Curing Autism Blog

Comments

8 Responses to “A study of autism outcome in vaccinated vs unvaccinated: found?”

1. 
   
   Dave, on April 22nd, 2010 at 11:45 am

   http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124

   Addressing your first two concerns.

   Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or “use up” the immune system. On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment. By providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens, vaccines prevent the “weakening” of the immune system and consequent secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection.

   Most or all of the vaccine strains are attenuated anyway.

2. 
   
   Evie, on May 23rd, 2010 at 10:20 pm

   Dave, what are your thoughts on the two children’s cases whose “autistic symptoms” were deemed to be caused by their vaccines by the Federal Vaccine Injury courts? In each case, their parents had extensive official records to document the medical occurrences paralleling their adverse vaccine events. More importantly, their parents were smart enough not to bring the cases primarily as an autism cases–in one the parents litigated for acute demyelination of nerve cells in the brain, and in the other, it was found that there was mitochondrial disease that left the child completely overwhelmed by metals and viral loads.

   Had they initiated their cause of action as autism causation, they, like the others who did so, would have lost. One of the big, understated injustices in the autism community is that behavior through the DSM criteria is the only measure to diagnose, when DAN! doctors have files of cases where children came in with a diagnosis of autism, were treated for gut dysbiosis, chelated to rid the body of heavy metal toxicity, and recovered–therefore ridding themselves of the behaviors that warranted the diagnosis in the first place. Therefore, to have a case before a court specifically set up for medical issues and to bring a cause of action that is only diagnosed through psychological/behavioristic criteria is tantamount to predestined failure–and a waste of time, money, and emotional capital for all involved.

   How does your assertion that “young children have enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to many other challenges present in the environment” reconcile with these cases? All young children have enormous capacity to repond to multiple vaccines and other challenges present in the environment? In the journal Pediatrics, consistently it was found that children with higher levels of organophosphate pesticides in their bodies had ADHD. How many more like them, or like the two kids whose “autistic symptoms” were caused by vaccines exist?

   I’m asking honestly, because this is absurdly illogical to me since no doctor in his right mind would say taking something of such low risk as an aspirin is without risk, but we have an entire medical community reciting the mantra that vaccines are safe for everyone. Premies, kids with mitochondrial disease we don’t know about, sick kids, well kids…all babies and kids. There is no study of susceptible populations, nor is there any proposed plan, since we know those with mitochondrial disease are susceptible to injury, to check to see WHO these individuals are (see link for study indicating occurrence at at least 1 in 200).

   There is no rational informed consent, certainly nothing that would indicate something so vile as “autistic symptoms” might be in their future. So I’m just wondering if you can explain this to me without using data from tests for associations–even those of us with backgrounds in the humanities understand that testing for associations does not equal testing for causation. Until we test the susceptible populations for similarities that might indicate how these unfortunate children became autistic (because we know no such thing as genetic epidemics exist) we can rule out neither vaccines nor environment as causal.

3. 
   
   Evie, on May 23rd, 2010 at 10:40 pm

   I’m sorry, it is obviously too late…the study in Pediatrics indicates that with rises in organophosphate pesticides in kids’ bodies, there is a rise in ADHD:

   http://www.simplesteps.org/health/infants-children/reported-pediatrics-higher-organophosphate-pesticide-levels-linked-adhd

   Here is the link to the study regarding the not-so-rare as reported mitochondrial disease:

   http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00402-3

   Here is a link to Hannah Polling’s case transcrips:

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-vaccineautism-court-d_b_88558.html

   And finally, a link to Bailey Bank’s information:

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

4. 
   
   Dave, on May 24th, 2010 at 9:53 am

   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20159341

   “the literature demonstrates that it is not a monogenic disorder with mendelian inheritance, rather a group of complex genetic syndromes with risk deriving from genetic variations in multiple genes”

   There is strong evidence supporting the basis of autism is genetic. Expression comes from our genes. How could a 1 or 2 year old absorb so many environmental “toxins” that they develop autism with such short exposure. But back to the VICP cases.

   Bailey Banks was found to have suffered from acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and not autism. The ruling was that this was a type of pervasive developmental disorder and made clear that it wasn’t autism. So a vaccine didn’t cause autism.

   Hannah Poling was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Her parent’s believed vaccines triggered her encephalopathy.

   The Poling case is an example of some poor reasoning that I’ll try to elaborate on later. First off, naturally occurring infections can expedite symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with the mito enzyme deficiency. There is no clear evidence that vaccines cause a similar exacerbation. In addition, children with the mito enzyme deficiency are more susceptible to infection, they are recommended that they are administered all vaccines.

   A second point was the vaccines given have too many structural components that can weaken the immune system of susceptible children. Funny because the smallpox vaccine had about 200 structural components and the 14 vaccines children receive today only have about 150 components combined. This is of course due to increased technological advances in biotechnology.

   But back to naturally occurring infections. Experts testifying on behalf of the Polings argued that the development of fever and varicella induced rash after only 9 vaccines was enough to stress a mito enzyme def. child. But, Hannah had had frequent episodes of fever and otitis media. So much she needed bilateral polyethylene tubes. So here we have infection that is known to exacerbate encephalopathy along with less than 150 structural components from the 9 vaccines she had received. The proportion of antigens received from the vaccines are minuscule in this scenario.

   It could be also be argued that reducing the vaccine number could lower exacerbation risk in the mito enzyme def. children, but that defeats the point, for example allowing prolonged periods to be exposed to pneumococcus, varicella, and pertussis which are still common in the United States.

   More or less, there wasn’t data that exonerated vaccines. There was only theoretical proposals on what could of happened.

   But back to the vaccine court. I don’t know what their deal is because the burden of proof is really lacking.

   Margaret Althen successfully claimed that a tetanus vaccine had caused her optic neuritis. Although there was no evidence to support her claim, the VICP ruled that if a petitioner proposed a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine could cause harm, as well as a logical sequence of cause and effect, an award should be granted. The door opened by this and other rulings allowed petitioners to claim successfully that the MMR vaccine caused fibromyalgia and epilepsy, the hepatitis B vaccine caused Guillain–Barré syndrome and chronic demyelinating polyneuropathy, and the Hib vaccine caused transverse myelitis.

   In 2006 Dorothy Werdertish successfully claimed that Hep B vaccine caused her multiple sclerosis. By the time of the ruling, several studies had shown that hepatitis B vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated the disease, and the Institute of Medicine had concluded that “evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis.” Nevertheless the VICP was less impressed with the scientific literature than it was with an expert’s proposal of a mechanism by which hepatitis B vaccine could induce autoimmunity. It is a funny conclusion when one thinks that Dorothy never had a visible or detectable immune response to the vaccine. How could you have autoimmunity?

   The VICP was only created after pham companies were sued in the 70’s and 80’s from unexplained, unfounded in evidence afflictions such as oma, sudden infant death syndrome, Reye’s syndrome, transverse myelitis, mental retardation, and epilepsy. People fall prey to the post hoc fallacy and think that since something happened after another event, the something must of caused it.

   So with Poling and Banks, the court never ruled that vaccines had caused autism. As can be seen the VICP has lowered the bar on evidence based arguments, may I say, significantly. Can we not agree on that? Their cases were definitely not proved beyond a reasonable double that the sole cause of their “autistic symptoms” were caused by vaccines. They both had underlying syndromes or previous conditions, however you want to put it, that could have been the culprit to cause their autistic symptoms.

   Please don’t read anything from huffington post, they support pseudoscience and quackery.

   But to organophosphates, how does that have anything to do with vaccines? Organophosphates disrupt brain neuro-chemical activity. This is evidence in their efficacy as a pesticide. I was alluding to immunologic activity to antigens present in vaccines and other capacities, not chemicals that were professionally engineered to kill organisms. Many immunological challenges, obviously not poisons used to kill grasshoppers. I refuted a statement. And you tried to refute that statement with a another totally irrelevant argument.

   What do you suggest the medical community does? Let people be swayed by scare stories not to vaccinate and let measles and mumps become endemic again to certain areas like it is in the UK now? The multiple studies refute a link between vaccines and autism showing that the rate of autism is not significantly different between children that were vaccinated and that were not? So what is it? Don’t vaccinate, rely on the waning herd immunity until it runs out and people die of preventable diseases?

   Cases that are publicized are not typical of the group. But all it takes is one I guess to ruin it for everyone. What do you say to the studies that refute the link? Oh well they’re just funded by big pharma, the cdc and the fda, and they knew the results before they even started. Do you think the critics of vaccines and supporters of the vaccine/autism link would ever fund a placebo controlled, randomized, double blind study on anything? God forbid the results were what they wanted, then they would go crying foul on everything and just use more celebrities to support their position and propagate even more pseudoscience. Or better yet, what does the alt med community suggest people do to prevent deadly diseases that were previously preventable via vaccines? Diet and vitamins? Other things that have no plausible biological mechanisms not to mention no basis in evidence based medicine or science. No thanks, I’ll stick with real medicine.

   I know I’m ranting but the evidence is there, and there’s no link. The VICP should reconsider their reasoning to make sure it presents a clear representation of what guidelines it follows and why it makes the decisions it does.

   Stratton K, Almario DA, McCormick MC, eds. Immunization safety review: hepatitis B vaccine and demyelinating neurological disorders. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2002.

   Offit PA, Quarles J, Gerber MA, et al. Addressing parents’ concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system? Pediatrics 2002;109:124-9.

   Dingle JH, Badger GF, Jordan WS Jr. Illness in the home: a study of 25,000 illnesses in a group of Cleveland families. Cleveland: Press of Western Reserve University, 1964.

5. 
   
   Evie, on May 24th, 2010 at 10:40 pm

   Hi, Dave,

   First, I want to clear up my reference to organophosphate pesticides and ADHD, which is two clicks into the autism spectrum after ADD according to the DSM, and that is to say throughout my posts here I maintain that I believe there is a susceptible group of people, whether they have mitochondrial disease, underlying immunological issues, a heavy body burden of toxins at birth via the in-utero environment, or mutations in their methylation paythways–these are the kids who I believe end up autistic. It sounds like you believe these individuals are susceptible, just not under any circumstances to an injection of toxins or live viruses, etc., because you believe them to be entirely safe for entirely every individual. I accept your answer though I find it to be outside of the realm of reason.

   So it isn’t unrelated that I bring up environmental triggers that contribute to this thing we call autism–it is, in fact, a matter that is constantly brought up within the medical community, and even with my own mainstream pediatrician (who implied from an early date my child’s body couldn’t withstand toxins in vaccines…add to that, the nurses at the NICU said, “some babies have bad reactions to the vaccine” when my son went from being on no supports the first day he was born to being on virtually every support in the NICU immediately following the illogical administration of the hep b vaccine on his second day). My posing the question of those two cases and the context in which I wrote it were not meant as attacks, but rather as a request for clarification.

   I certainly do not believe genes play no part in susceptibility, but I think it ludicrous to claim we have what would be by any other name: cancer, leukemia, influenza, you name it, an epidemic that is wholly genetic. And that is what it sounds like you are arguing. Genes do have so much to do with what is going on here, and the article in Time Magazine on epigenetics and environment illustrate beautifully what I do not have the capacity, as a layperson, to display. Namely, that there are things we do to our bodies through environment and behavior which silence or amplify genes that in many cases should be quiet. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968,00.html There are treatments that are already being utilized to do just that in the case of autism, and they are what we have used to recover our son from the diagnosis he thankfully no longer carries.

   On the court cases, the “burden of proof” exists in criminal law, but in this court system, it was expressly set up so that families and individuals who reasonably could be found to have been harmed by vaccines would be compensated. Though it sounds like you believe, again, that no one could possibly be harmed by vaccines.

   I want to go on record as saying I believe vaccines have saved many lives and prevented untold amounts of suffering. Some of them are truly necessary (I’m thinking along the lines of polio) and some of them are really superfluous to say the least and are likely causing more harm than good (think chicken pox and the removal of a natural booster in the environment now–leading to shingles in a historically unheard-of young population, or the hep b vaccine for newborns within 12 hours of birth–hmmm, unless you’re a prostitute or IV drug user, the odds are abysmally low that your baby will contract hep b, but the odds are significantly high your newborn will have an adverse reaction to the vaccine).

   Unfortunately, I believe we have become a bit of Shelley’s “Modern Day Prometheus” in that we now over-vaccinate without regard to age, development, illness, or genetic weakness (which we do have the technology to test). I am also vehemently against injecting known harmful metals into the body (aluminum is present in a spate of vaccines, and thimerosal is still present in flu shots recommended for pregnant women and small children–inexplicable that it is still there). To boot, there are many suspect ingredients in vaccines that could be eliminated, which would in turn gain back trust from the public, but there is such a lack of caution…such a cacophony of chest beating about how infallible and benign vaccines are from those with a vested interest in there not ever being an admission that perhaps, just perhaps, we acted imprudently, that there is now a growing number of people whose trust can never be won back.

   It makes me sad that there still is no mention of a test to identify the susceptible, and there is still a denial that there are any dangers involved, but I understand what you write, and I understand it would be pointless to argue because no matter how reasoned and real the information I write, it will be met with the same associations research and dismissals of the existing and ongoing dangers to that population who continues to be harmed for the sake of herd immunity.

   Thanks for the reply.

6. 
   
   Mike, on May 25th, 2010 at 9:40 am

   Sorry, but you’ll never get the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study because it is clearly unethical. Not vaccinating a population of children and leaving them open to preventable diseases. There is no credible scientific evidence that even calls for this study.

7. 
   
   Phyllis, on May 25th, 2010 at 11:53 am

   Mike,
   Here’s the thing: there are families out there that are not vaccinating their children. So why not use those families in a study?

   “Credible scientific evidence” is lacking because the scientists haven’t been looking at the huge amounts of anecdotal evidence. In the face of overwhelming anecdotal evidence, I think science should investigate. Otherwise what constitutes credible scientific evidence? The studies that examine tiny pieces of this question, such as whether thimerosal causes autism, or the measles virus in the MMR vaccine causes autism? No one has looked at the big picture question–whether large amounts of vaccines weaken the immune system and open the door for autism. No one has tested large numbers of vaccines. Each vaccine is tested by itself before it goes on the market, with no concern for the cumulative effect.

   The fact that the U.S. has a worse mortality rate than other developed countries, while requiring many more vaccines–does that constitute grounds for a study? The only study I am talking about is looking at medical records for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

   I think one reason this is so hard for scientists to grasp is that they are assuming all children are the same. Yet it appears to me that a significant subset of children is more susceptible to autism than the rest. Otherwise, if vaccines may cause autism, all children would be autistic.

8. 
   
   Mike, on May 26th, 2010 at 11:56 am

   I’m sorry, I meant to say credible scientific hypothesis or theory. What is the hypothesis that this unvaccinated vs vaccinated study would study? Furthermore, it is unethical as I have stated before because the control group is left unvaccinated to deadly diseases.

   You have to deal with the fact that the number of totally unvaccinated children is 0.3% of the total population which is noted in this study http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/1/187

   The problem with the unvax vs vax study can be found here http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154

   Anecdotal evidence. Okay, so the studies that have found no link between mmr/thimerosal and autism obviously examined children would have/had autism. And those who didn’t. Did those who have autism have anecdotal evidence? They had a story that went like this, no autism, mmr, autism. Really the post hoc fallacy, but I digress. Scientists don’t need to look at anecdotal evidence. Because when the anecdotal evidence goes up against statistical tests, they fail. Parents with anecdotal evidence pressured the scientific community into doing studies on MMR and autism. No link. Then it was thimerosal and autism. No link. Next it was too many vaccines too soon. No link. Now it’s all these “toxins” in the vaccines. Just keep shifting the goal post.

   There is no scientific theory that suggests multiple vaccines weaken the immune system. When an antigen is detected, parts of the antigen travel to the lymph nodes via the lymphatics whether it be parts, whole antigen or antigen contained in dendritic cells to the naive b and t cells in the lymph nodes. So considering that the viruses antigenic properties are maintain and that they have no ability to infect, but rather illicit an immune response, they cannot weaken the immune system. The only way the immune system can be weakened if it is compromised, via immunosuppressant drugs and or a virus such as HIV, which infects CD4 cells, also known as Helper T cells. Once the antigen(vaccine) hits the lymph node, there is clonal selection and proliferation leading to immunoglobulin production specific for that antigen. There is no weakening of the immune system. Even if you got a huge shot of cortisol which inhibits the transcription of TNF-a, an inflammatory cytokine, you still wouldn’t weaken anything because the antigen would still travel to the lymph nodes.

   There is no cumulative effect of multiple vaccines because they are not infecting the body as the actual live virus would. The vaccine is simply the letting the body know what the antigen (virus) looks like, so it can quickly identify it upon subsequent exposure.

   As for the off topic us mortality rate, I think we can all agree our health care system is in the dumps. Further than that I cannot speculate.

   If you in fact believe a significant subset of children are more susceptible to autism, why not cite something that you base your conclusion on?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code