- BIG NEWS:
- Health
- |
- Relationships
- |
- Spirituality
- |
- Religion
- |
|
||
Notes From the Big "Anti-Vaccine" Conference
Read More:
Autism, Autism One, Autism Thimerosal, Autism Vaccine Mercury, Autism Vaccines, Cdc, Mitochondria, Myelin, Vaccine Safety,
Living News
Last weekend, the Autism One organization held its annual conference in Chicago, attended by thousands of parents, doctors, educators and others, to discuss a wide array of autism-related issues. The New York Times labeled it an "anti-vaccine" conference and the Chicago Tribune portrayed it as a freak-show spectacle straight off the island of Dr. Moreau.
Yes, there was some discussion of vaccines - and some admittedly unconventional, and controversial, autism therapies. But there was so much more than that. Out of nearly 150 presentations, only a few dealt directly with vaccines at all. Most of the days were filled with topics such as "Creating Theater with Autism Spectrum Youth," "Epilepsy in Autism: An Overview," and "Perspectives from cell biology and autism risk factors and treatments," a fascinating talk by the forward-thinking Dr. Mark Noble, Professor of Genetics and Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Rochester.
My own remarks dealt with vaccines, and so much more as well, including environmental mercury, wild-type viruses, tainted food, air pollution, pesticides, arsenic, antimony, formaldehyde in household products, even pet shampoo.
I believe that most ASD cases have environmental triggers (probably more than one) that activate certain genetic predispositions (again, probably more than one) and create some of the symptoms that we call "autism." I also believe that vaccines may have played a role in triggering some - though certainly not all - cases of regressive autism. Even if that number is a small minority, it seems sensible to me to study the mechanism of action, in hopes of finding clues to the development of autism in all those other children.
Because my own interest in the cause of autism extends well beyond thimerosal, MMR vaccine, or the immunization program itself, I chose to speak about three potential factors in autism - metals, myelin (which coats the brain and nerve cells) and mitochondria - that could possibly trigger the disorder, with or without the involvement of vaccines or vaccine components.
I believe that the study of environmental triggers - other than vaccines - can provide some sorely needed middle ground in what has turned out to be one of the most contentious and vitriolic issues of our day. That doesn't mean that research into genes - or vaccines - should or would stop. But it might provide for a way forward from here.
Most reasonable people agree that autism has an environmental component. Recent analyses from California show that widening diagnostic criteria are not responsible for the explosive growth in autism cases in that state.
And stay tuned for new numbers coming out of the US Military that will shatter the current national estimate of 1-in-150 kids - which, by the way, was calculated in 2002, by analyzing children born in 1994. That's right, our most current CDC autism statistics are seven years old, and describe people who are now at least 15 years of age. The CDC cannot even tell us when it might finish analyzing its 2004 data - on children born in 1996 - though it knows exactly how many H1N1 cases are in, say, California today.
As I said in my remarks, these are just my own personal musings, spoken out loud. I offer proof of nothing, and answers to no questions. I draw no conclusions. My only point is that, if we are going to find the actual environmental triggers to autism, we had better get busy. Heavy metals, damage to myelin, and the role of mitochondria are just three of the many, many areas where I believe that Federal research dollars should be targeted.
I am sure that this modest proposal will spark the usual hew and cry from the usual gallery of reactionaries - one of whom just wrote at Daily Kos that, even if all autism cases were caused by vaccines, there would be no reason to alter or even examine the immunization program.
People who ask questions about vaccine safety are now being called "pro-disease." Some are supporting censorship of any talk about vaccines and autism. Yet many of these same voices balk and squawk at the very idea of researching potential factors like mercury from coal, live viruses, pesticides, aluminum, formaldehyde, jet fuel and many other toxins.
That mystifies me. If science could pinpoint the exact triggers that produce autism - and they had nothing do with vaccines - this debate would end, as far as I am concerned, and happily so.
METALS, MYELIN & MITOCHONDRIA - PATHWAYS TO AUTISM? -- Remarks by David Kirby, Autism One, Chicago, May 2009I first want to say that this conference was described by The New York Times as "an anti-vaccine conference." And, you know, when I read that I actually laughed out loud. And I thought, "What would you even do at an anti-vaccine conference, anyway?" And I know there are some people in this audience who are anti-vaccine, and they have that right. I just don't happen to be one of those people.
The reason I get upset at being called "anti-vaccine" is that, A), it's untrue, and B), I do think vaccines are important. And I think we can vaccinate more safely than we do in this country. But the label is used as a weapon. It is used as a tool against people like me. And even though it's a lie, it is so much easier to dismiss somebody if you think that they're anti-vaccine. "He's a kook. He's a nut. He doesn't know what he's talking about."
And now we're into the rhetoric that has gotten so heated that people like me are called "pro-disease." It's like Karl Rove is writing the playbook for these people. Because it's gotten that political, it's gotten that nasty. So, I'm going to fight back against that label.
This is not an "anti-vaccine conference." There's a discussion tonight about athletics in autism, and one on relationships in autism.
And we are here to talk about a lot more than vaccines. And that's sort of the theme of my speech, too. Because for quite a while now, I have believed there are many, many different ways to get to what we call "autism." And I think we really need to step back from vaccines, we need to step back from Thimerosal, we need to step back from MMR and other specific vaccine components. We need to work backwards and look at the world in its entirety. We need to look at food, air, water, and medicine. And by medicine, yes, that would include vaccines.
Now, the Obama administration just announced they're going to have a national meeting on toxins; and how toxins affect people. And that's exactly where I think this conversation should go. I'm ready for a little middle ground. I'm really tired of the screaming back and forth, you know. We need to find out what's making these kids sick. And I think there's more consensus now that something in the environment or some things in the environment are contributing to that.
So let's look at those things in a more general sense. And that's where - I think - it gets really, really interesting, and where we may find some common ground in science - that there are things in nature that are triggers for autism. I truly believe there are things in the environment that can trigger autism that have nothing to do with vaccines.
I am just a journalist, I'm a layperson, so I view things in a slightly different way than scientists. And I have the luxury of doing that because I get to, you know, play around with theories a little bit, ask different kinds of questions and try to see connections between different things.
And when I look at the situation, I think we've moved way past thimerosal as the one and only cause of autism. And I've just picked three possible routes - Metals, Myelin & Mitochondria - that we'll be talking about tonight. Now, you could make up a very, very long list of potential pathways to autism. But what's so interesting about these three pathways -- and remember, this is all just theory, this is just me, kind of musing out loud -- is that they're found in the natural environmental, or the man-made environment, and they're also found in vaccines.
The other thing that's interesting about these three things is they're interactive. So you might have metals as a contributing factor to autism, but you can't separate that entirely from the fact that metals can also destroy myelin. Metals can destroy mitochondria. They're all interrelated. And I think that we should look at ALL metals. And I think one reason that we haven't looked at all metals is because two of those metals happen to be aluminum and mercury, and those metals also happen to appear in childhood vaccines. If there never was mercury in vaccines, I can pretty much state that we would be much further along at this point in researching heavy metals in autism.
The same with live viruses. Measles virus can affect myelin as a matter of fact. Well, there is live measles virus in the MMR vaccine. Maybe that's one reason why there's been some reluctance to look more carefully into how viruses might be triggers of autism.
And the same is true of mitochondrial dysfunction and overstimulation of the immune system - all sorts of things can happen in that situation. And it does happen in nature - a lot. But talk with Jon and Teri Poling, and you'll find out it can also happen when you give a child nine vaccines in one day.
So maybe what it might take to try to find some middle ground and move research forward is to just put - even for a day - vaccines aside. And let's just look at metals. And let's just look at myelin damage - what can damage myelin. And let's look at mitochondria - and many, many other things.
But I am here to discuss these three things. And, I am not here to give you any answers. I don't have any answers. My job is to ask the questions. I also draw no conclusions. But my message to you is this: If I were running the show, and if I were dishing out the research dollars, these are some of the areas that I would be pursuing, posthaste. And if I were a scientist, these are some of the things that I would be wanting to study with federal money, including some money coming into the NIH right now.
The rest of the transcript, with slides, has been posted here:
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
jho%2BY51DDF36UAGb2YX78RDz624BH9%2FOlDzBSSpol8xCbR%2BBBaRMUMmqLObLAK8TJfGHHUav5TWQXb%2FVcg%2BAQjZdadh5AH87
%2F98anlMJ4FTsOK1QvgbE2x%2FtFcu36PDdQCR0le5RNiHJOeo%2B%2FFE9CQ%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
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
I'm grateful to the parents, doctors, scientists and journalists who are courageous enough to question the "mainstream". I just wish I'd found you all before I allowed my family to be fully vaccinated. It's frustrating to read the articles and books that go back decades outlining the concerns and side effects of vaccinations. When my children were young, I blindly trusted my doctors and government. I believed that they would never knowingly harm us. Whatever they required or recommended, I trusted that they did so because they were acting in the best interest of the people of our country (and the countries that accept our help). It has been disturbing to see how often profits are placed over people. Or maybe "some people" are just being placed over other groups of "people" (wealthy shareholders over innocent children). Either way, it seems that "protecting people" is not the greatest motivator of those involved in today's vaccination program...protecting the people in power, or those who profit, maybe THAT's what matters today.
Thankfully, there are still great people "fighting the good fight". I'm glad to see intelligent people on this site patiently, kindly and with a little bit of humor - sharing their wisdom and ideas. It's surprising that those on the "other side" attempt to "win people over" through insults, illogic and the offering of "non-proof" for "scientific fact".
Autism is an epidemic and our children need lots of help. Thank you to those of you fighting for them!
If by 'fighting the good fight" you mean trying to scare parents not to vaccinate their children by citing hearsay, anecdote and discredited science, then I'm happy to be on the other side.
As far as doing something to knowingly harm you, that is a big accusation. But if it is true, then take the doctor to court or file a complaint with state medical board - such a despicable person would deserve to have their license revoked.
As for profits, there are very little to be made by the pharma companies, with the exception of Gardisil, which is admittedly a profit maker for Merck. Our girls have received it, but I understand why not everyone would come to the same conclusion we did.
Finally, protecting people is actually the motivator of those of us who are pro-vaccine. The history of infectious diseases has not been kind to the human race, which is why vaccines were originally developed. I remember as a child seeing polio victims, something children are not likely to ever see, and my smallpox vaccination scar is still visible, a remnant of one of the most successful public health programs ever, that has now completely eradicated a scourge that killed as many as 500 million people and by some estimates wiped out 95% of the Native American population.
We are not interested in protecting people in power, nor those who profit. We are interested in making sure parents base decisions on accurate information.
"Thankfully, there are still great people "fighting the good fight". I'm glad to see intelligent people on this site patiently, kindly and with a little bit of humor - sharing their wisdom and ideas. It's surprising that those on the "other side" attempt to "win people over" through insults, illogic and the offering of "non-proof" for "scientific fact".
Autism is an epidemic and our children need lots of help. Thank you to those of you fighting for them!"
You comments are a complete insult for those healthcare providers and researchers who spend their lives poorly paid, in the autism field. Just because they may not think vaccines are the root of all evil, you disregard them as illogical.
There is no conspiracy between science and the government over this.
"You comments are a complete insult for those healthcare providers and researchers who spend their lives poorly paid, in the autism field. Just because they may not think vaccines are the root of all evil, you disregard them as illogical."
Funny, I didn't see the words "healthcare providers" or "researchers " in his/her post.
"There is no conspiracy between science and the government over this."
I didn't see the word " conspiracy" in his/her post either.
Hello isjois.
I just want to agrre wth you in that there are still great people "fighting the good fight" & add that influentual people who care are watching this matter very close & we're almost where we need to be.
It's interesting how people think about scientists. This is what wikipedia says: "A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method."
That comes pretty close to what I think a scientist is. Just because someone has gone to university, works as a scientist or can put his name on research papers, does not make him or her a scientist. Science is a way of thinking. You don't even have to go to school to be a scientist. What is necessary, though, is knowledge, independent, analyical thinking, and intelligence to put together all the necessary pieces to come to a conclusion.
It's interesting to note that scientists of the past were convinced that mercury had healing powers. Only in the second half of the 20th century did scientists move away from that notion. Until then many patients were subject to inadvertent quackery.
People are welcome to call themselves what they want, but most people would consider someone a scientist who performs testable hypotheses about the natural world. If we want novel therapeutics for disease, they arent going to come without actual experimentation in a laboratory. As wonderful or creative an idea may be (a hypothesis), unless it is rigorously tested then it will not be shown to be of any use (become a theory).
If we look back at the last century, due to properly performed research we advanced modern healthcare in such great ways. For example in many fields such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. For this this required not only laboratory experiments, but properly trained individuals with a thorough understanding of the principles of science. Unfortunately, in order to make these and future advances requires training at university and research by methods of the scientific principle. If you can suggest a better alternative please do.
Further to this addressing your final comments on mercury, then again it was science-based medicine that demonstrated mercury was a neurotoxin in high concentrations.
It wasn't really science-based medicine. It was medical necessity. Too many patients had very nasty experiences with mercury. Acrodynia is only one. It took those medical scientists a long time to acknowledge that they had been prescribing toxins. Nobody shouted it form the roof tops when the discovery was made. Teething powder was taken off the market and Acrodynia vanished. Merthiolate and mercurochrome were taken off the market ever so quietly because a number of babies died when, as newborns, their navel areas were treated with Merthiolate. There were very few headlines when those things happened. Usually scientists don't keep quiet over something they discover. The only way this can be explained is by them feeling ashamed and worried over lawsuits.
Sometimes people with degrees and lots a nice credentials also fail to follow the scientific method.
And sometimes people with drivers licenses fail to follow the rules of the road. But that doesn't invalidate traffic laws.
Here's the great thing about the scientific method - it's self correcting. If a scientist doesn't play for the rules, he will likely be be found out. If an accepted theory has a hole, it will be found out. Scientists constantly poke and prod and try to disprove each others' work, because that's how the system works. And it's worked well. There was a time in the not too distant pass when anecdote and personal experience were mistaken for truth.
Absolutely. Like Wakefield and the Geiers. Good job noticing that.
"Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countries"
So was it an accident or intentional?
http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html
"People who ask questions about vaccine safety are now being called "pro-disease.""
Wow, I hadn't heard that one. I guess if I needed to stoop to their level I would refer to them as "pro-brain-damage".
Why do they always resort to such childish levels? Name-calling seems to be all they got going for 'um - the truth damn well ain't on their side.
Yes, Kirby throws out allegations without backing them up. It's so easy to write that the anonymous they call people who question vaccines "pro-disease." Who does? Really? And then Crunchy, godbless him/her, continues the anonymous they game. We've missed your witty reparte, Crunchy.
Oh, and yes he does back up allegations, obviously you've never read one of his books. Very different from the rantings of people on your side who only write about "us" who speak out against the vaccine schedule and vaccine ingredients. Why not write about facts? Oh, because their numbers are pulled from a hat in some lab that's tainted with pharma stock holders employees who think it's okay to be swimming in conflict of interest as long as they DISCLOSE the COI? The only thing factual there is the lack of ethics.
"even if all autism cases were caused by vaccines, there would be no reason to alter or even examine the immunization program."
Which equates to: no reason to alter or even examine the potential damage to our dividends.
This is the sort of thing that would make our historical scientists, you know, the REAL scientist, roll over in their graves.
Jonas Salk was an historic scientist
And for his generation, he did a good thing.
whats your source?
So in essence, the bottom line here from this presentation is that a combination of environmental and genetic elements = disease.
Now the scientific community should listen to these people for advice, after coming to the same conclusion that the scientific community has be thinking / researching for many, many years. Nobody previously thought complex diseases such as autism, diabetes and heart disease was a combination of these factors.
Thanks for the heads up.
Final point, when showing data its normal scientific practice to cite the source of said data.
"So in essence, the bottom line here from this presentation is that a combination of environmental and genetic elements = disease."
Disease? You're referring to Autism as a "disease"?
Is that the best you can come up with?
Address the statement
Yes - TheBlackCat - we are all going to die. I doubt you will be disagreed with on that point.
However, why are we trading "quality" of life for "quantity" of life. Ok - so we "may" live longer, but are we living better (healthier)?
Perhaps we are trading infectious diseases for long term chronic disorders. Why not look at who fares better when infectious diseases strike (usually those who consume a more nutrituous diet, those who exercise, etc.) and make sure that the population follows their lead? Why not administer anti-virals and antibiotics to those people who are suffering from extreme reactions to infectious diseases? We use vaccines on populations today - like there are not all the options to treat infectious diseases that there are.
Vaccines are causing harm. Stop avoiding the topic. The pharmaceutical companies and the government conceded they harm people. Why won't you? Are you waiting for all of these children to start claiming social security and turn us into a third world nation?
If you think we're trading quality of life for quantity of life then you have absolutely no idea of the quality of life our forebearers had. Kudos for demonstrating a complete lack of historical knowledge regarding the misery previous generations endured.
Kwombles - regarding "the misery previous generations endured": I did not endure misery when I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's and received only a small fraction of the vaccines received by babies & kids today. My friends, family, classmates, neighbors, etc. were only vaccinated for polio, smallpox, and tetanus. We all came down with measles, chicken pox, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, and flu, and nobody I knew suffered any lasting consequences from these common childhood illness. Yes, I know there can be rare complications, but to imply widespread misery and poor quality of life is a great exageration.
Unless of course you are going back to the middle ages or the stone ages, in which case there were a lot of differences besides no vaccines, such as no plumbing and no antibiotics.
We generally lived quite comfortably a few decades without so many vaccines. I for one believe that some vaccines have value in preventing serious prevalent diseases, but vaccines are not without risks and adverse effects, which must be weighed against the benefits.
And an essential component of a vaccine program is to study and understand adverse events so as to make vaccines as safe as possible, understand susceptibility factors, provide appropriate treatment for vaccine injuries, and truly be able to weigh the risks and benefits instead of making decisions such as, "We'll vaccinate all babies against Hep B on the first day of life, whether they need it or not, because we assume there is no
What harm are vaccines causing?
CTA: Autism, ADHD, diabetes, asthma, allergies, SIDS, seizures, inflammatory bowel disease, inflammation, mitochondrial disease, impaired methylation...
The harm of NOT vaccinating vastly outweighs any harm vaccines do. The folks on here arguing this point will agree that nothing is without risk, vaccines included. No rationally minded person would say otherwise. However, it is highly unlikely that vaccines have caused autism. Vaccines may have side effects, but autism is not one of them
Part II
Even if we cure every disease in existance today, it WON'T MATTER. New diseases will emerge. If we conquer AIDS, or all cancers, something will take their place. Of course that doesn't mean we just throw up our hands and let everyone just die because what's the point. We are humans, and we are compassionate, and we seek to aleviate suffering as best we can. So scientists continue to fight disease even KNOWING that in the end, another disease will simply re emerge. As humans continue to become increasingly overpopulated, it is likely that we will continue to see more new diseases which coincide with this overpopulation. Nature may not be ABLE to contain our species as well as she'd like, but she's sure going to try.
At the end of the day, disease will always ALWAYS exist because humans need a predator, humans need to die, and it's not enough to just wait for all of us to die of old age or accidents, and that predator is disease. We are still animals, we are still part of nature, and it is the epitome of arrogance to think that somehow we will just be left to live on this planet without having to be subject to the circle of life just like every other animal. Our technology and inteligence can only bring us so far.
which isn't to say there aren't natural ocurring diseases which aren't exacerbated by human activity. Cancer may exist naturally, but we know that exposure to radiation causes cancer, and that vegetarians have a lesser rate of cancer than non vegetarians. Heart disease exists naturally, and while a perfectly healthy man CAN drop dead at 40 from a heart condition, we all know that diet and exercize greatly decrease one's chances of this happening.
So it's not like I'm saying that environmental and lifestyle factors DON'T affect rates of certain kinds of diseases. And as I stated, I am talking about deadly diseases, not one such as autism or schitzophrenia, which effect behavior.
Just that even without these things, even if we are somehow able to neutralize these other variables in the future, disease still is going to occur and it's still going to kill us, because SOMETHING has to. Because that's the way nature works.
Part I
This is not in regards to autism, but in regards to the fact that many posters here seem to be wondering why diseases exist at all? Why, when infectious diseases are largely wiped out, do new diseases, such as chronic diseases or cancer, appear?
Obviously some things come into play: the fact that we are now living long enough to GET diseases like alzheimers, whose age of onset is 68, also that we are a very unhealthy people, mostly fat and lazy, and that processed foods are replacing our natural foods, which far and away provide better and safer nutrition.
But there is something else, something that will persist even IF we all lived perfectly healthy lifestyles. The fact of the matter is this: Nature. People need to die.
Humans are very rarely killed by predators anymore, and even before modern civilization, we were never big prey animals.
Our population needs to be culled. That is simply the way nature works. In the wild, animals are kept in check by other animals and by injury and infection. Humans may die in accidents, but we have largely been able to mitiage things like injury and infection, and now, many infectious diseases. But we still NEED predation, because that's the way nature works. And disease is our predation.
So the beastly animal is the pharma-mafia and since its gone wild, our population is being culled?
"the fact that we are now living long enough to GET diseases like alzheimers, whose age of onset is 68"
If only we had that population of 68+ year-olds who were never vaccinated... for a comparative study.
you missed the point completely. as long as there are humans or any other animal on this planet there will some disease. as we've started to reduce the rate of heart disease, now cancer is becoming the leading cause of disease, being the example.
Wow, I had forgotten why I don't usually bother arguing with the likes of ANB and Josephius. It is a complete waste of time, alas.
David Kirby, keep up the great work. Your article is tremendous.
Well sure it's a waste of time, when nobody will answer his simple questions.
Or provide evidences.
Here's one item used ubiquitously in todays' society in food storage- plastic. Many of us used plastic to store foodstuffs infrequently 20 years ago. Could plasticides leaching into our food be contributing to autistic regression? Have any studies been done?
Kruddler,
What you desribe above really does illustrate the problem. There have been so many changes to our world in the last 50 years. So many new medicines, technologies, subtances. Everything from plastics to vaccines to cell phones to food coloring. Eating and activity habits have drastically changed in America as well. With so many new things all around us, and with so many ailments which have no definitive causality, everything becomes suspect, and understandably so. There are so many variables at play. Add to that the fact that diagnosing of diseases has advanced so much in recent years, especially with genetic testing now being available.
Even with all the advancement that has ocurred, medicine and science have tragic limitations.
My question would be - not, can plastic be harmful, because it can be, but - what environmental "exposure" are children with autism encountering prior to age three, yet generally after age one. The majority of parents state that their children developed normally for the first 12-21 months of life. It is in this small window (12-36 months of age) that children w/autism are facing an environmental insult that results in the children losing previously acquired abilities.
Plastic exposure would exist prenatally and early in life. The same goes for pesticides, heavy metals, airplane sound/pollution, cellular/wireless/internet pollution, cleaning products or chemicals and stress.
The only thing that "most" unborn and newborns are not exposed to are - vaccines. While some moms receive vaccines (or rhogam shots) - pregnant women being vaccinated has largely been the exception. Vaccines are usually introduced (except Hep B) around 2 months of age. Live virus vaccines - after age one. While there are some cases of "classic autism" (perhaps the moms received vaccines near conception or during pregnancy), most autism today is regressive and seen after age one. Other vaccine ingredients are an issue...but, why - if not for the live virus vaccines - aren't we seeing regression prior to administration of the live virus vaccines? If it were just "the metals" in vaccines, wouldn't we see more regression prior to age one?
Parents say they developed normally and I'm not denying that many may develop completely within devlopmental norms, but one of the problems here is that if parents don't know what the developmental norms are, they cannot assess whether these norms are being met. If the development is close, if it doesn't look glaringly different, then early signs can and will be missed. Video footage at frequent intervals with children interacting with people and objects can be key diagnostic tools, and I believe that pediatricians should begin to implement simple five minute video footage at well-baby assessments so that a record can be kept, and deviations from the norm can be identified as quickly as possible.
Please provide your source information that most autism is regressive in nature. Thanks. :-)
"The only thing that "most" unborn and newborns are not exposed to are - vaccines."
The only thing?
How about...say...toothpaste? Sunlight (has global climate change altered the effects of the sun's ray's)? Car exhaust? Country music?
or...stress?
I'd have to disagree. When infants are weaned, either from the breast or the bottle (plastic, mind you - wasn't there a scare with Avent bottles a while back?), I would argue that their bodies are inundated with new antigens present in the solid foods they then eat. In utero, these are prevented from entering the fetus due to the maternal-child barrier (I forget it's proper name) which is similar to the blood-brain barrier. Most babies, mine included, start solid foods at 4-6 months. Plenty of time to accumulate factor x that may contribute to regressive autism.
My question: Does anyone know of (or can provide links to) actual papers describing sudden-onset autism following vaccination with zero symptoms prior to this (and by sudden I mean 24-72 hours)?? I'm not sure how much I buy into claims of normal kids becoming autistic in a day. It's easy to miss subtle signs only a professional could detect; like a hearing loss in very young children, and anecdotes can be often coloured by personal bias. I'm after verifiable evidence.
Good points. Especially since babies change so rapidly between the ages of 2-4, and the indications of autism begin to show between 1-3.
I have trouble believing that this regression after vaccination actually exists.
This does not fully address your questions, but a study was done by Dr. Geraldine Dawson, who was at the time director of the University of Washington Autism Center. Currently Dr. Dawson is Chief Science Officer at Autism Speaks. She has a Ph.D. in developmental and child clinical psychology.
From the article "Regressive autism is real, study shows" by Joel Schwarz, at http://uwnews.org/uweek/article.aspx?id=18670:
"Researchers studying home videotapes of children's first and second birthday parties have confirmed what a number of parents have been claiming for years -- that some youngsters who are seemingly normal at age 1 regress and exhibit the characteristic behaviors of autism by the end of their second year. In a study published this week in the Archives of General Psychiatry, research done at the UW's Autism Center provides the first objective evidence for autistic regression. .."
"'Once again, this study provides an important lesson that parents are good reporters on what is happening with their children. It underscores the importance of professionals to listen to parents,' said Dawson."
This study did not address causation. It only addressed the question of whether some children regress and become autistic after a period of normal development. For years, with typical condescension, parents had been told that they simply did not notice their children's abnormal development and autistic symptoms early on. Instead of just assuming that all parental observations are inaccurate, Dr. Dawson actually investigated, and confirmed those parental observations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml
"’But public health officials have been saying they know, they've been implying to the public there's enough evidence and they know it's not causal,’ Attkisson said.
"’I think you can't say that,’ Healy said…
"Healy goes on to say public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are 'susceptible' to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public.
"'You're saying that public health officials have turned their back on a viable area of research largely because they're afraid of what might be found?' Attkisson asked.
"Healy said: 'There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people... I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.'...
”CBS News has learned the government has paid more than 1,300 brain injury claims in vaccine court since 1988, but is not studying those cases or tracking how many of them resulted in autism.
”The branch of the government that handles vaccine court told CBS News: ‘Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries…may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis.’”
Kruddler -
I just posted two comments, which I had to pare down to be within the 250 word limit.
The first regarding a study by Geraldine Dawson addresses your speculation that "I'm not sure how much I buy into claims of normal kids becoming autistic in a day. It's easy to miss subtle signs only a professional could detect; like a hearing loss in very young children, and anecdotes can be often coloured by personal bias." Of course, many parents of vaccine injured children do not claim that their children became autistic in one day -- it can be over a few days or week or even months -- but in their observation the regression and decline in language, social skills, and health began with the vaccine reaction.
The above study does not address causation of autistic regression. It only addresses that regression after a period of normal regression does in fact occur.
My second comment quotes from a CBS interview of Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of the NIH, on why more research on vaccine injured children has not been done.
Also see:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/12/couricandco/entry4090144.shtml
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/04/14/the-vaccines-autism-war-dtente-needed.html
That occurred more often with the DPT but since the new DTaP's use, the damage is less severe and is a slower progression (most of the time) so it's rare that it happens that quickly today. My brother was a perfectly normal child, one shot and four hours later he had the first of thousands and thousands of seizures. He was never the same since. Changes were obvious and its not rocket science either. We socialized with other families who had the same exact story. I've met hundred's of Mom's online in the last ten years who describe very similar changes, just slower changes and they ALL occurred after a round of vaccines.
The only reason the scientific community can play that card is because they KNOW what a failure VAERS is...they have for a long time, needed it to be the failure it is today. That way, they can use that ever popular line:
"Please provide your source information that most autism is regressive in nature. Thanks. :-)"
Studies often don't exist because they plan it that way. Never vaccinated children do not have autism and the pro-vaccine side has ignored that fact long enough. When asked to produce such children, they have all sorts of excuses that make no sense at all.
If you dare to look way back, you can find old medical journals which describe the vaccine damage that occurred immediately after the DPT in the early 70's.
you and rocket science, huh? You are a conspiracy theorist. I asked her to back up her claim that most autism is regressive and you think the big they in the sky won't run studies to answer questions, but you've got all the answers. In your gut, right?
I'm interested in the measles-autism link. Why wouldn't the wild-type measles virus have been just as likely to trigger autism as the live attenuated measles virus present in a vaccine. The difference between the two comes down to amino acid substitutions. Surely we would have seen much higher incidences of autism pre-vaccination or in countries where measles is still endemic.
I'd have thought it would be even more pronounced, since the rate of complication is much higher with wild-strain measles. I'd guess at least a thousand times higher. Good point.
When all kids used to come down with measles, the autism rate was much lower than today. There is a difference between natural exposure and injection -- especially injection of measles virus at the same time as mumps and rubella virus -- and the adverse reactions are even more frequent when varicella is added.
One thing that is different is that prior to the vaccines kids weren't getting Measles at the same time they were getting Mumps and/or Rubella. Also, they weren't getting a bunch of other vaccines prior to when they get the MMR. This is why a comprehensive review of the program needs to be done. And studies that look at all of the vaccines in combination vs just looking at MMR or thimerosal in isolation (which is all that has been done to this point). One study that hasn't been done is to compare vaccinated populations with unvaccinated populations (now standby for the naysayers to claim that this is a) not possible because they're aren't enough unvaccinated children, or b) unethical because we would have to deny some children life-saving vaccines; both of which have been shown to be are ridiculous arguments).
"I am just a journalist, I'm a layperson, so I view things in a slightly different way than scientists. And I have the luxury of doing that because I get to, you know, play around with theories a little bit, ask different kinds of questions and try to see connections between different things."
Do you have any idea how the scientific process works?
What do you think scientists do?
Take out the first sentence and you have the description of how science is. However, that is people with years of scientific training
that confused me as well. As someone who works in a scientific field, I was very confused when Kirby described exactly what it is that scientists do, which is "play around with theories a little bit, ask different kinds of questions and try to see connections between different things" but then made it seem as if this is exactly what scientists are NOT allowed to do.
I am instantly suspect of someone presenting scientific information, who is then unable to even correctly define the very meaning OF the word "science."
in "science", a theory is a well established body of work, eg. evolution, gravity. the correct term here for an unproven idea is hypothesis.
then again, what do scientists know?
I have researched the mercury issue for quite some time. I am from the "all mercury is dangerous and might be causing harm" camp. I learned of the dangers of mercury because I wanted to know why my son was depressed, moody, ill-tempered etc. The only Google answer I got in 2000 was that it had to do with mercury. My son's mouth had been stuffed full of amalgams, 30 before he was 3 years old. He did not start talking until he was three and a half.
The article "Die Gefaehrlichkeit des Quecksilberdampfes" by the German chemist Alfred Stock appeared in 1926. It started what, in Germany, was called the second "amalgam war." The first one in the mid-eighteen hundreds also occurred over amalgams. The similarity of intensity to what we have right now with the contentious nature directed at the "vaccine whackos" is amazing. The majority of contenders then were dentists.
Today many "scientists?" are equally as contentious. I am not going to name names.
But getting back to Alfred Stock, the motto for his 1926 article was in Latin, and it read: "Quem Mercurius perdere vult, dementat prius."
By the way, if I were to have my son diagnosed today at age 43, he might be diagnosed as having Aspergers.
My knowledge of mercury helped him. His depression improved tremendously since his amalgams were removed, and his mood swings have nearly disappeared since his amalgams were removed about four years ago.
I suggest you read this link for some science on this issue:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
