Autism and Toxins
Dr. Harvey Karp has just written an excellent blog beginning to discuss the role environmental toxins play in causing autism. I agree that the huge rise in autism is real, and not just related to better diagnosis or reclassification of mental illness. Autism is most likely caused by a genetic predisposition and an environmental "trigger."
Studies showing that vaccines and their many constituents do not contribute to this problem are flawed, filled with specious reasoning and, for the most part funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Even articles in reputable medical journals are often written by doctors with an economic interest in continuing the vaccination program's status quo. This does not invalidate all of these studies but it certainly makes them suspect and a poor foundation for an argument excluding vaccines from the list of environmental influences on the increase in autism in America and elsewhere.
The facile dismissal of those of us calling for safer vaccinations and scrutiny of the current vaccine schedule is not scientifically based and polarizes the discussion. Perhaps most importantly, this dismissal is insulting to the thousands of parents and families who aver that their children have been harmed by vaccines. There are extremists choosing to ignore the facts in all vaccine/autism camps. I am not one of them.
Asking that cars be manufactured with more attention to safety and that driving is best when done safely does not make one "anti-car" or anti-driving. Asking for safer vaccinations and more judicious use of those we have does not make me or anyone else "anti-vaccine."
The studies Dr. Karp cites show pretty much the opposite of what he's claiming they do. The opposite. The Danish Study's data are misused by all and interpreted to suit one's needs. The Japanese study also shows a connection between the MMR split into three components and autism. Mainstream medical journals rarely will publish editorial comment impugning the quality or integrity of vaccines because they are dependent upon the good graces of the pharmaceutical industry for their publishing dollars. Seeking out reputable commentators is difficult because the extremists on both sides of this debate exaggerate their claims and speak louder and more unpleasantly as if this helps to make their points.
In April of 2009, the "Journal of the American Medical Association" spoke to the conflict of interest and possible corruption as the journals, the AMA, the AAP and other medical associations rely on money from the manufacturers of vaccines and other drugs.
I have been in practice thirty years and watched thousands of children get shots, not get shots, develop autism or remain developmentally "neurotypical." I have no proof that vaccines cause autism and would be very excited to have my large group of extremely healthy mostly unvaccinated children studied someday. It would be disingenuous to imply that non-vaccination might not lead to an increased incidence in vaccine-preventable illness. It would be equally disingenuous to state that this possibility poses a great threat to America's children. The risks of vaccinating the way we do now exceeds the benefits of this vaccine program. "Scientists" who suggest that experienced doctors ignore their eyes and ears are wrong. Detractors who say that we should ignore parents who are certain that vaccines caused their children's autism are wrong and often quite mean-spirited.
Dr. Karp, if you are going to talk and blog about kitchen cleaners, furniture polish, pesticides and other toxins, how can you possibly ignore the 30-40 injections of potentially risky material we give children in their first 24 months of life? There is absolutely no proof that these shots are as safe the makers say they are and certainly no proof that new combinations of vaccines and hastily created shots are safe enough for our children.
Certain childhood illnesses are far less common than before we had vaccines to decrease their numbers. When numbers drop so low for certain illnesses, we have to cast a strong critical eye on the possible side effects of a vaccine. This loving, reasonable principle can initially be applied by an individual parent to an individual child and family. We certainly have to add public health into this complicated calculus of risk versus reward. It remains very possible that changing the way we manufacture vaccines and being more selective in our use of them may have huge public health benefits. It would be unscientific and immoral to ignore these more difficult possibilities in favor of the easier answers in Dr. Karp's post. We can save more children if just think harder.
Giving children the chicken pox vaccine may lead to huge shingles problems in adults.
Autism is triggered by many environmental, infectious and other causes. Vaccines are one of these triggers. Believe the parents!
Related: Dr. Harvey Karp Cracking the Autism Riddle: "Vaccine Theory" Fades as a New Idea Emerges
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
Excellent article!
Toxic chemicals have a direct influence on developing brain, but also relevant to autism are their immunosuppressive actions. Toxic load in the body opens the door to (neurotropic) infectious agents to establish permanence.
Autism has been firmly linked to infections - eg prenatal rubella or postnatal herpesvirus encephalopathy are well known to have autism as a sequelae.
Toxins change cellular metabolism in such ways to increase viral virulence and enable them to establish chronic presence in the host. In addition, tissue uptake and distribution of toxins changes during viral infections.
To see how toxins interact with infectious agents try Pubmed search with Ilback as the keyword. Dozens of VERY interesting studies that will lead you to more studies by other teams.
If you are interested in infectious agents in autism see http://aut
In summary: autism has been firmly linked to (perinatal and later) infections. Toxic agents play a role in host immune ability and inflammatory reactions to infections. It is impossible to look at viral etiologies in autism without looking at the role of vaccines
There are at least 3 pathways by which vaccines could contribute to autism:
1) is direct influence of toxic substances and live viruses from vaccines
2) autoimmune pathology/excessive inflammatory reactions by the host following vaccination
3) reactivation by vaccines of latent viruses/HERVs.
Dr. Jay is right about a lot of things, too!
Newest discussion is here;
http://www
In hope that, "soon", these debates & discussions bring real truth to this matter out so all is settled.
Here's to wishing the best for all warriors on both sides, with the well being of our little ones at heart.
There's a bill making it's way to becoming a law. It's called the, "Mercury Pollution Reduction Act", H.R. 2190
http://tho
Please support it. This is why:
http://oce
http://oce
95% of the chlor-alkali don't have to use mercury for their process but 4 plants do. Just to save money.
Dr. Jay writes: 'how can you possibly ignore the 30-40 injections of potentially risky material we give children in their first 24 months of life?"
Dr. Jay is wrong. 36 shots between birth and 6 years of age. Not the first 24 months. Of course, Dr. Jay is wrong about a lot of things.
SD Tech,
Have you seen this video?
http://www
What are your thoughts?
I've been trying to develop a list of prescription drugs that are used by autistic people. Anyone have anything to add, subtract, or comment on?
Zyprexa
Cymbalta
Humalog
Humulin
Zoloft
Depakote
Prozac
Luvox
Anafranil
Wellbutrin
haloperidol
Risperdone
Geodon
Clonidine
Tegretol
Lamictal
Topamax
Depakote
Ritalin
Concerta
Adderall
Risperdal
@dugmaze you are referring to drugs used due to autism? Is your list going to include what those drugs are supposed to do? If so I'd love to see the compiled list.
Just as a note:
Medications my doctor will prescribe for autism: none
HE will however prescribe antibiotics for infection, seizure medication for seizures etc.
"@dugmaze you are referring to drugs used due to autism?"
What I'm trying to figure out is what drugs are prescribed by doctors to treat autism or autism like symptoms.
"Is your list going to include what those drugs are supposed to do?"
That's a great idea.
I appreciate your input.
Risperdal and Risperidone? What is the point of making the list longer than it has to be?
"Have you seen this video?
http://www
What are your thoughts?"
Boyd Haley is not an autism expert. Judges aren't even allowing his testimony in vaccine trials.
"Risperdal and Risperidone"
Thanks, then I'll remove one from my list.
"Boyd Haley is not an autism expert"
I know. What's your question? Or did you already answer it?
Dugmaze, here is a good list by category of the drugs used to treat symptoms in ASD.
http://www
However, humolog and humulin are diabetic drugs (they're different forms of insulin).
Thanks, lots of good info.
"However, humolog and humulin are diabetic drugs "
Maybe a doctor will correct me but I heard that some drugs are causing obesity and diabetes. Maybe that's why they were listed.
Why would they put ethanol in medicine?
We have a 2 oz. bottle of Drainage Tone from Energetix. Some of the ingredients say 70% water, 15% glycerin, and 15% ethanol.
It says to take 60 drops per day.
Is this safe?
Ethanol is drinking alcohol, the same as in beer, wine, and hard liquor. It's added to medicines because it dissolves ingredients better than water alone does. Glycerin is another compound that helps keep ingredients in suspension; it's most famous in soap.
Personally I'd be more concerned about the stated "shark cartilage" component, since sharks are in decline due to overhunting; and the trace of coneflower, which I'm violently allergic to.
http://www
WOW!!! Awesome!
ummmm No it's cheap.
calamityjohn I'm a Fan of calamityjohn I'm a fan of this user permalink
photo
I would also suggest that all studies that regard counting population on various criteria are constantly attacked by those on the opposite side of this issue (whichever side that would be) by the choices made in picking who to count and adjustments made for various variables.
==========
This paragraph right here, was pretty much the whole POINT of my two-part post. Which if anyone of the pro-disease folks had read and considered in it's entirety instead nit-picking about urls and semantics might have been more clearly understood.
So are these parents who posted their story of their child who died after just 1 vaccine shot "pro-disease"? Is them warning the public about what happened to their child make them pro-disease? Are these parents irrational for being concerned about vaccines for their other kids? Please just answer the questions without resorting to attempting to discredit someone or anther. That little game is getting boring.
http://ian
It's hard to conclude much about an unconfirmed anecdote mined from the internet.
Sigh... It's that link again!!!
Loosing a child, regardless of how is horrific. I agree. The horror and depression that would naturally follow such a tragedy is all encompassing.
That does not change the fact that an emotional story is not scientific fact. Using emotionally charged stories and pictures is an underhanded way to guilt and terrify others into ignoring your erroneous comments. Slapping anyone who posts anything you dislike with that website is a bullying tactic.
Oh, I can't say that 'these parents' are 'pro-disease' as I have not spoken with each of them myself.
But yes, they are irrational. Being irrational is understandable after loosing a child. Of course they are upset! Of course they want to make sense of their loss, and of course it is easy for charlatans to encourage them to 'educate the public' when in fact they are not educating, but sharing their pain. Understandable? yes. Hearbreaking? oh my yes. Rational? no.
Many have come to believe in a probable connection between vaccinations & autism.
Too many warning bells have been going off, for far too long to be ignored. These are the voices of distraught parents.
We know there's that soup of toxins that enter into the equation.
We don't think vaccinations are exclusively to blame for death, autism or any other type injury or disease but they do factor in & may be the catalyst.
We believe vaccinations to be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
As far as the question of vaccinations actually preventing disease or saving lives, we don't really know, at this point.
We have reason to believe past studies & reports are biased due to untrustworthy individuals who may have vested interests & conflicts.
I've contacted Ingri Cassel, President of Vaccination Liberation at;
http://www
I've asked her here & help discuss this important matter.
I've also asked her to address the discussion at;
http://www
So here's to getting these debates at Huffington Post rolling in caring & sharing, so we can help make this world a safer place for our little ones & future generations to
moffmars: "Many have come to believe in a probably cause.....
lol did you cut and paste this from your post on the other thread?
I wrote it & changed a little content to suit each thread & it's important, so what's funny about that?
What's the problem you seem to have?
I just wish Ingri Cassel, President of Vaccination Liberation could come here & address this matter.
People can go to her site at;
http://www
People can go there to learn what she has to say & add it to all the other information they have, to help decide what's up on this matter of a probable link to autism being triggered by vaccinations.
Ingri's a serious activist working right now on a project concerning swine flu & wouldn't like this petty back & forth nonsensical banter, at all.
She's tried to create an account here at HuffPo to no avail, for some reason.
She said she posted at Kombles anti-AOA site, but I couldn't see it, yet.
I thought you didn't like the type comments you just made, sirenity.
Wasn't it you, who not long ago, reprimanded some of us for the same thing?
You may believe what you like, but if you dont have any scientific proof then its nothing more than a belief.
Attacking science that show the contrary to your beliefs, doesnt also make it better either.
The aim of science is to make this a better world for all. All of the advances in many areas of life are due to these, and many will continue. However, like vaccinations, these are possible due to diligent science, not gut instincts.
Little children being damaged & dying, directly after vaccinating, in sync with the numbers that have manifested, are not gut feelings, NetDude.
"Many have come to believe in a probable connection between vaccinations & autism."
Many have come to believe in creationism, too. But scientific fact isn't decided by popular vote, or who screams the loudest.
"As far as the question of vaccinations actually preventing disease or saving lives, we don't really know, at this point."
You really are the face of the anti-vaccine movement then, aren't you?
"We have reason to believe past studies & reports are biased due to untrustworthy individuals who may have vested interests & conflicts.
In other words, a vast, worldwide conspiracy. Do America's 70,000 pediatricians know about this, or are they part of the cover up?
Many know, of course, but that's never stopped the greed of those at the top of everywhere in big business, the medical field & high places in the political arena from doing their thing.
Not yet, anyway.
But this type of corruption is now being exposed on all fronts & soon truth will rule.
The best interests of our people & their well being, will be the forefront of what matters, no matter the people working in opposition against it.
I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning.
One person's hyperbole, is another person's truth!
The truth really will be setting "US" free because it will be coming out!
Excellent Blog Jay! You got 'em talkin baby!!!
Actually, all the newly high pitched tenor or all this pseudoscience is accomplishing is a more organized pushback against it.
The normal workaday American can barely afford regular joe health care, let alone Cadillac woo-care.
That's right, Holly. It's good when anti-vaccine activists expose their unique take on science to public and professional scrutiny. Anything you can do to encourage more of this behavior will be greatly appreciated by generations to come.
"the diagnosis criteria has changed"
Does anyone know why they changed the diagnosis criteria for ASD's? Is this something that is normally done?
Did they just include more conditions that used be a part of another condition? If that's true, was there a decline in another condition ?
http://web
You will have to make sure to do a full copy/paste of that url to get to the desired result - HuffPo has a tendency sometimes of making links work. It's the software they are using.
I meant not making urls work.
DSM and ICD are constantly changing as the science changes. That is why the DSM V will be out in 2012 and why for the last 5 years, scientists have been working feverishly to consolidate the known science and decide how to alter not only diagnostic criteria, but even diagnostic categories.
You can get a secondhand copy of The Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders 2nd ed cheaply (3rd edition is a couple hundred bucks). It explains in detail the changes over the DSM history. You can also email me for the chapter in the 3rd edition via a word doc, since I have this text online and can convert it for you.
Science advances.
Kim
Science advances? No really, you're kidding me.
The Hepatitis B vaccine drug, yes it is a drug, is injected directly into infants bloodstream at birth even though this historically was only given to prostitues and IV drugs users. You risk everything with even 1 shot. Here is 1 families story and images if you can handle it.
http://ian
Where pray tell, would you rather inject a vaccine? Into their spinal fluid? Would you shove it up their nose?
Or have you bent over backwards to try and equate babies to prostitutes?
I'm pretty sure the HepB shot is given IM.
Gotta love the mental gymnastics involved in that one.
Also, it is no secret that vaccines can kill you. Almost any medical procedure has that risk. Adverse reactions and allergic reactions are always possible. That's why you have to sign a waiver whenever you receive even the most routine prescription, shot, or medical procedure. In the story above, the parents make it seem as if the hospital did not give them this waiver to sign and that they were not given the info sheet with possible side effects listed. I find this hard to believe, frankly, but if that is true than the hospital absolutely should be held accountable. All patients by law need to be made aware of possible side effects, however unlikely they are and MUST sign waivers before receiving such a vaccine. If the parents are being truthful, then the medical specialists should have lost their license, the hospital brought up for a credentialing review, and the hospital should have been sued. That this did not happen frankly makes me doubt the validity of this story.
My uncle died of a reaction to a vaccine as a child. A cousin of mine was killed in a car crash when she became trapped by her seatbelt and burned to death. Guess what? My family- aunts, uncles, parents, cousins, etc still vaccinates and we still all wear seatbelts. We recognize that the miniscule risk involved is still far outweighed by the risks of not vaccinating and not wearing seatbelts.
calamityjohn I'm a Fan of calamityjohn I'm a fan of this user permalink
photo
"Classic Autism diagnoses have not been rising in the way that Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) numbers have been rising." - I cannot find this in the article you cited. It has been a long time since 1994 .. even taking into account diagnostic "lag time"
Of course you are ignoring the UC DAVIS study published in Epidemiology this January:
http://www
==========
Actually, I'm not. You left out this quote from the abstract:
"Other artifacts have yet to be quantified, and as a result, the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase in the occurrence of autism remains unclear."
http://www
Why the need for diagnostic "lag time" when so many parents insist that their children were "lost forever" after receiving a vaccine during their toddlerhood? (I'm don't mean to make light of regressive autism or real vaccine injury, I'm repeating what I've seen posted so many times.)
Oh and calamityjohn - of course you didn't find that quote of mine that you pulled from my post. Because I never claimed it was in an article that linked to. They were my own words. If I was cutting and pasting someone else's words, I'd have used quotation marks and provided a link immediately following my quote. That's how I roll.
In reply to Doybia's post (at 10:25 6/16/2009) you wrote a 3 sentence paragraph ... The first sentence was an introductory one. The second and third sentences contained claims of fact. Underneath the paragraph you cited an article. Which implied to me that that the article would support the paragraph. However, the article only supported the schedule of DSM updates not your claim that "classic autism diagnosis have not been rising" .. when I said I cannot find "this" in the article I was not referring to your exact words .. I was referring to the concept of "classic autism diagnosis have not been rising"
"But since you asked, I'm more inclined to the diagnostic substitution *theory* than an actual rise in ASD." MNMommy
So if you believe this as do many if not most of the faithful pro-vaccine doctors and posters here, then where are all the autistic adults? This would mean that 1 out of every 150 adults should then be also diagnosed with ASD or say in New Jersey, 1 in 60 or 100, which is what the latest statistics say. If someone has the latest New Jersey stats and can post them that would be great.
Raising:
Where are the adults?
Are you implying that as these children reach adulthood they are kidnapped by aliens? http://www
Look on amazon even, some of these adults are writing books!
Check the newspapers! Check anywhere! Just check before you post such spoon-fed ridiculous questions.
Why are people only associating rise in health problems (I'm not speaking of autism so much as other stuff like allergies, asthma, etc) with vaccines and not the epic rise in obesity in America in addition to us eating more meat, more processed foods, and less plants? There is much more scientific evidence that shows a correlation between eating habits and chronic illness than vaccines and chronic illness.
I used to live in the Netherlands. People there exercize, eat right, and don't eat lots of meats and processed foods. Their rate of obesity is less than 1/3rd our own. They are MUCH healthier than we are and don't have these chronic health conditions at anywhere near the rate the US does. However, they do vaccinate. In fact it was a huge scandal in 1999 because there was a measles outbreak among a religious community in the Netherlands which do not believe in vaccines and had not received the MMR vaccine. Several children died and dozens were permanently injured from this outbreak, which luckily did not spread to other communities due to a high rate of vaccination among the Dutch.
Is it just a matter of then you won't have a big evil corporate boogie monster to blame, and people might actually have to be held accountable for their OWN lifestyle choices?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people who simply want their kids to adhere to the slowed down schedule of vaccines typically delivered in Europe.
But it seems to me like we're dealing with an Ockham's razor situation here.
Unlike vaccines, there is no debate nor controversy over whether or not bad eating habits affect people and fetuses. This is not debated or denied by ANYONE. Poor eating habits are known to affect everything from rates of cancer to allergies to asthma to yes, even behavioral problems. Children with behavioral problems are 30% more likely to be overweight. Vegetarians have a 20-30% less chance of getting any kind of cancer.
Unlike with vaccines, double blind studies have been time and time again which actually DO prove a direct correlation between weight/eating habits and various chronic illnesses, including behavioral ones. Why does everyone here conveniently ignore this fact? I think it's because it involves what Americans hate- PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
In the last few decades, obesity rates and poor eating habits have become an enormous problem in America. At the same time, rates of chronic diseases have also gone up. Isn't it most likely that if the thing (poor eating) which EVERYONE KNOWS causes health problems of every variety has gone up, and health problems have increased with it, then most likely THAT is the guilty variable, not some corporate controled third party, i.e. vaccines?
I'm beginning to wonder how much environmental pollutants and an individual level of ability to deal with them may be a causal factor in weight gain.
Assuming that meat, for instance, is probably a more contaminated food source than a plant-based diet because of storage of pollutants in animal tissue, wouldn't that possibly explain a lot of the health problems associated with eating meat.
We know some drugs cause metabolic changes that lead to significant weight gain. I think I've read that mercury has been shown to increase insulin resistance on a cellular level. Another study on air quality showed a higher risk of heart disease in women in areas with higher levels of PM2.5s (I hoped I typed that correctly).
I'm not confident based on what I see that we haven't significantly underestimated the harm of intentional "trace" exposures to these things. The established guidelines for lead exposure keep lowering as we study its adverse effects. I think the same would be true if we scrutinized mercury, cadmium, etc. to the same extent.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
