fan of Stephen Barrett?
My son has symptoms of encephalopathy, and had a post-provocation urine level of 33 µg/dL.
I messed up my units, here. My son's reading was 33 µg/gram of creatinine, not by total volume the way blood is read.
His creatinine was 11.6, and the total volume peed in that six hours was 400 mL = 4 dL, which makes (33 µg)*(11.6)/4 = 95.7 µg/dL of urine.
I don't know if it was really that ridiculously high, or if urine concentration just can't be compared to blood concentration this way. But that looks to me to be how the units work out.
My son didn't [pee lead] until he had a drug that made him do it, because apparently, his body does not process lead appropriately like a normal, non-encephalopathic person's body does.
Not true!! Go back and look at the chart;
your son peed lead before the drug came along and made him pee more of it.
Wikipedia article on lead poisoning says "The chelate that is thus formed is nontoxic and can be excreted in the urine,
initially at up to 50 times the normal rate."
[size=4]50 times![/size]
See, the reason the six hour number is more interesting is that most of the stuff is peed out during that time frame. After six hours, you're just peeing pee, ya follow?
So, now that we see that post-chelation urinary numbers for lead are not interesting, not informative, not indicative of anything, because they can be up to
50 times the amount found in the urine pre-chelation...
...the next most relevant question is,
what are your son's blood lead levels?Are you a fan of Stephen Barrett?
Never heard of him before.
"The chelate that is thus formed is nontoxic and can be excreted in the urine, initially at up to 50 times the normal rate."
Not unless there's lead there to get, and if it's 50 times there has to be a shitload of it.
your son peed lead before the drug came along and made him pee more of it.
Yes, he peed eight-tenths of a microgram. Normal pee levels are 2-3 micrograms according to Wiki. Take in 2, subtract .8. Tomorrow, take in another 2, subtract .8. This equals long-term buildup.
See, the reason the six hour number is more interesting is that most of the stuff is peed out during that time frame. After six hours, you're just peeing pee, ya follow?
Right. This is why they give a reading in µg/gram of creatinine, because it gives a more accurate picture and accounts for dilution.
50 times!
That was from the section of the page on Treatment; i.e., for people who had been found to have lead poisoning. It's a statement on how effective the drug is at removing lead from people with lead poisoning.
How come he didn't pee 50 times the normal amount of any other metal? Why would the NIH use urine collection for any of their research studies if it's so completely meaningless?
...the next most relevant question is, what are your son's blood lead levels?
I don't know, and I don't care. He didn't eat a lead toy, he's been slowly accumulating for years. It's not in his blood.
Blood lead levels are an indicator mainly of recent or current lead exposure, not of total body burden.[106] Lead in bones can be measured noninvasively by X-ray fluorescence; this may be the best measure of cumulative exposure and total body burden.[21] However this method is not widely available and is mainly used for research rather than routine diagnosis.
When lead exposure has taken place over a long period, blood lead levels may rise after chelation is stopped because lead is leached into blood from stores in the bone;
You pull what you can from the soft tissues, opening space for more bone stores to leach out. Then you pull again a few weeks later. If one were being really anal, I suspect that one could take the drug, and then do a few blood tests in the minutes and hours immediately following, since by definition that newly-bound lead's going to take a turn around in the bloodstream before getting processed into the urine. But that's a little pointless, because you can test for the presence of that same lead in the urine just a short while later.
Normal pee levels are 2-3 micrograms according to Wiki.
link plz
How come he didn't pee 50 times the normal amount of any other metal?
Because that's the rate for lead.
Why would the NIH use urine collection for any of their research studies if it's so completely meaningless?
I dunno, what are they looking for?
(What's the level in his blood?) I don't know, and I don't care. He didn't eat a lead toy, he's been slowly accumulating for years. It's not in his blood.
By what magic, then, did it get into his pre-chelation pee?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead
Analysis of lead in whole blood is the most common and accurate method of assessing lead exposure in human. Erythrocyte protoporphyrin (EP) tests can also be used to measure lead exposure, but are not as sensitive at low blood lead levels (<0.2 mg/L). Lead in blood reflects recent exposure. Bone lead measurements are an indicator of cumulative exposure. While measurements of urinary lead levels and hair have been used to assess lead exposure, they are not reliable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning
Elevated lead in the body can be detected by the presence of changes in blood cells visible with a microscope and dense lines in the bones of children seen on X-ray. However, the main tool for diagnosis is measurement of the blood lead level; different treatments are used depending on this level.
An x-ray and a drop of blood on a slide. Those are the reliable tests, for decades. Proven, cheap and readily available.
But you prefer pseudoscience. So your evidence is a measurement known to be unreliable and inaccurate; and then you make major mistakes and generous leaps of logic in your interpretation of the results.
Without being rude, I urge you to change your thinking about this. Let's put it this way. If cheap, proven, reliable tests show long-term lead accumulation in your son, a battery of specialists will suddenly turn their attention to improving him. Covered by insurance -- probably using chelation to do it -- and you will be proven right. What do you have to lose?
Because that's the rate for lead.
According to you, at least 7.8 µg, and maybe as high as 30-40 µg, is "normal" for mercury. He didn't pee that. Why not?
I dunno, what are they looking for?
Measuring the effectiveness of chelation drugs, among other things, which are widely accepted and prescribed for heavy metal poisoning. The drugs are not in question, their effects are not in question. The only thing you seem to be insisting is that anyone, absolutely anyone, could pee out as much lead as my son did when given the medications he was given. Except everyone doesn't. The only references you've found to people peeing out that much lead were individuals who were known to be exposed to lead.
link plz
Sorry, I thought it was wiki but it was from somewhere else.
Here's a study indicating that normal urinary lead levels for Japanese adults are between 1 and 4 µg for a 24-hour collection.
By what magic, then, did it get into his pre-chelation pee?
You're being deliberately obtuse. A person takes in a couple micrograms a day from the average environment, and pees it back out again. My son takes in 2-3 micrograms just like everyone else, and pees out a fraction of that each day. Part comes out, part floats around in his blood until it gets stored in a bone, or soft tissue, or his brain. At any given time, I would expect his blood to show a slightly elevated amount, but not a shockingly high amount, because he is dutifully socking the extra away in his organs and bones.
An x-ray and a drop of blood on a slide. Those are the reliable tests, for decades. Proven, cheap and readily available.
Actually, it's been noted here already (in the Wiki link, among others) that the fluorescence X-ray is neither cheap, nor readily available. It's used for research, not for diagnostic purposes. I cannot get one.
Without being rude, I urge you to change your thinking about this. Let's put it this way. If cheap, proven, reliable tests show long-term lead accumulation in your son, a battery of specialists will suddenly turn their attention to improving him. Covered by insurance -- probably using chelation to do it -- and you will be proven right. What do you have to lose?
Here's the funny thing--a battery of specialists will
not turn their attention to improving him, even if we managed to get a fluorescence X-ray. Because he's autistic, no one will touch him. I can't even
get a normal doctor to order a blood lead test on him. I've asked, and
they won't do it, because they're terrified that colleagues will start pointing the pseudoscience accusations at them. There was another Dwellar with a child exposed to lead a few years ago, and not once did you call his claim into question. You jump on the pseudoscience bandwagon here because my son's autistic, and everyone knows there's just no cause for that, none at all.
Here is what I would need to do, to even get a blood test ordered: I would have to go to a completely new doctor, and lie and say that my son has only started showing these obviously autistic symtoms in the last few days, and gosh, I'm pretty sure I saw him picking at some paint on a building while we were out running errands. Of course, I'd also have to claim that he had no prior medical records, because any new patient is going to get their old records pulled from the previous doctor before their appointment, and he'd see the word "autism" and refuse the tests. But if I lied well enough, he would probably order them... and then what? Either the levels would be low because his exposure is chronic, not recent, and they would tell us nothing. Or the levels would be high, but not higher than 45 µg/dL, and they would say "not to worry, the body will naturally process it out, just give it time." Or the levels would be high enough to warrant chelation, at which point the doctor would attempt to prescribe some, and the jig would be up--I would have to admit that he's already taken a dose of chelation recently, and that I'm not interested in this new doctor overseeing a longer course of it because I already have a doctor doing that. And he would ask, "Why did you waste my time to get me to order these tests then?" and I would reply, "Because this guy on the internet didn't believe me."
Sorry, it's not worth the effort. If you can point me to a doctor who will give my son a fluorescence X-ray, I will definitely consider it, however. By the way, insurance already covers both the current doctor and the DMSA prescription.
I asked this in a different way before, and you didn't answer, so let me ask it again: if after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?
According to you, at least 7.8 µg, and maybe as high as 30-40 µg, is "normal" for mercury. He didn't pee that. Why not?
Either you didn't read or you didn't understand the original quote. You also have repeatedly failed to distinguish between the term
normal and the term
average.
Again, 7.8 micrograms per gram of creatinine was the
average post-chelation amount measured on a 24-hour basis
in adult factory workers repeatedly exposed to mercury.
Why didn't your son pee that? We don't have enough information, but perhaps a good start is that he isn't an adult factory worker repeatedly exposed to mercury.
Sorry, I thought it was wiki but it was from somewhere else. Here's a study indicating that normal urinary lead levels for Japanese adults are between 1 and 4 µg for a 24-hour collection.
OK, you've gotten your units confused again. This study finds a statistical measurement of micrograms of lead, not micrograms of lead
per gram of creatinine, as is expressed in the other study.
Also, again, the Japanese study does not determine what is
normal, only what is statistically significant.
You jump on the pseudoscience bandwagon here because my son's autistic, and everyone knows there's just no cause for that, none at all.
Oh goodness no! I call it pseudoscience because that's what it totally fucking is. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon in this case, I'm driving it.
Don't use my lack of participation in a thread as evidence of anything. Perhaps I did not care about that user as much.
Meanwhile, if you don't want my considered opinion, you should post it in "your" thread, where I have noted I will not seriously post. It might even be more appropriate, since there is no lead in any vaccines I know of.
When you go to the doctor just separate the autistic/lead thing.
Maybe the doctor sees the road you are attempting to go down and that is to your own ends of finding a cure of autism because I am sure if you asked for a blood test for lead because you are worried he has lead poisoning you would get a blood test.
A blood test for detecting blood for its own sake a doctor will do.
A blood test because of everything you have said here I agree he probably won't do.
From a blog I found this morning. It's the same kind of conversation that is going on here. It may be of interest to the both of you.
http://qw88nb88.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/no-wait-its-not-mercury-its-lead/
Like with any kind of therapy or treatment marketed for autism, we must remember that autism is a developmental disorder. The development of the child is slower or erratic compared to age-peers. However, that is not the same thing as developmental stasis. The continued acquisition of skills by autistic children are often attributed to the therapies given to them, rather than simply due to maturation. Autistic children who are not given the scores of dubious therapies also improve as they mature.
[CENTER]
Put simply:[/CENTER]
[LIST]
[*]
Lead poisoning is detected through blood tests.
[*]
Lead poisoning can cause learning difficulties, but is not the same thing as autism. The symptoms of lead poisoning and autism are very different.
[*]
“Chelation challenge” tests are not accurate for assessing levels of heavy metals.
[*]
Chelation can be used to remove heavy metals from the body, with intravenous EDTA reserved for high toxicity levels. However, removing those from the body does not undo all of the effects of severe heavy-metal poisoning.
[*]
Chelation will not cure autism.
[*]
Autistic children continue to grow and develop at their own rates, sometimes to the point that they do not require extra school services or therapies. At that point, they are autistic children who do not require extra school services or therapies. (Yeup, they’re still autistic.)
[/LIST]
oh and by the way. If I thought my son had lead poisoning I would be fighting to get a test. I probably wouldn't leave the doctors office until I got one. I'd scratch someones eyes out if they told me no and I thought the lead was causing damage.
Being or having autism has nothing to do with providing medical services that are timely and necessary. Again, 7.8 micrograms per gram of creatinine was the average post-chelation amount measured on a 24-hour basis in adult factory workers repeatedly exposed to mercury.
Why didn't your son pee that? We don't have enough information, but perhaps a good start is that he isn't an adult factory worker repeatedly exposed to mercury.
Okay. Here's a study of
factory workers repeatedly exposed to lead. On the bottom half of page three, you will find a chart that graphs the actual data of these 177 factory workers, with micrograms per dL of urine on the left. I calculated my son's urine to be 95.7 ug/dL, which is more than twice what the highest factory worker's reading is. If you see a problem with my calculations there, please tell me.
On the one hand, these factory workers were not challenged with a chelation dose to get to their levels, so it's still not a completely direct comparison. But on the other hand, all but one of the factory workers with a urine level above 15 also had a blood level high enough to warrant chelation (45+). These are guys under heavy exposure, their bodies are presumably processing just as well as anyone's, and they still peed a fraction of what my son was able to pee with no known exposure. My son didn't pee mercury because there was no mercury in his body to pee. But the lead had to come from somewhere; where did it come from?
Oh goodness no! I call it pseudoscience because that's what it totally fucking is. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon in this case, I'm driving it.
So just to clarify, the one thing that you specifically find to be pseudoscience is the urinary lab report, correct? Other types of lab tests (fluorescent X-rays) are science, and the chelation drugs used to treat those conditions are science, correct?
Science should have predictable results, or it isn't science. I have predicted future results based on my interpreation of the data:
If after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?
Meanwhile, if you don't want my considered opinion, you should post it in "your" thread, where I have noted I will not seriously post. It might even be more appropriate, since there is no lead in any vaccines I know of.
I never suggested I don't want your opinion, just that I think it's wrong. I know exactly what I'm posting in this thread and that thread.
Of course there's no lead in vaccines. No one ever suggested there was. Once again, you are jumping back to your primary drum beat when it has nothing to do with the current discussion, which is treatments--which you indicated previously that you were not only interested in, but shocked that I hadn't mentioned them before. I told tw I would post my son's lab results (actually my daughter's, but we ended up testing my son first) for his consideration, and I did. Regardless of
what breaks an autistic person's metabolic processes, be it vaccines or not, the resulting symptoms can be treated in their own right. One of those symptoms can be a chronic inability to process certain heavy metals that normal people don't have a problem with, and it can be treated the same way any heavy metal exposure would be.
Okay. Here's a study of factory workers repeatedly exposed to lead. On the bottom half of page three, you will find a chart that graphs the actual data of these 177 factory workers, with micrograms per dL of urine on the left. I calculated my son's urine to be 95.7 ug/dL, which is more than twice what the highest factory worker's reading is. If you see a problem with my calculations there, please tell me.
Step by step, mathematician folks follow:
You mentioned that your son's creatinine levels were 11.6. I'm assuming that's 11.6 ug of creatinine per dL, as the Dr Data report from Quackwatch reads, yes?
11.6
micrograms per dL means he peed 0.0116
grams of creatinine per dL...
He peed 33.0 micrograms of Pb per gram of creatinine.
Therefore, his Pb output is 33 * 0.0116, micrograms of Pb per dL.
Therefore he peed .38 micrograms of Pb per dL, or roughly six times lower
after chelation than the lowest factory worker measured
before chelation.
amidoinitrite?
So just to clarify, the one thing that you specifically find to be pseudoscience is the urinary lab report, correct? Other types of lab tests (fluorescent X-rays) are science, and the chelation drugs used to treat those conditions are science, correct?
Science should have predictable results, or it isn't science. I have predicted future results based on my interpreation of the data: If after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?
At these miniscule levels? Probably hard to predict! Nevertheless, predictable results are certainly not the test of whether something is science.
You mentioned that your son's creatinine levels were 11.6. I'm assuming that's 11.6 ug of creatinine per dL, as the Dr Data report from Quackwatch reads, yes?
My chart says 11.6
milligrams of creatinine per dL, but that does equal .0116 grams.
The problem is, if that math is correct, then that would mean his original test, which measured at .8 micrograms lead/gram creatinine, would work out to (.8)(.025 creatinine level for before sample) = .02 micrograms/dL, which is well below the detectable range for lead. (The low end of the detectable range is .1 microgram/dL (
mentioned on page 4.)) So either the lab completely falsified levels at ranges they couldn't even detect (and if you're going to falsify levels, why not just falsify high levels?), or this math is off somewhere.
Truthfully, I don't know the answer. But I can tell you that 1.) I trust the doctor who says he needs some additional, well-monitored treatment for this level of lead (but that none of the other "elevated" numbers are at all concerning,) in low-dose and non-intravenous format; 2.) about 75% of the autism parents I have talked to saw large gains with moderate chelation therapy; and 3.) I personally saw an improvement in my son following his initial chelation dose, despite not expecting him to have any toxicological problems. You are welcome to link to some of the studies that say there has been no confirmable cognitive improvement in lead-poisoned children even after chelation, only a possible behavioral improvement, but they mean about as much to me as the studies that show no improvement is possible with dietary changes. I have a sample size of 1, but I know my sample very, very well. I know the limited medical risks for short-term non-IV chelation (too much loss of calcium and zinc, primarily,) and how to mitigate them (treatments spaced weeks apart, supplementation of minerals in between.) The financial risks are nonexistent, as this particular lab test is cheap and the prescription is cheaper. And I have seen some evidence of gains with the initial treatment. Proceeding cautiously seems to me to be the right decision to make.
I promise you, I am far more terrified of making the wrong decisions in all of this than you are, and I weigh every choice very carefully. I have rejected at least a half a dozen other scam treatments that are often pushed upon parents of autistic children. Are some people scammed by the idea of intensive, long-term chelation as a cure-all, even when they show no symptoms? Yes. But I'm a smart lady, and I don't believe that to be what's happening here. You obviously believe otherwise, but hey, that just shows you care. I promise that the biggest risk here is that I will waste a small amount of energy and an even smaller amount of money and see no results, and that's a risk I'm willing to take.
Desiree semi-update:
I still have my Google Alert set for DJ. The Something Awful forums picked up the story, and someone there has won the Internet on the topic:
"this may have ruined her chances to be a redskins cheerleader, but if she can go backwards fine, she could still be on the team"
Hey Clod, according to
Forbes all this chelation stuff is bunk.
Oh, and they just named
Monstanto as
Company of the Year.
Heh... a guy with no major neurological symptoms spent 8-16 hours a week hooked up to an IV for 18 months, spending thousands upon thousands of dollars for each infusion? Yep, dude got scammed.
Clod, we went though this with the inch and to a lesser degree, the millimeter. I ended up going to school to become a certified lead abatement contractor. I learned a lot and would be happy to fill you in on what I learned, especially in terms of separating the wheat (:0 so to speak) from the chaff.
Desiree Jennings update:
[youtube]wwlRwGQl5x4[/youtube]
"Im from Ohio, I should nawt, be tawlking like this."
"There's no way a flu shot can cause someone's accent to change--absolutely not!"
Vaccine Researcher Flees with $2M
A Danish scientist who was a lead researcher in two studies that purport to show that mercury used in vaccines do not cause autism is believed to have used forged documents to steal $2 million from Aarhus University in Denmark.
Dr. Poul Thorsen was also a research professor at Emory University from 2003 until June of 2009. Emory University officials gave no reason for Thorsen's departure.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded research conducted by Thorsen and his colleagues at Aarhus University.
The CDC asked the researchers to conduct studies to determine whether thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative and adjuvant used in vaccines, played ay role in causing autism.
The results of the studies, that there was no link between vaccines containing mercury and autism, formed the foundation for the conclusions of several Institute of Medicine reports.
In a statement Aarhus University officials said Thorsen forged documents supposedly from the CDC to obtain the release of $2 million from the university.
Rotarix rotavirus vaccine contaminated, officials say
Federal health authorities recommended Monday that doctors suspend using Rotarix, one of two vaccines licensed in the United States against rotavirus, saying the vaccine is contaminated with material from a pig virus.
Deep sequencing reveals viral vaccine contaminants
A little historical perspective about why we decided to analyze these vaccines even though there was absolutely no indications whatsoever that they are at all unsafe. Our intent was to use the latest technologies to show that live attenuated vaccine only contained the expected viral genomes and no other.
The Delwart laboratory obtained samples of eight infectious attenuated viral vaccines from the manufacturers: oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV, Bharat Biotech), rubella (Meruvax-II, Merck), measles (Attenuvax, Merck), yellow fever (YF-Vax, Sanofi Pasteur), human herpes 3 (Varivax, Merck), rotavirus (Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline; and Rotateq, Merck) and multivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR-II, Merck). The vaccines were treated with DNAse and RNAse to remove nucleic acids that are not protected by viral capsids. Nucleic acid was then extracted from the vaccine, amplified by polymerase chain reaction, and subjected to DNA sequencing. A total of 501,753 sequence ‘reads’ were done.
The sequence analysis revealed the expected vaccine strains in each preparation, and in three (out of 8) cases, other unexpected viral sequences. The retrovirus avian leukosis virus was found in the measles vaccine, but at a very low level (700 nucleotides from 4 sequence reads). A virus similar to simian retrovirus was identified in Rotateq (276 nucleotides from 1 sequence read). Significant levels of porcine cirovirus 1 were found in Rotarix. The entire viral genome sequence was deduced from 6344 sequence reads, comprising over 40% of the reads done for that vaccine.
That is pretty crazy Jinx. I am not sure that you could show causation but it certainly leaves the door open when you are exposed to unexpected virus strains that you did not expect and were purposefully administered.
A child came into my classroom having gotten 4 shots in one session this week. One arm has very intense localized swelling hot and extremely hard to the touch. Spread them out people.
Combination MMRV vaccine linked with 2-fold risk of seizures
Oakland, CA (June 28) – The combination vaccine for measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox (MMRV) is associated with double the risk of febrile seizures for 1- to 2-year-old children compared with same-day administration of the separate vaccine for MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and the varicella (V) vaccine for chicken pox,
Whooping Cough Kills 5 in California; State Declares an Epidemic
SAN FRANCISCO — After the deaths of five infants, California health authorities declared an epidemic of whooping cough in the state on Wednesday, urging residents — particularly those of Latino background — to get vaccinated against the disease.
But the CDC says:
We present evidence that in the Netherlands
the dramatic increase in pertussis is temporally associated
with the emergence of Bordetella pertussis strains carrying
a novel allele for the pertussis toxin promoter, which confers
increased pertussis toxin (Ptx) production. Epidemiologic
data suggest that these strains are more virulent in humans.
We discuss changes in the ecology of B. pertussis that may
have driven this adaptation. Our results underline the importance
of Ptx in transmission, suggest that vaccination may
select for increased virulence,
...
Widespread vaccination of children reduced the incidence
of illness and deaths caused by pertussis (1). However,
globally pertussis remains 1 of the top 10 causes of death in
children (2). Further, in the 1990s a resurgence of pertussis
was observed in several countries with highly vaccinated
populations (3,4), and pertussis has become the most prevalent
vaccine-preventable disease in industrialized countries.
In the Netherlands, the estimated incidence of infection
was 6.6% per year for the 3–79-year age group from 1995
through 1996 (5). Similar percentages have been found in
the United States (6). One of the hallmarks of the pertussis
resurgence is a shift in disease prevalence toward older persons
who have waning vaccine-induced immunity (7).
The reemergence of pertussis has been attributed to
various factors, including increased awareness, improved
diagnostics, decreased vaccination coverage, suboptimal
vaccines, waning vaccine-induced immunity, and pathogen
adaptation. The relative contribution of these factors may
differ between countries and is the subject of ongoing debate.
Pathogen adaptation is supported by several observations.
We and others have shown that antigenic divergence
has occurred between vaccine strains and clinical isolates
with respect to surface proteins, which confer protective
immunity: pertussis toxin (Ptx), pertactin (Prn), and fimbriae
(8,9). Strain variation was shown to affect vaccine efficacy
in a mouse model (10–13). Because adaptation may
involve the structure of virulence factors (by antigenic variation)
and their regulation, we extended our studies on the
evolution of B. pertussis by investigating polymorphism in
the promoter of Ptx (ptxP), a major virulence factor and
component of all pertussis vaccines (1). We provide evi-
dence that expansion of strains with increased Ptx production
has contributed to the resurgence of pertussis in the
Netherlands.
hmmm - even I can see there is some type of correlation there.
H1N1 vaccine suspended due to suspected links to increased narcolepsy in children and adolescents
Six cases of narcolepsy, a chronic disorder causing excessive daytime sleepiness and extreme fatigue, have been reported after patients had been receiving the Pandemrix vaccine.
Six cases of narcolepsy is consistent with annual averages, reports THL, but all of these patients were affected after being vaccinated, and there are nine additional cases that have not yet been confirmed.
The precautionary measure will take effect until the actual cause of the current health issue can be established. Preliminary results of the investigation will take several months to be known, says the THL.
“A number of different reasons may be behind the observed rise in the incidence of narcolepsy: A(H1N1) infection, vaccination, a compound effect of infection and vaccination, or some other factor entirely. Infections in general are known to cause narcolepsy,” said a THL press release.
In Sweden, the Medical Products Agency started a similar investigation on Aug. 19 for the same reason. Sweden has bought 18 million doses of the vaccine, sufficient for everyone in the country to have two injections. In Europe, about 30 million people have been vaccinated, and worldwide at least 90 million.
here http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20100913/cdc-study-shows-no-vaccine-autism-link
Exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines in infancy or in the womb is not associated with an increased risk for developing autism, according to a new study from the CDC.
Children in the study who developed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) actually had less exposure to vaccines with the mercury-containing preservative than children who developed normally.
Maybe mercury deprivation causes autism! Autism has been on the rise ever since parents stopped letting their kids play with mercury from broken thermometers, after all.
... and eating lead paint chips. Maybe thats it.:eyebrow:
One wonders why they would keep studying it, since they've already removed thimerosal from the standard (not including flu shots) childhood vaccination schedule.
Yes, because most science is done based on political climate and pressures, rather than seeking new and objective knowledge. I'm glad we agree on that.
Aren't you not supposed to be here or something? I mean, I wouldn't want to be accused of calling you a liar when you flat out put words in my mouth.
I'm sorry, UT. As has happened more than once, a different poster's (in this case, Happy Monkey's) flippant, mocking tone on this subject has gotten me irritated, and then you end up bearing the brunt of my sarcasm as the only one who actually responds to the topic (rather than wandering off to find a few more cutesy cartoons or videos on the subject, as it seems the others do.) I should not have directed post 680 at you.
Thanks. (You da woman, hang in there!)
Linking another thread as it has relevance.
Whooping cough
Some doctors relate this recent rise in cases to the parents who have shied away from vaccinating children due to fears, albeit unfounded, that there is a connection between vaccines and autism.
bold mine -
Are they still unfounded? I'm no longer sure. There are some who also think that there may be a link between lupus and vaccines or birth control. There just haven't been enough studies done.
Herd immunity?
City living helped humans evolve immunity to TB
"Population density seems to play an important role in shaping so many aspects of our species", said Prof Thomas. "It was a vital factor in our species maintaining the complex skills and culture that distinguish us from other primates. It drove many of the genetic differences we see today between different populations from around the world. And now, it seems, it also influenced how infectious diseases spread in the past and how we evolved to resist those diseases".
Evolution works, but letting everyone with TB die is a bit worse than even the worst of the side effects proposed by the anti-vaccination groups.
But is it really, HM? 1 death in how many (I don't honestly know the rates for TB,) versus more than 1 in 100 significantly brain-damaged? I do agree there must be a tradeoff line somewhere, but I think most people are sorely underinformed about where that tradeoff line realistically lies. Autism is better than death, I've said that before, having watched a friend of mine lose her newborn baby. But how many autistic kids equal one death? Or any of the lesser consequences of disease? I've actually given this some thought, and to me, autism is worse than anything except being dead, blind, or quadriplegic. I would gladly trade deafness, for example, or the (painless) loss of a limb, if it meant my children could have their brains back.
Which would you rather be, Stephen Hawking, or Terry Schiavo?
I would gladly trade deafness, for example, or the (painless) loss of a limb, if it meant my children could have their brains back.
For a fully functioning brain? In a heartbeat.
Those who haven't experienced brain damage/disorders just cannot understand - literally can not.
Initially
posted in this thread just under a year ago, the connection between autism and the human retrovirus known as XMRV has been significantly strengthened by several
new studies. 82% of the autistic children in one study tested positive for XMRV. In a normal population of healthy adults, approximately 3% test positive for the virus.
Another interesting fact related to XMRV: those who have it have been shown to have a defect in the RNase-L antiviral pathway.
One of the RNase L fragments has a structure that is almost identical to a protein involved in the removal of heavy metals and toxic chemicals from cells.
Long story short, in addition to severe immune dysfunction, those who have this virus are also likely to have problems removing heavy metals from their bodies.
And a repeat of the important quote from the post last year:
According to Dr. Judy Mikovitz, Whittemore Peterson Institute Director of Research, XMRV can lie dormant in people for years.
"If I might speculate a little bit," she said, "This might even explain why vaccines would lead to autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and grow in lymphocytes -- the immune response cells, the B and the T cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your immune system into overdrive. That's its job. Well, if you are harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you've now broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system could no longer control other infections, and created an immune deficiency."
The good news is, several of the same drugs that keep HIV under control are also showing to be effective against XMRV. Not to defeat it, but to prevent further replication. It will still be years before true screening and therapeutic drug cocktails might be possible, but this is potentially what the medical community has been holding out for: a definitive test that can remove those children who test positive for the virus from the vaccination pool, while steadfastly reassuring everyone who does not have the virus that vaccinations are completely safe for them.
The good news is, several of the same drugs that keep HIV under control are also showing to be effective against XMRV. Not to defeat it, but to prevent further replication. It will still be years before true screening and therapeutic drug cocktails might be possible, but this is potentially what the medical community has been holding out for: a definitive test that can remove those children who test positive for the virus from the vaccination pool, while steadfastly reassuring everyone who does not have the virus that vaccinations are completely safe for them.
That's really exciting stuff Clod.
Yes, a step toward controlling would be great, until prevention is possible.
There is a blood test available. Until the doctors finish getting their shit together, a parent could easily have their newborn/toddler tested, or a pregnant mother could test herself, to help them make their own decision whether to delay vaccinations.
This one is pretty interesting and could be part of the answer.
Here's the
best-written skepticism on it from a WSJ Health blog: basically the CDC lab was unable to find *any* of this virus. But that seems more likely to be a mistake, as the labs that did find it ruled out lab contamination. This bit of confusion will only force their hand to work harder on it.
Great news Clod. Hope is a wondrous thing.
The case against the Wakefield in more detail:
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/648562.html?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5
Apparently it seems that it was way worse than just massaging the figures and not being thorough enough. This was outright and clear fraud.
According to the new BMJ report, Wakefield -- a gastroenterologist, not a pediatrician or neurologist -- identified the new "syndrome" before he even began to collect data. By his account, the MMR vaccine caused both gut problems and regressive autism in children.
The BMJ investigation alleges that this hypothesis only emerged after Wakefield had been retained, with compensation, to work on a lawsuit to sue the maker of the vaccine.
In the Lancet study, Wakefield described the experiences of 12 children who supposedly had regressive autism, where a child seems to be developing normally but then regresses.
However, according to the BMJ report, only one child in the sample was diagnosed with this form of autism, and three of the 12 didn't have any autism diagnosis at all.
Nor did the children come from a random sample, as Wakefield had claimed. According to the BMJ article, all participants were selected based on having symptoms consistent with the "syndrome" and some seemed to have been recruited by anti-vaccination activists.
And the report further alleges that when children's symptoms didn't fit the hypothesis, timelines were fudged so it looked as if autism symptoms developed soon after MMR vaccination, even when parents and others said that the children were showing signs of autism priorto the shot.
In some cases where Wakefield claimed that problems emerged after the vaccine, he shrank the timeline so it would look as if they emerged within days, as opposed to months after, according to the BMJ report. And gastrointestinal symptoms were also made to appear more significant than they were.
One girl who appeared to have slowed development turned out to have a coarctation of the aorta, a genetic condition in which the aorta leading out of the heart narrows, the report stated, and once that was fixed her speech and behavior resumed at a normal pace.
"This is about as unethical as you can get," said Dr. Max Wiznitzer, a child neurologist with Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, in Cleveland.
"It's a very, very sad story. It was sad enough that the data in this paper was published and influenced scientists and governments and families to make decisions that just weren't right. But now to find out that the data was actually falsified makes it even worse," added Keith A. Young, vice chair for research in the department of psychiatry and behavioral science at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine.
"This really, really is one of the worst scenarios that's ever happened with scientific misconduct," he said.
And besides harming those children who got sick after not receiving a vaccine, the alleged fraud may have even set back autism research, experts noted.
"We had a measles epidemic in Britain, a drop in immunization rates in [the United States]. I personally know of children who were brain-damaged as a consequence of their parents deferring immunization as a result of this concern," Wiznitzer said. At the same time, he said, "[autism] research monies were diverted to disprove a hypothesis that was never proven [in the first place] rather than invested in exploring issues that would be of benefit to the public and to children with the condition."
When the BMJ investigators showed study data to parents who were involved in Wakefield's study, they said many parents were shocked and insisted that his versions of their children's cases were patently wrong. For instance, Wakefield sometimes claimed that the child's development was normal before the vaccine when, in some cases, it was not.
What about motive?
According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds ($674,000) from the lawyers.
I forgot to include this:
Godlee, the journal's editor-in-chief, said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism.
"It's always hard to explain fraud and where it affects people to lie in science," Godlee said. "But it does seem a financial motive was underlying this, both in terms of payments by lawyers and through legal aid grants that he received but also through financial schemes that he hoped would benefit him through diagnostic and other tests for autism and MMR-related issues."
"We had a measles epidemic in Britain, a drop in immunization rates in [the United States].
B]I personally know of children who were brain-damaged as a consequence
of their parents deferring immunization as a result of this concern[/B]," Wiznitzer said.
At the same time, he said, "[autism] research monies were diverted
to disprove a hypothesis that was never proven [in the first place]
rather than invested in exploring issues that would be of benefit to
the public and to children with the condition."
I'm not a litigious sort, but I do wonder if these parents might have a suit to file...
if they can show they were dissuaded by Wakefield's fraud.
The BMJ article they reference:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full
The curious case of child 11 and his father Mr. 11, an engineer, and what happened when journalist Brian Deer asked Mr. 11 to review the data Wakefield had used for his son...
Running his finger across the paper’s tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son’s age and other details. But then he pointed at table 2—headed “neuropsychiatric diagnosis”—and for a second time objected.
“That’s not true.”
Can Dad 11 be mistaken? So they go to the child's actual medical records:
Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”
That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.
“Please let me know if Andrew W has his doctor’s license revoked,” wrote Mr 11, who is convinced that many vaccines and environmental pollutants may be responsible for childhood brain disorders. “His misrepresentation of my son in his research paper is inexcusable. His motives for this I may never know.”
This thread can now successfully loop back to post one.
“Please let me know if Andrew W has his doctor’s license revoked,” wrote Mr 11, who is convinced that many vaccines and environmental pollutants may be responsible for childhood brain disorders.
Please clarify... do you consider Mr. 11 to be a credible source on this subject, or not a credible source? Because even while denouncing this particular study, he still believes the opposite of what you do.
I personally consider him to be a very credible source on the timing of his son's symptoms, but no, as a source for information regarding the problem of vaccines and autism, his reliability would depend on his qualifications. His qualifications as a parent may be top notch, but that doesn't mean he can be viewed as a qualified immunologist, paediatrician, or even doctor.
What i did find interesting was this bit:
And besides harming those children who got sick after not receiving a vaccine, the alleged fraud may have even set back autism research, experts noted."We had a measles epidemic in Britain, a drop in immunization rates in [the United States]. I personally know of children who were brain-damaged as a consequence of their parents deferring immunization as a result of this concern," Wiznitzer said. At the same time, he said, "[autism] research monies were diverted to disprove a hypothesis that was never proven [in the first place] rather than invested in exploring issues that would be of benefit to the public and to children with the condition."
I find it interesting that the salient point you have taken from the study, is that the unqualified parent in question believes vaccines may be a factor.
I carefully excerpted the article to keep that bit in. I thought it was interesting, and full disclosure. Dana said it better'n I could. The gent in question is an engineer so he is familiar with how to manage data and find anomalies. Going over the rest of the studies is not his job and we don't know whether he has.
I find it interesting that the salient point you have taken from the study, is that the unqualified parent in question believes vaccines may be a factor.
"Autism research monies" have overwhelmingly been funneled into the arena of behavioral therapies, by a vast margin. And of the money that was allotted to vaccine studies, the majority of it was provided by the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves.
The points I have taken from the study--which I have read in detail, many times, including the facts of these new allegations, which are not in fact new at all, they are just being dredged up again because Brian Deer hasn't had an article published in awhile--have very little to do anymore with my beliefs on the subject from a medical standpoint. This was one study done 13 years ago, with questionable methods. The study, and the doctor himself, have been discredited time and again. I don't know anyone who cites this study as a basis for their beliefs anymore. Yet it continues to be vilified because the studies that have come after it are 1.) more scientifically sound, and 2.) more discreet.
The salient point that I am taking from the recent articles (as opposed to the old study itself) is that there are many people out there who are basing their beliefs on the antithesis of one bad study, rather than simply chucking the one bad study and looking at everything that has come since. I'm pointing out that even the father who angrily calls Wakefield a fraud and hopes for the revocation of his medical license (which already happened, almost a year ago)
still fundamentally believes in a more up-to-date version of Wakefield's hypothesis, presumably because he has kept up with more recent research.
Going over the rest of the studies is not his job and we don't know whether he has.
It's true, we don't. Who has, I wonder? Certainly none of it was mentioned in this latest media flurry.
"The points I have taken from the study--which I have read in detail, many times, including the facts of these new allegations, which are not in fact new at all, they are just being dredged up again because Brian Deer hasn't had an article published in awhile--have very little to do anymore with my beliefs on the subject from a medical standpoint.
Fair enough: though part of the reason for this being published is that the initial report into the case and which was referenced in earlier reports has now concluded. It was also in part prompted by the fact that Wakefield is now promoting a book about it all.
This was one study done 13 years ago, with questionable methods. The study, and the doctor himself, have been discredited time and again. I don't know anyone who cites this study as a basis for their beliefs anymore. Yet it continues to be vilified because the studies that have come after it are 1.) more scientifically sound, and 2.) more discreet.
I know very little about the other studies; and have said on numerous occasions that i think more research needs doing: as the other guy in the article said though; much of the recent research has been skewed to 'answering' and disproving this study: therefore Wakefield has managed to have a negative impact even in the area he apparently wanted to work. Also, these aren;t questionable methods. Thats the whole point of bringing this up again. This wasn;t questionable methods it was outright deliberate fraud.
The reason it is still so public, isn't just because it eclipses other studies, but because it essentially 'fathered' the whole area of investigation.
The salient point that I am taking from the recent articles (as opposed to the old study itself) is that there are many people out there who are basing their beliefs on the antithesis of one bad study, rather than simply chucking the one bad study and looking at everything that has come since. I'm pointing out that even the father who angrily calls Wakefield a fraud and hopes for the revocation of his medical license (which already happened, almost a year ago) still fundamentally believes in a more up-to-date version of Wakefield's hypothesis, presumably because he has kept up with more recent research.
I get you. That's a fair point. I wasnlt posting this to show that the whole theory of vaccines and autism is now debunked. I was posting specifically about Wakefield and the damage he has done.
As I've said before: though I personally am fairly skeptical about many of the claims made around this area, there is clearly enough concern to warrant more investigation. Until that investigation is done, then it is extremely difficult for any of the pro-vaccine doctors and scientists to claim that it is safe. Right now, nobody wins. Those who think vaccines are safe are facing the problem of massive downturn in the vaccine rates and the consequent problems that brings. Those who believe that the vaccines are potentially causing/exacerbating autism and other problems, have become villified because of studies like this. So, now all studies end up suspect, and both sides are entrenched and in conflict with each other.
Fair enough: though part of the reason for this being published is that the initial report into the case and which was referenced in earlier reports has now concluded. It was also in part prompted by the fact that Wakefield is now promoting a book about it all.
No, see, you've been had. The "initial report" is a voluntary investigation by journalist Brian Deer. The earlier concluded "reports" are all by Brian Deer. This is all the work of a single journalist who has continued to dig into the same single case for the last decade. The actual investigation by the actual UK medical board saw all this evidence as part of their hearings already. They drew their conclusions long ago. Brian Deer is now recompiling it yet again into a newly packaged set of "conclusions" because he has no other marketable skills. Wakefield's book came out almost a year ago--he was in fact specifically waiting for the medical board's ruling, so that he could bring his own side public. If you have recently noticed promotional information for the book, it is only because you have missed the first several rounds.
None of this is new. None of this furthers the worldwide discussion on the current state of the medical disease at hand. It's my personal opinion that the recent articles rehashing the same old scandals are currently doing more damage than Wakefield ever did.
Well, you myay be right. But a lot of it was new to me :p
That's because they never report on anything else.
There is a blood test available. Until the doctors finish getting their shit together, a parent could easily have their newborn/toddler tested, or a pregnant mother could test herself, to help them make their own decision whether to delay vaccinations.
[/quote]
Will you, as an NP, be able to suggest or order such testing?
I hope so, and I hope you end up working in a practice that respects your insights and experience in this area. Assuming you are not going to go into podiatry or cosmetic surgery...
The actual investigation by the actual UK medical board saw all this evidence as part of their hearings already. They drew their conclusions long ago.
What the BMJ bit adds, and the editorial accompanying the paper agrees, is that this wasn't just error but fraud.
There was not a "revelation" that Dr. Wakefield falsified his results--there was a single accusation that he had done so, and he is currently suing said accuser.
Now that the UK Medical Board AND the British Medical Journal have had their say, and agree with Deer, do you still stand behind Wakefield since post #2?
Since May of 2009? Ah, yes, I have had time to do more research since then, as has been extensively chronicled here in this thread. Part of that research has changed my opinion of the original MMR study, not based on the UK Medical Board or the British Medical Journal, but based on the opinions of the actual parents involved, which I read way back at the time the interviews were done.
To the best of my understanding, Wakefield fudged the data of his limited participant set for what he thought was a greater good, representing the literally thousands of other children with very similar experiences. Creating composite patients is not new or exclusive to Wakefield, but it is obviously wrong, and ultimately did more harm than good. But I absolutely stand behind him as a gastroenterologist who first widely publicized the connection between gastrointestinal disease and autism, and as an advocate who has stood by his initial association between vaccines and the symptoms of autism despite massive personal and professional loss. Were it not for Wakefield, the very clinic that I take my children to would not be open, and they and the 1000+ other patients they have seen would not be recovering and/or fully recovered. The original study did not just father the vaccine investigation, as Dana noted, it also fathered the investigation of what have turned out to be extremely effective treatment avenues. Wakefield is a flawed individual, as most of us are, and he took shortcuts that he never should have taken. He should have taken the time to make his initial study airtight, but he thought it was just the first of a long line of data to be collected and examined, he never realized the backlash to his tiny little study would be even a fraction of what it turned out to be, until it was too late.
Will you, as an NP, be able to suggest or order such testing?
I hope so, and I hope you end up working in a practice that respects your insights and experience in this area.
I'm unclear on the technicalities of this. I know an NP can prescribe a blood draw for basic lab testing. However, all our specialty lab testing kits--the ones that have to be sent out-of-state to a proprietary lab rather than done at some walk-in place locally--have our supervising doctor's name on them. That may be an "across state lines" thing, a "more likely to get reimbursed by insurance" thing, or simply a "we get stacks of test kits pre-printed in advance, so they all get one name on them" thing.
The intention is most certainly that I will be working in a biomedical autism clinic in town. Currently there are two, but by the time I finish in several years, I expect those two will have expanded significantly (both have added new MDs in the last few months) and there may even be new independent clinics operating by then. For that specific test you're referring to, though, it's only really helpful pre-diagnosis, at least until more antiretroviral treatments have been researched. So it's unlikely anyone would come to me for it.
I think this may provide evidence that a cause was given to an effect under other than honorable conditions. It therefore gave a convenient source of blame to be weighed against an obvious, albeit potentially false cause. And given the sudden increase in the recognition of cases of autism other causes need to be scientifically explored. Money needs to be funneled in to better and broader research. The number of children being identified as having some form of autism has significantly increased and we need to take a hard look at the issue. But we cannot and should not expend expediency for connivence of a cause. Science should provide us with adequate clues to direct further research.
*looks slightly startled* Merc...I think...I think I may agree with you :P
And given the sudden increase in the recognition of cases of autism other causes need to be scientifically explored. Money needs to be funneled in to better and broader research.
You are repeating what science has been saying for generations. There are easily 100,000 chemicals we all routinely contact that are virtually unstudied. Some chemicals - ie teflon - were known to have serious health affects in 1970. Laws said those facts could be and still can be withheld. Only 'activist judges' and wikileak type actions have exposed some.
Danger is not limited to household and workplace chemicals. We know a minimum size Vitamin C tablet sold in miracle health stores is just under what causes genetic damage. Where was anyone discussing these known hard facts when hyping what was obviously junk science on vaccinations.
A previous study once "proved" childhood leukemia from electric lines. Where do we start casting blame? At those who ignored the study to blame high power transmission lines? Hearsay even identified the wrong wires. That bogus study was blaming a wire under the floor to air conditioners or stoves. Not only was it also an intentionally deceptive study. It was made scandalous again because so many people out here never got past a sound byte. Believed only what their emotions told them to know.
We know we have a serious chemical problem in all homes. We just do not know how serious, where the problems lie, and have citizens who cannot think using concepts taught in junior high school science. If we did, then Saddam did not have WMDs. And we would have been going after bin Laden back in 2002.
Numbers now suggest that maybe one in 120 kids have autism. That number increases to about one in 70 when kids live in agricultural regions where pesticides are used extensively. Is that enough to know anything? Does that blame pesticides? Not for one minute. Of course not. That is only enough to prove research must be done. Amazing how many Jenny McCarthy's only need know that much to be experts.
Ironically, many chemical dangers are known to the manufacturers. That information need not be released for the same reason why cigarette manufacturers were test marketing products to addict five year olds to cigarettes. In a government where mosques in Manhattan are major disasters, impossible is to do what is necessary to also identify the reason for autism. This problem made worse because so many even here could not see through an obvious infant vaccination myth.
One must start at the source of all these problems. Too many citizens are so easily scammed – have so little ability to think for themselves – as to even waste money on power strip surge protectors. Even the manufacturer does not claim protection. So many buy one in violation of principles even taught in junior high science. Its all about learning how to think. And about ignoring attitudes bases only in emotion.
How many are so dumb at to buy Dannon Yogurt for its digestive assistance and digitlaus rectalitem? Yes it is called that because you stick your finger up your ass to be "informed". That is where this problem starts. That is where an autism solution must begin. Because of where this problem lies, many here will call this post confusing - so they can ignore problem #1.
One did not have to read much to know those autism claims were bogus. Other than one study - now so discredited - no other hard facts existed. Only feelings and emotions existed. Traceable to problem #1.
You forgot Listerine. But I guess you replaced it with Dannon.
You forgot Listerine. But I guess you replaced it with Dannon.
Scams that exist only because of problem #1. Put four wheel drive safety on that list.
That number increases to about one in 70 when kids live in agricultural regions where pesticides are used extensively.
citation needed
I'm not sure what the point of me posting this is, other than it's another data point.
I just heard that one of my son's old pre-school friends has come down with a serious health problem. We haven't seen this kid since the summer, because now that they are both in 3rd grade, they go to different schools.
In December, this 9 year old boy had a minor cold with no fever, and went to the pediatricians office for a reason that's unknown to me. Maybe for the cold, maybe a wellness visit. While at the pediatricians, he was given the nasal flu vaccine. The nurses administering the vaccine knew he had a cold, but since he had no fever, they said that giving him the FluMist vaccine was fine. Beginning the next morning, and over the following 24 hours, his personality had completely changed. He couldn't find a pair of pants that he would wear, because they all felt funny on him. He said they were too loose, and that his skin was too loose to. He was crying in the corner and was almost inconsolable. His parent's finally found one pair of pants in the dirty hamper that he was willing to wear. He came home from school, that first day, and immediately stripped naked and hid in his room. Saying that he felt really weird and wanted to die it was so bad. The parents kept calling their pediatricians, and it sounds like they weren't very helpful. They finally were willing to make an appointment with the boy, but also suggested that the parents make a psych appointment too.
At the pediatricians office, about a week or so later, they had no idea what was wrong, and suggested the parents take him to a mental hospital and check him in there. Meanwhile, the parents had done some research and learned that there is a really rare condition where people who have a strep infection and get this vaccine can get really fucked up. So they asked for a strep test. The test came back positive, even though the kid had never had a fever. They were somehow able to determine that he had the strep infection back when he got the vaccine.
So they put him on an aggressive course of antibiotics, and things are improving slightly. He has stopped saying that he wants to die. But he still has all sorts of compulsive behavior, and he still strips off his clothes as soon as he gets home from school because they drive him nuts against his skin. He hides naked in his room.
The parents have been looking for a doctor who knows about this "PANDAS (Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Strep)" and is able to diagnose their son. The pediatricians they have been dealing with are clueless, and don't feel qualified to make any diagnosis. They found a doctor and have an appointment, but haven't been yet.
So there's no official diagnosis yet, but they know the boy's personality changed dramatically within a day or two of getting the FluMist vaccine while he was infected with strep. This used to be a normal kid. Even though they are just acquaintances now, these guys used to be good friends of ours, and this sucks for them.
I'm so sorry, glatt. If they are unsatisfied with their new doctor, let me know. I know of several doctors who diagnose and treat PANDAS. Also, it would be good to mention to your friend that at this point it would save a lot of time and energy if the boy could get his tonsils taken out ASAP.
glatt, maybe they could get him to a university setting for treatment. At least there will be people there who have heard of this syndrome.
I hate any of the nasal flu preps, they are live attenuated vaccines.
I'm having trouble with the basic concept. If his body is fighting one bug, and you introduce a different bug, the immune system can't multitask? Does the immune system fight different bugs in different ways? Is it a change in body chemistry that makes the kid nuts?
I'm having trouble with the basic concept. If his body is fighting one bug, and you introduce a different bug, the immune system can't multitask?
It should.
Does the immune system fight different bugs in different ways?
Absolutely.
Is it a change in body chemistry that makes the kid nuts?
I have no idea in the case of this syndrome, this is the first I have ever heard of it.
What is the mechanism behind this phenomenon? At present, it is unknown but researchers at the NIMH are pursuing a theory that the mechanism is similar to that of Rheumatic Fever, an autoimmune disorder triggered by strep. throat infections. In every bacterial infection, the body produces antibodies against the invading bacteria, and the antibodies help eliminate the bacteria from the body. However in Rheumatic Fever, the antibodies mistakenly recognize and "attack" the heart valves, joints, and/or certain parts of the brain. This phenomenon is called "molecular mimicry", which means that proteins on the cell wall of the strep. bacteria are similar in some way to the proteins of the heart valve, joints, or brain. Because the antibodies set off an immune reaction which damages those tissues, the child with Rheumatic Fever can get heart disease (especially mitral valve regurgitation), arthritis, and/or abnormal movements known as Sydenham’s Chorea or St. Vitus Dance.
Good luck with that, it would appear that flumist is not associated with this. This disease has a "sudden onset" nature, which naturally causes parents to look for something they did in the last 24 hours that caused it. But correlation does not imply causality and researchers believe that strep is the cause and not some vaccination for something unrelated. "Data points" also lead us to confirmation bias.
A Google search to correlate the terms PANDAS and FluMist only turns up one result, a thread of concerned parents trying to decide what to do.
I'm so sorry, glatt. If they are unsatisfied with their new doctor, let me know. I know of several doctors who diagnose and treat PANDAS. Also, it would be good to mention to your friend that at this point it would save a lot of time and energy if the boy could get his tonsils taken out ASAP.
Refresh my memory, what did the removal of tonsils do for your kid(s)? Did it help a lot?
I'm having trouble with the basic concept. If his body is fighting one bug, and you introduce a different bug, the immune system can't multitask? Does the immune system fight different bugs in different ways? Is it a change in body chemistry that makes the kid nuts?
It's not about the bug, it's about the adjuvants in the vaccine--the ingredients that deliberately throw your immune system into overdrive, to elicit the desired immune response to a bug that your body typically wouldn't bother with. The role of the tonsils in the body isn't exactly understood, though we know they produce antibodies in youth and generally stop by adulthood. Throw the tonsils into overdrive while there's also strep living in there, and the effect could in theory be an autoimmune disorder like PANDAS. The problem with the disorder is not actually the strep itself, but the antibodies the immune system is creating in reaction to the strep.
A Google search to correlate the terms PANDAS and FluMist only turns up one result, a thread of concerned parents trying to decide what to do.
Your search was too narrow, as it's not the FluMist in particular but the nature of vaccines overall. Google search
PANDAS caused by vaccine or
vaccination and the results get much larger.
Refresh my memory, what did the removal of tonsils do for your kid(s)? Did it help a lot?
Minifob was diagnosed with PANDAS (by an Ear-Nose-Throat specialist, not by our autism doctors, though it very often goes hand-in-hand with autism diagnoses, just like celiac, food allergies, and most other autoimmune diseases. Some cases of autism actually appear to be nothing but PANDAS to begin with, triggered at an early enough age to severely affect brain development.)
Once the disorder is triggered, it's going to be a lifelong condition to manage. Every single time the kid is exposed to strep, there will be neurological problems. The tonsils and adenoids are very, very susceptible to strep infections. If you remove them, the strep has nowhere to live except a thin sheen of skin on the surface of the back of the throat, which is easier to defeat (always with antibiotics, from now on.) Some hardier species of strep can also live in the intestines--but again, nothing nearly as vivacious as the kind of colony that can set up shop in the tonsils/adenoids without even trying. Removing them now will A.) get rid of the majority of the current infection in one fell swoop, and B.) make future infections less frequent, and less severe.
Edit to add: Also, as I learned last month, pink eye can be caused by a strep infection of the eye (though it can also be other bacteria too, like staph.)
We unfortunately ended up removing his adenoids and his tonsils in separate surgeries, but after both, he was a completely different kid. He regressed again after the adenoid surgery because a new round of strep infected his tonsils, and antibiotics were only minimally effective by then. After the tonsils came out, his teacher at school said "something just clicked," and he has had huge jumps in social, verbal, and cognitive skills. Of course, his rampant OCD symptoms have also disappeared.
Your friends should look into the book
Saving Sammy, though they've probably heard of it already if they've gotten far enough in the process to locate a doctor who diagnoses and treats PANDAS. There's also a very active PANDAS Yahoo group.
PANDAS resource network FAQ:
Q:I'm concerned about vaccinations and whether they cause of PANDAS
A: The research at this point indicates that the disease is a response to Group A Beta-Hemolytic Streptococcus and not a result of vaccines.
Q:Will a vaccine trigger an exacerbation?
A: Possibly. The theory is that PANDAS children already have a weakened blood brain barrier and when a vaccine recruits T-cells, there is inflammation that can further breach the blood brain barrier. The vaccine acts like a mini version of the illness (bacterial or viral). While the immune system kills off the weakened bacteria/virus in the vaccine, the body still has an immune response and still produces localized inflammation allowing antibodies or B-cells to cross the blood-brain barrier. This is a very controversial area and talking with an immunologist with experience with MS, ARF or Sydenham Chorea is probably the best recommendation here.
Q: Does PANDAS cause permanent brain injury?
A: At present, it looks like exacerbations in PANDAS do not cause permanent harm to the brain. MRIs reveal no demyelization and while there are reports of enlargement of the basal ganglia (a part of the brain controlling fear, hunger, and motor skills), this seems to remit after treatment. We all certainly hope this is the case.
Q:Will a vaccine trigger an exacerbation?
A: Possibly.
Just wanted to be clear here... you're cool with this assessment of the current research?
As long as you understand the difference between "cause" and "trigger".
Yes, because I also think an honest examination would force them to conclude that the current vaccination schedule is too aggressive, and that certain specific vaccinations carry extra risks and should be performed with even more caution; and in the long term view, I think it would also open the research path of trying to identify those kids who are genetically at risk.
There are many factors involved, I absolutely agree. There is usually no one cause of autism even in a specific individual, let alone across all cases.
It is, in fact, demonstrably genetic. Siblings of autistic children have a 2-8% chance of being autistic, somewhere between 50 to 200 times the rate of the general population. But the debate rages over whether it is purely genetic, or whether it is the susceptibility which is genetic, and that without the environmental triggers it would remain dormant, so to speak. (As a comparison, diabetes is also known to be genetic, but the rate of diabetes is much higher today than it used to be because of environmental triggers setting off the disease, like poor diet and lack of exercise.) If one acknowledges that the actual rate of autism is rising, mathematically speaking they must acknowledge that there is an environmental factor, because there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic. This is why many institutions are desperate to prove there are not actually more cases of autism now than there used to be, because if there are, it means there's a cause.
That's just in the first four days of this thread. Do you really want me to systematically quote myself from the beginning? It is you who has consistently denied the possibility of a vaccine either triggering, or exacerbating, an existing predisposition or condition.
OK let's use an example.
In an avalanche, the
cause is the slow buildup of unstable snow on a height, and the
trigger is a relatively small event - the falling of a branch, the schuss of a skier - that finally brings all that instability to bear, and the event happens.
It is you who has consistently denied the possibility
That wasn't what we were talking about, but fine. I don't deny anything. I merely ask for proof of a causal relationship. I don't deny, I challenge. They are different. I can give you more examples if you require.
In an avalanche, the cause is the slow buildup of unstable snow on a height, and the trigger is a relatively small event - the falling of a branch, the schuss of a skier - that finally brings all that instability to bear, and the event happens.
Absolutely. And when it has been determined that a particular mountain has a large buildup of snow, then the conditions are declared unsafe... and they don't allow skiers on that mountain, because they might
trigger the avalanche.
Just because the trigger is small, or a common occurrence on all the other mountains that don't have a buildup of snow, doesn't mean the avalanche is inevitable. We can still prevent it in most cases.
Your friends should look into the book Saving Sammy, though they've probably heard of it already if they've gotten far enough in the process to locate a doctor who diagnoses and treats PANDAS. There's also a very active PANDAS Yahoo group.
Thank you for all your advice, Clodfobble. I'm going to pass these tips along. I think it's huge that they already did so much research themselves and found a doctor. But I guess having a kid ask to die will do that to a parent.
Jenny McCarthy,
where are you now ?
This year, the U.K. has had more than 1,200 cases of measles,
after a record number of nearly 2,000 cases last year.
The country once recorded only several dozen cases every year.
It now ranks second in Europe, behind only Romania.
Public Health England
3/13
The age distribution of the cases in the first quarter of 2013 shows a peak in the 10-14 year old age group
with an apparent shift in age, when compared to the previous 4 years <snip>
NY Times
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
May 22, 2013
Aftermath of an Unfounded Vaccine Scare
Britain is experiencing serious outbreaks of measles that look to be
a delayed consequence of a failure to vaccinate infants and young children more than a decade ago.
A prime cause of that failure was ill-founded fears among parents that
a widely used vaccine to combat measles, mumps and rubella might cause autism.
Because they shunned the vaccine, their children, now in their teens, are suffering the consequences.
Those fears had been fanned by Dr. Andrew Wakefield,
a British researcher, who claimed to have found a link between the vaccine,
gastrointestinal problems found in many autistic children and autism itself.
His work was subsequently discredited, and the BMJ, a British medical journal,
concluded that flaws in his scientific study were not honest mistakes but an “elaborate fraud.”
Even so, he has stalwart defenders who ignore the overwhelming consensus
of vaccine and infectious disease experts that the vaccine is safe and effective
and not a cause of autism.
It has a proven record of safety when given to hundreds of millions of people around the world.
<snip>
The most serious outbreaks this year have been in Wales,
where there are also signs that mumps may be increasing.
A vaccination campaign aimed mostly at young people ages 10 to 16
is now trying to fill a gap that should never have occurred.<snip>
How incredible would it be, if we could live in a utopia where no one ever got sick with anything? This is surely something we should strive for.
Ask for the moon too.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
That's not necessary; they have a shot now that is just as good as getting the real moon.
How incredible would it be, if we could live in a utopia where no one ever got sick with anything? This is surely something we should strive for.
I don't get this comment at all.
We've gone from measuring measles and the like in the tens and now we're measuring in the thousands. Diseases that used to wipe out or cripple large numbers of children were almost completely taken out of the picture and now are back with a vengeance.
We've moved backwards.
If the only datapoint being considered is new cases of some form of measles, then yes, we've gone backward. That datapoint, however, says nothing about why this might be occurring.
How many of the new cases, for example, are
Atypical Measles Syndrome, a more virulent and damaging form of the disease that showed up shortly after mass measles vaccination, and only occurs in vaccinated individuals? What other diseases might be on the rise as a result of artifically tampering with our bodies' systems? Nothing we do operates in a vacuum, and you can't limit assessment of a situation to a single datapoint.
[YOUTUBE]bkjmzEEQUlE[/YOUTUBE]
If the only datapoint being considered
is new cases of some form of measles, then yes, we've gone backward.
That datapoint, however, says nothing about why this might be occurring.
<snip>
Nothing we do operates in a vacuum, and you can't limit assessment
of a situation to a single datapoint.
It's not at all just a single data point... here is a layman-summary of CDC reports for US.
webmd.com
April 19, 2012
Measles Cases, Outbreaks Quadruple in 2011
Unvaccinated Children, Teens at Risk
Measles cases are spiking sharply in the U.S., the CDC reported today.
The 222 cases and 17 outbreaks seen in 2011 are nearly four times
the median of 60 cases and four outbreaks per year seen over the last decade.
A third of patients were hospitalized.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The surge in cases is largely due to people who have not been vaccinated
with the measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine, the CDC says.
A significant percentage of these people are children and teens
whose parents exempted them from school vaccination requirements.
[/COLOR]
"Unvaccinated people put themselves and others at risk
-- particularly infants too young to be vaccinated,
who can have the most severe complications,"
Anne Schuchat, MD, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases,
said at a news conference held to announce the new report.
<snip>
Vaccine refusal is more common in Europe than in the U.S.
The result: more than 37,000 measles cases in Europe last year.
Five countries account for 90% of the cases: France, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Germany.
Nine out of 10 U.S. measles cases could be linked either to a U.S. resident
who was infected in a foreign country or to foreign visitors to the U.S.
Many of these travelers imported measles from Europe.
Regarding "atypical measles", there were a few (<50) cases reported in 1981
among children immunized 10-15 yrs previously (~1965) with an early form of vaccine.
In my searches for "atypical measles" I so far have found
no additional reports
of that "disease" associated with current CDC recommendations for MMR vaccine.
It's not at all just a single data point...
You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting there is only one source for this data. I'm agreeing that measles cases are universally on the rise in Western nations.
That is the datapoint.
What I'm not conceding is the cause of the rise, whether it's actually a bad thing at all, or whether society's future course of action should continue to be the same as it has been in the past. To draw those conclusions would require other datapoints.
We kill the wolves, and the wolves' prey take over the ecosystem. We try to wipe out one disease, and create a niche for a mutation to thrive that is far worse than its predecessor. We try to protect weaker members of our society, and their weaker genes just get passed on and amplified. Every time we try to outsmart nature, we lose.
No, outsmarting nature is the defining charactaristic of humanity. If we lost every time, we wouldn't exist.
We don't win every time, but the accumulated wins we've got are what separate us from other animals.
We kill the wolves, and the wolves' prey take over the ecosystem. We try to wipe out one disease, and create a niche for a mutation to thrive that is far worse than its predecessor. We try to protect weaker members of our society, and their weaker genes just get passed on and amplified. Every time we try to outsmart nature, we lose.
I do agree that our world is an extremely complex place and that unthinkable long-term consequences to our current actions will always occur (how the hell did the harassment of a street vendor in Tunisia cause a civil war in Syria??), but this does not mean that our world is dictated by some global “karma”. In certain situations, yes, from climate change to antibiotics, causing a shift in equilibrium can potentially result in grave long-term consequences. However, this does not mean that we cannot find a future solution to the problem and this does not mean that we should always sacrifice our current generation to spare a possible worst case scenario for future generations (this is obviously a very gray area).
Either way, even though the mass killing of many viruses can speed up the evolution process and potentially lead to a more dangerous virus, I would rather take our chances. First, there is no guarantee that a “supervirus” will emerge and second, there is a good chance we will be able to fight off any new virus, especially if nanotechnology pulls through. No one can predict the future or determine whether final outcomes will be positive or negative but unless there is strong evidence suggesting otherwise, I would rather adapt to new problems than change course based on speculation.
No, outsmarting nature is the defining charactaristic of humanity. If we lost every time, we wouldn't exist.
We don't win every time, but the accumulated wins we've got are what separate us from other animals.
I disagree. Most of what you would categorize as our "wins," I see as nature winning. We have language because language is beneficial to survival. We are social creatures because cooperation is beneficial to survival. Our successes occur when we harness and cooperate with nature, not try to defy it.
The key difference between us and animals is that we can learn from our mistakes. The question is, do we really?
The key difference between us and animals is that we can learn from our mistakes. The question is, do we really?
Yes, we learned that a door on the cave kept the wolves away from our babies.
But even if a few of our friends have an unsubstantiated fear of doors,
we don't let them prop the doors open at night.
We learned, but Jenny McCarthy did not, that MMR is
not related to autism,
and it is more important (and possible) to protect children
and pregnant women from measles, rubella, and mumps.
Men are sort of pleased about the mumps thing too.
So we do.
.
So we do.
Except apparently, according to your article, you don't.
If your solution can be nullified by a few noncompliant individuals, you'd better come up with a new solution, because there will always be noncompliant individuals.
Except, we're not talking about a few non-compliant individuals. The vaccination process was robust enough to accommodate a low level of non-compliance. There was never a 100% take-up. Alongside those who did not comply were those whose family medical history suggested the risks of vaccination outweighed the need for vaccination.
The model was working. It didn't fall apart because a few parents decided to exercise their right not to comply. It started to collapse because a large number of parents were frightened off vaccines by a study which has since been discredited (yes, I know you dispute some of that). Large numbers of parents chose not to vaccinate in the years since that study, and the result is that the number of measles cases have begun to rise rapidly, and we're now hearing of the possible return of mumps and whooping cough as common childhood illnesses.
The outbreak in Swansea is of ordinary, common or garden measles of the sort that we had made a rarity.
This has nothing to do with the unintended consequences of messing with disease evolution and the balance between different factors; it has everything to do with a scandal that was big enough and loud enough to push just enough parents away from vaccination as to render the process ineffective - it's a numbers game.
If your solution can be nullified by a few noncompliant individuals,
you'd better come up with a new solution, because there will always be noncompliant individuals.
I know of very few things in life that are perfect.
But that doesn't stop society, or individuals, from using best judgment
and doing what can be done to benefit as many as possible.
The article, and the effect of non-compliant individuals,
does not "nullify the solution", as you wish to suggest.
With respect to the MMR vaccinations, such non-compliant individuals benefit too.
But
unfortunately, they put their children and grand-children at risk, not themselves,
of carrying the avoidable burden of consequences of their decisions.
.
If it is as you say, then the numbers should have already begun reversing themselves following the loud and continued discrediting of that study, and all should return to normal in a few years. That would make the NYTimes article little more than gloating. "Ha ha, those fools got what's coming to them."
On the other hand, if vaccination uptake rates continue dropping, one has to ask why. There's only so many times they can say the study has been discredited, and only so long they can point to one "scare" from 15 years ago as being the sole impetus for people's decisions today.
Or worse yet, what if vaccination uptake does return to previous levels, but the disease rate continues rising? At some point in the next couple of decades the narrative will be updated, and we all have our guesses about which way it will go. It's my personal belief that this particular medical policy aims to circumvent biology in the name of a disease-free utopia that can never be achieved, that's all.
If it is as you say, then the numbers should have already begun reversing themselves following the loud and continued discrediting of that study, and all should return to normal in a few years. That would make the NYTimes article little more than gloating. "Ha ha, those fools got what's coming to them."
On the other hand, if vaccination uptake rates continue dropping, one has to ask why. There's only so many times they can say the study has been discredited, and only so long they can point to one "scare" from 15 years ago as being the sole impetus for people's decisions today.
Or worse yet, what if vaccination uptake does return to previous levels, but the disease rate continues rising? At some point in the next couple of decades the narrative will be updated, and we all have our guesses about which way it will go. It's my personal belief that this particular medical policy aims to circumvent biology in the name of a disease-free utopia that can never be achieved, that's all.
It may have been one study 15 years ago, but the press here and over there have played their part in making sure it remained current in people's minds for much longer. There was a broad consensus on vaccination. The last 15 years of fear mongering press reports have played their part in breaking that consensus.
Anyway: I don't necessarily disagree with your last point. I get where you're coming from on that now. But..I don't think it's a diseasefree utopia they're aiming for. I think they just wanted to cut the high numbers of infant deaths to a handful of common childhood diseases,
But..I don't think it's a diseasefree utopia they're aiming for. I think they just wanted to cut the high numbers of infant deaths to a handful of common childhood diseases,
But then why vaccinate for diseases that have never killed anyone in the Western world, like rotavirus, strep throat, etc.? I can see the purpose of the rotavirus vaccine in Africa, where babies do die from dehydration because there really isn't any clean water to give them, but to my knowledge rotavirus has never killed a single child in the developed world. It just gives you a little diarrhea, and then you're fine. But once they developed it, it's as if they decided, well, why the hell not? Just add it to the growing list of infant shots (I don't know what the schedule is in the UK, but in the US it is now 36 shots before the age of 2. Far more than a handful of diseases.) Sometimes they give a shot even when there's no risk to the baby at all, just because it's easy. All babies in the US get a Hepatitis B shot on the day they're born. It's a sexually-transmitted disease, and the
only way a baby could get it is if the mother is currently infected, and breastfeeds. They could just as easily test the mothers and ferret out the .01% who have the disease, but instead they give a preventative shot to 100% of babies just hours after birth, when all experts agree that their immune system hasn't even begun to fully function yet.
The program began as a way to reduce death/crippling from a small number of horrible childhood diseases, I agree. But the evidence says to me that in its current incarnation, it's spiraled out of control.
I'll state the obvious:
Follow the money.
I'll state the obvious:
Follow the money.
Preventative immunizations are now free (ObamaCare)
That just means someone else is paying for them, they're not free.
But then why vaccinate for diseases
that have never killed anyone in the Western world, like rotavirus, strep throat, etc.?
I can see the purpose of the rotavirus vaccine in Africa, where babies do die from dehydration
because there really isn't any clean water to give them,
but to my knowledge rotavirus has never killed a single child in the developed world.
It just gives you a little diarrhea, and then you're fine.
<snip>
Ummm... are you sure ?
I'm not, but maybe we're talking about two different viruses
emedicinehealth.com
Rotavirus Infection Overview
Rotavirus infection is the number one cause of severe viral
gastroenteritis (vomiting and diarrhea) in the world.
Primary rotavirus infection is particularly common in children 6 months to 2 years of age.
Annual estimates indicate that, worldwide, approximately 130 million infants and children
develop this infection, resulting in 600,000-800,000 deaths per year.
The most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate
that the burden of morbidity (illness) and mortality in the United States is not trivial.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Each year, approximately 2.7 million American children sustain a rotavirus infection,
resulting in 500,000 office visits.
Between 300-400 American children die annually, while approximately 200,000 hospitalizations
occur each year due to rotavirus infection.[/COLOR]
The federal government estimates the direct medical cost of rotavirus disease to be $1 billion annually.
This direct cost does not take into consideration the broader financial impact (loss of productivity and wages, etc.).
Ah, 300-400 per year. I stand corrected. Important followup questions that are now needed: How many annual American rotavirus deaths were occurring before introduction of the vaccine? How many of the 300-400 who died in America last year had had the vaccine, but got the disease anyway? How many had complicating conditions, like when your bedridden 90 year old granny is finally pushed over the edge by a small infection?
You can't eliminate every death from everything. "Falling out of bed" kills 450 people annually.
International Journal of Epidemiology 39:56-162
The effect of rotavirus vaccine on diarrhoea mortality
Background
<snip>
Results
We identified six papers for abstraction, reporting results from four studies.
No studies reported diarrhoea or rotavirus deaths, but all studies showed
reductions in hospitalizations due to rotavirus or diarrhoea of any aetiology,
severe and any rotavirus infections and diarrhoea episodes of any aetiology
in children who received rotavirus vaccine compared with placebo.
Effectiveness against very severe rotavirus infection best approximated
effectiveness against the fraction of diarrhoea deaths attributable to rotavirus,
and was estimated to be 74% (95% confidence interval: 35–90%).
Again, I know of few things in life that is perfect.
I suspect answers to all of your questions are available, and they
overwhelmingly support the safety and efficacy of CDC-recommended
vaccines in use today.
OTOH while death is an easy endpoint to measure,
it is certainly not the be-all, end-all justification for public health.
There are always trade-offs to be made, sometimes they are
balanced to achieve the most good for the most people.
strep throat is just the most common result of streptococcus infection, more severe are rheumatic fever, necrotizing fasciitis or flesh-eating bacteria, toxic shock syndrome and
PANDASTo me, the concern is that like Wall Street and big agriculture, the pharmaceutical industry writes its own rules and regulations so at some point we cross the line from public health to public purse with little regard for unexpected consequences (like maybe increasing rates of autoimmune disease) which the Feds will indemnify them for anyway. Its corporate capitalism at its finest. The balance may not be as clear as individual vs group. It may be individual vs industry vs group. That extra component may have little to do with public health.
Griff, I absolutely agree with your opening remark.
The rules in Medicare Part D (drugs) are a big culprit because Medicare
is prohibited from negotiating $ with the drug companies.
The other parts of Medicare and governmental agencies
are allowed to "controll" cost via negotiation of purchase price,
or by the amounts the feds reimburse to hospitals and physicians.
As an example, ObamaCare requires preventative immunizations to be free.
Except..., the immunization for shingles (varicella-zoster by Merck)
is exempted for large insurance plans, and the "co-pay" is passed along to the patient.
My co-pay was $70, and RiteAide starts the bidding at $200
It's additionally frustrating because the Merck vaccine is only 50% effective.
If you want the costs of drugs to go down, get your State's Senators
and Representatives to change this aspect of Part D.
Hint: For the other parts of health care costs.
When you get a survey about how satisfied you are
with your recent visit at a hospital/clinic,
answer it carefully because negative replies weigh heavily
in the future towards the rate of reimbursements for that health provider.
Wait-times in the ER Waiting Room don't count :(
because there are no standards to be met.
strep throat is just the most common result of streptococcus infection, more severe are rheumatic fever, necrotizing fasciitis or flesh-eating bacteria, toxic shock syndrome and PANDAS
And yet, despite receiving two Prevnar shots with a total of (I believe) fourteen strep species in the vaccinations, my son later had intractable S. pyogenes necessitating tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, in addition to PANDAS. Sometimes there are things to blame other than noncompliant "scared" parents.
No studies reported diarrhoea or rotavirus deaths, but all studies showed reductions in hospitalizations...
...OTOH while death is an easy endpoint to measure,
it is certainly not the be-all, end-all justification for public health.
Here, Dana, you can see an example of someone who is interested in more than just reducing a tragic death rate in a handful of diseases. I find Adam Corolla's "slippery slope" mock-up video as hilarious the next guy, but I am nonetheless very wary of people who are unable to draw a line somewhere. Your (universal your) line may be different than mine, fine, but "no line" is not a good basis for public policy.
prevnar addresses S. pneumoniae. does not address S. pyogenes. i am very sorry to hear about your son.
Right, and thus does not address...
rheumatic fever, necrotizing fasciitis or flesh-eating bacteria, toxic shock syndrome and PANDAS
There are 90 strains of pneumonia-causing strep alone. The current shots cover 80-90% of those cases, but they are trying to add more. Because of course as we vaccinate for the primary species, the lesser strains will simply rise to prominence in the niche we created for them.
Then after that, how many other new shots will it take to cover all the other strains of all the other strep diseases? How long before there is a 91st strain of S. pneumoniae? It's a losing battle. We will always have horrible diseases. The herd will always get thinned, one way or another.
Don't vaccinate for anything if you can't vaccinate for everything?
*shrug* Or treat vaccination as a serious medical intervention, like antibiotics (ought to be,) and only use them when absolutely necessary, like antibiotics (ought to be.)
Vaccination is a preventative. If you need serious medical intervention, it's too late.
Some shots, such as tetanus for example, can be given shortly after a known exposure. In addition, shots can be given in local areas during specific outbreaks instead of nationwide for all possible diseases. Mothers can be tested for diseases such as Hep B instead of giving all babies the shot when they will almost certainly have no exposure. There ARE options.
Antibiotics can be used preventatively across the board too. But it's strongly discouraged, and for good reason.
And those options are used to determine which vaccinations are on the schedule.
For example, rabies is not, while
Hep B is:
Approximately 25 percent of children who become infected with life-long hepatitis B virus would be expected to die of related liver disease as adults. (emphasis theirs)
...
In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected (emphasis mine) with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination.
And I believe their determinations should be more conservative than they are. As we've established, I am relatively unmoved by death stats, because I think the consequences of our actions will be worse than the original problem, and sooner rather than later. We're not even trying to make it later, in my opinion.
Are you relatively unmoved by the conflict between:
Mothers can be tested for diseases such as Hep B instead of giving all babies the shot when they will almost certainly have no exposure.
In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected (emphasis mine) with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination
Yes, I am. Because on a surface level, your stats are for all children under age 10, not newborns. An 8-year-old is more likely to come into contact with adult fluids than a newborn. The shot could be given at age 1 or 2 or 3, just like many shots, were it not for some infected mothers passing it through breastmilk. They could test the mothers, but they don't. I understand that you believe that there is no risk difference between giving the shot on day one vs. day 730, but given that I don't believe that, it makes sense that I would advocate testing the mothers, and giving the shot later if that's what the parent wants to do.
I am also unmoved because on a deeper level, yes, children under the age of 10 get diseases. So do people over the age of 10. It sucks. It's painful. Sometimes it kills us. That doesn't mean that our current course of action will be better for us in the long run than the mechanism that evolution already provided.
You guys keep pointing out how horrible option A is, but I'm not denying that. I'm simply saying that option B may actually turn out to be much worse. Why do we not also give children under 10 a steady dose of antibiotics every day? That, too, would prevent many diseases which hurt and sometimes kill us. It's what they do with penned-in cattle, after all. And have there perhaps been any negative consequences from that policy?
Of course every single childhood death should be prevented at all costs! But maybe...[/Louis C.K.]
Gee Clod, so many factual errors in your discussion.
Most of the current vaccines are for viruses, so discussion giving antibiotics instead is immaterial.
Back to talking about Hepatitis B,
HBV is transmitted by percutaneous or mucosal exposure
to the blood or body fluids of an infected person, most often through injection-drug use,
from sexual contact with an infected person,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]or from an infected mother to her newborn during childbirth.[/COLOR]
The risk for chronic HBV infection decreases with increasing age at infection.
Among infants who acquire HBV infection from their mothers at birth,
as many as 90% become chronically infected,
whereas 30%–50% of children infected at age 1–5 years become chronically infected.
This percentage is smaller among adults, in whom approximately 5% of all
acute HBV infections progress to chronic infection.
At least 50% of these chronic infections
eventually lead to the person's death due to liver disease.
If you look for studies about the efficacy of only screening pregnant women,
and immunizing only the mother, or immunizing the newborn, or
immunizing the newborn AND giving HBIG (immune globulin),
you find that your scheme just doesn't work.
A significantly greater percentage of children with HBeAg-positive mothers
tested positive for antibodies against the hepatitis B core protein (16.76%) and HBsAg (9.26%)
than children with HBeAg-negative mothers (1.58% and 0.29%, respectively; P < .0001 and <.001).
Among the HBV-infected children, the rate of chronicity also was higher
among children with HBeAg-positive mothers than children with HBeAg-negative mothers (54% vs 17%; P = .002).
Similar rates of antibodies against the hepatitis B core protein (0.99% and 1.88%; P = .19)
and HBsAg (0.14% and 0.29%; P = .65) were noted in children born to HBeAg-negative
mothers who were or were not given HBIG.
Infantile fulminant hepatitis developed in 1 of 1050 children who did not receive HBIG (.095%).
I understand your warning about potential, future bad things happening... maybe.
But bad things are happening now, and that's what public health is all about... dealing with reality, not the theoretical.
Sigh. It's not about giving antibiotics instead of vaccines, it's about why something that seems beneficial might have unintended negative consequences. It was a parallel example, not a suggestion. Christ Almighty, if you really think I'm in favor of daily prophylactic antibiotics, you have paid zero attention to who I am.
I sincerely hope vaccinations work out for you and your family. Meanwhile I shall continue to do the risk assessment for my own family and make my own decisions accordingly. Everything else is kind of pointless, no?
Some shots, such as tetanus for example, can be given shortly after a known exposure. In addition, shots can be given in local areas during specific outbreaks instead of nationwide for all possible diseases. Mothers can be tested for diseases such as Hep B instead of giving all babies the shot when they will almost certainly have no exposure. There ARE options.
Antibiotics can be used preventatively across the board too. But it's strongly discouraged, and for good reason.
The argument here is very circular which is why I rarely involve myself, but clearly, a child will
almost certainly have no exposure
because the disease is less prolific due to vaccination.
If no one ever vaccinated, my child would have a much higher risk of dying from a preventable disease than it would of developing an auto immune disease.
There in lies the social issue.
Because these diseases almost don't exist, it gives people the luxury of being able to say they don't need to immunise or that they choose not to because the other risks are higher.
I guess if people had to go back a couple of generations and live in families where the infant mortality rate was high (most families lost or had crippled at least one child) thanks to many of these preventable diseases, some of us might better understand the need to immunise where ever possible.
And I sincerely hope that works out for your family. We've discussed the fallacy of high infectious mortality before (one need not go back that many generations because the only thing that matters is the infectious disease rate just before vaccination started, not back when doctors didn't know they needed to wash their hands) and we've also discussed how the rate of autoimmune disease is not static, but rising sharply, not just with each generation but with each passing year. Circular, just like you said. I had a whole discussion written out here about whether people who currently have an active autoimmune disease should continue taking vaccines, but it doesn't matter. Everyone posting has already made up their minds, and no one else is even reading. Once again I've let this thread get to me when I swore I was never going to bother opening it again.
I sincerely hope it works out for all of you. Best of luck and I hope your kids stay healthy.
It's what they do with penned-in cattle, after all. And have there perhaps been any negative consequences from that policy?
Penned cattle are given mega doses of antibiotics to fatten them up. Common knowledge: to destroy bacteria required to keep cattle healthy. But those cattle will only live another six months. Without intestinal bacterium, cattle also no longer know when to stop feeding. That makes obese cattle and richer slaughter houses. And may now explain why so many antibiotics no longer work.
Excessive use of antibiotics may also explain human obesity, Chrone's disease, diseases now associated with bacteria missing in intestines, and some auto-immune disorders - to name a few. Antibiotics as a preventative measure obviously were and still are bad for long term health.
Not vaccinating kids (at or after 2) puts infants (less than 2 years) at elevated risk of what were once almost eliminated diseases. Many people do not vaccinate due to brainwashing; subjective claims from ‘experts’ such as Jenny McCarthy. BTW, everything Jenny McCarthy said has been proven wrong multiple times.
Down side to vaccinations is near zero. Significant problems are created when not vaccinating. The proof now seen in so many venues where Jenny McCarthy brainwashing created major outbreaks of once preventable diseases.
In one case, a teacher, who was vaccinated for whopping cough, got the disease. We know that some vaccinations wear off on some people. She had whopping cough because some parents (using emotion rather than fact) did not vaccinate their kids. The school (and herself) suffered a major whopping cough outbreak because so many parents had no regard for well proven solutions, the health of others, and health of their kids (especially infants).
In the 1950s, a majority also believed smoking increases health. Same brainwashing technique, now used by Jenny McCarthy, et al, also proved that smoking myth.
Numbers don't lie. Conclusions based only in emotions do.
I sincerely hope that works out for you, tw.
Everyone posting has already made up their minds, and no one else is even reading.
I've been reading, and I've been very intrigued by all of your arguments. I used to always be first in line for any kind of shot and also had the same attitude for my kids. But since this thread started years ago, I've changed my mind. I don't get shots any more unless I have a very compelling reason, and I don't just blindly give my kids every shot out there. We pretty much opt out of all the optional shots now, like the flu shots. So far, I haven't identified any side effects associated with any of the shots for my family, but I don't take that for granted like I used to.
We dont get flu shots either.
I'm sorry if I upset you clod. I find this whole discussion quite upsetting too. For opposite reasons, equally personal but again, opposite.
<snip>
Meanwhile I shall continue to do the risk assessment
for my own family and make my own decisions accordingly.
Everything else is kind of pointless, no?
Clod, this is exactly what I expect/want/urge you to do.
Every parent should, and in Texas and probably in all US states,
has the legal and ethical right to forego immunization of their own children.
I truly do believe that parents know more about their own kids
than the physicians that treat them and I fully subscribe to the
maxim "Listen to the parent".
From your postings here about your own kids, I think you have
done a remarkably good job of coming to grips with what is best
and what is not for them in their diet and care.
We are in disagreement only when someone advocates ideas that are
contrary to what public health experience and/or scientific
investigation has shown to be valid, safe, and economically
the ways to proceed to yield the most good for the most people,
and especially for the most vulnerable.
We are in disagreement only when someone advocates ideas that are
contrary to what public health experience and/or scientific
investigation has shown to be valid, safe, and ...
the ways to proceed to yield the most good for the most people,
and especially for the most vulnerable.
Yes. Immunization precisely fits this description - it has been shown to be effective, safe, and yields demonstrable good for many people. Once the majority of a population has been immunized, the herd effect protects occasional individuals who are not immune. As soon as the number of unimmunized individuals rises to a critical level the herd effect is no longer operative and outbreaks occur. That's what we have seen in recent years. The choice to not immunize affects not only the individual, but many others.
We are all exposed to tens of thousands of agents that affect our immune systems - daily, over years, rather than a limited number of times (as with immunizations). Immunizations stimulate specific immune memory for a particular antigen. Immune disruptors in the environment have more general effects. It makes more sense to examine these when looking for possible reasons for the rise in autoimmune disease in recent decades than to point a finger at immunization. Even then it's important to remember that this sort of discussion is about association, not cause. Association is a place to start, but it doesn't prove causality.
I looked very carefully at the immunization issue when my children were small and my first son had a bad reaction to the pertussis vaccine. I reviewed all the literature I could find very, very carefully. From that, I came to a conclusion and had all of my children immunized according to the then-current schedule. In the past year I've had the chance to review the literature again while working on my MPH. I just mention that because it might be easy to assume that, having undergone a medical education, I must have been taught to accept immunization without thinking. In fact, I was taught not to accept anything without looking up the literature on it. While at times you find common practice that has been based on flimsy original papers or insufficient evidence, that's not the case with immunization.
If Clod is out I get to jump back in;
We pretty much opt out of all the optional shots now, like the flu shots.
You should be following your doctor's advice on this and not just a thread. Medical professionals have 10-12 years of training and education, and then see 100 patients a day; all we have here is a big ol' argument.
But if you do follow the thread, the one section of the thread where we did flu shots was on Desiree Jennings, who became bizarrely ill after a flu shot... months later it was shown that she was faking, or at the very least her problems were entirely psychosomatic.*
So far, I haven't identified any side effects associated with any of the shots for my family, but I don't take that for granted like I used to.
Your own observations are uninformed and unscientific. If you had 10-12 years of training, and then saw 100 patients a day, you would be more able to notice those effects, and connect them to all possible causes, as opposed to only the ones you read about in threads.
*About which, patting myself on the back, I was right about all along, and followed the story closely in order to confirm one way or the other. But that whole thing was more about how to determine truth, not really about medicine, and is no substitute for actual training in medicine.
You should be following your doctor's advice on this and not just a thread.
I have been following doctors' advice.
What I've taken from this thread and the "my kid's a nutter" thread and any others over the years is that vaccines are not without risks. I always had a "rub some dirt on it, Nancy" approach to getting shots, but I don't anymore.
I don't get flu shots anymore, but I encourage everyone else to. You all can take the risks and protect me. I'll just wash my hands and not touch my face so much.
This topic is kind of pointless for me, because the vast majority of shots for my kids came along before the controversy. We just did them without a second thought. The only one we gave some serious thought to was my daughter getting the Gardasil shot, and we decided to go ahead with that after my wife talked at length with the pediatrician and he convinced her it was worth it.
What I've taken from this thread
Again, this thread's information is unscientific. Don't listen to anyone in it, including me.
aw shit now you need to not follow my advice in this very post
I don't get flu shots anymore, but I encourage everyone else to. You all can take the risks and protect me. I'll just wash my hands and not touch my face so much.
What specific risks do you mean, glatt? There's a small risk of feeling a bit tired and achy for a couple of days. For people allergic to eggs there's a flu vaccine made without eggs, although even people with egg allergies can usually get the vaccine without problems.
The problem is that 'we all' can't protect you if too many people choose not to get the vaccine (see herd immunity, above). Washing hands and not touching your face is good, but influenza is also droplet transmitted. Someone who sneezes puts two general types of droplets into the air: large ones that fall due to gravity within about six feet (thus the six-foot distance rule), and small ones that remain aerosolized for prolonged times, on the order of hours. That cloud of small droplets will remain and slowly spread in a room long after the person who created it leaves the room. That's how you can get 'flu without any recognizable contact with sick people (along with fomites on doorknobs and phones etc.). Influenza isn't a benign disease; even if it doesn't put you in hospital you may pass it on to someone who will die from it.
If you believe the risks of the shot, whatever they may be, are unacceptable for you, a healthy adult male with a presumably functioning immune system, on what basis do you encourage others to get the shot and assume those unacceptable risks in order to protect you? That's not my general impression of how you argue and think.
It's the only way to be sure.
I'm sorry if I upset you clod. I find this whole discussion quite upsetting too. For opposite reasons, equally personal but again, opposite.
Not you personally. It's a topic I can't handle, and can't stay away from. Every single time this thread is active, I feel like shit for days, I yell at my kids for no reason, I cry repeatedly. They tried to tell me it was PTSD, but I said that couldn't be right because it implied any of it was "post" yet. Ha, ha. Ha.
I do remember Ali, you had a close friend or maybe even relative whose baby died from pertussis. That sucks and I was very sorry to hear it.
And a cousin (second) who lived with Polio as a cripple (eta: I should say, lived as a cripple thanks to polio) till he died young. There are just so many stories which are so close to home. I have a first cousin with huge mental and intellectual disabilities and they suspect that it could be because his mother had rubella when she was pregnant - it's not certain, but it's possible; she was also involved in a minor car accident, so it could have been that to.
I'm just saying, you don't have to go very far back in modern history to hear countless stories. It's so easy not to acknowledge it when we don't have to live it.
I am just afraid that we're trading one bad thing for another. Just as you are. I guess personal experience is what has made both of us choose opposite sides of the same coin.
I do understand why you feel the way you do Clod. Honestly I do, and I love you for what you do, and how much you sacrifice for your kids and your beliefs. I think I speak for everyone when I say you are inspirational. There's no denying your commitment. The world would be a darker place without people like you. xxx
I could lock the thread if you prefer.
UT, if you're asking me, then I'd say no, simply because it's a topic which will come up again one way or another regardless of which thread it is. I have no objections to you doing so if that's what others would prefer though.
Asking Clod honestly, because I don't think any of us wants to create that kind of upset in anyone's life. It's all fair.
No, Ali's right, the topic would just come up again elsewhere. What I really wish is that there were a way to put a thread on ignore, to just not see it and prevent myself from getting involved. But I'm pretty sure you've said before that that's not possible in vBulletin.
Clod, if I may offer some cold comfort direct form Vermont:
"It's hard saying, not knowing."
I think you have every reason to be suspicious of vaccines and other drugs and western medicine. It's also important to think through your conclusions, sometimes the questions are worth a lot more than the answers.
There has to be an opt-out option in any vaccination law, for the people like Clod who are smarter than the average bear, actually know their children inside out, and can make rational decisions from broad based knowledge.
Any parent who makes these decisions and has half a brain, is going to have doubts because there is no bell or buzzer for the right answer. You do the best you can with the knowledge you have, and you may never really know if you did the right thing.
But as we all know, there is a large contingent out there that form lynch mobs, say hold my beer and watch this, plan their future with Ouija boards & fortune cookies, and vote for the stupidest motherfuckers in the world. It's unfortunate we all suffer at the hands of these morons, but when people in this thread refer to that group, it does make for a very compelling argument for mandatory.
Just be sure that when you make your risk assessment, you do it with the best information available. Don't settle for random internet sites. Search Pubmed and Scopus, even though it means a subscription. Then make your decision.
Clod, I believe you want the best for your children and are willing to sacrifice to accomplish that. Your devotion and investment speak for themselves. Anything I've said in this thread wasn't meant to make you feel invalidated or stressed.
There will always be a few people and famillies for whom vaccination is inappropriate or for whom the individual risks associated with vaccination outweigh the social benefits. Unfortunately, a lot of people make their decisions based on flawed science as presented in the popular press.
Clod: you are clearly not the latter and may very well be the former. You've certainly done a lot more research and learning, in general and specific terms, than most people ever will when faced with this decision. You've had to be, in order to get your head around the very specific risks your children have faced and will face.
You are not the problem. The rest of us have a duty to be vaccinated*in order to protect families like yours.
* that said, my vaccinations as a child had to be abandoned halfway through as my baby eczema pretty much exploded after the first lot. I didn't have any of the later shots like rubella and so on,. As an adult I've had specific vaccinations for specific risks (tetanus, flu), but I am very cautious. because of my particular history I would be wary of vaccinations if I had kids, but would want to discuss in some depth with my GP, who specialises in dermatological conditions.
Just be sure that when you make your risk assessment, you do it with the best information available. Don't settle for random internet sites.
Many make that statement but rarely say how it is done. Recommending a responsible publication is suggestion. But more important is how to separate many ill informed sources from the few that actually have facts.
The information must always say why. And must always provide perspective (ie the numbers). Any source that makes a subjective claim is probably better considered propaganda. No perspective (the numbers) is a first indication that the source is probably useless.
Statements make by Jenny McCarthy clearly and without doubt met the criteria for 'useless'. Her statements could not have been more subjective; clearly were only wild speculation. That much should have been obvious to everyone. Unfortunately, a majority never learn how to separate chaff from fact.
I learn something new every day: a wildly horrible case of eczema can be a rare adverse reaction to the smallpox vax. The vax is no longer generally given, because the disease has been eradicated world-wide. A safer version of the vax cannot be developed because it cannot be tested.
wikipedia on exzema vaccinatum
It is thought that the smallpox vax protects against HIV transmission.Interesting. That isn't what I had, thankfully. But something went drastically wrong somewhere around the time of my first vaccs.
I can attest to the horribleness of chicken pox with eczema though...
Why don't they just get the measles vaccine then? Why all 3?
If there was a measles outbreak nearby, I think I would be OK with my kids getting one. I wouldn't go to court and try to force them to though. We chose not to do it because they were not at risk, and the vaccine was more dangerous than the diseases to an infant.
My friend Rod's baby died shortly after getting that shot. SIDS, was the 'cause' of death. The mother, Dawn was lying on her back with Parker on her chest. They both fell asleep. Parker had been crying and uncomfortable and they had both been up all night. Died while she slept.
Dawn and jinx went to the same birth classes. Spencer and Parker were 2 weeks apart in age. Fucking horrible.
Neither of my kids has gotten chicken pox or mumps or measles.
Measles is a horrible disease.Its transmission is airborne, meaning that if you're in the same room with someone who's shedding virus, or if you enter the room that person left 30 minutes ago, you'll get it. Measles kills. It also causes SSPE, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is Latin for your brain just died - although the rest of you didn't. It also causes blindness.
Mumps is painful and miserable in kids (besides reading the literature, I had it), but in males it causes orchitis. Which means inflammation of the testes, leading to scarring and inability to produce sperm.
Pertussis kills, period. It's a bad actor. I had it too, fortunately when I was old enough to just cough myself blue in the face and then throw up for weeks on end. Did I lose weight and fail to thrive? You bet. But I was one of the lucky ones that didn't die of hypoxia.
Chicken pox are miserable for small kids, and serious for a minority. They're serious for older kids, though - think viral encephalitis, the possibility of never regaining normal neurological function - and, if nothing else, they leave scars at that point, a bit like small smallpox scars. Not funny. In susceptible adults, chicken pox is a virulent, serious disease that has complications in the majority. In pregnant women, chicken pox is an unmitigated disaster.
All three vaccines are necessary because we need herd immunity. The more of us that are immune, the lower the chance that the disease will manage to propagate in our population.
Jim, I'm sorry to hear about the death of Dawn's child, but SIDS has NO association with vaccines. I understand that it would be an easy association to make in this instance, but it's not true, any more than saying that roosters cause the sun to rise by crowing.
The coming tragedy will be the resurgence of these truly awful diseases as more and more people refuse vaccines, seeing no need for them because they have no experience with the diseases due to pre-existing herd immunity, and they've fallen prey to the downside of the internet: charlatans whose heads are up their asses, preaching doom and quoting (unsubstantiated) anecdotes as a scare tactic, without any substantiated proof of their assertions. These charlatans should be held accountable for every vaccine-preventable death and life disaster that occurs as a result of their deliberate perpetration of falsehood.
Vaccination was one of the immense steps forward for the human race. And now, because it was SO successful, many are declaring that we have nothing to fear from the diseases it prevents, and making it the scapegoat for problems that have other origins.
SIDS is not a specific cause of death. Who are you to say that the two events were unrelated? Also, using that rooster and sun analogy is like calling me stupid.
And you don't need 100% herd immunity to eradicate a disease. All you need is perimeter immunity. My kids are unlikely to come into contact with either disease. They are definitely not going to spontaneously generate them.
I don't disagree with the concept of immunization. I do disagree with giving kids 20+ shots before age 2.
Neither of us is going to convince the other about this. I don't care if you give them to your kid, just don't tell me I have to do the same.
As much as I agree with vaccinations in the main, I also know that they were almost certainly responsible for the severe chronic eczema that has blighted my life and wrecked my childhood. The timing of the jump from ordinary little bitty baby eczema rash to full blown horror was too damn close.
Mum didn't want to continue after the first one. I was flared and uncomfortable. She was bullied and cajoled and made to feel like a bad parent and hysterical mum for wanting to cease the shots. They persuaded her to do the next and bang: full blown eczema within a day.
When i say bullied and cajoled, I mean properly ganged up on by several nurses at the clinic, the doctor, and even a consultant from the hospital. I don't know why. Maybe they had targets.
My cousins meanwhile, who also had some baby eczema, weren't given the shots until they were better. Their doctor advised against.
Why do you people hate clodfobble?
Heh. I actually thought you'd moved this thread to a hidden forum, it went quiet so quickly before. It's cool though. I've been way, way, (WAY) less depressed in general since going on my kids' diet. I feel awesome for the first time in who knows how long, maybe ever. The thread popped up and my only thought was, "Huh, I can see it after all."
Still not going to participate in it, but I also don't feel compelled to, so that's good. You guys carry on if you want to.
As much as I agree with vaccinations in the main, I also know that they were almost certainly responsible for the severe chronic eczema that has blighted my life and wrecked my childhood. The timing of the jump from ordinary little bitty baby eczema rash to full blown horror was too damn close.
Mum didn't want to continue after the first one. I was flared and uncomfortable. She was bullied and cajoled and made to feel like a bad parent and hysterical mum for wanting to cease the shots. They persuaded her to do the next and bang: full blown eczema within a day.
When i say bullied and cajoled, I mean properly ganged up on by several nurses at the clinic, the doctor, and even a consultant from the hospital. I don't know why. Maybe they had targets.
My cousins meanwhile, who also had some baby eczema, weren't given the shots until they were better. Their doctor advised against.
Eczema is caused by a genetic predisposition, (among other things), and stress definitely makes it worse.
Which is what vaccinations are - stressors which induce an immune response. Your cousins doctor was quite right, imo.
Perhaps your doctors knew of an outbreak of a childhood disease in your area and at that time, and had received instructions to vaccinate everyone they could, to prevent it's spread.
The outbreak may have disappeared by the time your cousins saw the doctor.
Handling outbreaks of highly contagious diseases, is never perfect. Doctors can be damned if they do over-vaccinate, and definitely damned if they don't.
I agree Adak. But I also think that the tendency to dismiss as invalid mothers' concerns about their children was much worse back in the 70s.
left my mum with a whole lot of guilt and wishing she'd stood her ground more. Though she really tried. As i say, they even drafted in a consultant to come talk to her because she was being 'obstinate'.
I am still broadly in favour of vaccination programmes, mind you. But Jim's right: they don't need to vaccinate every single child. And forcing the parents who do not wish it for their children is wrong imo.
What they need to do is get better at presenting the message so that fewer parents will opt out without specific reasons (such as that their child has a family history of certain illnesses).
using the law as a blunt instrument only serves to further increase suspicion and cynicism.
[eta] ok, I have actually read the article now. I am still not sure whether I agree with the ruling or not, but this is a matter of two parents disagreeing on the best thing for their daughters. Horrible for all concerned.
Heh. I actually thought you'd moved this thread to a hidden forum, it went quiet so quickly before. It's cool though. I've been way, way, (WAY) less depressed in general since going on my kids' diet. I feel awesome for the first time in who knows how long, maybe ever.
....
Still not going to participate in it, but I also don't feel compelled to, so that's good. You guys carry on if you want to.
I was just wondering recently how it was going for you, Clod. So do you think you are allergic to gluten as well, or is their diet just that much better for everyone?
Oh I've been off gluten for 4.5 years, and yes, it made a big difference for me in general health, though I wouldn't say I noticed anything brain-wise. Dairy, on the other hand, noticeably messes with my mood, so I have been on and off it over the last 4 years as my will waxed and waned.
But my kids (and now I) are on something called the Specific Carbohydrate Diet, which is no grains, sugars or starches of any kind. Just meats & eggs, fruits & vegetables, nuts & seeds. It's intended to purposefully starve out all the major classes of bad gut bacteria by not providing them the polysaccharides they feed on. I do believe that it's just that much better for everyone, but I also know it's not a realistic lifestyle commitment for most people, because ev.er.y.thing. must be made from scratch. I make my own mayonnaise, fruit rollups, salad dressings, broth... (not all in the same meal, of course.)
It's intended to purposefully starve out all the major classes of bad gut bacteria by not providing them the polysaccharides they feed on.
Polysaccharides (ie glucose, fructose) by itself is not a problem. But these tend to be more destructive when one eats too much of any sugars. An overwhelming majority of us do. Many foods are routinely 'improved' to increase sales - even bread. A body with too many sugars is then (recent research suggests) much more susceptible to damage by those polysaccharides.
Many food labels simply use multiple names for sugars so that sugar does not appear as the #1 ingredient.
Generally, it takes maybe three days just to reduce those sugar levels in places such as the liver (yes, this is a ballpark number based in how much sugar was being consumed and the diet in those three days). An example of why low sugar diets have so little effect until at least day three.
We also know that excessive sugar is one reason for less memory retention.
So should one not consume Orange juice? Of course not. If any food has no nutritional value (even sugar free diet foods), then it only creates more or future problems. Foods that contain sugars must also have required nutritional benefits. Orange juice does (if not consumed in excess). No sodas (pop) do - not even diet drinks.
SIDS is not a specific cause of death. Who are you to say that the two events were unrelated? Also, using that rooster and sun analogy is like calling me stupid.
And you don't need 100% herd immunity to eradicate a disease. All you need is perimeter immunity. My kids are unlikely to come into contact with either disease. They are definitely not going to spontaneously generate them.
I don't disagree with the concept of immunization. I do disagree with giving kids 20+ shots before age 2.
Neither of us is going to convince the other about this. I don't care if you give them to your kid, just don't tell me I have to do the same.
LJ, I was not calling you stupid. I was pointing out that association is not the same as causation.
This is the difficulty that epidemiologists live with. They report associations. Sometimes the increased risk that they report is associated with the exposure in a causal relationship, and sometimes not. When they report an increased risk, smart people don't ignore it; they investigate it.
No, you don't need 100% herd immunity, but you need more than perimeter immunity. You need more than 95% immunity, so that the chain of transmission breaks at every possible point. When more than 5% decide that they or their children don't need immune protection, the herd becomes vulnerable. Given the rise in vaccine refusal in the US, chances are very good that at some point your children will come into contact with one or more of the diseases to which they have no immunity, and most likely at the most vulnerable time of their lives - as adults.
If you disagree with many 'shots' before age 2, would you be willing to immunize your children against the major killers of the 20th century? Meaning: Diphtheria, polio, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella. Quite a few more immunizations have been recommended, and all recommendations are backed up with clinical evidence.
Conventional doctors have no dog in the fight about immunization, except that they are aware that the more people who believe charlatans and refuse vaccination, the more vulnerable the population becomes. Charlatans are the ones preaching doom and reporting anecdotes, rather than controlled, reproducible studies.
Back in 1999, our first pediatrician (a large practice) stopped seeing us because we decided not to get the mmr. The doctor that was trying to convince us to get it was maybe 27 years old. She said she had seen so many kids die of measles, and it was a horrible killer.
I think there were something like 60 cases of measles reported per year in the US at that time and 0 fatalities. I think they had a dog in the fight. Maybe she lied. Maybe she had been living in India. ... but she was clearly deceptive.
Do doctor's practices keep statistics of how many patients are/are not vaccinated? Are there financial ramifications or rewards involved?
Anyway, to answer the question... if my kids were going to India, or another high risk area, I would seriously consider it. ... but while they are in school, if they get ANY immu, they have to get ALL, because we would lose the philosophical exemption. They are both strong and healthy. If, by some freak vector, they did contract measles or mumps, they would receive prompt medical care, and have an excellent chance of surviving it anyway.
Once they are adults, if they go into the medical profession, or join greenpeace or something that would put them in contact with nasty things that could be thwarted by vaccines, then I would probably encourage them to research the vaccines, and go about getting select immunizations.
It is 100% risk reward in my opinion. So far, the risk is greater than the reward.
I would like to build my own house, that would be so sweet! But when the day came to start, I would leave most of it up to architects, carpenters, plumbers, people who know what they're doing.
I mean I've only taken one single shop class, Electronics. And the one thing that class did was to assure me that I should DEFINITELY NOT be wiring my own house.
What classes did you take that tell you you have the ability to make this call. Did you in fact take Biology? Probability/statistics? Did you get taught germ theory and got a 90 on the test? I had pre-meds and pre-dents for roommates in college, so I know what I'm talking about.
This is not to say U R DUM so never take it personally. You know I love you man.
I'm actually saying WE R ALL DUM. We all fuck up our lives, always, regularly, because we don't know what we're doing.
So, a carpenter told you he sees houses not built out of brick to be unstable, and he's seen a bunch of them blow right over. Does that discredit the entire profession of carpentry? Does it mean The Fix Is In from from the Big Brick Industry? One single carpenter with an opinion, trying to make a point, doesn't mean I should take over pounding nails for my own place. If I want a really solid house, I should still be leaving all that shit up to other people. I am qualified to decide what color the paint should be, and what the wiring for the network should be, and not much else.
Why not give these vaccinations to adults instead? It's adults that are most threatened with serious complications from these diseases, no? Getting measles, mumps or chicken pox while young isn't quite as serious and in fact helps to build up natural immunity. I grew up in the 60's and I think I got sick with all three while very young. I think most of my friends and classmates did too. I don't recall the level of fear then that is being pushed today.
I'm actually saying WE R ALL DUM. We all fuck up our lives, always, regularly, because we don't know what we're doing.
This is the only part of your post that makes any sense to me. I'm not following the construction analogies.
So, we agree on this point. It's just that Playing God, injecting live viruses into infants in an aggressive, broad brushed manner seems a lot riskier to me.
But is all medicine Playing God, or just the parts that sound freaky and/or scary and/or we don't know how they work exactly?
One more time.
If they let you choose which vaccines to give your kids, did them ONE AT A TIME, and provided you with unbiased facts about the risks and benefits of each vaccine. ....I think I probably would give my kids certain ones.
When it was time to make the decision, we saw a higher risk of injury from the vaccine than exposure and injury by one or all of the diseases.
I'm not telling you what you should do with your kids. I am telling you what we did and why.
But is all medicine Playing God, or just the parts that sound freaky and/or scary and/or we don't know how they work exactly?
I don't know. Do you still beat your wife?
But is all medicine Playing God ... ?
You just had to go and ask didn't you. Now we're going to have to call in an Epidemiotheologian and that's gonna cost big bucks man!
But is all medicine Playing God?
I don't know.
Then why'd ya bring it up?
Because you said we're all dum. We don't know what we're doing. You disclaim calling me dum, but then use a Dummed down analogy to illustrate your point that I should just trust the experts.
Then you try to make me sound like a Jehovas witness. Wtf?
I'm saying that when in doubt, you're better off trusting nature (god) than man made work arounds(playing God). Shelby breast fed the kids for the same reason.
We were in doubt.
Ok, bro. I'm done with this. We did what we felt was the best thing for our kids at the time. You clearly think we should have done the immunizations. I get it. thing is, they are my responsibility, not yours or orthodocs, or the lying doctorette. Mine. You can disagree with my conclusion and choose yours when you have kids. Just, please stop intimating that we chose our path out of ignorance or fear.
Damn
You read that into what I said more than I wrote it.
Back in 1999, our first pediatrician (a large practice) stopped seeing us because we decided not to get the mmr. The doctor that was trying to convince us to get it was maybe 27 years old. She said she had seen so many kids die of measles, and it was a horrible killer.
I think there were something like 60 cases of measles reported per year in the US at that time and 0 fatalities. I think they had a dog in the fight. Maybe she lied. Maybe she had been living in India. ... but she was clearly deceptive.
Do doctor's practices keep statistics of how many patients are/are not vaccinated? Are there financial ramifications or rewards involved?
It's not unlikely that she had indeed been to India or Nigeria or some other country where children still die of measles. When I was in university, in Canada, we didn't spend time overseas; now most students do. And there are many opportunities for American medical students to spend time in countries where they would see many children die of preventable diseases. You can't assume she was being deceptive.
There are no financial ramifications or 'rewards' involved in trying to provide the best possible health care, which is PREVENTIVE health care. Which includes immunizations. Immunization is possibly the single most important advance in medical history. It began with protection against smallpox, a global scourge at the time.
You resent any implication that you may be 'dum' (something I never suggested), yet you're comfortable smearing every physician who busts his/her balls to provide proven, tested care to people who need it. We don't often go for alternative medicine, because alternative medicine, once, tested and confirmed effective, is simply MEDICINE. The other stuff is charlatanism.
But you live in the Land of the Free and you're free to regard measles as an 'of course children get it and it's no big deal' disease. Trouble is, you're wrong. It kills; when it doesn't kill, it causes blindness and encephalitis. The physicians who had to watch their patients suffer this disease were wholly on board with immunization programs.
Would you sneer at TB? It's still out there and we're susceptible. Infectious disease is a global issue now; it takes less than 24 hours for an airborne disease to circle the globe. Both measles and TB are airborne diseases.
FFS. I don't know of any physician who is 'in league' in any way with vaccine companies, who has a dog in the fight. We just read the fucking medical literature and realize that the numbers speak the truth.
You made a choice for your kids and they have to live with it. Chances are, if they stay in the US, they'll fly under the radar because others protected them. But immigration and visitation patterns change all the time, and they may not be protected. If they get these diseases as adults, not only will they have a more severe form (remember, measles kills and blinds in children); they'll communicate the disease to vulnerable people before they even know they have it.
That's your freedom; that's your choice. As long as you realize that you're playing Russian roulette with not only your children's lives, but their children's and those of others as well, and you're comfortable with that, knowing that not ONE concern about vaccines has stood the test of careful scrutiny.
Vaccination issues is a hot topic here after a boy who was infectious with measles spent a day at one of our biggest theme parks during spring break.
For my part, i am sure the parents wouldn't have allowed such a thing on purpose, but there would be a high risk for lots of children too young to be immunised.
Personally, i dont see any proof against immunisation which stacks up against the possible risks of not doing it. I have made my point here before though, so no need to do it again.
When it was time to make the decision, we saw a higher risk of injury from the vaccine than exposure and injury by one or all of the diseases.
Good. You have numbers. After all, such decisions always - as in always - require perspective only possible with numbers. Since you knew better than biased doctors, then provide those numbers. Let all see this problem since honest discussion is always about sharing such important facts.
If they let you choose which vaccines to give your kids, did them ONE AT A TIME, and provided you with unbiased facts about the risks and benefits of each vaccine. ....I think I probably would give my kids certain ones.
Have you held your baby while it got a shot?
Would you really wanted them to get four separate shots? Or one with everything in it.
Have you held your baby while it got a shot?
Would you really wanted them to get four separate shots? Or one with everything in it.
You feeling alright?
Good. You have numbers. After all, such decisions always - as in always - require perspective only possible with numbers. Since you knew better than biased doctors, then provide those numbers. Let all see this problem since honest discussion is always about sharing such important facts.
If I was trying to convince you of something, I might link numbers. I don't really care if you approve of my actions though.
Back in 1998-1999 when we were faced with this decision, jinx did tons of research about vaccine injuries and deaths or illnesses related to the diseases the vaccines are made to combat. As I stated, there were
zero deaths due to measles in the US. There were many more cases of vaccine related injury, increasing incidence of autism, digestive disorders, etc. There was also a good bit of controversy about the businesses that manufacture the vaccines getting protection from liability due to alleged injury.
It seemed far more likely that there would be a negative reaction to the vaccine than the remote chance of contraction of, and subsequent harm by one of the diseases.
I didn't even mention that Spencer came up with a rash on his face and scalp (eczema was the diagnosis) 2 or 3 days after one of the early shots he got before we started having second thoughts about them.
He had bad mood swings throughout his childhood if he had too much dairy. Ripley would get a bright red patch on her face, and bad poopies if she had dairy. Clod could probably tell you more about what that indicates.... but I truly believe we did the right thing. And I KNOW we did what we did in an informed and logical manner.
You feeling alright?
Not bad, considering. I'm mostly pain free these days, which is a blessing. My energy is better since I started taking sublingual B12 in addition to the monthly shot. The bile-salt diarrhea is improving but I'm still in the bathroom a lot. And I never trust a fart.
How you doin'?
There were many more cases of vaccine related injury, increasing incidence of autism, digestive disorders, etc.
There were zero cases of vaccine causing of autism. Zero as in none - except where people were lying. Or using what is classic junk science reasoning. A benchmark of a liar was the poorly educated Jenny McCarthy. Many believed her only because she made claims that were contradicted by numbers and well proven facts. Her credibility came from the same thing that made Kim Kardasian famous.
Did you get actual facts with numbers? Or just read hearsay that must be true because it was on the internet? Your job is not to convince anyone. A contributor defines what facts are. Where are these numbers that were used to prove an MMR vaccine dangerous?
We know vaccines only increased autism because liars (including Dr Wakefield) were intentionally deceitful. Done because he could so easily manipulate many who know by ignoring numbers. Dr Wakefield fled the UK in 2004 when it was obvious he was going to be censured for treachery and intentionally counterfeit research. He moved to where he could set up a clinic to continue his lies: Texas. After 2010, his lies were so egregious that he was very publicly stripped of his UK license to practice medicine. In part, because he was using lies about vaccines and autism only to enrich himself.
And so again the question. It is not about you convincing anyone. It is a question – based in nothing but logic - about how you came to a conclusion that was otherwise only promoted by hearsay, lies, and myths. What numbers were used to make an informed decision? Hopefully not what is well proven to be a lie promoted by the obviously dumb Jenny McCarthy – about vaccines creating autism. Since we have no numbers to justify any such conclusions, then where did you find numbers that said something different?.
You're ignoring the timeline. McCarthy, Wakefield, etc.... all that was going on at the time this thread was created. I've linked the page that shows info from 1998. My kids were born in 98 and 00.
Where's the proof that more children were harmed by measles mumps or rubella than were harmed by vaccines?
It's very clear to me why clod avoids this thread. You fuckers don't listen. You're more interested in telling someone they are wrong than trying to relate to them.
I said I was not going to change anyone's mind, and wouldn't try to. I also said you won't change mine. I guess you took that as a challenge.
The goddamned fact of the Motherfucking matter is that we did what we did. We did it on purpose. Giving me shit about it at this point is asinine. Persisting after being asked over and over to stop it is fucking rude. Knock it the fuck off.
I've said repeatedly that if the situation changes, I'm not opposed to vaccines. If my kids had been injured by the vaccines, I would not be able to Un vaccinate them and make them back to the way they were.
Where's the proof that more children were harmed by measles mumps or rubella than were harmed by vaccines?
It was not my responsibility to obtain facts and numbers; to protect the kids. The question was whether you did. Your answer was not to convince anyone. Just to state how you reached a decision.
Medical research, confirmed by statistics, has repeatedly confirmed these diseases are far more destructive than any few adverse reactions. Every peer reviewed study that contradicted that fact was later proven bogus.
This research is repeated constantly. A vaccine in 2010 appears to be less effective than it was in the 2009 study. Same vaccine was even less effective in 2011. Why was that discovered? Because people who make decisions by doing numbers are analyzing this stuff constantly. Infant vaccines remain, by far, the best solution. That conclusion, based in numbers, has not changed.
No numbers in multiple replies confirms you made a decision without numbers. Question answered both by omission and with profanity. No numbers in multiple posts is a damning symptom. So you answered the question.
Previous vaccination scams were reported and then exposed. For example, a 1981 study in England claimed permanent brain damage in one out of every 310,000 kids. NBC aired those claims in 1982. Meanwhile, the study was exposed as false. But now many (who routinely know by ignoring numbers) automatically knew vaccines harmed kids. It was the first thing heard; so it must be true. Facts be damned.
Accusing MMR of being ineffective or dangerous has been classic junk science reasoning. No numbers makes that obvious. Same reasoning was used by a stripper named Jenny McCarthy to cause death and harm to so many kids. She also will not apologize for lying even though her only information source (Dr Wakefield) never provided honest numbers.
This is getting way personal.
A discussion on the pros and cons of vaccinating is one thing. Challenging a dwellar to justify parental decisions from a decade ago is not right. This is not the place. We do not have that right.
Jim and Jinx made their decisions according to the information and climate of a different time.
A discussion on the pros and cons of vaccinating is one thing. Challenging a dwellar to justify parental decisions from a decade ago is not right. This is not the place. We do not have that right.
I made a distinction. Nothing challenged his decision. Asked was whether the decision was based in facts or numbers. Or based in subjective speculation. He has said (by omission and profanity) that the decision was based in subjective speculation.
Also provided were facts that show that others made the same mistake. Why (for example the 1981 England study). And that researchers do these numbers frequently. His was a very common mistake. To think a decision was based in numbers when, in reality, it was only based in subjective speculation.
A common joke that discusses this thought process is , "It must be true. It's on the internet."
Another and similar example. Is your computer plugged into a power strip protector? Why spend so much money for something that does not protect from typically destructive surges, and has a history of sometimes causing house fires? In this other example, did you read the numbers? Or use hearsay and subjective speculation to assume 'protector' and 'protection' sound same; so it must do protection? Similar question was asked about vaccines and now about safety.
Again his
answer was not to convince anyone. Just to state how you reached a decision.
and
Accusing MMR of being ineffective or dangerous has been classic junk science reasoning.
That does not challenge anyone. It demonstrates how easily people make decision without facts. A benchmark for identifying subjective and uninformed decisions is forming a conclusion without perspective (ie the numbers).
When dealing in abstracts and the hypothetical that tenor of conversation is fine. But challenging Jim on how he reached his decisions and then judging those decisions in a combative manner is always going to provoke emotion, because this isn't hypothetical and abstract it's about his kids and how he's raised them.
And don't even think of bringing up the children thinking emotionally and adults thinking logically stuff, because that just doesn't fly in the world of actual human beings.
But challenging Jim on how he reached his decisions and then judging those decisions in a combative manner is always going to provoke emotion, because this isn't hypothetical and abstract it's about his kids and how he's raised them.
You are reading into that post something that I never put into it. Read only what is posted. If you see emotion in my post, then ask yourself why you added your own biases to what you read. For that matter, cite specifically the personal attack.
Now please answer the question about surge protector. It is the point. Do you plug your computer into a surge protector? Or do you also find that to be combative?
I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.
I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.
Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.
One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.
I didn't ignore your request for numbers twice, tw. You ignored the numbers. I said jinx did tons of research. That means she did more than 2000 researches. Number.
Also, I linked a page that listed the number of deaths by measles and by vaccine injury. More numbers.
I'm not responsible for the whole herd. I'm responsible for my kids. If more than zero kids died or suffered lasting health issues from vaccine injury, and none died from the disease. .... Seemed like an obvious equation. These are the only numbers that actually have relevance. The risk was greater than the reward. We never said that we would never ever take a vaccine. We decided to wait until they knew more about the risk. Or until there was a real and present danger from a disease that could be averted by a vaccine.
My use of profanity indicates only that you are a fucking Martian. You are just using this topic as a spring board to rant about your favorite subject. Namely, that you are somehow superior because you are hyper logical and devoid of human feeling. Good luck with that.
I don't use a surge protector. I have some high tech thing Zippy sent me that actually works.
People make decisions emotionally all the time. I see them do it every day. This was not an emotional decision. We took our time, looked at all the information available at the time and decided to wait. I didn't keep the notes. Dana is right. You're way over the line here.
You can slander whoever you want about falsifying studies. Seems more likely to me that a business that has lots of money riding on the approval of their drug would lie about the numbers.
I suppose it's not possible that some of the vaccines people give their kids are not strictly needed. Not possible that there is some kernel of truth to the accusations that the mmr shot can cause encephalitis. I don't really give a fuck. I'm 100% sure that my kids are healthy and whole.
I put a lot more thought into this decision than 85% of upper management did.
Most people just do what the doctor tells them to. If shit goes wrong, they sue the doctor. They abdicate their responsibilities to their kids because they are either too busy providing for them, or because they are fully indoctrinated into the system, and that's just how people do this stuff.
I guess that's why people want to give us shit for *thinking for ourselves. Because they didn't. So they are actually defending their lack of effort by disparaging our decision. Glatt is the only one that I've seen be honest here. And Clod of course. Correct me if I'm wrong. .. did any of you that are reading this do more than 30 minutes of research about what chemicals the doctors were injecting into your children? Or did you simply do as directed? Right or wrong. Did it even occur to you to question it? Don't you love your children? (see how that feels? )
* to be honest. ..I have to give the credit to jinx. I was too busy working to give it more than a cursory look, and it probably wouldn't have even occurred to me to. Jinx had the time. She also is not afraid to question authority.
Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.
One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.
You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying Jim and Jinx approached the decision emotionally. It's this thread and this conversation which will always provoke emotion. Because this is about questioning and casting judgement on someone's parenting.
Glatt is the only one that I've seen be honest here.
Thanks for the compliment. :blush:
To be completely honest about how I don't know what the fuck I'm doing here, I signed up for a flu shot tomorrow. They're doing them at work for free again, like they do every year.
I think there's a risk associated with getting a flu shot. I didn't used to think that way years ago. I just trusted that they were completely safe. So now I'm taking it as given that there is a small risk of serious problems associated with the flu shot, but I also don't want to get the flu. I was riding on a Metro train last week, and there were a bunch of people in my car coughing. I realized we were coming up on the winter and the illnesses that get spread around then. And I just really wasn't so thrilled about that thought. So when I saw a reminder email about these free flu shots being given just down the hall, I decided to sign up for one.
I get sealed up in a train car with about 100 strangers twice a day. I think my immune system gets a good workout from that, but I also think it exposes me to more than most people. So this year, I'm shrugging my shoulders, and rolling up my sleeve.
I don't pretend to have any answers.
I'm not responsible for the whole herd. I'm responsible for my kids.
I am a former big-L Libertarian. Why former? L'ism is sort of dependent on the notion that the "
social contract" is bullshit. But to my surprise, over time, I found it was actually kind of valid. We are all dependent on each other. Our identities, survival, and success are completely bound to the culture and society we are in, WAY far more than we acknowledge.
You are not responsible for the whole herd. And yet the whole herd depends on you. You have always given back to the whole herd, in many ways. Raising a strong family with good values. Going to work and being productive. Paying taxes. Giving a shit about others. You have given more than you have received. You've done more than I have, and I thank you for it.
This is all kind of separate from the question of whether to vaccinate. It may be that your contribution to the herd, in this case, is challenging the status quo.
Correct me if I'm wrong. .. did any of you that are reading this do more than 30 minutes of research about what chemicals the doctors were injecting into your children?
I have about 30 hours in just for this thread. Of course I don't have kids. But right here in the thread we have someone who has spent probably 16 years studying medicine and who does have kids. You dismiss her beliefs as conspiracy theory.
Don't you love your children? (see how that feels? )
I believe the feels part is on you. You don't have to feels if you don't want to. I believe you want to. It's OK, we all do. We are defining ourselves by how others react to us. We all want to be loved and respected by others. It's part of the social contract.
On that basis, I am willing to stop discussing it and even offered to delete the thread and move on. But it's an important thing to discuss in this world, and I wish we could continue to do it here.
The minor pain of honestly discussing hard questions helps our society reach herd immunity against ignorance.
Also, going against conventional wisdom means people will challenge you. Maybe even be mean and sarcastic. (Not
sarcasm!) I've been there, big time. Better fetch that helmet brother.
We make thousands of decisions every day. Some are more meaningful and require more thought and varying degrees of research. Of course tw's standard response is you have to have the facts and numbers.
Well duh, that would make life so much easier, but getting the right facts and right numbers isn't that easy. Pre-internet is was fucking near impossible unless you had connections in that field. The internet has been a help but still a minefield of misinformation and outright bullshit. Even with the ability to access the right information it might take days, weeks, even months to get it. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Yeah, yeah the children's health is worth investing the time, nobody will argue that, but that's what people like Jinx did. Whether you agree with her conclusion or not, you can not justifiably claim she didn't try to do the best for her kids.
Hindsight is usually 20-20, but even then it's not always possible.
But right here in the thread we have someone who has spent probably 16 years studying medicine and who does have kids. You dismiss her beliefs as conspiracy theory.
I am not sure what gave you that impression. I did ask if there were financial pressures on doctors to maintain vaccination quotas. She denied knowledge of it. I have no reason to disbelieve her on that point. It does not mean it's not happening, though.
Doctors offices are businesses. Big practices are organized like big businesses. They get paid by the job, just like a mechanic. If a young doctor in a big practice is not overseen and reviewed by seniors, I'd be very surprised. If that young doctor had a noticeably higher percentage of unvaccinated patients, there would be questions asked. That doctor I mentioned seemed quite upset that we were delaying the mmr vaccine. Not frantic, but frustrated to be sure. Maybe offended that we were questioning her recommendation. ... anyway, if she HAD seen 'so many kids die of measles' it would have HAD to have been in another country. But she didn't say that. So she was deceptive at best. She was trying to scare us into doing as she wanted.
I don't recall discounting orthos experience or acumen. Although, as far as I know, she is neither an immunologist, nor a pediatrician. What kind of Doctor is an ortho? Orthopedic? Is she qualified to offer advice or cast judgements?
I recall saying that I knew I was not going to change her mind. But, instead of affording me the same respect, she chose to lecture me on the benefits of vaccines, and she chose to state that I smeared all hard working physicians by questioning their motivation. She chose to talk down to me as though I were ignorant about this topic. I'm not. I may not have the same priorities as she does, but I'm not uninformed. I know that the sun causes the rooster to crow.
A Phd does not confer intelligence. It does not even mean you have a better source of information anymore. She mentioned journals. Who publishes those? It's not conspiracy. It's business. Pharma companies see doctors as front line salespeople. If any one has a biased source of information, Its doctors. Couple that with the inherent superiority complex they usually develop, and I'm sorry, but I'll think for myself. I accept the information she offers. I'll weigh it against the risk myself.
What kind of Doctor is an ortho? Orthopedic? Is she qualified to offer advice or cast judgements?
While we wait for Ortho's answer, Jinx's degree is in what? I honestly don't know.
Ok, you're gonna act like that. Great. Have fun agreeing with each other in this thread. I'm out.
We make thousands of decisions every day. Some are more meaningful and require more thought and varying degrees of research. Of course tw's standard response is you have to have the facts and numbers.
And when we do not have perspective (numbers are just one example), then we take extreme care. And make a guess only after accessing the risk. BTW, why is the Silicon Valley so innovative? They make mistakes. Then do not get angry. Instead they
learn why they made a mistake. That was the point lost when some, instead, well, it will be explained.
You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying Jim and Jinx approached the decision emotionally. It's this thread and this conversation which will always provoke emotion.
You may think so. But read what I posted. I never even implied that. And am rather confused how one would reach that conclusion without adding, well, its explained below.
If I was criticizing lumberjim's and jinx's parenting skills, then you would have read multiple reasons why I reached that conclusion. At this point you should know I routinely provide multiple reasons for a conclusion. This post will be a classic example.
A first post discussed conclusions about vaccines and surge protectors. What do both have in common with parenting skills? Nothing. That was a clue that you were reading what was not posted.
Many (probably most) only read what they expect to read. A conclusion based in motivated reasoning. How do surge protectors define bad parenting skills?
The point was bluntly about how people make conclusions. As discussed previously. This topic goes right back to how children think verses how adults think when using a pre-frontal cortex. No way around that reality. Children and adults who are thinking like children entertain a "motivated reasoning" process. Adults eventually discover that something must be read at least three times to understand it - especially when a concept is new. Otherwise motivated reasoning takes hold.
If you understood it with a first reading, then it said only what you already knew it would say. And probably overlooked the most important part (numbers).
At this point the emotional, using motivational reasoning, will see these words but not read what is posted. Since I have already touched on a reality that angers, then many will not reread to understand the actual topic in that first post.
We know numbers prove benefits of infant vaccines far outweigh the risks. Facts and updated numbers from research repeatedly say so (including recent numbers that expose a decreasing effectiveness in one vaccine). Why do so many know otherwise? "Motivated reasoning" partially explains it.
Dr Kahan of Yale discusses, for example, how conservatives tend to value individualism, hierarchical organization, and a belief in ensuring their own prosperity. Therefore a "sacrifice of one for the many" (what should be a familiar quote) is contrary to many conservative beliefs. As a result, a CFL light bulb that is environmentally friendly creates a very negative response from this group. Their motivated reasoning explains why CFL bulbs sell least to most conservative thinkers. Even though its advantages over an incandescent bulb and numerous and significant.
Michael Shermer in an October issue of Scientific American further demonstrates the problem by using himself as an example. Citing his bias for unrestricted gun access. Opinions that were challenged by extensive research into guns, homicides, and accidental shootings eventually changed his motivated beliefs. He said
I find that, too often, my beliefs trump scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brains reason our way to supporting what we know to be true.
Shermer then discusses a trend he noted at the 2013 FreedomFest in Las Vegas.
but this year I was so discouraged by the rampant denial of science that I wanted to turn in my libertarian membership card. ... all of us are subject to the psychological forces at play when it comes to choosing between facts and beliefs when they do not mesh. In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be.
A commentary in Machine Design, notes (unfortunately) that scientific facts today must be 'tailored' to reader biases.
Strangely enough, that approach sounds a bit like something else that's exacerbated antiscience attitudes - namely, increasingly subjective media outlets designed to engage target audiences. That's where most people get the bulk of their science-related information right now.
Well, I did not do that, did I? I simply posted facts bluntly as facts without any concern for what was completely irrelevant here - the reader’s emotional biases. I expect you to know the minute you have assumed insult or cheapshot, then you know you have not grasped the point. And probably overlooked a perspective (the numbers). Again, most readers never see written numbers (the perspective) until after multiple rereads.
So, have you followed rather complex concepts posted here? If you did not read this at least three times, then you did not. A second benchmark point to add to one about rejecting claims that are only subjective; not quantitative. If your conclusions are not tempered by perspective (the numbers), then what was read may be a victim of motivated reasoning.
That first post says nothing critical about anyone. It is completely about how people see vaccines as dangerous when no quantitative research (even 30 years ago - 1982) said that. And about people who do same with surge protectors (ie assume it is high tech; therefore must do protection).
To suspect infant vaccines are more dangerous than beneficial is a perfect example of motivated reasoning. Defining one as easily manipulated (brainwashed) as the stripper and actress Jenny McCarthy. No quantitative conclusion even ten years ago could justify subjectively inspired fears. And yet that is what so many of us use for knowledge. Saddam's WMDs were another perfect example. The inability of TEPCO top management to make a decision to save three nuclear reactors from meltdown is another perfect example. Another is management that all but murdered seven Challenger astronauts. How many instead assumed these were accidents? At best, one could only conclude these were classic examples of brain freeze.
A conclusion based in emotions is not what the pre-frontal cortex does. But is a characteristic of how children think. When incapable of grasping something that contradicts beliefs, many have a brain freeze; simply resort to the brain mostly used by children. Many simply and foolishly decide based upon what makes them comfortable. People can die because of it.
Moving on. Did you ignore a statement about computer adjacent protectors even creating house fires? Why did that not get most of your attention? Were you reading for facts? Or reading only to be emotional or stay in your comfort zone? I intentionally included that ‘bait’ to see who would grasp for facts. How many instead remained in a 'feel good' mode; used motivated reasoning to even ignore how fires get created?
I never criticized anyone's parenting skills. I noted how people entertain their emotions rather than grasp facts and numbers. This fear of vaccines has long been a perfect example.
I simply demonstrated how lumberjim, et al were easily manipulated by Jenny McCarthy, et al type myths. Does not matter when they did the research. It was still a conclusion from reasoning also demonstrated by Jenny McCarthy. Never a criticism of lumberjim or jinx. And yet lumberjim did exactly what so many do when motivated reasoning is exposed. A majority get angry rather than learn from their mistakes. A majority get angry rather than do what Michael Shermer does (professionally).
I did ask if there were financial pressures on doctors to maintain vaccination quotas. She denied knowledge of it. I have no reason to disbelieve her on that point. It does not mean it's not happening, though.
What kind of Doctor is an ortho? Orthopedic? Is she qualified to offer advice or cast judgements?
She mentioned journals. Who publishes those?
I'm late to the conversation; I was driving all day. I'm sorry LJ has left.
For anyone else who wonders if doctors are under pressure to 'maintain vaccination quotas', the answer is no. Vaccines do not make money. They are break-even at best, sometimes a money-loser. Most pharm companies have gotten out of manufacturing vaccines because of the Jenny McCarthy craziness and the huge lawsuit settlements given by jurors who believed Jenny McCarthy rather than the facts. The few remaining vaccine manufacturers sometimes can't keep production up, and we experience shortages at times. This has the potential to bite us big-time, in the next pandemic.
Procedures are what make a profit, because that's what insurance companies have decided to pay most for. Vaccines make nothing.
What kind of doctor am I? I've been a family physician since 1986 and have seen MANY children because, in Ontario, pediatricians are strictly referral specialists. No one is allowed to take their children to a pediatrician for primary care. Family docs see all the kids for preventive and primary care. I'm currently finishing a residency in Preventive Medicine and Occupational/Environmental Medicine. I will finish my Master of Public Health next spring. I'll write board exams next fall that will require that I have a specialist's level of knowledge about vaccines and immunizations. My pre-medical degree was a double major in biochemistry and chemistry. But it doesn't matter how qualified I am. That's not going to change anyone's mind who thinks vaccines harm us and that all doctors are in league with Big Pharm to get rich by forcing immunizations on the public.
Who publishes scientific and medical journals? They are edited by peer-review committees of respected scientists who examine submitted papers for study design, quality, and contribution to existing knowledge. Anyone who publishes a paper or serves on an editorial board must disclose all potential conflicts of interest. Big Pharm does not publish the journals.
I think a question was asked about whether there is any evidence that measles, mumps, and rubella actually cause harm greater than the vaccines against them do. Rubella is a mild illness in the sufferer, but a scourge when unborn children encounter it. An unvaccinated person could have rubella and not even realize it, communicate it to an unvaccinated pregnant woman, and the result would be catastrophic damage to the baby. Mumps causes deafness and orchitis resulting in infertility. Measles is what causes encephalitis, not the vaccine. It also kills via pneumonia. There is no treatment for these diseases. They're virus-caused and we don't have good antivirals against them.
Public and preventive health are concerned with the social contract. They focus on the health of populations, and vaccination is a population issue. When the herd is immune, it's protected; when a significant proportion is not immune, disease outbreaks occur. We didn't see measles, mumps, and rubella for a few decades in the late 20th century because immunization rates were extremely high. Now we're seeing outbreaks as a result of immunization refusal. Not lecturing; it's just information.
Measles is what causes encephalitis, not the vaccine.
Encephalitis is a known potential side effect of the MMR vaccine. Of course the corollary assumption is that it's rare, but check your package insert. It's written right there.
The MMR vaccine is a live attenuated virus vaccine. In a severely immunocompromised person (including unborn children), it may cause disease. Disease then carries the potential complication of encephalitis. We don't give live vaccines to pregnant women or those who are severely immunocompromised. The conditions under which the vaccine could/might cause it are extremely rare (this is not an assumption - see
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr), but every possible risk of adverse reaction must be listed on the insert. Encephalitis is not a material risk of the MMR vaccine. We, and our children, face much higher risks from the disease.
One of my children developed varicella (chicken pox) encephalitis when he contracted it at 8 years old. There was no vaccine then. It was a horrible thing to watch him go through.
Of course. And risk vs. reward is the debate everyone should be having, both on an individual and a collective level. But that involves acknowledging that there is some level of inherent risk. It's the "100% safe guaranteed no matter what" rhetoric that causes people to mistrust doctors.
Interestingly, all the doctors I know are notorious about hedging their answers when it comes to any medical knowledge. Every procedure carries risk; every assumption could always use more research. Except this one thing.
The link I provided above is to a page that specifically discusses vaccine risks. This is public information. More importantly, Vaccine Information Sheets (VISs), which provide information on the benefits and risks of the vaccine to be given, are required by law to be given to every patient/guardian prior to them receiving the vaccine. See
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/facts-vis.html.
You're right, clod, every procedure carries risk. The material risks from vaccines are very, very small. Nevertheless, every medical office provides information on those risks with every vaccination.
Eta - That said, you and LJ have both expressed frustration with feeling that providers were too overbearing in encouraging immunization. It's probably the most successful, best-documented public health measure. Just as you are passionate on the topic, most physicians, after learning about the rates, complications, and mortality due to these diseases prior to the availability of vaccines and the drop in those measures after, tend to be passionate about it too.
Using death to assess risks is an extremely stringent end point.
Even using the signs and symptoms of the disease is quite narrow,
and fails to describe the entire situation of many families.
Some families have stay-at-home mothers or fathers... but not all.
For example, a working mother may be faced with difficult issues of child care
if/when the child becomes ill with an otherwise preventable disease.
If that working mother is also a single working mother,
the situation probably even more difficult.
If that single working mother is also low income, a sick child can lead
to significant loss of income... and possibly even the loss of her job.
To think about a single, working, man taking time off from his job
to care for his sick child is yet another POV ... for me that's almost too weird !
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr
Some numbers by the vaccine people. Note what counts as a moderate reaction.
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.
It was a long time ago, but here is my 2 cents from my sometimes selective memory. My kids got all the recommended vaccines. With the older girl we were able to spread out the shots over a longer schedule and were able to get some vaccines commonly given in multiples as individual shots on individual days. She had no significant issues just mild swelling and fever. With the younger the politics of vaccination were in play and we were badgered into pretty much following their schedule. Little Griff had significant swelling and fever and gave us at least one long over-night of screaming baby with associated parental guilt. Beating up on vaccine skeptics is common place even among people who normally question the interplay of government and
corporations. I get that it's important, many of my age-mates were exposed to German measles en utero and suffered serious birth defects. I just think that people are unable or unwilling to discuss this topic like adults because, maybe rightly, it could suppress vaccination numbers. This lack of discussion can itself harm children because 1 in 3000 is significant, at least to the 1 in 3000.
We are given an info sheet with every vaccination our kids get. I told them last time not to waste the paper, but they insisted i have it anyway. Apparently it is required.
None of my kids have ever shown the slightest reaction. Lucky for us i guess.
The seizure mentioned in the risk sheet is caused by fever, i.e. a febrile seizure. Some children are susceptible to them and will get them when their temp goes up. They are not epileptic seizures. Stressful for parents but they can happen with any fever - due to a cold, teething, etc.
I meant to say last night that immunization can always be done; it's not an all or nothing decision. There are schedules for vaccination at any age. If anyone is interested in more information, I'd suggest the vaccine pages at
www.cdc.gov for a start.
... instead of affording me the same respect, she chose to lecture me on the benefits of vaccines ... she chose to talk down to me as though I were ignorant about this topic.
LJ, I apologize for losing my temper and lecturing you rather than providing information friend-to-friend. You're not ignorant, you're not stupid, and it's clear that you care very very much about your children's wellbeing. You listened to the information that your wife gathered at the time, and you and Jinx decided how to best protect your children's interests.
Being passionate about my understanding doesn't make it acceptable to make you feel that you've been assaulted or judged. That's how I came across, although I didn't mean it that way - but it's how I came across. I'm sorry.
I hope you'll accept my apology. You and I both want the best for your children, for my children, for the rest of us. We're well-meaning people. I hope we can share information and discuss concerns and opinions without alienating each other.
Clod said only about a week ago that I challenge because I care, and that is the case. Any other posters, I would simply ignore. We had no idea our bully compatriot was capable of this level of emotion and I had no concept that I was capable of inflicting it.
You are free to kick my ass next time we get together because I have found a way to be a dick to a friend. I don't have many friends IRL and this is one reason why.
I have a flail somewhere around here. It's good for flagellation. :)
I'm sure everyone knows that no one meant to make anyone feel bad. Remember, love means never having to say you're sorry. ;)
UT, I also challenge because I care. I find that, at 53, I still have to curb my temper and my Aspieness enough to not hurt the people I care about. That doesn't say much for me, but I hope that, in the end, Ali's right and we can all forgive each other.
I recall saying that I knew I was not going to change her mind. But, instead of affording me the same respect, she chose to lecture me on the benefits of vaccines, and she chose to state that I smeared all hard working physicians by questioning their motivation. She chose to talk down to me as though I were ignorant about this topic. I'm not.
First, this is exactly what I am talking about. Orthodoc provided facts. Those 'feeling' are what many adult do when they added their own emotions and bases to what was obviously a post of facts.
If anyone deserves insult and an apology, it is Orthodoc. Since she has provided facts that coincide with well understood research. And because the research done by lumberjim is completely not apparent.
Orthodoc has done what many have to do when the more easily emotional get emotional. Apologize so as to be political. But in reality, these fears of vaccines is not supported by any facts with perspective. In a logical world, the persion making conclusions without such facts (by only providing credibility to Jenny McCarthy and other anti-social types) would apologize for contributing to myths, hearsay, and lies.
If lumberjim was concerned with the tone, that is the first indication that he is ignoring what is only and most important. The facts.
Second, for some reason, lumberjim is concerned with changing opinions. As if victory was the purpose or important. Those are somewhere between secondary and irrelevant. Facts and perspective are relevant. Does not matter that he does not like the facts. As if the facts were somehow an insult because he did something different. Making mistakes and therefore learning are what humans learn to become adults. Learning how not to have 'motivated reasoning' is not easy and is essential. Emotion is a symptom of 'motivated reasoning'.
A benchmark was provided to determine whether one is being logical. Reasons devoid of perspective (ie the numbers) is a classic example of 'motivated reasoning'. An indication of thought based in emotional, and that junk science is being used for conclusions.
Orthodoc has no reason to apologize. She did what adult are suppose to do - provide facts no matter how it may make the emtional feel. "I killed him because he dissed me" is another example of adults acting like children. People reasoning emotionally rather than reading only what is important - hard facts. Too many people worry about being dissed - like a child.
I think a famous politician once said, "Emotion is the first indication he has already lost the argument." Not to others. It should be obvious (a benchmark) to the one who feels dissed.
and other anti-social types
TW, you're adorable. Don't ever change.
Jenny McCarthy, at a minimum, owes us all an apology for causing death to so many infants. She won't. She does not learn from her mistakes. Apparently more concerned with 'winning'. She lied. She 'knows' she was decieved. Or at least should know if thinking like an adult.
Can you give me numbers, tw, on exactly how many infants have died in the developed world of vaccine-preventable diseases since Jenny McCarthy started speaking out? For I know you would not just use some indefinable quantity like "so many," without numbers to back it up.
I realize the intent of your question, but here is one easy find...
Wikipedia:
Before publication of Wakefield's findings, the inoculation rate for MMR
in the UK was 92%; after publication, the rate dropped to below 80%.
In 1998, there were 56 measles cases in the UK; by 2008, there were 1348 cases,
with 2 confirmed deaths.
I believe there was one death in the US due to measles in 2012,
but I leave it to the reader to document that one way or the other.
Once again, I believe using "death" as the only end point of risk
is too stringent for making a decision, either for public health or a parent.
Clod said only about a week ago that I challenge because I care, and that is the case. Any other posters, I would simply ignore. We had no idea our bully compatriot was capable of this level of emotion and I had no concept that I was capable of inflicting it.
You are free to kick my ass next time we get together because I have found a way to be a dick to a friend. I don't have many friends IRL and this is one reason why.
This level of emotion?
Frustration an emotion? Disappointment?
The only thing I've said in this thread was that we did what we did and why. The rest has been defending myself from repeated attacks and judgements.
I've pointed out that you were frustrating me by ignoring what I said. And just in case you still haven't gotten that, it is this:
We DID do as much research as was possible about this. We DID weigh the risk vs reward carefully. We chose the path that presented less risk at that time. A course that could be altered when more knowledge became available. It is not too late for my kids to have inoculations. If there comes a day when we feel that the reward outweighs the risk, either because the vaccines become less risky, or because the diseases become more likely to contract, I am not opposed to having them done.
Read that three times, tw, you cocksucker. You just keep on ignoring the facts I present, and focus on the flashes of anger. Why? Motivated reasoning. You expect me to be childish and emotional, so that's what you see. If you had read my posts three times, you'd have noticed that I kept repeating that no one was getting the disease they wanted to immunize against, and some people were being hurt by the vaccine. Those are facts. You say ortho presented facts and numbers. I must have missed those. Just because her opinion coincides with yours does not make it fact. She also said I smeared all doctors. Is that a fact? Or did you lie to make your point? Don't answer. Please.
Here's a tip for you, tw: The transmission of information depends on both the signal and the reception. The way you construct your posts is borderline ridiculous. If it requires three readings to comprehend, then you need to adjust your signal. If people don't understand what you're saying because it is so convoluted that they get a headache from it, they will simply skim it and forget it. You're not hearing what I'm saying, but that's par for the course. Read? You only write.
Anyway, Tony. You decided to pick shit and ask what kind of degree jinx has, when you know good and goddamn well that she has none. Nor do I. And you asked that question with the intent of invalidating her qualification to offer advice or cast judgement on this topic. Thing is, I have offered no advice, cast no judgement about vaccinating.
You'll say that was just in response to my asking about orthos degree. But I was actually asking because I didn't know the answer. The answer is that she is a family doctor, with experience on this topic. Good answer. I respect her opinion more knowing that, and understand her reaction better. But she was still trying to convince me that I had been wrong headed and reckless. She sees that now, I think. Thank you for that apology, ortho. I'm sorry if you felt like I accused you and your colleagues of collusion with big pharma. I only intended to highlight the way that money drives the medical industry just as it does all of them. Family practice doctors, in my opinion, are motivated more by altruistic goals than financial ones.
As for happy monkey and the jenny McCarthy shot....
Here's what you're doing.... It is generally accepted that she is a cuckoo bird. An MTV personality. Easily discredited and ridiculed. So, you want to align her with us because if she agrees with us, then we must be cuckoo too. Well, for the third time, at the time we made our decision, miss McCarthy was not involved in the debate. She was probably still on MTV, or shooting porn. So, that's extra shitty of you. Not only is it a crap way to argue, it's dishonest.
Yours was the comment that put me over the top on this. Congrats.
Prior to that, you did not participate in recent discussion. Your chiming in at that point with that reference said to me that no one is actually hearing what I'm saying, so why bother saying any more? I'm just going around in circles defending my decision from people that are not actually my friends. Fruitless.
That's the difference between real life friends and online friends. Online, there is still that element of performance that makes us want to win an argument. So we say shitty things we would never say in person.
I am dissapoint.
Anyway, Tony. You decided to pick shit and ask what kind of degree jinx has, when you know good and goddamn well that she has none.
Not only did I
not know, I
said that I didn't know,
directly, in my question.
Here are the words I actually used:
"I honestly don't know."
I didn't know. Honestly. Which is kind of a testament to her, in a way.
And you asked that question with the intent of invalidating her qualification to offer advice or cast judgement on this topic.
YES I DID, AND I WOULD ALWAYS DO SO. It's
highly relevant to our discussion, and you know it. It doesn't make her less of a person, doesn't mean she's not whip-smart, doesn't mean she couldn't be right, and BTW, it doesn't address you AT ALL.
I'm very smart, studied
STEM fields at a highly competitive college, and I CANNOT EASILY READ MEDICAL STUDIES. It's a long hard slog. For one thing, understanding those studies pretty much requires a deep understanding of statistics, which is coursework I've never had.
I never attacked you. In fact I laced my posts with compliments to you. I truly think you are a better person than I am, and I will say so. You have done more for this world than I have, including raising two awesome and, yes, healthy kids.
But in this thread you created an emotional minefield where every step someone took became an attack on you. Make a dum analogy? That's a personal attack on you. Make a smarter one? That's an attack too. Question - not even attack - the stbx wife? That's somehow an attack on you. STAHP!
Don't take this post as an attack: it's easy, because it isn't, unless I think it is; and I am saying it isn't; and as we are friends, I hope you will take me at my word.
MAN, you're just not getting it.
nevermind. it's fine.
I'm gonna go vaccinate my kids now.
Don't forget to get yourself the shingles vaccine, you know, just in case you have to do any roofing.
Yes. ... that and a helmet. Because. ....
[youtube]NJwveNAc1lo[/youtube]
I'm very smart, studied STEM fields at a highly competitive college, and I CANNOT EASILY READ MEDICAL STUDIES.
It's even tougher when the studies are
bullshit.
It's even tougher when the studies are bullshit.
There's definitely a hierarchy of journals. Some (many) aren't worth reading and don't even show up on good database searches. You want peer-reviewed journals that have tough standards - The New England Journal of Medicine; Science; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - stuff like that.
Even then, I was taught both in my science degree and in my medical training to NOT read the discussion/conclusions until I'd studied the results for myself. Sometimes authors come to the wrong conclusion, or they miss something that's there in the data. It happens every so often. And you do need formal education in statistics and epidemiology to understand clinical and many other types of medical studies. I couldn't understand medical studies at a time when I could understand any scientific/lab bench paper. It's information - you need to know how the authors are treating the data: what's significant and what's not. And you need to understand study types and error and be able to see where a study is weak, maybe too weak in design to support any conclusion.
Can you give me numbers, tw, on exactly how many infants have died in the developed world of vaccine-preventable diseases since Jenny McCarthy started speaking out?
There is no actual number since many other factors apply - including all vaccine effectiveness. However numbers start in the hundreds. May be higher.
Noted was one reason that complicates accurate numbers. At least once vaccine was losing its effectiveness. Reasons why and if limited only to some sources has not yet been determined.
With seven or eight million researchers in the US, limited funds, a publish or perish system, and a serious decline in peer review, the temptation to fake it, or at least twist it, is huge. I read some numbers the other day about big pharma trying to replicate results of promising studies are having a dismal success rate.
Here are some reasons.
She also said I smeared all doctors. Is that a fact? Or did you lie to make your point? Don't answer. Please.
Your post is chock full of emotion. And anger. And no numbers. And resentment that also says you do not want to learn from mistakes.
99% of kids don't get sick. That proves no vaccine is a good solution? Of course not. If 1% of kids are getting sick, then a major epidemic exists. Does not matter what your few examples imply. What matters are well proven facts. We know that fear of vaccines is not based in informed decision. And that where fear of vaccines exists, so does motivated reasoning.
Notice I do not reply with cheapshots. Can you say same?
Jim, i havent done the study myself, but am willing to agree that the risk to your kids not being vaccinated is less than if they were. Especially given the info you had at the time.
My question, and i assume many others here also, is, do you recognise that the risk was/is so low, thanks to the fact that many of these diseases have been severely retarded thanks to high rates of imminisation by others.
If i can speak frankly, i know thats why i get emotional about this subject. I take on the minute risk involved in imminisation so that families like yours can afford the luxury of not doing it.
This is in no way an attack on you. I just wondered if you have ever realised the reason why people like me sometimes get upset by people with similar views to yours. Just wondering if you've ever thought to be grateful for those people who have tqken the risk so that you cqn feel fairly safe not doing so.
With seven or eight million researchers in the US, limited funds,
a publish or perish system, and a serious decline in peer review, [COLOR="DarkRed"
the temptation to fake it, or at least twist it, is huge[/COLOR].
I read some numbers the other day about big pharma trying to replicate results
of promising studies are having a dismal success rate.
Here are some reasons.
My first impulse is to ask if we should compare xoB's "temptations" among scientific researchers
with the "temptations" of, say, auto mechanics or salesmen or ...:bolt:
But aside from such silliness as my impulse, my next one was to question
why advance a "fake it or twist it" condemnation from that link.
It's not really a significant part of the article.
The article talks about several other factors and influences that
come to bear on "replication".
I think it is a reasonably good article, talking about several different
real world issues that researchers face. But many of them are quite
similar to the issues that manufacturers face... similar to proprietary secrets,
little interest from funding agencies for "confirming-type" studies,
etc.
Although the authors seem particularly interested in the idea
that research is not self-correcting, there is
de facto evidence that it is.
When there is "competition" between research centers, and/or collaboration on projects,
or the reputations of the investigators, and especially if an individual's career
and/or continued funding, etc. on the line... something that is
non-reproducible becomes evident and controlling.
One thing I (did not see in the article) is a review of the actions
and the lengths to which institutions will go to protect their own reputations
if/when even hints of "falsification" some into play. They usually make it into the lay press.
Jim, i havent done the study myself, but am willing to agree that the risk to your kids not being vaccinated is less than if they were. Especially given the info you had at the time.
My question, and i assume many others here also, is, do you recognise that the risk was/is so low, thanks to the fact that many of these diseases have been severely retarded thanks to high rates of imminisation by others.
If i can speak frankly, i know thats why i get emotional about this subject. I take on the minute risk involved in imminisation so that families like yours can afford the luxury of not doing it.
This is in no way an attack on you. I just wondered if you have ever realised the reason why people like me sometimes get upset by people with similar views to yours. Just wondering if you've ever thought to be grateful for those people who have tqken the risk so that you cqn feel fairly safe not doing so.
yes, of course I do. It's awesome to live in America in the late 20th, early 21st Century. I take a WHOLE lot of shit for granted that was a real pain in the ass for people in this country as few as 50 years ago. We all do. I have to make my decisions in the current climate though. I can't justify unnecessary risk out of a sense of gratitude to those gone before. I am vaccinated, by the way.
so, thanks!
Your post is chock full of emotion. And anger. And no numbers. And resentment that also says you do not want to learn from mistakes.
99% of kids don't get sick. That proves no vaccine is a good solution? Of course not. If 1% of kids are getting sick, then a major epidemic exists. Does not matter what your few examples imply. What matters are well proven facts. We know that fear of vaccines is not based in informed decision. And that where fear of vaccines exists, so does motivated reasoning.
Notice I do not reply with cheapshots. Can you say same?
you're a big fat liar
a smelly one
There is no actual number since many other factors apply - including all vaccine effectiveness. However numbers start in the hundreds. May be higher.
Lamplighter found a number, with a cite. It was 2. Do you have a better source than he does?
Effectiveness is irrelevant in this case, since you weren't talking about infection rates, you were talking about death rates. When a baby dies of measles, or whooping cough, there are no other factors--that's what they died from. You said that Jenny McCarthy was responsible for "so many dead infants." I ask again: do you have numbers to back up this claim, or was your hyperbole merely an emotional response that you now regret?
Now Clod, no need to be insulting, the art of intertwining spin doctored information with verifiable facts to make it all seen credible doesn't constitute an emotional response: it's just good old, cold, calculated, completely logical propaganda technique.
He sits on a throne of lies
Lamplighter found a number, with a cite. It was 2. Do you have a better source than he does?
Effectiveness is irrelevant in this case, since you weren't talking about infection rates, you were talking about death rates. When a baby dies of measles, or whooping cough, there are no other factors--that's what they died from. You said that Jenny McCarthy was responsible for "so many dead infants." I ask again: do you have numbers to back up this claim, or was your hyperbole merely an emotional response that you now regret?
In the interest of full disclosure, the 2 cases I cited were (only) of measles in the UK among 1300 cases in 10 years .
By adding whooping cough (pertussis) to the taunt, the numbers change...
Here is the incidence in the US by year... note the upsurge in the McCarthey era.
(The incidence of measles follows a similar profile, but at a lower rate.)
[ATTACH]45719[/ATTACH]
If death is the insisted criterion, then the data for only one year (2012) includes 18 deaths:
But aside from such silliness as my impulse, my next one was to question why advance a "fake it or twist it" condemnation from that link.
It's not really a significant part of the article. The article talks about several other factors and influences that come to bear on "replication".
Because I've read 4 different articles on the subject this week, but didn't bother to track them all down.
... If death is the insisted criterion, then the data for only one year (2012) includes 18 deaths:
Childhood Pertussis vaccination doesn't begin until 2 months of age; so, you can eliminate the <3 mos. category (13 deaths) as having been influenced by anyone's anti-childhood vaccination rhetoric. The information you provided here doesn't say whether or not they where vaccinated either, as vaccinations is not 100% effective. You can also eliminate the adult category (55+ years, 1 death) as childhood vaccination and first booster does not confer lifetime immunity; rather, lasting only 3-6 years. The potential influence a Jenny McCarthy type
may have had in 2012 is 4 deaths (you didn't specify them as non-immunized versus failed immunization either), not 18 deaths as the tw-lamplighter school of spin doctoring would propagandize.
We were given a choice this year at the rehab. Get the flu shot or get fired. I made the infection control nurse use my own Hello Kitty bandaid.
We were given a choice this year at the rehab. Get the flu shot or get fired. I made the infection control nurse use my own Hello Kitty bandaid.
Just say: Use my Hello Kitty Band-Aid or
this gets fired ...
[ATTACH]45721[/ATTACH]
I wish they had a vaccine for cancer
There's one - a vaccine against HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) - that protects against cervical cancer and cancers of the anus, vagina, and vulva that are due to HPV. See
http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/vaccine.html.
And, thanks for the link, UT. The guy uses only US data from the CDC. Those numbers are reliable.
Childhood Pertussis vaccination doesn't begin until 2 months of age; so, you can eliminate the <3 mos. category (13 deaths) as having been influenced by anyone's anti-childhood vaccination rhetoric. The information you provided here doesn't say whether or not they where vaccinated either, as vaccinations is not 100% effective. ...
Described are more examples of why medicine recommends all kids be vaccinated. Even infants who cannot yet be vaccinated are at significantly greater risk due to others who deny their responsibility to society. That 'screw everyone else' attitude exists.
Vaccinations for decades were effective when many followed proven science. Or learned it. Which meant the few that were not protected by vaccinations (ie infants that were too young, children that a vaccine will not work) also remained protected.
Once people started listening to a stripper as an expert (or similar scam artists), then death rates took an uptick. That is a fact. Exacerbated antiscience attitudes manipulated by increasingly subjective media outlets are where the naive get the bulk of their science-related information. No problem if they learn from their mistakes. But a poster child shows that "Emotion is the first indication he has already lost the argument."
. No responsible adult could condone his mistake. But then some are so self righteous to believe in ensuring their own prosperity even at increased risk to others. Their motivation justifies it. Screw everyone else.
I was just looking at the 2013 vaccine schedule. polio is still on there. I thought that had been eradicated world wide. Why is that still on there?
Doc, if you were me, what vaccines would you consider having done for a 15 year old, and a 13 year old child?
Oh. ..I was thinking of a small pox, wasn't I?
... not 18 deaths as the tw-lamplighter school of spin doctoring would propagandize.
"spin doctoring" and "propagandize" here are the sorts of emotional
word-usage that TW has been talking about all along.
If Sexobon could make his polemics convincingly, he would not need them.
I have previously disagreed with the use of death as the end point of assessing risk.
but have my limited recent postings to death-related data from reasonably reputable sources.
A significant portion of the discussion in this thread has included herd immunity.
Unless Sexobon subscribes to the school of "pathogen autogenesis",
he has yet to suggest an explanation for the increase in incidence
of vaccine-preventable diseases, with their associated death rates
or aftereffects in the Wakefield/McCatrhy era.
The popular press (
Time (2011)) reported a Univ Michigan study
that ~25% of the people trusted her erroneous attributions.
But now, which parents today should blame the messenger...
I thought that had been eradicated world wide. Why is that still on there?
Polio has an interesting legacy from the cold war. Since it could be used as a weapon in a world that no longer needs that vaccine, then both the US and Russia have this disease in cold storage. So that vaccines can be created if needed.
I was just looking at the 2013 vaccine schedule. polio is still on there. I thought that had been eradicated world wide. Why is that still on there?
Doc, if you were me, what vaccines would you consider having done for a 15 year old, and a 13 year old child?
You're right, LJ - smallpox has been eradicated as a 'wild-type' disease, although small samples still exist in laboratories. The WHO has been working hard to make polio the second infectious disease to be eradicated, and the program has been very successful - except in Nigeria, in some of the northern states like Kano State. Due to recent assassinations of community health workers and families bringing their children for vaccination, the WHO has temporarily halted immunization programs there.
If the 13 and 15 year old are completely vaccine-naive and they were my children, I would want them to receive the primary immunization series for tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis; a series for polio using the inactivated vaccine; meningococcal vaccine; two doses of MMR; the varicella vaccine; Hep A & B (this comes as a combination vaccine or can be separate); and the HPV vaccine. I've included a link:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/who/teens/for-parents.html that has information for parents on recommendations. If you google 'vaccine recommendations teens no previous immunizations', you can link to a pdf file that has the 'catch-up' schedule for 7 - 18 year olds who are naive or behind schedule. I couldn't get that link to work directly here, but it's the best one.
Polio has been eradicated in the US, but a visitor from Africa, or even possibly India or Afghanistan, where cases of polio have only just ceased and there may still be undocumented cases, could bring the virus here and infect susceptible people. Varicella is much more severe in older children and adults. Hep B is particularly nasty and there's a high rate of transmission. Hep A still pops up in foodborne outbreaks, and if your teens go on a school or other trip to Central American countries they will likely encounter it. Pertussis is milder in adults but the idea is to make adults less susceptible so that they don't pass it on to susceptible infants.
Hmm ... just thinking I should have prioritized that list. If I were going to get things done over a period of time rather than all at once, I'd go for the tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis series first. Tetanus is a direct, ongoing threat because it lives in soil, we all encounter it, and we have no treatment for it (we can give Tetanus Immunoglobulin at the wound site along with starting a tetanus series for those who are susceptible, but ... much better to be protected).
Then, depending on my kids' contacts and travel plans, I'd have them get the varicella vaccine, the MMR vaccine, the meningococcal vaccine. Then the Hepatitis vaccines and HPV. Polio could wait until the end if the kids aren't traveling outside the country and aren't in contact with visitors from abroad. I'd still do it, but the kids are more likely to run into the other diseases.
Eta ... even though polio is now rare, I'd still want my kids protected from it because 90% of infections are asymptomatic. That means that a contact could have the disease and be shedding virus/infectious and never know it. You wouldn't have to come into contact with someone who was ill with the disease. So many young people go abroad at some point - until polio is eradicated worldwide, I'd go for protection.
If the kids were going to travel abroad then I'd move the polio, Hep A and B, and any other specific immunization recommendations for the destination (like Yellow Fever) up the list.
The College of Physicians of Philadelphia has a nice web site on vaccines, how they work, their history, etc., here:
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/history-immunization-schedule.
Lots of interesting information.
Eta - all of the recommendations above are what I'd think about for
my children, in consultation with our family doctor who knows the kids. Anyone considering pursuing this should do so in consultation with their own physician. I am not making specific recommendations or prescriptions for anyone.
Tw made a statement:
Jenny McCarthy, at a minimum, owes us all an apology for causing death to so many infants. ...
Clod asked him for supporting facts:
Can you give me numbers, tw, on exactly how many infants have died in the developed world of vaccine-preventable diseases since Jenny McCarthy started speaking out? For I know you would not just use some indefinable quantity like "so many," without numbers to back it up.
Tw didn't giver Clod supporting facts claiming they were elusive:
There is no actual number since many other factors apply - including all vaccine effectiveness. However numbers start in the hundreds. May be higher.
Clod identified his evasiveness and gave him a chance to redress her question:
... Effectiveness is irrelevant in this case, since you weren't talking about infection rates, you were talking about death rates. ...You said that Jenny McCarthy was responsible for "so many dead infants." I ask again: do you have numbers to back up this claim,
Lamp acknowledged the context of the conversation and gave statistics:
... If death is the insisted criterion, then the data for only one year (2012) includes 18 deaths:
Sexobon pointed out that those statistics weren't entirely attributable to Jenny McCarthy:
Childhood Pertussis vaccination doesn't begin until 2 months of age; so, you can eliminate the <3 mos. category (13 deaths) as having been influenced by anyone's anti-childhood vaccination rhetoric. The information you provided here doesn't say whether or not they where vaccinated either, as vaccinations is not 100% effective. You can also eliminate the adult category (55+ years, 1 death) as childhood vaccination and first booster does not confer lifetime immunity; rather, lasting only 3-6 years. The potential influence a Jenny McCarthy type may have had in 2012 is 4 deaths (you didn't specify them as non-immunized versus failed immunization either), not 18 deaths as the tw-lamplighter school of spin doctoring would propagandize.
...A significant portion of the discussion in this thread has included herd immunity. ...
Not that portion.
"spin doctoring" and "propagandize" here are the sorts of emotional word-usage that TW has been talking about all along. ...
You drew that erroneous conclusion; because, you forgot to first ask (which you do a lot) which camp I fall into. I'm all for childhood vaccinations; so, obviously emotion doesn't attach. No, my assessment was based on the contents of the posts, in the context of the flow of the conversation as acknowledged by the users within their own posts. The responses to Clod's question were evasive, misleading, and not by accident. The assessment is logical and accurate. With friends like that, the cause doesn't need enemies.
Childhood Pertussis vaccination doesn't begin until 2 months of age; so, you can eliminate the <3 mos. category (13 deaths) as having been influenced by anyone's anti-childhood vaccination rhetoric. The information you provided here doesn't say whether or not they where vaccinated either, as vaccinations is not 100% effective. ...
Described are more examples of why medicine recommends all kids be vaccinated. Even infants who cannot yet be vaccinated are at significantly greater risk due to others who deny their responsibility to society. That 'screw everyone else' attitude exists. ...
The mothers can be vaccinated shortly before giving birth to help protect infants <2 mo.
Just to clarify, while that is true of the DTaP vaccine it is not true of the MMR or any other live attenuated virus vaccines. (I know tw was referring to your quote about pertussis; just didn't want people to incorrectly suppose that all vaccines can be given shortly before birth to protect a young infant.)
[Quote/] The responses to Clod's question were evasive, misleading, and not by accident. The assessment is logical and accurate. With friends like that, the cause doesn't need enemies.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. throne. Of lies.
Still, I'll trade you tw for Jenny
Maybe tw and Jenny can do a porn flick together. Think what it would do for world harmony.
Oh, thanks for taking the time to answer my question, Ortho.
The hepatitis vaccines make sense to me. As I recall, jinx was very against Gardisil. ... I don't really remember the issues she has with it. I think she and merc went a few rounds on here about it somewhere.
I'm on the fence about chicken pox, mostly because they never got the disease as kids.
When the divorce is final, she will have custody, so I'm not sure what say I will have in the matter. .. plus she still won't speak to me about anything other than the kids schedule, so having a rational discussion about it is highly unlikely. I won't be taking anyone to court over this either, so it may come down to the kids dealing with this decision once they are adults.
I'm going to talk to them about it soon though, and take their temperature on the issue. I don't know what their mother has told them about it all.
I'm all for childhood vaccinations...
Me too... stab all the children, shoot 'em too. :p:
...You drew that erroneous conclusion; because, you forgot to first ask (which you do a lot) which camp I fall into....
The "blame the reader" tactic when found wanting is called
obscurantisme terroriste,
as in ... you misunderstood me/my... it's your fault you forgot to ask ... etc.
If it's important to know your position, put it in your posts.
For me, it's a minor issue which camp you're in.
The "spin doctoring" and "propagandize" and now with:
"With friends like that, the cause doesn't need enemies."
These are your emotional word usages, not mine or TW's.
Clod identified his evasiveness and gave him a chance to redress her question:
Was answered. Actual numbers are complicated by factors such as some vaccines are not 100% effective and recent discoveries that some vaccines might be losing effectiveness. Apparently uncertainty exists. Lamplighter's numbers confirm that bottom line. Numbers so one sided as to be obvious. To not vaccinate was irresponsible (ill informed) reasoning. To be angry and offensive because those mistakes were exposed is simply an adult acting like a child. His tirade (and not one fact) confirms even he knows it.
Assumed was that mothers will always nurse their children. Protection does not transfer when mothers do not nurse.
shut up, tw.
you ignore the numbers i posted. then you lie about my refusing to post them, go read back. i said it. zero deaths from measles in 1998. 60+ mmr vaccine related deaths. see below for current year info. only numbers that really mattered to me at the time. jenny mccarthy did not provide them either. your mom did.
anyway... here's some stuff I found today while bored at work:
cases (not deaths, were there any deaths??) of measles recorded in the US by year:
[LIST]
[*]In 2007 there were 43 cases reported nationwide
[*]In 2008 there were 140 cases
[*]In 2009 there were 71 cases
[*]In 2010 there were 63 cases
[*]In 2011 there were 217 cases
[*]In 2012 through Feb. 18, 2012 there were 13
[/LIST]
check this out. it's a big chart so I took a screen shot and linked it.
[ATTACH]45723[/ATTACH]
I can't find YTD figures for
deaths in the US from Measles Mumps or Rubella, but I did find that link above. I don't know if that's because no one in the US actually dies from any of those???
Am I reading that chart right though?
did 57 people
DIE from the MMR vaccine this year?
and
696!!! from the DTP(diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis) vaccine? was there a bad batch?
what the hell?
... The "spin doctoring" and "propagandize" and now with: "With friends like that, the cause doesn't need enemies." ...
I'm glad you can see your propaganda is transparent.
Was answered. ...
Insufficiently.
... Assumed was that mothers will always nurse their children. Protection does not transfer when mothers do not nurse.
I didn't say mothers
will nurse. I didn't even say mothers
will get vaccinated. I said:
The mothers can be vaccinated...
Reading comprehension tw (or maybe that was just more spin doctoring).
Well i learned something today. So thanks for that.
Am I reading that chart right though?
did 57 people DIE from the MMR vaccine this year?
and 696!!! from the DTP(diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis) vaccine? was there a bad batch?
what the hell?
LJ, if you go back to the link that you posted, and scroll down
below your chart there is an explanation (definition) of settlements, etc.
By no means is the data saying so many people died from MMR.
It's just how many suits were filed and how many were compensated with $.
The Vaccine Injury Table is
linked hereBut they list deaths. ... so you're saying that the vaccine company just settled and it doesn't necessarily prove that child was killed by the vaccine? But somebody did die? 646 sets of parents believed that the DPT vaccine killed their kids.... and strongly enough to file a suit? And that is just year to date...
I would think that would have made news? I admit I do not follow it.... what was the situation there? Is that normal? Maybe 0 of the 646 cases here have actually been proven to be caused by the DPT vaccine... This is just 646 Jenny McCarthys?
I'm actually asking that question. Not being shitty at all. Are they just 646 cases of people trying to get paid when their kid died? Like a class action suit or something? so that stat its padded.... one big case with the 646 parties on the plaintiff's side?
LJ, I am reading the chart for DPT as a total of 3980 suits made up of both Injury and Death classes.
The 1269 "compensated" suits does not distinguish between these two classes.
And I don't think the injury/death class data can be determined from your link.
For example, from The Injury Table, one "compensated injury" for DPT is [COLOR="DarkRed"]deemed[/COLOR] to be:
... Any acute complication or sequela (including death) of an illness,
disability, injury, or condition referred to above which illness, disability, injury,
or condition arose within the time period
While one may
believe such an injury or death is
caused by the DPT,
it may have been only coincidentally associated at the time with the DPT.
Whatever actually caused the injury or death is not determined by the settlement or award.
... Whatever actually caused the injury or death is not determined by the settlement or award.
I got the impression that it can be determined by compensation. Compensation does not always mean causation (e.g. settlements); but, it can.
DEFINITIONS:
1. Compensable – The injured person who filed a claim was paid money by the VICP. Compensation can be achieved through a concession by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a decision on the merits of the claim by a special master or a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Court), or a settlement between the parties.
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]1. Concession: HHS concludes that a petition should be compensated based on a thorough review and analysis of the evidence, including medical records and the scientific and medical literature. The HHS review concludes that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, including a determination either that it is more likely than not that the vaccine caused the injury or the evidence supports fulfillment of the criteria of the Vaccine Injury Table. The Court also determines that the petition should be compensated.
[COLOR="white"]...[/COLOR]2. Court Decision: A special master or the court, within the United States Court of Federal Claims, issues a legal decision after weighing the evidence presented by both sides. HHS abides by the ultimate Court decision even if it maintains its position that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation (e.g., that the injury was not caused by the vaccine).
[COLOR="white"]......[/COLOR]1. For injury claims, compensable court decisions are based in part on one of the following determinations by the court:
[COLOR="white"].........[/COLOR]1. The evidence is legally sufficient to show that the vaccine more likely than not caused (or significantly aggravated) the injury; or
[COLOR="white"].........[/COLOR]2. The injury is Iisted on, and meets all of the requirements of, the Vaccine Injury Table, and HHS has not proven that a factor unrelated to the vaccine more likely than not caused or significantly aggravated the injury. An injury listed on the Table and meeting all Table requirements is given the legal presumption of causation. It should be noted that conditions are placed on the Table for both scientific and policy reasons.
3. Settlement: The petition is resolved via a negotiated settlement between the parties. This settlement is not an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the vaccine caused the petitioner’s alleged injuries, and, in settled cases, the Court does not determine that the vaccine caused the injury. A settlement therefore cannot be characterized as a decision by HHS or by the Court that the vaccine caused an injury. Claims may be resolved by settlement for many reasons, including consideration of prior court decisions; a recognition by both parties that there is a risk of loss in proceeding to a decision by the Court making the certainty of settlement more desirable; a desire by both parties to minimize the time and expense associated with litigating a case to conclusion; and a desire by both parties to resolve a case quickly and efficiently.
Non-compensable/Dismissed doesn't necessarily mean there was no causation.
1. Non-compensable/Dismissed – The injured person who filed a claim was ultimately not paid money.
[COLOR="white"]...[/COLOR]1. Non-compensable Court decisions include the following:
[COLOR="white"]......[/COLOR]1. The Court determines that the person who filed the claim did not demonstrate that the injury was caused (or significantly aggravated) by a covered vaccine or meet the requirements of the Table (for injuries listed on the Table).
[COLOR="white"]......[/COLOR]2. The claim was dismissed for not meeting other statutory requirements (such as not meeting the filing deadline, not receiving a covered vaccine, and not meeting the statute’s severity requirement).
[COLOR="white"]......[/COLOR]3.The injured person voluntarily withdrew his or her claim
The chart represents lawsuits filed and the subsequent settlements or dismissals, not number of cases. 'Deaths' means that a death occurred and a plaintiff has filed a suit claiming that the death was vaccine-related. This is not a chart that provides statistics about vaccine-related injury, it's a chart about lawsuits.
There were numerous lawsuits a few decades ago claiming that mishandling of deliveries by obstetricians caused cerebral palsy in infants. There were numerous enormous monetary awards from juries. The science demonstrated that cerebral palsy is not due to birth injury, but begins early in pregnancy. Nevertheless, the judgments stood.
I would look at CDC or WHO databases if I were looking for data on injuries. Even then, every negative sensation experienced by anyone who has received a vaccine within the past few weeks is recorded. There are no attempts to determine causation; it's a database that can, at most, provide information as to association.
Association does not infer causation.
At this time of night, without having the time to devote further research to it ... this link is to a post by someone named 'John' on an unnamed board, who provided a nonfunctioning link to a court decision. We can only take 'John's' word for the summary.
The key phrase I see in the post is the reference to the 'Eggshell Skull Rule', and the admission that Benjamin 'may have had a genetic predisposition or a physiologic susceptibility' to intractable seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental delay.
I'm sorry, LJ, I'd have to look into this more fully before saying anything. If this child had normal health prior to the immunization, does that prove that the immunization caused his subsequent health problems? Would he have developed those problems regardless of immunization because he had a previously undiagnosed condition? Is there evidence that the vaccination specifically caused the subsequent health problem; is the effect reproducible; is it dose-dependent; is it biologically explainable/logical?
I will try to find information on this case tomorrow.
I would look at CDC or WHO databases if I were looking for data on injuries. Even then, every negative sensation experienced by anyone who has received a vaccine within the past few weeks is recorded.
Did you miss-type this? I'd assume most parents who are up all night nursing their fever spiking babies through the vaccination process have already been told that they'll probably have a fever and their doctor will not welcome a call about something that has already been explained.
shut up, tw.
"lumberjim you ignorant slut." Even your own numbers demonstrate the MMR vaccine is near zero risk. You did not do valid research (ignored perspective) to put infants (not just your own) at greater risk. Now your only provided numbers are from lawsuits. Which have less relationship to science.
As orthodoc and others demonstrate, a specific number is hard to isolate. Too many variables (some defined earlier) result in various numbers. However we do know this. lumberjim's mistake and repeated denials is a poster child of the problem. Risks of not doing the MMR vaccines are many times greater than any adverse reaction. Those numbers are not in dispute. We know fears of autism (like so many other fears that preceded it) are completely misplaced.
The post from 'John' further demonstrates junk science. The concept says, "Once we have eliminated all other possibilities, then what remains must be the truth." One small problem. That MMR decision did not and could not eliminate so many other possibilities. So its logic was obviously flawed. Only junk science reasoning can create that resulting conclusion.
So lumberjim remains angry. The emotional (1. due to motivated reasoning and 2. not seeing what is obviously junk science reasoning) fear to learn from mistakes.
tw - sometimes you just like to piss on the campfire don't you? Seems like you are determined to keep things on a personal level. Be glad Jim is a good man because you can push some folks too far. Just sayin'......
Did you miss-type this? I'd assume most parents who are up all night nursing their fever spiking babies through the vaccination process have already been told that they'll probably have a fever and their doctor will not welcome a call about something that has already been explained.
Even when common side effects have been explained, parents may bring their child in to the ER if they can't settle the baby (especially first-time parents with a 2 month old). Or their physician will likely ask, at the next visit, whether there were any problems or side effects with the previous immunizations. Those things go into the databases.
Or sometimes they don't bother. My daughter's only in the database because I put her there myself. The doctor felt that head-to-toe hives and explosive emerald green diarrhea with no end in sight were not severe enough reactions, apparently.
Yeah, in my experience they didn't want to hear about potential issues especially from someone who tried to open a discussion about stretching out the schedule. The politics seem to trump what is actually happening with the child. Picture a discussion with tw as if he made his living in medicine.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/talk.politics.medicine/iE5Eop4FePs
Was this for real?
Probably NOT !
I've spent a while trying to find an original, reliable record of this "court case"... nothing.
This looks a lot like a
plant on a Google forum database.
My searches turned up numerous web pages all referring back to this one post.
Those web pages (except for one newpaper) were obviously politically "anti-vaccine".
The newspaper also only reprinted information in the Google posting.
I found nothing new, beyond what is in LJ's link.
Maybe others can be successful, but I'll be surprised.
tw - sometimes you just like to piss on the campfire don't you? Seems like you are determined to keep things on a personal level. Be glad Jim is a good man because you can push some folks too far. Just sayin'......
Well there you go, Big Sarge has diagnosed tw with
Bendii Syndrome. Why hasn't medical science come up with a prevention for this?
Ortho,
Ortho,
Anyone?
Ortho.
:p:
Probably NOT !
I've spent a while trying to find an original, reliable record of this "court case"... nothing.
This looks a lot like a plant on a Google forum database.
<snip>
Maybe others can be successful, but I'll be surprised.
Well, I am surprised... I found the court record of this case with
this link which downloads a pdf file.
The child was born in June 2004 and had a medical record of developmental delay.
The MMR vaccine was given in November 2004.
28 pages later, the Special Master ruled in favor of the plaintiff,
and ordered compensation.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]I apologize for my ineptitude in the previous posting.[/COLOR]
There's a few YouTube clips of local news stories too but they phrase things suspiciously... I figured it would have been a big to do if it was legit.
Why do you people hate clodfobble?
Heh. I actually thought you'd moved this thread to a hidden forum, it went quiet so quickly before. It's cool though. I've been way, way, (WAY) less depressed in general since going on my kids' diet. I feel awesome for the first time in who knows how long, maybe ever. The thread popped up and my only thought was, "Huh, I can see it after all."
Still not going to participate in it, but I also don't feel compelled to, so that's good. You guys carry on if you want to.
I'm so sorry, clearly mybad, I obviously didn't read the entire thread closely enough and was looking for somewhere other than a new thread to park that article because I thought it might be of interest to those here who feel passionately about vaccinations (either way) but figured we'd done the actual debate to death so a new thread was not warranted. I should try not to think so hard about these things.
Myself, I'm in the middle of the field. We opt out of some vaccines, but do many for the good of the herd or because it's a requirement and not a battle worth picking. So I agree with most of you :)
Some really good news for a change...
Rubella and rubeola share similar names. Both are caused by a virus.
Both cause a skin rash. And both are considered to be a type of measles.
Years ago a pre-marital blood test was required for syphillis...
and some public health labs also tested women for rubella immunity
Then the pre-marital tests were dropped, and the rubella test was given
when the woman was in her first pregnancy.
Now, I don't know what tests are being done for rubella, if any.
If a pregnant woman is exposed to rubella, it can cause birth defects in the unborn fetus and even miscarriage.
The person with rubella may not even have significant symptoms, making it harder for them to know if they are ill.
This is why it is extremely important that a woman of child-bearing age is immunized against rubella
It must however be done at least one month prior to becoming pregnant.
<snip>
Rubella (German measles) eradicated from Americas
BBC News = 4/29/15
North and South America have become the first regions of the world to eradicate rubella,
or German measles, after no home-grown cases in five years.
The virus - spread by sneezes or coughs - can lead to serious birth defects if contracted by pregnant women.
Up to 20,000 children were born with rubella in the Americas every year until mass vaccinations started.
But the last endemic cases registered in the region were in Argentina and Brazil in 2009.
The fact no new cases have been declared in five consecutive years, apart from those imported into the region,
allowed global health chiefs to declare the Americas free of the virus.
Eradication was "an historic achievement," said Carissa Etienne,
director of the Pan-American Health Organization, which is part of the World Health Organisation.
"The fight against rubella has taken more than 15 years," she said.
"But it has paid off with what I believe will be one of the most important
pan-American public health achievements of the 21st Century."
