I am an immunologist (basic science), and have been admonished (if not duck taped) by the science community that is heavily backed by "translational research intitiatives " (i.e. R&D that is backed by industry and that is done in large part for commercial value) each time I have written about the very real potential to disrupt immune homeostasis by our over-enthusiastic vaccine fetish. Sure it is a cash cow for big pharma, but we were once as blissfully ignorant with the overuse of antibiotics - and now we have resistant strains and health conditions resulting from misuse.
I think it is unlikely preservatives or metals in vaccine formulations actually cause autism - but I do suspect there is a real possiblity that the way in which vaccines nonspecifically expand components of adaptive immunity (antibodies in particular) that may lead to the development of conditions such as autism and severe allergies (peanuts are now banned from preschool!). From what I've gleaned, children with autism have an unusually high number of auto-antibodies (which some researchers tried to link with immune cells from the mother) as well as a high degree of food intolerances.
Because there aren't many populations that don't give any vaccines to infants these days and the difficulty in diagnosing autism makes it unlikely to pick up in areas where vaccine programs aren't implemented nationally, epidemiological studies cannot pick-up either causation or association with any degree of confidence.
Dr. Bernadine Healy: Don't Dismiss Vaccine Link
Misery loves company, and so do controversial journalists.
As someone who has come under, shall we say, "sniper fire" for refusing to concede that there is no link between vaccines and autism, I now have a semi tongue-in-cheek response to my once and future critics: "Go tell it to Dr. Healy."
Tonight on CBS News, Sharyl Attkisson, (another reporter who questions the government's dismissal of any vaccine-autism link) conducted an extraordinary interview with "a powerful medical voice," who is "breaking ranks with her colleagues" on the autism contretemps: Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health.
She was interviewed on the first day of the first test-case hearing in so-called Vaccine Court, on whether the mercury-based preservative thimerosal can cause autism.
"I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as 'irrational,' without sufficient studies of causation... without studying the population that got sick," Dr. Healy told Attkisson. "I have not seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of the vaccines."
This is exactly what I, and many other government critics have been saying for years: Large population studies are not enough to disprove a link. One must look at the kids who actually regressed into autism, and determine what factor or factors might have contributed to their regression.
This is especially true if there is a subset of children who are particularly susceptible to such environmental triggers. "Populations do not test causality," Dr. Healy said, "they test associations."
And she noted, "We do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children -- perhaps medically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, medical issue -- that makes them more susceptible to vaccines, plural, or to one particular vaccine, or to a component of vaccines, like mercury."
The problem is, prestigious groups such at the Institute of Medicine have concluded there is no link, based almost solely on large population studies, without giving enough consideration to data culled from children who actually developed the disorder.
Dr. Healy is a member of the IOM: "I love Institute of Medicine," she said, "but a report from 2004 basically said, 'Do not pursue susceptibility groups. Don't look for those children who may be vulnerable.' I really take issue with that conclusion."
The reason why officials didn't want to look for those groups? "Because they were afraid that, if they found them, however big or small they were, that would scare the public away," Dr. Healy explained. "They don't want to pursue this hypothesis because it could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. I don't believe the truth ever scares people."
Dr. Healy is hardly "anti-vaccine," and neither am I. In fact, I agree completely that, "if we identified a particular risk factor for vaccines, or if we found out that they should be spread out a little longer, I do not believe that the public would lose faith in vaccines. I think the public is smarter than that. You should never turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you are afraid of what it might show."
What it "might show" is precisely what attorneys are arguing this month in vaccine court: According to research from the University of Washington, primates exposed to thimerosal had an accumulation of mercury in their brains. Similar accumulation has been shown to activate certain brain cells, producing "neuro-inflammation" and brain swelling. Autopsies on deceased people with autism also show chronic neuro-inflammation and activation of the same brain cells, known as glial cells.
Like many people reading this post, Dr. Healy at first considered the vaccine-autism link to be "silly." But, she said, "the more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that has been done in animals, if you look at some of the individual cases, and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is, the question has not been answered."
Thank you, Dr. Healy. On behalf of open minded journalists, researchers, parents, politicians (including all three presidential candidates) and Huffington Post readers, your candor is a welcome addition to this debate. You have placed a much-needed wake up call to your esteemed colleagues: Some will attack you; but the majority will listen.
NOTE: CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has posted her own blog on this subject.
CNN correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta also interviewed Dr. Healy and wrote about it on his blog.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Would you be willing to point me to the evidence that vaccines induce non-specific Abs? Thanks!
Are you familiar with the background on the use of adjuvants to lower the threshhold for T cell and B cell activation? We are just at the point of understanding the mechanism by which vaccines and adjuvants change the reactivity and check-points in immune activation (there is a new article in Immunity on how vaccines lower the threshhold for TCR triggering and there is an excellent review in the same journal from Nov. 2007 which is entitled: "How Do Adjuvants Work?"
I have just started looking into the connection between the rise in allergies and autoimmune disorders and the wide spread initiation of intensive vaccine schedules. A good starting reference to give you would be the following study:
"Is Infant Immunization a Risk Factor for Childhood Asthma or Allergy?"
Trudi Kemp; Neil Pearce; Penny Fitzharris; Julian Crane; David Fergusson; Ian St. George;
Kristin Wickens; Richard Beasley; Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 6. (Nov., 1997), pp. 678-680.
From their findings "The Christchurch Health and Development Study comprises
1,265 children born in 1977. The 23 children who received no diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT) and polio immunizations had no recorded asthma episodes or consultations for asthma or other allergic illness before age 10 years; in the immunized children, 23.1% had asthma episodes, 22.5% asthma consultstions, and 30.0% consultations for other allergic illness. Similar differences were observed at ages 5 and 16 years."
This would be evidence of bystander effects of polyclonal expansion of antibodies.
LindsE - (it looks like I'm replying to my own post - but for some reason yours doesn't have a reply button...). Anyhow, you're a person to have coffee (or tea) with - and to have a good chat with. My doctoral thesis was on finding out how a particular superantigen that causes toxic shock syndrome hijacks the immune system - and calling it complex is an understatement! Vaccines generally would not lead to either clonal deletion or anergy (would defeat the purpose) - ideally it would only expand the repetoire of T and B cells specific for the antigen - but obviously this plan can be corrupted in a number of ways - for example by the co-introduction of another antigen that happens to be in the environment where activation is taking place. It is heartening to see that at least you're keeping an open mind and looking at the research before succumbing to the mindset of the scientific community who have lost the ability (in many circumstances) to be both objective and self-critical - especially when major profits are at stake.
That new Immunity paper you mentioned looks really interesting, although at first glance it doesn't look like they address actual signaling thresholds, so I'm not sure it's exactly what I was expecting (or hoping for, as my research relates to this somewhat). The other reference you cited is also interesting, but there also seems to be a literature showing the opposite correlation between pertussis vaccination and atopy/allergy (i.e. pertussis vaccination correlates with lower risk of allergy). Do you have any thoughts on that? I think this is fascinating. Pippa Marrack made an interesting point at a talk I heard her give a year or so ago--basically the reason we use alum as an adjuvant for human vaccines is that it really is not a very potent adjuvant. Another thing to think about is that adjuvants can also prevent some autoimmune diseases (I'm thinking particularly of CFA in NOD mice). This seems to be a very complex issue!
SPEAKING UP FOR VACCINES AND THEIR IMPORTANCE
For parents who may be concerned about vaccine safety, I'd like to suggest you look at the website:
http://voicesforvaccines.org/Home/
this is a site created by people who understand and believe in the safety of vaccines. It is not funded by any pharma or medical organization. I would direct you to the "stories" section, where you can read the story of a young boy who died needlessly of a vaccine-preventable disease.
This shouldn't stop the research that those on this blog want, but we need to balance the consequences of messages they make parents worry about with the consequences of going unvaccinated. And remember, the consequences of going unvaccinated has clear, proven consequences. We can't say the same about vaccines and autism.
(Indicidentally, I am not and never have been paid to promote vaccine or any drug products by anyone. I'm simply who believes that vaccines save lives. Like all things in medicine, they have risks, but autism is not one of them)
Rahul Parikh, MD
(Sorry if this is sort of a repeat. I thought I responded to this post earlier, but may have missed the "Post" button.)
In addition to being a front for organizations that are pushing this agenda, I see that Dr. Paul Offit is on the steering committee. So much for not having a conflict of interest.
And, again you're making blanket statements that ignore logic. You can't prove a negative (someday I hope you'll understand what that means).
It's horrible when children die (young or old -- the "young boy" referenced in the story above was college age). It's also horrible when they get life-long debilitating conditions like autism. I find it sad that your position seems to be that this is an either-or situation. If there is concern about the safety of vaccines in this country then you should tell us about real research that demonstrates that the vaccines are safe -- not "stories" (there's actually only one story, so far) about a child who died. I also noticed that there is no section on the above referenced web site for anything related to research in this area.
ObjectiveAutismDad, mentioning For-Profit Offit and Conflict of Interest in the same sentence is a bit redundant, don't ya think? :P
The site mentions an older child dying of a vaccine preventable disease. This is a truly sad thing, but if they wanted to be objective as they claim they are, wouldn't it be prudent to mention the thousands of children injured by vaccines?
But of course, since For-Profit is running the show, the testimony of parents like us will be completely ignored.
Actually, Dr. P, if you look up who sponsors the site, it is a front run by the CDC, using an organization that is called the Task Force for Child Survival as a cover. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Here we go again... To paraphrase: we don't have any idea what it is, but it's not the vaccines or any of the vaccine adjuncts. You can't prove a negative; your statement is patently illogical. And, in addition, where are the safety studies for all of these vaccines that you're trying to force on people???
I noticed that Dr. For-Profit-Offit is on the steering committee for the site you referenced. So much for conflict of interest.
It's really sad when children die. And it's really sad that you're not doing anything to assuage the fears that people have when it comes to a (more than likely) life long debilitating condition. The decrease in the vaccination rates is a direct result of the obfuscation and blind folded arrogance of the main stream medical community.
Not everyone can take penicillin. Not everyone can eat peanuts. (Both of things can potentially kill you, if you're allergic to them.) But for some reason everyone HAS to take their vaccines; and if you don't we'll make a law to force you to.
Unfortunately, Dr. Healy is not an immunologist, not a neurologist, not an infectious disease expert. She was trained as a pathologist and has not practiced medicine of any sort for many years. Her very qualified endorsement of further research must be considered in that light.
So is it your position then that we shouldn't do any more research??? For a condition that has no known (proven) cause? That affects 1 in 150 children; roughly 1 in 96 boys? Let me clue you in on something -- we live in a democracy in this country. That means anybody gets to ask for more research. Then somebody has to sort out which requests get the funding. With over 1% of the male children in this country afflicted by this -- we're going to get the money, sooner or later.
Hi,
I have one other question if someone can answer it for me? Looking at that 2004 IOM report Dr. Healy is questioning, I don't see her name on the review committee or as an author of the report. Can someone explain why she is speaking out if she wasn't directly involved in the review of the evidence.
If not, could this be the equivalent of another celebrity endorsement?
"If not, could this be the equivalent of another celebrity endorsement?"
Is that your title for your next Pediatric's piece? You are really reaching....
This is an absolutely ridiculous comment. Dr. Healy questioned the statement in the conclusion of the IOM report which basically stated no further research should be done this area. She takes issue with that, as do most rational people. If only the authors of studies were able to question them there wouldn't be any questions.
Does her name have to be on the report, according to you? No, it does not, you know why? Because, she does not have to be on the report to have reviewed it and see the discrepancies. You should know that being a doctor and all. Do you have to be in on the research team to believe that it has been done correctly? If so, have you researched everything you practice? Also, what do you practice? I do believe this has been asked before, I am not too sure if you have answered.
I thought it was a reasonable question myself, but I know those of us that question things are frowned upon around here.
I think you missed Dr. P's point. He's objecting to the fact that Dr. Healy asked a question! Do you think it's unreasonable for Dr. Healy to question the conclusion of a report that she didn't author? It's rather ironic that you made your statement -- because it seems that the position that you and Dr. P. have taken is that it's not appropriate for the rest of us to ask questions.
We question the safety of the current vaccine program because we have anecdotal evidence from parents and empirical evidence from reputable researchers that there may be a problem. The vast majority of your comments are objections, to those of us who are affected by this, for even asking these questions. Along comes yet another respectable Doctor and you object to her questions. You are part of the problem right now -- rather than helping to find a solution.
Craig, after a cursory look at both studies Kinsbourne references with Vargas as an author, I don't see any references to mercury. It was a very quick glance, though, so maybe I missed it. Let me know if you can point me specifically where that is. Thanks!
Very interesting post, LindsE. I agree with you 100% about the collection of ASD disorders.
I do have an observation for you, however. I think that Kinsbourne's hypothesis about the mercury accumlation on the brain was supported by the autopsies done during the Vargas study that showed both neuroinflammation and high mercury content in the brain of a person with autism. That certainly supports the Burbacher study, and would give a good frame of reference for his additional findings.
As I said, just an observation.
...continued from previous post
The other thing I thought was interesting in the Kinsbourne report was that the only other references in the section regarding mercury accumulation in the brain were papers from 1994-1996. I'd be surprised if there haven't been follow ups to these.
So those are the weaknesses I see with the Kinsbourne report--I thought it seemed one sided, and the selection of references seems to bear that out. I'm not sure if that's just a product of the context in which the report was written though. I have no problems with the idea that mercury accumulation can cause neuroinflammation and that neuroinflammation can cause symptomology. Its the mercury accumulation in the brain part that I don't think is well supported, therefore everything subsequent to that becomes somewhat irrelevant.
It's actually funny you should reference the Kinsbourne report...somehow I came upon it a few days ago and ended up reading the whole darn thing, despite my best intentions to just skim it. I personally found the report itself very one-sided, which I suppose is not unexpected, given the context. I wasn't impressed by a lot of the references, as far as the journals in which they were published. Admittedly, I haven't read each of the references cited, and some of them are in very good journals.
Some of his points are very interesting, and I particularly liked his emphasis of the fact that regressive autism is a distinct subtype. I think I mentioned this before, but I think ASDs are a collection of disorders, and that our failure to try to separate them into different subgroups in research is hampering the research effort.
Kinsbourne's comments regarding accumulation of mercury in the brain is based almost entirely on the Burbacher study, the results of which commonly get blown out of proportion. The study he cites simply shows that in infant monkeys clearance of inorganic Hg is faster in the blood than in the brain. Other studies have shown that following injection a large quantity of mercury from thimerosal is secreted in the urine and feces, and doesn't damage the kidneys in the process.
...continued from previous post (darn, I forgot one thing): I think Dr. Healy mentioned in the interview that one of the things that led her to speak out now was the preponderance of research that has been done on this issue over the past few years (hence the reference to Dr. Kinsbourne's testimony). (I too, wondered why she had waited till now to speak -- until I watched it again.)
LindsE, Thank you for the apology. And, I apologize for any non-objective statements that I've made as well. It's easy to get emotional when you're where we're at; and I constantly try to remind myself to stick something between stimulus and response :)
Regarding empirical evidence I've included a link below to Dr. Kinsbourne's testimony in the Autism Omnibus hearings from last year because it contains the most complete listing of the empirical evidence that I've seen to date. The final six pages of this report list over 60 studies on the issue of (mostly) mercury and vaccines, but some on vaccines more generally. You may consider these "weak", "non-existent", not "legitimate" and not "credible" studies (all terms you've used in other posts) -- but many well respected scientists and Doctors do not:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Kinsbourne_Final_Report_April_2008.pdf
In this particular thread, I don't think he objected to anyone's questions. He was attacked for questioning though, and I have a problem with that. I already pointed out that I misunderstood Dr. Healy's IOM membership with respect to this particular report. I guess the question I was thinking more of was if she was part of the IOM at the time the report was issued, why didn't she speak of then? I suppose that's a question that still remains...why is she speaking up now? I guess the best answer to your concerns about my response to the initial question is that I didn't read carefully and had a kneejerk reaction when someone else was attacked for asking a question. My apologies.
LindsE, Ok, yes you did not actually object to anyone questions; you just agreed with Dr. P. when he did.
Why is it necessary that Dr. Healy be a member of the IOM at the time the report we written to have issues with it? I don't know if she was; maybe you got that impression because she stated during the interview that she is [currently] a member of the IOM. The whole point of this thread is that Dr. P. wants to know "...why she is speaking out if she wasn't directly involved..."; you said you thought that was a valid question!?
I haven't objected to anyone asking questions. I thought this in particular question was valid because the impression I got somewhere along the way implied that Dr. Healy was on the IOM at the time the report in question was issued. Right now, I'm not sure where I got that impression from, but that was the basis of my curiosity regarding that particular issue.
I believe the only thing that I have questioned is the empirical evidence you continually reference. If you read my other comments, you'll see that I haven't objected in any way to Dr. Healy's suggestion that more research should be done. I believe more research can definitely be used. It seems to me that you're shooting off at the mouth at me because you feel threatened that I question anything. I'm sorry if that's a problem for you, but I fully intend to continue asking hard questions and expecting people to use their critical thinking skills and keep asking people to base their decisions on reason and evidence rather than emotion. Again, I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.
I would like to know, have you ever had an interest in doing a study on this LindsE? Is there any small part of you that is just curious to know if there could be any real possibility to this? It seems like you have enough interest in this.
The way most funding works is that an individual investigator (sometimes groups) submit a grant proposal. The proposal is reviewed by a panel of scientists and some number of them are funded. The vast majority of funding for biological research comes from the NIH, and the NIH budget is controlled by congress. The problem right now is that the NIH budget doubled some years back, resulting in at glut of investigators. However, the budget hasn't even increased with inflation for the past few years. So now there are many more people applying for basically the same amount of money. If I can come up with a good idea and some coherent experiments to test it, I'll definitely apply for funding. But as I said before, the chances of being funded by the NIH are running around less than 10% right now, probably lower for the initial submission (most grants are funded after a revision or two). Hopefully, at some point, I'll be able to put together some preliminary data with the reagents I currently have on hand. I haven't looked into private sector funding for autism studies, so that may be another avenue to pursue.
Are you in a position to convince your colleges to push for funding?
I mentioned this a bit in my comment below, but yes! I absolutely would love to be able to apply my expertise to the study of autism in some way. Funding is very tight at the moment (NIH is funding less than 10% of grants in some institutes). Therefore, to some extent, the money you're awarded drives the direction of the research, as your primary focus has to be what your grant proposed. However, I'm definitely keeping my eyes and ears open, reading the literature, contemplating new ideas and trying to figure out if there's somewhere I can fit my research into this. Only time will tell, I guess.
dr p-
You have not been honest nor answered direct questions. I doubt anyone here puts much trust in you, your information, and your tactics in propaganda distribution (Pediatrics).
If you are trying to use Dr. Healy's IOM dates as your "proof", how sad is that.....
Again, what do you gain by denying harm AND continuing to turn your back on susceptible groups?
David - Please read this important new book! Although the author, Dr. Michael Chez, is dismissive of the thimerosal theory, he grips a lot of other third rail issues (even calling much mainstream medical care of children with autism "random"). His colleagues aren't going to be happy reading this book but Chez is, in my view, one of the best (and most controversial) minds in autism research and clinical care today. Many prominent leaders from all camps in the autism community as well as patients from all over the world have sought out his care. You really should read it.
http://www.amazon.ca/Autism-Medical-Management-Michael-Chez/dp/1843108348
CriticalDune
You must have some connection to Chez as I have never heard these compliments. Many parents reported that Dr Chez was rude and not very objective as moderator of the recent IACC meeting. Putting DAN! down while pushing his own book may not win too many parents, fwiw.
Teresa
Considering the fact that the incidence of autism has increased as the level questionable vaccine preservatives have actually decreased over time suggests something else may be in play besid
Posted May 12, 2008 | 08:44 PM (EST)