US Health Officials Back Study Idea on Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children - Will Media Take Note?
It is not accurate for members of the media to report that the link between vaccines and autism has been "disproven." This is especially true in light of recent news from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee - and a series of other news items from the Federal Court of Claims, Federal health agencies, leading universities and top autism researchers around the country. There are now many reasons why the media should continue its coverage of this serious and ongoing debate:
THE NATIONAL VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NVAC)
On Friday, February 27, a special group convened by The Keystone Center on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services' National Vaccine Advisory Committee Vaccine Safety Working Group (NVAC VSWG) recommended appointing a panel of experts to explore the strengths and weaknesses of conducting studies on health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations. The group, known as the "Salt Lake City Writing Group," said it was "desirable" to include autism as one such health outcome.
As they stated in a draft "consensus statement":
"(There is) a strong desire to study the health impact of the immunization schedule, potentially through a 'vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study'. Outcomes to assess include biomarkers of immunity and metabolism, and outcomes including but not limited to neurodevelopmental outcomes, allergies, asthma, immune-mediated diseases, and learning disabilities. The inclusion of autism as an outcome is desired"
The Writing Group supported a recommendation to "charge an expert panel with evaluating study designs for research on the impact of the standard schedule of vaccination on an array of health outcomes of significant public interest. This draft charge is responsive to issues raised at community meetings in Alabama, Oregon, and Indiana as well as the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee request for collaboration with the National Vaccine Program Office."
Writing Group members who drafted the statement included Federal and State health officials, Federal vaccine officials, CDC officials, and leaders of autism and vaccine safety advocacy groups. They included the following individuals:
Federal Health Agencies and Panels
CDC:
Roger Bernier, Ph.D., MPH, Senior Advisor, CDC
Elizabeth Skillen, PhD, MS, Policy Analyst, Immunization Safety Office, CDC
HHS:
Bruce Gellin, M.D., MPH, Director, HHS National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) and Executive Secretary of NVAC
Dan Salmon, Ph.D., Vaccine Safety Specialist, HHS - NVPO
Ben Schwartz, M.D., former Associate Director for Science, HHS and Medical Director for CARE
NVAC:
Guthrie Birkhead, M.D., MPH Chair, HHS National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) and member of NVAC Vaccine Safety Working Group, also Deputy Commissioner, Office of Public Health, NY State Dept. of Health
Andrew Pavia, M.D., NVAC Member & Chair, NVAC Vaccine Safety Working Group and with Dept. of Pediatrics, Utah School of Medicine
Chris Carlson, Ph.D., NVAC Vaccine Safety Working Group Member, and with Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center, Seattle
Lance Gordon, Ph.D., NVAC and member of NVAC Vaccine Safety Working Group
James Mason, M.D., DrPH, NVAC Member and member of NVAC Vaccine Safety Working Group, former CDC Director and former Assistant Secretary of Health
Tawny Buck, member of NVAC Vaccine Safety Working Group, parent of DPT brain injured daughter
State & Local Public Health Agencies and Organizations
Anna Buchannan, MPH, Senior Director, Immunization & Infectious Disease, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO)
Jim Shames, M.D., Medical Director, Jackson County Health Department, OR
David Sundwall, M.D., Executive Director, Utah Department of Health
Collette Young; Ph.D., MS, Surveillance & Training Manager, Oregon Public Health Division, Immunization Program, OR Public Health Division
Robert Bednarczyk, NVAC Research Analyst, NY Department of Health
University/Academic
Joseph A. Bocchini, Jr., M.D., Professor & Chairman, Department of Pediatrics, Louisiana State University
Margaret Dunkle, Senior Fellow, Center for Health Policy Research, George Washington University and Director, Early Identification and Intervention Collaborative, LA County
Alan Greene, M.D., Clinical Profession, Division of General Pediatrics, Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine;
Heather Zwickey, Ph.D., Dean of Research and Associate Professor of Immunology, National College of Natural Medicine, Oregon
Autism or Vaccine Organizations
Peter Bell, Executive Vice President, Programs and Services, Autism Speaks
Sallie Bernard, Executive Director, Safe Minds
Vicky Debold, PhD, RN, Director of Patient Safety, National Vaccine Information Center;
Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-founder & President, National Vaccine Information Center
Members of Public or Other Child Health Groups
Tracy Cron, RN and mother who attended the Birmingham public engagement workshop
Dennis Johnson, MS, Executive VP, Policy & Advocacy, Children's Health Fund, NYC
Debbie McCune Davis, Program Director, Arizona Partnership for Immunization, Arizona State Senator
(PLEASE SEE THE DRAFT CONSENSUS STATEMENT BELOW)
---------------------------------------
Meanwhile, there have been many news stories related to this issue coming out of the Federal Court of Claims, Federal agencies, and leading research centers. Many of these stories have not been reported in the media. They include:
FEDERAL COURT CASES:
Bailey Banks vs HHS - February 2009 - Special Master Abell found that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine caused brain damage in this child, which led to his diagnosis of Pervasive Development Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) an autism spectrum disorder. Bailey will likely receive over $3 million in compensation to cover a lifetime of autism care and treatment.
Hannah Poling vs HHS - February 2008 - Medical personnel at the Health Resources and Services Administration conceded that this girl's autism (and epilepsy) was caused by "vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves." Hannah had a mild case of mitochondrial dysfunction, and received nine vaccines in one day at age 19 months. She now has full blown autism and a very serious seizure disorder.
FEDERAL AGENCIES:
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) & US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - January 2009 - These two agencies have just launched the National Children's Study (NCS), which is now recruiting 100,000 children, among which researchers expect to find 600 to 700 with an ASD by age three. Federal officials will compare these ASD children to controls, to see what impact that vaccines (combined with genetic factors) had on the development of their illness.
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) & National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) - January 2009 - These two Federal health groups announced their desire to collaborate on research designs and methods for investigating the potential links between vaccines and autism, including the feasibility of doing a large study of vaccinated vs. vaccinated children. The move by these officials grew out the process set forth by the Combating Autism Act of 2006, whose authors, Senators Kennedy, Dodd and Enzi stated that vaccines should be included in research of the causes of autism.
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) CADDRE Network - November 2008 - The CDC is conducting and planning several vaccine-autism investigations. One such effort is The National CADDRE Study. This 5-year project of the CDC's Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) Network will "identify what might put children at risk for autism," says the CDC, which will study "specific mercury exposures, including any vaccine use by the mother during pregnancy and the child's vaccine exposures after birth."
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network - April 2008 - The CDC's CISA Network includes leading autism researchers and America's health insurance companies. Last April, CISA and the CDC announced support for studying, "Immunization associated with increased risk for neurological deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction," after learning that mitochondrial disorders are not uncommon in ASD cases. And the CDC also announced that, "CISA has formed a working group to study methods related to mitochondrial disorders and immunization."
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Immunization Safety Office - April 2008 - As part of its draft research agenda for vaccine safety, the CDC added a section on studying severe chronic conditions potentially linked to childhood vaccines, including "Autoimmune diseases; central nervous system demyelinating disorders; encephalitis/ encephalopathy; and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism."
National Institute of Childhood Health and Human Development (NICHD) - February 2009 - Dr. Duane Alexander, Director of the NICHD -an agency of the NIH - recently stated that he supports autism-vaccine research, saying that, "Genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents -- it is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines." Why? Because there may be, "subpopulations unable to remove mercury from the body as fast as others, or some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component, or a mitochondrial disorder increasing the adverse response to vaccine-associated fever."
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) - December 2008 - Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of this NIH agency, told US News & World Report: "If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we may want to screen everyone prior to vaccination (for) undetectable diseases like a subclinical mitochrondrial disorder."
LEADING U.S. CENTERS OF RESEARCH:
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions - The Kennedy Krieger Institute - January 2009 - The nation's premiere autism research outfit is sponsor of the Interactive Autism Network (IAN). Its new questionnaire deals with autism and vaccines. Thousands of families are describing their experiences with autistic regression following vaccination. Top scientists will then use this information, "to conduct additional vaccine-focused studies."
Cleveland Clinic, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University - November 2008 - Some of the nation's leading experts in autism and/or mitochondrial disorders published a study showing that children with mitochondrial disorders are at greater risk for autistic regression. They found that vaccine reactions could possibly trigger autistic regression in kids with mito disorders, adding that, "There might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases." And these very mainstream scientists wrote that: "Large, population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies."
University of California, Irvine - Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine in Genetics - April 2008 - Children with mitochondrial disorders are not only at greater risk for autistic regression, but they are also more likely to suffer from vaccine injuries, Dr. Douglas Wallace, Professor of Molecular Medicine and Director of the Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine in Genetics at UC Irvine, testified at the National Vaccine Advisory Committe. A member of the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation's scientific board, and father of a son with autism, he stated, "We advocate spreading vaccines out as much as possible. Each time you vaccinate, you're creating a challenge for the system, and if a child has an impaired system, that could in fact trigger further clinical problems."
University of California, San Diego - 2008 - Researchers from this school published a preliminary study in the journal Autism stating that children given Tylenol after the MMR vaccine were several times more likely to develop autism. Tylenol can reduce levels of glutathione - a powerful antioxidant and detoxifier. "Tylenol and MMR was significantly associated with autistic disorder," the authors wrote. "More research needs to be completed to confirm the results of this preliminary study."
University of California, Davis - M.I.N.D. Institute - January 2009 - The authors of this new study say that genetics alone cannot explain the ASD rise in California. "We're looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment," said Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, a professor at UC Davis. She had also noted that epidemiological studies done by CDC and in Denmark, showing no evidence of a vaccine-autism link, were seriously flawed. Meanwhile, Dr. Isaac Pessah, Chair of Molecular Biosciences and Director of UC Davis's Center for Children's Environmental Health, is also a member of the ASD Strategic Planning Workgroup at the Inter-Agency Autism Committee, where he supports vaccine research into the causes of autism.
The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation - August 2008 - Mitochondrial disorders are probably not rare in the general population. They were thought to affect just 1-in-5,000 people. But new research suggests that genetic mutations that might confer mitochondrial dysfunction might be found in 1-in-400 to 1-in-50. Another study by the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (UMDF) found mitochondrial DNA mutations that might cause disease in up to 1-in-200 people.
Autism Speaks - 2008 - The world's largest, most respected and most mainstream autism foundation firmly supports and funds research into possible connections between vaccines and ASD. Autism Speaks recently authorized three studies on thimerosal, vaccines and autism, and the foundation is in the process of funding many more highly significant research projects on the issue.
DRAFT CONSENSUS STATEMENT OF THE NVAC WORKING GROUP:(SOURCE: The Keystone Center)
Based in part on data from the community meetings in AL, OR, and IN as well as the IACC request for collaboration with the National Vaccine Program Office the writing group drafted a consensus recommendation to be considered by stakeholders at the March 16th meeting of the NVAC Safety Working Group. This recommended charge is for an expert panel to evaluate study designs for research on the impact of the standard schedule of vaccination on an array of health outcomes of significant public interest.
Draft Consensus Recommendation from the Writing Group:
Public and stakeholder engagement activities have identified a strong desire to study the health impact of the immunization schedule, potentially through a "vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study". Additionally, the IACC has requested the NVAC consider the feasibility of such a study. This idea raises a number of methodological, technical and other issues.
The draft ISO scientific agenda includes several elements of this question, including simultaneous vaccination (e.g. the vaccine schedule) as well as specific outcomes that have been discussed regarding the vaccine schedule and simultaneous vaccination. Well designed studies in this area would add substantially to our knowledge.
Given public and stakeholder interest in this topic, we recommend an external expert advisory group with broad expertise assess this issue. This expert panel should be convened under the auspices of a well-respected independent body. Particularly:
• This review should consider strengths and weaknesses, ethical issues and feasibility including timelines and cost of various study designs and report back to the NVAC
• Consideration should be given to broad biomedical research including laboratory studies, and animal studies.
• Consideration should also be given to study designs comparing children vaccinated by the standard immunization schedule with unvaccinated children (by parental intention), and possibly partially vaccinated children or children vaccinated by alternative immunization schedules
• Outcomes to assess include biomarkers of immunity and metabolism, and outcomes including but not limited to neurodevelopmental outcomes, allergies, asthma, immune-mediated diseases, and learning disabilities.
• The inclusion of autism as an outcome is desired. This review should also consider what impact the inclusion of ASD as an outcome would have on study designs and feasibility, as referenced in the IACC letter to NVAC.
• This review should be conducted expeditiously, in a transparent manner, and involving broad public and stakeholder input.
• Specific attention should be paid to the potential roles or synergies with National Children's Study.
Loading comments…
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
The Fathers and Mothers of special children with autism owe David Kirby a huge debt of gratitude for the endless research, time and effort he has devoted, and continues to demonstrate, on behalf of the autistic community. My daughter, Kelly, was a nanny for Liz Birt, whose son Matthew is referenced in "Evidence of Harm". I have a little girl with Down syndrome (not at all related to autism) however, Kelly shared Liz's story with me and told me all about David's book. I have been tracking pharmaceutical errors/adverse effects for almost thirty years and have studied Mr. Kirby's research for several years now. I truly believe he is a beacon of TRUTH shining on the darkest corners of what the government and pharmaceutical companies are selectively hiding from the public, ALL parents, present and future. This man is a hero. Thank you David Kirby. Thank God for David Kirby.
Sincerely,
Denise Knight
What would be the null hypothesis in such a study?
How about a study like this...
We locate younger siblings of autistic kids whose parents decided against vaxing their second or third or fourth child. If autism is genetic, then this sub-set of children is more likely to have the condition. Then you look at the rate of autism in the younger siblings.
Could this tell us anything interesting?
"If autism is genetic, then this sub-set of children is more likely to have the condition. "
How do you account for de novo mutations?
"Could this tell us anything interesting?"
I think so.
On the topic, but not focused on vaccines:
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n5/full/nm0507-534.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1138659v1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615476
http://sfari.org/news/the-case-for-copy-number-variations-in-autism
can de novo mutations be caused by environmental factors?
True, it's not accurate to say we've "disproved" the link between autism and vaccines. It's also true that it's impossible to disprove anything via the scientific method. Even the existence of the Easter Bunny for that matter. But you, David, do all us parents (not to mention our kids) a disservice when you continue suggesting a link between vaccines and autism. True, there may be a small percentage of children in which vaccines triggered autism - but all the solid scientific evidence to date (this excludes studies by special interest groups - you do admit a conflict there, don't you?) does not find a link meaning for most children with autisms, vaccines do not play a role. And that is good science. And that, my friend, is as good as gold in the scientific community. If well-done studies keep failing to find a link, then we accept there is no link. Should we continue studying vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children? Yes, but we've got to lay aside the theory that vaccines cause the grand majority of autism. Enough.
What about all the empirical studies that indicate a link is probable? You seem to be ignoring one side of the coin. There is clearly a debate raging on this topic because of the conflict that exists in the findings of a variety of studies. This seems to indicate that further study is required in this area. Is it your contention that vaccines should not be looked into at all as a possible cause of some cases of autism? If so, how do you explain the cases of Hannah Poling and Bailey Banks? If you don't know what the cause is how can you reasonably say we shouldn't look behind a particular curtain?
"What about all the empirical studies that indicate a link is probable? "
What collection of "studies" say it's 'probable' (as opposed to possible)? If a collection of studies indicated it was probable, we would not be having this conversation right now.
"If so, how do you explain the cases of Hannah Poling and Bailey Banks? "
The doctor understands, as many do, that these are individuals with unique medical histories. They are not normal. This is no different that saying we need to fully study peanuts before allowing any more to be sold because kids have died from anaphylaxis after eating them (although there are far more adverse event s reported for peanut issues than from immunizations). You are taking specific instances, with special circumstances and using it to generalize in a way to address your opinions/concerns.
" If you don't know what the cause is how can you reasonably say we shouldn't look behind a particular curtain?"
And how far do we go down that slippery slope? Just stop at vaccines because that is your focus? What about car safety (which kills more children in the U.S. every year than anything)? Food and household items that result in anaphylaxis? Pools? Firearms? Suffocation? Medicines? Surgeries? What about preventable infectious diseases? On the list of dangers to children, vaccines are NOT even near the top of the list.
Here's a really interesting study that seems to tie lots of things together -- haven't read the whole thing yet, but the abstract and conclusions are intriguing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19149568
From the conclusions:
"It also explains why ASD has not disappeared despite the reduction in mercury exposure from most
childhood vaccines, since excessive immune activation is the initiating and sustaining event in ASD."
Wow! That's exciting! Some individuals review some other work and present a hypothesis! No experimentation. No result. No data. Just the presentation of a hypothesis in a journal with an impact factor of 5. Wow.
Where did you get that quote from the conclusions? It isn't fom the abstract.
The research was conducted here: http://www.belhaven.edu/
Looks like a reputable school performing good, solid studies.
A little something about the author: http://www.belhaven.edu/Academics/Biology/seminars.htm
Personally, I think being on the 700 Club 7 times is the highlight of his career!
Looks like another reputable scientist like the Giers'.
Your sarcasm is because it's a Christian College??? You realize that the vast majority of colleges and universities in this country were founded by religious groups.
Oh, and yeah, that first paragraph of his bio is really scary!?
Do you have any real issues with what was published? Or are you just stuck in ad-hominem mode?
"There needs to be a study!"
I guess no one here read the IOM that reviewed studies related to this topic back in 2002?
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/4432.aspx
Or the one on autism in 2004?
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx
So, they are making these claims even without the necessary, required data?
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/vaccines/understanding/vaccineBenefits.htm
Policy is formed and stated here without data too?
http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/immunizations.cfm
Should I hit up information sites from other governments too, since they have all implemented policy "without doing the necessary experiments"?
Another example of another agency making policy without the one experiment that will tell us everything we need to know.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccines.htm
Here is an interesting study, comparing one outcome in partially unvaccinated children:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/3/771
A perfect example of one of the many problems a "study" as suggested would have (this is NOT a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study if you read the paper).
In the PARSIFAL study, researchers focused on children brought up in a farming and "anthroposophic" lifestyle. They explain that an anthroposophic lifestyle typically makes less use of antibiotics, medication to treat fevers, and vaccinations; it also involves high consumption of "biodynamic" foods.
So, what's different from these other studies (and this is just a few of them):
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/algy/abstract.00000381-199907000-00008.htm;jsessionid=Jn8V31x8PhBb5mhQw9YkLDX1ZMQqW2SvBFDVfpQCJTpm5Qv3vXjj!-1010963402!181195629!8091!-1
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/cea/2000/00000030/00000002/art00009
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0091674904006359
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118981193/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121583198/abstract
Did any of the other studies consider vaccinated status? Did they consider whether the children had or had not had measles?
If the only factor were farm life, you would be right. But all of these children seem to live on farms. The children who had measles have less allergies than the children who didn't have measles, according to the study.
Slowly, but surely, aspects of this disorder will be elucidated and treatment options will become available. In the mean time, beware of snake oil salesmen and people making their careers from "controversy".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223094711.htm
As someone who is skeptical about vaccines causing autism I welcome this study. Hopefully there is a large enough pool of unvaccinated children that there can be a statistical evaluation of the data.
I think that the large body of science is against this scenario, so much that I did not hesitate to start vaccinations when my wife and I recently had our baby. However, I would be open to any scientific study that indicates a correlation.
As a sidenote, autism rates are higher when there is a history of the disorder within the family. It is possible that this could be a genetic disorder and certain environmental factors could cause the onset.
So all of this "activism" is really about face time in our fame-at-any-cost media culture rather than conscientiously finding a viable solution to the problem?
A seemingly normal teenager, just going about their lives all of a sudden is afflicted with schizophrenia! Normal brain function, dealing with specific parts of the brain stop communicating properly. There seems to be an underlying genetic propensity for this disorder, specifically, gene regulation is thrown off and receptor/ligand function is no longer normal.
I am wondering if this is a side-effect of the vaccines too? I mean, it can't possibly be the stage-specific expression of genes altered by copy number variants, right?
No, it must be vaccines.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219121329.htm
Or, you have a child who is 18 months who, up to the point of his vaccinations, has a respectible vocabulary, can walk and talk. Then he receives multiple vaccines on the same day, and 6 hours later he's running a 105 degree fever. The ER does a CT scan and MRI's and sees that his brain is swollen. He loses the ability to speak, the ability to walk, is diagnosed with low-spectrum ASD and develops horrible GI issues. The parents have no history of ASD on either side of the family, and have no history of any neurological abnormalities on either side of the family. Before the point of vaccination, the child was developing normally, meeting all milestones.
I'm sure if this is a side-effect of the vaccines, too. He was completely normal, then he wasn't.
Yes, it must be the vaccines.
And this happens to how many children? The circumstances you've described with the multiple vaccinations happen everyday. Literally tens of thousands of children, in the U.S. and hundreds of thousands around the world. Are you claiming that this reaction is normal? Is it expected? Craig...what other factors are involved here that you fail to account for inyour story? Differentiate between the norm and this specific instance.
The bit that puzzles me is the opposition to collecting information on the health of unvaccinated children by the doctors and skeptics. If you are sure that vaccines are good and that conventional medicine is safe and effective, then this study can't possibly go wrong. Unvaccinated children should be less healthy than vaccinated children. And if the differences between the unvaxed group and the vaxed group include stuff like organically grown food and alternative health care, the advantages of going the conventional route should be perfectly obvious. You do believe that alternative health care is bosh, right? You do believe that vaccines are safe and effective and children who have received every vaccine on schedule should be thriving, right? You do believe that the standard American diet is excellent and that children who eat this diet should be very healthy. So why not stand up for your beliefs! Fight for the comparison between the unvaccinated and the vaccinated! This is your chance to prove that you are right, all the way down the line.
Who's making the argument against it?
And who feeds their children anything but organic anymore?
Now, I am still waiting for sourcing on the claims layed out in Mr. Kirby's latest HP blog' I'll admit that!
So, are you in favor MNmommy? Do you think the study would prove that vaccines are safe as currently given?
That's what this is all about, isn't it? Proving to the world who's right. Not about the truth...not about making discoveries and progress. Not about elucidating the mechanism(s) of autism...it's about proving that you are right!
That's what you think you'll get with this type of survey. So far, nada, so let's try these "studies" to show that we are right. Let's find a new way to find some connections with vaccination policy, because it hasn't been done in the laboratory through experimentation. It hasn't been shown in epidemiological studies, with populations of hundreds of millions examined. There isn't a proposed mechanism where toxins/immune dysfunction leads to autism. It hasn't made it through the court system with suit following suit after suit. It hasn't shown up as an blatant adverse event on VAERS following years of data points covering millions of children. It hasn't shown itself to be the case in any of the thousands of clinical trials that have been conducted.
What we need are new 'studies' to produce the conclusion. Not form the conclusion from the existing work. Let's prove that we are right!
OMG, I think that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read from you.
No, we don't want to be proven right. It's not about that; it's about our CHILDREN. It's about the fact that science should have done this years ago, and what we are asking for is the proper science to be done. It has made it through the court system, more than once, with clever twisting of the English language to obfuscate the fact that these children developed brain damage from vaccines and later presented with Autism. No matter how many times you deny it, there is no covering up the fact that vaccines are causing brain damage that looks like Autism in these children.
The science has not been done. That is what we want. Why are you afraid of the science being done? Are you afraid you will be proven wrong? I think that is what it is, to tell you the truth. You don't want the science to be done because it might prove you wrong. Let's not make it about the kids, but whether or not the High Priests of the Church of the Immaculate Vaccination are right or wrong.
You do believe that alternative health care is bosh, right?"
With all of these doctors jumping on the "alternative" gravy train, how come there is not one single study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal? Not one! These 'physicians' are obligated to publish their work, to share their success stories and techniques with others in the medical community. Why hasn't one done so? Not one!
Where are the chelation studies at? Why hasn't any of these "doctors" published their findings?
Geee, I wonder why.
Maybe it's because chelation treatment for autism is a fraud, and the people who are duping vulnerable parents don't want to call too much attention to themselves. Outside of AgeOfAutism and other cooperative, fringe websites that is.
I can't find a source anywhere on the web for this "draft statement".
Can someone please provide a link to it? A Google Text search only led me back to David Kirby's posts here and elsewhere.
I did find this:
http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/PublicEngagement.html
which acknowledges that there is a working group that was to draft a statement before the the March 16th Stakeholders meeting. There is also this:
http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/documents/ASPAPublicCommentsFeb2.pdf
which has the solicited public comments.
Also I found this text:
"The Keystone Center (www.keystone.org), a non-profit organization with extensive experience bringing together diverse groups around health and environmental policy issues is serving as a neutral convener for the public and stakeholder meetings and is working with the steering committee to plan these meetings."
It seems that the Keystone Center is an objective facilitator and not responsible for "calling" meetings.
I can't find a single thing about the above mentioned "Salt Lake City Writing Group".
Any help with sourcing these details would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
There are simple things we can do to help our children. Read this for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02zeedyk.html?em
This is a refrigerator mother story... My son's brain damage wasn't a result of not being able to see his mother when she walked around the block vs the rest of the day when he could see her face. Also, there isn't a lot of traffic on our street -- there is a lot of noise from the crickets during most of the warmer months.
So basically they will conduct a clinical trial - comparing the end results of a group of vaccinated children against a control group - non vaccinated children. It's the type of clinical triaL mandated by law before ANY DRUG can be released to the public and its the type of clinical trial that HAS NEVER BEEN DONE ON THE CURRENT vaccination schedule.
Not only has it never been done, the need for it has been fought bitterly by the medical and drug establishment.
I don't care how many times we parents are described as maniac whack jobs, we are asking for SCIENCE, and these studies will give it to us. Thank you David, and Dr. Wakefield - truth is strong, keep speaking it!
All medications (compounds, biologics, etc) have to pass phase trials and then be evaluated by the FDA before approval. Your statement is completely false. Here is a list of 1000 of them performed or gathering participants over the past 9 years (menaing, the list does not include the thousands from the 40's to 2000).
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=children+vaccine
The majority of these studies are on the influenza virus... And quite a large number of them use active control groups. i.e., They gave the older version of the vaccine to the "control" group. This is the problem with most of the childhood vaccines (very few of which are listed on this web page -- I didn't scan all of the studies, just the subjects).
The problem is that, AFAIK, virtually every one of the current schedule of purely childhood vaccines was tested with an "active control":
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/back-to-basics/how-are-vaccines-evaluated-for-safety/
...which is NOT the same as using a placebo control -- which is what is needed in this case.
So, No, torsienj was not making a false statement.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
