Dr. Oz: Looking for parents afraid of autism?

I was recently at my doctor’s and because the Wakefield stuff was so recent, was asking her whether or not it had had any effect on what patients were saying with regard to vaccinations. She said that, for the most part, her patients followed her recommendations, and she had never had anyone really argue with her about vaccines.

Good, so far.

Then she volunteered that she thought kids *were* getting too many vaccines too soon these days, and said that if her (now grown) children (who, to be fair, got all their recommended vaccines when they were small) were young now, she would not give them the full arsenal. She must have noticed my look, because she started justifying particular vaccines, noting that her children were not terribly likely to be exposed to X, Y, or Z under most circumstances. Fortunately, she was knowledgeable enough to understand my two word counter-argument: Herd immunity. As a physician and a mom, she *does* care about other people than just her own children; she just had to be reminded.

It bothers me, though, that the public discussion has moved to the place where my doctor was so quick to dismiss the research, and fall back on the scare claims.

Then she volunteered that she thought kids *were* getting too many vaccines too soon these days, and said that if her (now grown) children (who, to be fair, got all their recommended vaccines when they were small) were young now, she would not give them the full arsenal. She must have noticed my look, because she started justifying particular vaccines, noting that her children were not terribly likely to be exposed to X, Y, or Z under most circumstances. Fortunately, she was knowledgeable enough to understand my two word counter-argument: Herd immunity. As a physician and a mom, she *does* care about other people than just her own children; she just had to be reminded.

It bothers me, though, that the public discussion has moved to the place where my doctor was so quick to dismiss the research, and fall back on the scare claims.

There are plenty of other reasons why you should vaccinate your kids that actually run counter to this argument. Someone should be able to back me up on this but doesn’t the science point that stuff like allergies are possibly a result of not being exposed to enough virus and bacteria at an early age.

noting that her children were not terribly likely to be exposed to X, Y, or Z under most circumstances.

noting that her children were not terribly likely to be exposed to X, Y, or Z under most circumstances.

Ooo god. I know exactly what she was refering to and she is an ignorant idiot in that regard. Every time I have heard that argument its in reference to Hep B. Hep B is a nasty thing to get as a child to the point where you kids life will be signficantly shortened if they get it. Also, not every single case of Hep B is associated with the risk factors.

@Adam_Y

Yeah, just because it’s called a sexually transmitted infection doesn’t mean it *only* transmits through having sex.

Wakefield just has diaheara of the mouth – he doesn’t know when to shut up.

As far as too many, too fast – the combined vaccines that are given now as part of the normal schedule contain less antigens than the older schedule with fewer vaccines. The manufacturing process has also improved over time – so our vaccines today are definitely safer than the ones that were made twenty – thirty or even forty years ago, just from basic improvements in the technology used in the process.

In today’s world, where international travel is more than commonplace & vaccination levels/disease vectors vary wildly from place to place, plus the mass migration of individuals (either refugees or just immigarants) means that the opportunity for exposure is actually greater today than it was in the past – you could have a new family move into your neighborhood tomorrow or run into them at the doctor’s office, where they might just have come from an area of the world where they don’t receive the routine vaccinations.

Quite a number of recent outbreaks, including the large measles outbreak in CA resulted from a family that travelled to Switzerland & had their 7 year old (unvaccinated) exposed and brought the disease back home. Of course, they took their kid to the doctor’s office, where many other children, some too young for the MMR, were exposed as well.

This is all common sense, people. One by one, the anti-vaccine tent posts have been knocked down, but the hard core believers won’t even begin to re-evaluate their stances, even with all the evidence in the world staring them in the face.

I get really annoyed when people who should know better say things like “oh, kids are exposed to so many more toxins today”

Really? I’m 41. I’m old enough to remember leaded gas, acid rain, high VOC paint, diazanon sprayed on the roses by my mom, public smoking EVERYWHERE, etc., etc..

I’m not denying that there are “toxins” out there now that weren’t even dreamed of when I was a babe, but still…our air and water and soil are cleaner now than they were 40 years ago…when did we live in the toxin-free utopia Dr Oz is thinking of??

Ugh. Dr. Oz is so popular. When he says something loony I have a heck of a time convincing family it’s not true. Some relatives look at me like I’m a Dalek or something when I criticise stuff he says. This will be bad.

“I get really annoyed when people who should know better say things like “oh, kids are exposed to so many more toxins today”

Really? I’m 41. I’m old enough to remember leaded gas, acid rain, high VOC paint, diazanon sprayed on the roses by my mom, public smoking EVERYWHERE, etc., etc..”

And for those who believe that we lived in a golden toxin-free age in the early 20th century or previously, consider such healthful things as arsenic compounds used as pesticides, unrestrained industrial pollution of air and water, radium watch dials and parents relying on hazardous patent medicines in the days before the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Or just read “The Jungle” to get an idea what goodies were winding up in the food people ate.

Of course, lots of children were dying of diphtheria, measles and other infectious diseases in those days, but at least they remained unsullied by The Toxins in vaccines.

Why are you so surprised that Dr. Oz decided to not vaccinate his kids for H1N1? Evidence-based medicine shows flu shots to be not very effective (though I believe adults were looked at) and the increase in seizures noted in Australian children is worrying.
You honestly would probably be better off spending your time advocating for better vaccine safety research ( including support for a primate study) rather than drumming up people to contact all these shows to dissuade them to air their views. It kind of reminds me of the little boy plugging his finger in the dam. You can do better than that.

As the mother of a child with chronic Hep B, the anti-Hep b vaccine attitudes make me crazy. I know I don’t have to disclose my child’s health status to anyone, but knowing SO many parents who choose not to give their children this vaccine (and are discouraged from doing so by their doctors, or at least not actively encouraged) makes preschool and daycare and playdates very stressful. My family should not have to worry about this on top of worrying about my child’s own health.

Does anyone else think it’s a little odd that the invitation to parents is to “tell us about your FEARS that your child MIGHT be diagnosed with autism”. I’m thinking this isn’t about autism (as diagnosed by medical professionals) at all. Jenny McCarthy’s kid may not have ever had autism, and look where she’s got with her books and treatments and mommy warrior crap.

It seems they are trying to move away from Wakefield and move to a much bigger venue.

@Pascale

Agreed. It would seem they’re trying to stack the audience/guests with people who are, if not outright anti-vaxers, sympathetic to anti-vax misinformation.

@ VT Mom. I grieve for you and all parents of children with chronic diseases and I thank you for your pro-vaccine advocacy on behalf children.

In addition to sites that I and other posters on this site recommend for vaccine-preventable diseases information… I wonder if you are aware of the “PKIDS” (Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases) site? The site’s pages devoted to children chronically infected with Hepatitis B is the portal to all facets of the disease, including parent support blogs, legal issues and development of anti-viral treatments.

stuff like allergies are possibly a result of not being exposed to enough virus and bacteria at an early age.

You may be thinking of the helminthic theory, in which our immune systems expect a certain amount of exposure to worms & other parasites and go off the rails if that fails to happen:

The central thrust of the theory is, therefore, that correct development of T regulator cells in individuals may depend on exposure to organisms such as lactobacilli, various mycobacterium, and helminths.

Speaking of the CBC, this report was on The National last night. Other than the underlying assumption that chiropractors are ‘health professionals’, it was a pretty decent piece. What, with the CBC also going after homeopathy, they’ve been doing some good work recently

@Kristen, #25

Thanks for your astute addition to my comment. At first I thought you were saying my comment was asinine and was alarmed, but a second reading resolved the problem.

And yes, what on earth can be the purpose in seeking such a narrowly defined group of people other than to do a show on people’s FEARS of autism (read, vaccinations)? I think it is clear what they have in mind. They are going to “listen to the mommies”.

They need to have a show with autistic ADULTS to show that even if your child is diagnosed they aren’t always going to end up hideously handicapped, and a lot of us managed to grow up as contributing members of society even without quacky therapy. I think that’s behind a lot of this nonsense, equating autism with this supposed terrible future the kid is doomed to.

Melissa- “demonizing?” “Drips with contempt for the other?” Somebody is being dramatic. What about parents really being worried that autism is being diagnosed more? What about parents hearing of tragic stories of children with autism getting lost and drowning etc.?

O.k. Now I’m just angry. You say a show about parents worried about autism is “demonizing” autism. Well how about -have you ever worked in a school for severe and complex needs? Schools that have the highest staff teacher ratio possible due to behavioural problems and nurses for the many attendant health concerns. Oh yeah, you just pissed me off- by neglecting all those people who live THIS kind of autism. That’s right, missy. Not the “my kids a little quirky” kind but severe autism. And you want to know what? In this school, sure there are some kids with Down Syndrome and cerebral palsy but there are also lots of kids diagnosed with autism (sever and complex). So save your “demonizing” crap because many kids with autism are struggling for real. Your whole “insults something you are” characterization is your hang up not Dr. Oz’s.

Oh my. Warning ahead about the length of this ramble. We are definitely in the category of “parents-to-be afraid of autism,” as spectrum tendencies are so common in my family that we think of them not as being markers of “a little bit odd” but as being “definitely a blood relation.” I’ve told my fiance about this tendency in my family, a couple months ago, my mom was reaching out to all of the extended-extended family, to determine the frequency in it, after one of my cousins that she is the guardian of was diagnosed with full-fledged autism. That’s when the fiance told me he is officially “la-la-la, gonna-stick-my-fingers-in-my-ears,” on the subject. We’re both terrified of having a truly special needs child, but based on both of our families, if we had a kid that didn’t show some spectrum tendencies, we wouldn’t know how to relate to that, either.

So, um, I would love to volunteer as someone who is afraid of having a kid with her fiance, as much as we both want to breed, together, even, because we have such strong genetic risk, esp. on my side. But, my beloved is so afraid of it that it would upset him too much to even consider it, even if it meant we could go visit our friends and family we’ve been meaning to see in NYC.

Did I mention that my extended family has a history of religious exemption for vaccination, though this obviously goes well back into the family tree far enough that it’s clearly irrelevant, since Great Grand-Uncle Cecil was the way he was long before the polio vaccine was invented. My mom had us all fully vaccinated, but I’m sure it’s only 50/50 in my cousin set, so yeah, unless he’s suddenly on the “genetics plus aging of parents” train, I don’t think Dr. Oz’s crew would be interested. I feel that our fear is rational, even though women in my family routinely have kids well into their 40s that aren’t any more odd than the older siblings. There’s enough full-fledged autism in the under-40 mother cousins to be wary.

I believe the experts that don’t know for certain that it’s genetic, but I swear, anyone who wouldn’t make an outsider wonder if the person in question had undiagnosed Aspergers, my family would be wondering if they were switched at birth. Kinda like how brown eyes are recessive to the green that most of us have, in our family, it’s definitely genetic, as it’s over many generations, multiple states, and even very different countries. We’re honestly terrified of having a full-autism child, to the point that I tend to fret we might be better off adopting, esp. as I have blood-clotting issues that make pregnancy extra dangerous to me. If my specialists weren’t all on board that it’s totally ok for me to get pregnant since my problem is known and the likely cause has been determined, folic acid metabolism gene thing, just have to take some extra and my clotting looks normal, and pre/pregnant women are supposed to take extra folic acid, anyway, right?

So, yeah, we’re afraid of autism. But, nothing makes someone more nervous than the fear of having something go wrong with their pregnancy/kid, other than maybe that of there being the possibility of a pregnancy before it’s desired. But I seriously doubt anyone as prone to the woo-side as Oz’s crew would want us anywhere near a camera, even if it wouldn’t so strongly bother my love.

Melissa, I stand with what I said. Fear is fear. Demonizing is demonizing.
No Djinna, don’t bother with the show. You more than clearly believe there is a genetic basis in your family. Has anyone bothered to participate in the many genetic studies happening? Why not?

@ Melissa
Dr Oz show…”We are looking for parents-to-be, parents of children up to 4 years old, that are worried their child may be diagnosed with Autism”

Melissa…’Look at the pandering, baseless prejudice. It drips with contempt for the Other. They bully and they stigmatize, they HARM us, and they don’t even notice.’

I dont feel contempt from the statement. I think any new parent is worried about anything their child could be diagnosed with. It doesnt harm me. As a parent I think you worry about every single thing, but that doesnt mean you demonize those things. If I had a choice ahead of time, would I choose a diagnosis that could make my child’s life harder, possibly even have severe health problems. Nobody would choose that, but after it happens you adapt because the love is the same. That part doesnt change, but the whole plan of what you thought your life would be may change. I think most parents never stop worrying. Dont let it feel like a stigma or like harm from someone else. I remember the fears I used to have and now, the diagnosis just adds many more. Take care.

Chris, stay the hell out of it. Save your helicopter, blood mobile and Ronald McDonald House stories, too. Guess what? News flash. You aren’t the only caring human in the world.
I asked Djinna a logical question about seeking genetic testing when she states that she has such a strong genetic risk. I’m pretty sure she doesn’t need you to answer for her.

Why isn’t Dr. Oz seeking to talk to adults with autism? (As much as I admire Ari Ne’eman and Temple Grandin, I would exclude them from this group — they aren’t the only adults with autism).

Why isn’t Dr. Oz seeking to talk to parents of children with autism, who do not blame vaccines? (As much as I admire Ken Riebel, Kristina Chew, and Shannon Rosa, I would exclude them from this group as they aren’t the only parents who do not blame vaccines).

“It might even be rather interesting to see what sort of response Dr. Oz’s producers would have if neurodiversity advocates were to contact them.”

Orac, are you promoting the neurodiversity ideology which says that autism is not a medical disorder that should be cured?

Left a long comment that the system is waiting for release. Short version: Harold, you’re not intelligent. (I won’t insult the idiots and morons, which had specific medical meaning.)

Link to the CBC program segment of Wakefield’s interview. Good thing I haven’t had breakfast yet, because I’d be tossing it.

If Simon Singh can be charged with libel for calling chiropractic ‘bogus’, there ought to be a lot of actionable statements in Wakefield’s response. Overall, I’d say the interview was OK but not hard hitting.

Brad

Is it true that there was a time when homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder?

@Gray Falcon: yes. IIRC, it wasn’t until the DSM-IIIR came out that homosexuality was removed from the DSM.

Damien, I am not responsible for discovering weaknesses in certain vaccines, and I have every right as a citizen to be outraged that more hasn’t been done to ensure vaccine safety for our children. Baseless, my ass.
Funny, Njinna, who seemed so interested in the genetic explanation for autism never answered my question.

Sorry for the massive postings. They would not go through- and then they did in droves.

Damien – peace and thanks for your work.

Harold – bitchslapped as usual. Go back under your rock of hatred. I used to feel sorry for you, now you’re just a distraction from adults having a conversation.

Jen – some tylenol will help with your headache.

The autism that ND promotes, and that Orac appears to embrace, with the comment I quoted, is in fact a Mental Disorder.

So what if it is? Does that make the people who have it any less human or any less deserving of the same social support you and I take for granted?

Orac’s point (and the point of neurodiversity) is not that autism is something to be embraced but that it is an essential part of who some people are. Some people have diabetes. Some people have asthma. Some people have porphyria. And some people have autism. These are all lifelong conditions which are not generally curable and which can greatly affect a person’s life. The best that can usually be done is to manage them, preferably without drugs, but with drugs if necessary.

You don’t have to embrace autism, any more than you have to embrace lactose intolerance (which is an odd thing to call a disease, given that the majority of humans have some degree of it — lactose tolerance seems to be the abnormal condition.) What ND proponents want is for you to embrace autistic *people*. There’s a difference.

CanadianChick, that’s a great point you make. Has anyone seen a good blog or any research that actually compares the amount of ‘toxins’ during the 20th century, from one decade to another? Lead, DDT, aerosols, caustic cleaning agents–am thinking of all the things that were common when I was a kid. But what’s the actual evidence on ‘toxic load’. Would like to know more to help counter this common conception. Any references?

On a side note, back to our friend Wakefield, anyone spotted this yet?

http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/031117_BMJ_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield.html

Apparently, some months after the GMC hearings ended, all of a sudden another study has come to light that Walker-Sith had done with 7 of the children, 14 months before the MMR paper, with 7 of the same children, which chronicles their reaction to the MMR jab and diagnosis with autism.

Leaving aside all the problems — like, Walker-Smith should have remembered the existence of this paper during the hearings, maybe, or that it contradicts the timelines of how and when the children were contacted anyway — Wakefield is using it as “proof” that he is innocent and is (according to NaturalNews, our bastion of accurate medical info :-/) demanding that the BMJ retract its accusations of fraud.

THIS should be fun to watch, except that it really is turning into the undead zombie “controversy” from hell. I have to wonder how Wakefield sleeps at night.

Triskelethecat The words Mental DISORDERS mean what they say.

The CDC fact sheet says:

What are autism spectrum disorders?
Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are a group of developmental disabilities CAUSED BY A PROBLEM WITH THE BRAIN [caps added]. Scientists do not know yet exactly what causes this problem. ASDs can impact a person’s functioning at different levels, from very mildly to severely….The thinking and learning abilities of people with ASDs can vary – from gifted to severely challenged

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/parents_pdfs/AutismFactSheet.pdf

Oop, I forgot to edit out the last sentence completely.

@Vicki: Bravo!

@Harold: change a few words…

What is mental retardation?
Mental retardation is CAUSED BY A PROBLEM WITH THE BRAIN [caps added]. Scientists do not know yet exactly what causes this problem. Mental retardation can impact a person’s functioning at different levels, from very mildly to severely….The thinking and learning abilities of people with mental retardation can vary – from mildly to severely challenged

Do you see how offensive your attitude is? Besides the fact that many children today with a diagnosis of ASD or autism would have been diagnosed as mentally retarded 40-50 years ago, your attitude that they are not worthy to be recognized as people, just differently-minded people, is awful.

Little Augie, I live in reality. You should try it sometime.

Kids get sick and get hurt. When one lives in a rural area you cannot spend four hours driving to the emergency room, hence there are these things called Air Ambulances. The hospital I live near serves the needs of five western states.

It makes up for having Bastyr just across the lake.

ugh troll, in the real world, where most of us reside, bad things happen to real people (and not just ‘bad’ people), in many cases for no particular reason at all (like, say, infectious diseases spread by people before they express symptoms).

Maybe in your fantasy world, Chris’ documenting of the health concerns and realities in her neighbourhood are signs of some disturbing trend. In the real world, they’re normal (if unfortunate) occurences.

Jen, you are certainly free in this country to be angry about whatever strikes your fancy. However, your attacks against vaccines are indeed baseless. Vaccines are perhaps the most safety tested products on the market today, and there are multiple redundant systems in place to ensure their continued safety. The first rotavirus vaccine is an excellent example, because there were scientifically validated, specific ill effects which precipitated its removal from market.

The operative word in this story is “specific,” because while you are indeed free to rage against vaccines, or homeopathy, or space aliens, or illegal immigrants, your concerns are treated with much more respect when you are able to provide details about what in particular you’re angry about; respect that is further compounded if your concerns reflect the reality of a situation.

As an example of what I mean, consider two different perspectives in the illegal immigration issue: on the one hand, I could argue that illegal immigrants are coming to steal our jobs, shoot our wives, rape our cattle, etc. and so we should deport them all. This general, unfocused rampage, which does not comport with the reality of illegal immigration, is useless and eventually becomes the white noise that gets ignored.

Now, if I come and I say that illegal immigration is bad for all involved because it brutalizes a subset of vulnerable people and helps drive down wages and benefits for all low-income workers, that’s a specific concern. The specific reaction is to advocate removing the incentives for businesses to hire illegal workers, as well as making it easier to get temporary legal permission to work for lower-income people.

Do you see the difference here? The first is unhelpful and actually hinders the solution of the issue as politicians must pander and businesses are free to continue their ways; the second has a particular, reality-based viewpoint and the idea of deincentivizing businesses is a well-known and successful technique for changing practices. Therefore the second is more reasoned and reasonable.

I am honestly willing to listen to your solution, jen, without judgment. While I have previously stated the reasons that I believe you are wrong in your position, I am a reasonable person and I want to hear you out.

However, merely advocating for vaccine safety is a meaningless phrase. What, specifically, are you concerned about?

Relentless scientific testing of vaccines has shown that they have no role in autism; if you are concerned about toxins, what toxins are there? Keep in mind that the dose makes the poison, and I’ll want to see your evidence that whichever toxin you’re concerned about has caused damage in its vaccine-level amounts.

If you’re concerned about there being too many vaccines being given at once, why do you think that? There are fewer immunological components in all vaccines given today than in a single smallpox vaccine given in 1971. Are you worried about a baby’s immune system being unable to cope? Why would it be able to fight off the dozens of infections children experience in the first few years of life (infections involving billions if not trillions of immunological challenges, incidentally), but cower before the 100-ish challenges presented by vaccines?

Are you of the opinion that natural exposure is better? Why would that be, when it necessitates a larger, longer and more bitterly contested war between the immune system and the invader than a vaccine could ever hope to create?

Again, I am sincere in wanting to hear your point of view and your concerns. I’m not saying you need to specify a particular vaccine, but I would like to hear you bring forth a particular aspect of vaccine safety that concerns you.

One final thing, just something I’ve always wondered: if it weren’t private industry making these vaccines, but rather the government, would that relieve some of your concern about big business cutting corners?

I look forward to your reasoned response.

@Harold — Dude, you need to STFU about things you know nothing about. I’m a bit “miswired”, myself, and function just fine DESPITE my disabilities. I have to work twice as hard as a “properly wired” individual to accomplish the same amount of work, because I have to consciously filter out irrelevant sensory stimuli. My brain does not have a “spam filter”, and cannot automatically shut out or ignore things like, oh… the feeling of my clothes on my skin, or the noises of people in the hallway. It is exhausting. This is on top of Cerebral Palsy, Depression, ADHD, Anxiety, and a mild case of OCD.

NONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS MAKE ME ANY LESS OF A PERSON.

Here’s hoping you’re never on my side of the disability divide — you’d never be able to handle it.

@Harold L Doherty:
My 17 year old PDD-NOS daughter has stated repeatedly that she would NOT like to be ‘cured’ even if it were possible. Temple Grandin has said the same.
My daughter is working to ‘fit it’ but not to be ‘normal’.

Jen @ 92:

They are too poorly done reach conclusions that I personally dislike.

FIFY.

@Jen, physiology maybe, not physiognomy.

Jen:

Finally, I really can understand the risk VS benefit concept you guys espouse, but to me, to say the safety studies show no link between vaccines and autism (esp the mercury studies) is just not true. They are too poorly done.

And you know this because…? What special qualities do you have over the scientists, doctors, technicians and statisticians in the USA, Europe and Japan? Come on, tell us what makes you a better judge of vaccine safety than the FDA, CDC, NHS, the public health departments of Japan, UK, Denmark, Sweden, German, Canada and the World Health Organization. Where did you get your PhD in microbiology and immunology to add to your degree in Child Studies? Please, we really want to know how you are the expert.

So link to those studies that find real fault with the almost twenty studies done around the world that show no real association of vaccines to autism. Go and show us who those “scientists” are, and be aware that Handley is not one.

Point to us the particular ASF studies that are faulty and the papers that criticize them by a qualified scientist.

You are proposing a complete waste of money that would be better used providing services to our adult children.

Chris, my making a list of other scientists ( big or small) means nothing, really. I know. Dr. Miranda critiqued Tozzi’s study and you know darned well that other scientists have been critical of some of the vaccine safety studies (Cochrane didn’t like Fombonne’s much). Even Kumanen Wilson, who has been part of some vaccine research stated once that there needs to be more transparency with respect to the risks of vaccines. I am not going to bust my ass looking for more scientists/doctors which we both know are out there. I give up. You don’t want to admit there is a problem so I guess there’s no problem.
Damien, thanks for your response. I honestly don’t KNOW (I know people hate caps use but sometimes I feel they help) that getting the natural disease is better in all cases. For example, with chicken pox the complications rate tends not to be too bad (I know I’m not citing) and you have to compare natural chicken pox disease and subsequent immunity thereafter to chicken pox vaccine and its immunity protection (how much boostering do you need? Is real chicken pox immunity better/longer?) On the other hand, hep b would not be a good disease to have. You would really have to weigh the risks because the side effects from the vaccine don’t seem so good, either. I certainly don’t think most newborns need it.
You haven’t seen the studies the Autism Science Foundation cites as proof of vaccines having no connection to autism? You can go to their website where they are posted under something like evidence-based vaccine research. You can also read JB Handley’s critique of those same studies where he does more than just talk about control groups or conflict of interest (pharma-shill gambit in Orac’s terms). And you have to remember that just because it’s JB Handley critiquing, doesn’t mean the critiques aren’t valid. You can read his article (he actually invited scientists to critique his points-not just the control group or conflict of interest points!). “Dissecting the Autism Science Foundation’s Use of the Hungry Lie.”
Lastly, I honestly just assumed that they had done vaccinated VS unvaccinated type primate studies when I gave my children some (but not all) of the recommended vaccines. Or “extended phase 4 toxicology studies.” something. I really did.

Antaeus, I am left still wondering how poorly done studies answer ANY question to do with vaccine safety. Have you read Handley’s critiques? Kids in the USA get hep b at birth, so timing of autism development is really kind of moot in a sense. I would still say primate studies or “extended phase 4 toxicological studies” are needed to address differences (if any) in vaccinated VS unvaccinated.

Jen, you need to learn how to think for yourself and not rely on Handley, as noted by Dr. Novella at Some Nonsense from J.B. Handley:

Handley, however, is not an honest and competent broker of scientific information. He is, in my opinion, an incompetent thug.

Jen:

What I have uncovered from this is that people like you seem to be terrified of scrutinizing the studies held up by ASF for any reasons other than the more easily defendable control group issue or conflict of interest issues.

Which studies? Give the journal, title, authors and dates of those specific studies.

Where is your evidence that the studies you don’t like are worthless? Give the journal, title, authors and dates of the papers where you, yourself, got the information to tell you to ignore the Madsen and Fombonne papers.

Then do the same for every single paper listed here and here.

You have continued to make the claim that all of the research since 1998 showing that there is no association between is vaccines and autism is fatally flawed. But the only “proof” you offer is some whining about two to four authors and Handley’s silly ignorant essays, you need to do better.

Prove that qualified persons have actually found sufficient flaws in those several dozen papers that funding should be done for yet another study that you will ultimately ignore.

If Dr Oz makes a show that aims to make a vaccine-autism connection I think we should all create a campaign to complain to the AMA. Doing so would be a serious violation of many of the ethical responsibilities that physicians have.

So, Chris, and until you can resist swooping in to save people like djinna from a simple question and actually think for yourself about the methodological problems with some of these safety studies so widely touted by the ASF and not hijack conversations, I will assume that you are a paid blogger; a silly Scienceblog fan girl lapping up…

Jen, I hope that what I’m about to say will not be taken with offense, as it is not meant in a spirit of cruelty. You yourself have mentioned that you are not an expert in this field, correct? I rush to point out that I make no claims as to my own vaccine science expertise, either; I do, however, lay claim to some knowledge in the realm of science generally.

I think that perhaps the problem that we’re facing in our quest to understand each other (at least that’s my quest), is that some of your views on science are distorted. Again, I’m sure that certain of my views on topics of your expertise would be similarly distorted.

Few scientists that I have met are so wedded to a particular notion that they would ignore or minimize the overwhelming weight of evidence if it contradicted their idea. The great Albert Einstein himself was forced to reject his own long-cherished theory of a static-state universe when the weight of evidence and experimentation tilted toward the idea of an expanding universe. Similarly, I have no doubt that if the vaccine-autism hypothesis had produced positive results (whether via thimerosal, the intestine-brain link, or mercury), they would be published and an entirely new field of science would be opened up to research.

However, science is conducted in a very specific, if utterly brutal, manner. Ideas or presented at conferences, discussed and debated in meetings, and published in journals. Disagreements over the actual science, or methodological issues, are hashed out in these same locations.

All of the science and experiments attempting to tie vaccines to autism is public, and the experts who pass judgment on the bases for the conclusions have pronounced them good. Science, moreover, is not an exclusive club, but instead welcomes outsiders with interesting ideas. See, for example, the ultimately unsuccessful attempt of a Malibu surfer to provide a grand unified theory a couple of years ago. He challenged the conventional theories and scientists reacted with joy, testing his theory until it, unfortunately, was discovered to be flawed.

I have stated this to point out that I think the perception that you have which is distorted is the idea that science or scientists revere specific ideas enough to purposely bias their research or bond together in order to protect them. I can’t think of anything further from what I’ve observed and read. If the experts were to disagree with their evidence, conclusions or methods, there would be a war of words declared and waged publicly until one side was vindicated. This could take a long time, but the ship of science rarely makes a sharp turn, but it does turn. As an example, Simon Flexner was the grand old man of polio research, and one of the single most revered scientific figures in medicine. He had the world’s foremost polio lab, and he ran the entire world of polio research like his personal fiefdom at Johns Hopkins; he believed that polio spread in the nasal passage and missed the bloodstream completely, and his mistake shut down polio vaccine research for almost 20 years, long enough for FDR to be paralyzed.

However, he was wrong, and other scientists challenged him and his theories, eventually shredding them to bits just before Flexner’s death in 1949. If scientists revered particular ideas or people, they would have ignored Flexner’s wrong notions instead of challenging and destroying them.

I state all of this to contrast the science, which really has been thoroughly studied, with the anti-vaccination process. Eight reviews of all literature on vaccines and autism, whether published or not, by an expert panel (here’s a PubMed LINK) concluded that there was no link between vaccines and autism. This was reported by the NAS, published by the National Academy Press, and was the most thorough meta-analysis of the current state of the science that I have found thus far. I welcome you to prove me wrong, Jen, I really honestly do, I just need more than JB Handley’s essay (I’ll explain why in a moment) and some non-scientific analysis.

I hope that the preceding didn’t come off insulting or trite, because it really wasn’t my intent. However, that previous paragraph brings me to the central difference between the world of science and the world of opposition. I have yet to see a scientific paper that used language and attacks as vicious and nauseating as JB Handley has used so casually in the past. There can be no disagreement between us that it is disgusting to insinuate that respected vaccine researchers were dining on baby, which just happened this past Thanksgiving (or was it the one previous? Time flies.), and this something that Handley has not only done, but defended.

Not only that, but the ascription of devious or diabolical motives to their opponents is routine. Conspiracy, greed, murderousness, these are supposedly the central characteristics of those who support vaccination, according to Mr. Handley and others, some of whom post on this forum. I’m sure you can understand the difference here: I have yet to hear anyone here state that anti-vaccine parents are intentionally colluding in a conspiracy to murder children, while that is a routine allegation flung about at AoA for example (a site that I left long ago after being told in no uncertain terms that I was viewed as supporting child murder).

I don’t begrudge you that your opposition to vaccines is sincerely based on your opinion that they are unsafe. However, I have not yet heard you explain why. I also have not yet heard an answer to my question about what would convince you that they are safe? Or, more to point, that they are safer than the diseases they were designed to prevent?

Specifically talking about Hep B, which you mentioned by name previously: before the vaccine came out, Hep B was directly responsible for shortening lives. Many, many children were infected in early childhood, or even at birth, with little immediate effect; as the children aged, however, their Hep B infections began to damage their livers, kidneys, and eventually their hearts. Cirrhosis and diabetes in later life could be directly attributed to the Hep B, and it took an average of 7-10 years of life from the adults who had been so infected as children.

That said, why would you oppose vaccinating babies in order to give them 7-10 years of quality life on the other end? I’m not trying to accuse you, I’m honestly curious.

I’d really like to hear your thoughts, Jen. But I must stand with Chris on one particular issue: if you’re going to cite information, please make them from journals, or at least websites citing journals. It’s important for us to be able to view the actual source information.

I’m enjoying this dialogue, Jen. I just wanted you to know that.

Damien, I have enjoyed talking with you as well. I honestly can’t give a simple answer as to why I don’t think vaccines are safe but I do know that my nana developed GB after her flu shot many years ago. I find it quite plausible that some people are particularily vulnerable to side effects (people with allergy histories, auto-immune problems). Of course I’m not sure though, because there are no studies to say. Mostly why I can’t feel that they are safe is because of the lack of studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Re. hep b, by all means if the child is in a high risk group then vaccinating at birth may outweigh the possible negative side effects. For my kids, though, I would oppose giving them something at birth that they are not at high risk for and may have negative side effects (not that we know for sure, because there is no objective comparison). And, by the time they may actually need the protection it would have waned anyways since their
“birth series.”

At the risk of sounding really redundant, whether Handley suggests it or not, I still find it troubling that scientists defend/condone Fombonne’s study (looking at prevalence in one city and vaccination rate in another, Tozzi, where autism incidence was 15-20times less than the US rate in his sample and Madsen’s where autism outpatient’s were added after the mercury was removed.
I hope that you’re right about scientists bot being wedded to particular ideas and I hope that one day there will be some kind of vaccinated vs unvacc study or more prolonged toxicology studies to reassure people. The kids deserve that.

One last thing, Damien. …” the most thorough meta-analysis of the science so far”
“Meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics.” (wikipedia).

Jen:

Dr. Miranda critiqued Tozzi’s study

Now I know why you don’t link to the critiques, they are rubbish. I found that while Miranda is a doctor, he is not qualified from his letter with no references: “doctor and father of a child with neurodevelopmental disorder”

His letter is about as valid as John Stone’s.

Searching for “Kumanan Wilson vaccine dtap” finds a note on a presentation, and then a comment on AoA from a “jen”.

Searching for qualified critiques of any of several Madsen papers (other than the review I actually linked to) brings up mostly AoA and other anti-vax sites. I assume it would be the same for Fombonne.

Sorry, you made the claim you provide the evidence. There are several pages at ASF, much of them the same list of studies I gave you earlier.

Jen and Chris,
sorry – I didn’t click on Chris’s link @99 because I’ve read enough of J. B. Handley’s pontifications to form my own opinion about his knowledge base.

That said, Jen, seriously – read what Steve Novella has to say. He’s brief, and to the point.

And, again, please, please, please think about it.

And ask yourself: why exactly do you think that J. B. Handley is credible about science?

I think Jen is the perfect example of a person who is completely swayed by an incident from her own life and is clinging to this as proof. I refer to her report of her grandmother contracting Guillain Barre. I can imagine how afraid her family were when the matriarch became paralyzed or partially so. If Jen is in her 40s (I’m guessing here) then she would have been a young child when this happened. You can imagine the echoes of that when talking about vaccine. There is little chance she can see how this is coloring her opinion and also means that all the criticisms she reads (Handley or not) reinforces this fear.
All this to say, she will not ever be persuaded otherwise because the childhood trauma of a sick grandmother outweighs all the science you can throw at her.

A person might start off a bit nervous about vaccines( due to an incident like my grandmother’s GB) but I also completely assumed that there were more safety studies such as a vaccinated VS unvaccinated, or extended tox studies when I gave my kids the vaccines that I gave them (back in the early-mid nineties). I mean there was none of this Internet searching, really. I can’t really stress that point enough. I really assumed those kind of studies were in place. My friend had told me all about BLF’s book but I don’t remember BLF saying anything specifically about vaccinated VS unvaccinated studies not having been done. Maybe she did, not sure.

Jen,
exactly what do you want studied via a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study? What kind of outcomes do you think need to be compared?

And how long do you think “extend tox studies” should run? I know you don’t study pharmacokinetics or metabolism, so I’m not asking for specific numbers – just give us a rough idea of what kind of information you think needs to go into deciding how long to run the study.

Jen–

What exactly is “crossing a line” about a vaccine against cancer?

What is wrong with vaccinating against a serious disease that can be transmitted by, among other things,
# getting an accidental needle stick with a needle that was used on an infected person
# using an infected person’s razor or toothbrush

Maybe your children are never going to work in a hospital or other medical facility, but a lot of people are. And sharing toothbrushes may not be a good idea, but it is a thing people do. Sometimes accidentally, because two brushes can look very similar (especially given how many people brush their teeth just before bed or first thing in the morning, while not very awake).

For that matter, have you taught your children to quiz potential spouses or other sex partners about their infection status, and demand test results if the person thinks they are uninfected?

A vaccine against Hep B or HPV may do less for herd immunity than the DPT or flu shot, but it’s not a vaccine against something that you can count on never being exposed to.

With regard to the comments about hepatitis B vaccine; testing of individuals for efficacy of the vaccine is recommended for individuals who are at occupational risk for needle sticks, babies whose mothers are hepatitis b carriers and other individuals who are “risk”. People who are at risk are those whose partners are hepatitis B carriers, who live in congregate residences for the developmentally disabled, those who have sexual relations with multiple partners, IV drug users, men who have sex with men, and those whose immune system is impaired…including dialysis patient. (Not a complete list…see Immunize.org website, “vaccination information for health care providers” header)

Research on that site indicates that once post vaccination testing confirms a positive hepatitis b surface antibody, that the immunity lasts for at least 23 years. It is a very effective vaccine and research indicates that re-testing for hepatitis b surface antibody is not required for those who have healthy intact immune systems.

Agashem: thanks for the quote. I believe Dr. Wison’s quote speaks for itself. i don”t think I mischaracterized his words.
Vicki- you bet I teach them about condoms. They have to worry about all kinds of things when they get sexually active. ( pregnancy,AIDS, chlamydia, hep C, etc. etc.)
Chemmomo- I really leave that to the scientist(s) to figure out as to the particulars of extended tox studies or primate vacc VS unvacc studies. Like I said, I assumed stuff like that had been done but it’s definitely time to get going on it.

one caveat: scientists who have minimal conflict of interest. Probably a multi-disciplinary type team to help with input.

Jen – why exactly are you complaining about Canada wanting to streamline the process so parents of children that may have a legitimate claim because of a vaccine-related injury would have an easier time filing for compensation?

We’ve had this process in the US for about two decades now, and quite a number of parents have filed suit and been justifiably compensated – as the system was designed to – and each legitimate claim gives the industry as a whole another area in which to focus its efforts to improve safety – since no one here is claiming 100% safety of all vaccines. It would seem to me, that this is a good thing – as with any sort of medical intervention, it is impossible to guarantee, with 100% certainty, that all patients will react exactly the same way, with the same results – they can only do their best to address the majority of the concerns, and be in the position to take care of those that fall outside.

None of this is done with malicious intent – instead, a process was put in place, outside of the normal, extremely expensive litigious environment to make sure those families were given a fair shake.

It really peeves me that the very people to whom the system was designed to help, are its worst critics – who, for whatever reason, blame the fact that the system exists in the first place, as a reason for demanding that vaccines be blamed for a whole host of maladies that there would be otherwise no reason in the world to equate them to.

Hi Damein –

I noted your responses to Jenn and thought I might hop in with some thoughts of my own. Your civil tone is definitely welcomed and I appreciate the effort you put into your posts. I might add, I’m not sure of all of Jenn’s positions, or indeed, if I agree with them, but I do have some concerns about the possibility of vaccination having effects we don’t understand, and indeedd, have some specific thoughts on how we might learn more about vaccine safety.

However, merely advocating for vaccine safety is a meaningless phrase. What, specifically, are you concerned about?

My concerns are along the lines that it is possible that the act of vaccination itself may be modifying the immune system in ways other than the generation of immunological memory of specific pathogens. There happen to be a great number of animal studies that show there are difficult to predict consequences of early life activation, a classification that I think (?) we can agree a vaccine falls within. Please understand, I believe that vaccines work, I’m just not sure that protection from specific pathogens is the only thing they might be doing.

Before we start discussing that kind of thing in detail, (if you’d like), however, I would like to address some things in some of your posts that I’ve seen people argue before, but seem to fail some very simple logical tests when evaluated with much detail. The fact that the types of simplications tend to dominate the ‘pro-vax’ side of these discussions bothers me a lot; I really feel like the foundation of a national health policy ought to have stronger support than it seems to. Ultimately, what I have found is that when pressed on the failings of some fo the arguments you have made, there just isn’t any good research behind them, and some research to suggest exactly the opposite.

Relentless scientific testing of vaccines has shown that they have no role in autism; if you are concerned about toxins, what toxins are there?

Let be clear about something here. One vaccine has been tested relentlessly regarding autism, the MMR. One vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, has also been tested relentlesslyl regarding autism. There is a persistent, and to my mind inexplicable, conflation from these two types of studies to studying ‘vaccines in general’ on the Internet that I’ve never been able to figure out. Imagine a study wherein one group smoked Camels, Pall Malls, and clove cigarettes, and the other group only smoked Pall Mall and cloves. Does this tell us about smoking, or smoking Camels? Similarly, a study wherein one group smoked tar free cigarettes, and the other did not tells us nothing about smoking, it only tells us about smoking cigarettes with tar in them. Imagine the absurdity of proclaiming that these types of studies told us anything about the effect of smoking. And yet, again and again, people insist that vaccines have been tested in relationship to autism, but all of the studies on autism were designed to test either thimerosal, or the MMR.

The fact is, this leaves the overwhelming majority of vaccines, those given at the earliest stages of life, unevaluated for a potential role in autism. If you think that other vaccines have been studied relentlessly regarding an autism diagnosis, could you provide a link or PMID to those studies so we could discuss them?

There are fewer immunological components in all vaccines given today than in a single smallpox vaccine given in 1971.

I’d be curious if you would be willing to source this statement before we discuss it futher? I guess the big question for you would be what has given you the idea that we can (or should) just count up “immunological components” to arrive at a meaningful answer? My position is that I think the idea that we can understand a stystem as complicated as the immune system by subtracting or adding antigens is extremely naieve, and prone to lead us to false conclusions.

Are you worried about a baby’s immune system being unable to cope? Why would it be able to fight off the dozens of infections children experience in the first few years of life (infections involving billions if not trillions of immunological challenges, incidentally), but cower before the 100-ish challenges presented by vaccines?

To start with, I’m not worried about the “overwhelming the immune system” canard; that’s a bogus argument. [I don’t know how Jenn feels]. I am concerned about the possibility of vaccines modifying the immune system in ways that we can’t understand because we haven’t tested for them; mostly because the idea that an immune challenge without pathogenic effects of the microbes having persistent effects is largely a novel concept.

Unfortunately, saying that, I think that there are some confusing pieces here.

In the first place, the overwhelming majority of vaccines are given within the first six months of a child’s life; diptheria, pertussis, tetanus, hib, rotavirus, hep b, polio, and pneumococcus, are given at two, four, and six months of age. We do ourselves a disservice by starting any discussion with inadequate measurements, equating the infections a child may get during their childhood years (until when, they are teenagers) with their infancy; remember that autism’s signs are visible as early as the first year (some say, maybe even earlier). Given that, widening our criteria out to all of childhood seems like a poor analogy.

Secondly, I guess I’d wonder what you mean by “infections involving billions if not trillions of immune challenges”. Or for that matter, how you have arrived at “100-ish challenges presented by vaccines”? I’m hesitant to provide my thoughts on this until I understand your position better, Would you be willing to clarify how you arrived at these values, and perhaps provide some references?

Here is a paper that gives an example of the kind of finding that worries me:

Modulation of the infant immune responses by the first pertussis vaccine administrations [PMID: 17116347 / not linking to avoid spam filter]

Many efforts are currently made to prepare combined vaccines against most infectious pathogens, that may be administered early in life to protect infants against infectious diseases as early as possible. However, little is known about the general immune modulation induced by early vaccination. Here, we have analyzed the cytokine secretion profiles of two groups of 6-month-old infants having received as primary immunization either a whole-cell (Pw) or an acellular (Pa) pertussis vaccine in a tetravalent formulation of pertussis-tetanus-diphtheria-poliomyelitis vaccines. Both groups of infants secreted IFN-gamma in response to the Bordetella pertussis antigens filamentous haemagglutinin and pertussis toxin, and this response was correlated with antigen-specific IL-12p70 secretion, indicating that both pertussis vaccines induced Th1 cytokines. However, Pa recipients also developed a strong Th2-type cytokine response to the B. pertussis antigens, as noted previously. In addition, they induced Th2-type cytokines to the co-administrated antigen tetanus toxoïd, as well as to the food antigen beta-lactoglobulin. Furthermore, the general cytokine profile of the Pa recipients was strongly Th2-skewed at 6 months, as indicated by the cytokines induced by the mitogen phytohaemagglutinin. These data demonstrate that the cytokine profile of 6-month-old infants is influenced by the type of formulation of the pertussis vaccine they received at 2, 3 and 4 months of life. Large prospective studies would be warranted to evaluate the possible long-term consequences of this early modulation of the cytokine responses in infants.

Lets think about this for a minute. Two full months after the last vaccination, researchers were able to discern which children got DTP and which children got DTAP through cytokine profile alone. I’d like you to consider how it is possible that the type of vaccine received was able to cause distinct patterns within the context of ‘billions if not trillions of immune challenges’? How is this possible?

Furthermore, take a look at this study, it was published in 2007, a full decade after DTAP was licensed, published in the journal Vaccine. And yet, the second sentence in the abstract refers to the large unknowns involving the capacity of vaccination to affect the immune system in ways other than antibody generation. However, little is known about the general immune modulation induced by early vaccination. How does this make you feel about the state of our knowledge regarding what else might be happening as a result of vaccination besides pathogen protection?

I do not believe we understand for a single second we understand the impact of changing our infants immune system like this; it might be nothing, but I think we are starting to learn that it is a dangerous proposition to tinker around with complicated, and highly interwoven systems like the immune system and assume that there is no change because we cannot envision a way in which the change might occur. We aren’t nearly smart enough.

Finally, you might consider taking a look at this study as a sample of the kind of thing we are learning in the realm of animal study regarding the effect of early life immune challenges:

Early Life Activation of Toll-Like Receptor 4 Reprograms Neural Anti-Inflammatory Pathways

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/30/23/7975

[The full version is available online.]

In it, the authors report that a single challenge to the immune system during early postnatal life can has persistent effects in modifying the neuroimmune response in challenged animals into adulthood. Not only was the immune system of the brain modified, but the HPA-Axis, substances with large participation in the stress response were also permenantly changed in the treatment group. It is important to note here that the animals in question never got sick, they were just fooled into thinking they were under pathogen attack; and even more importantly, their immune system was not ‘overwhelmed’, it was altered. If you take a look at the references inside Early Life Activation of Toll-Like Receptor 4 Reprograms Neural Anti-Inflammatory Pathways you will see that it is built upon more than a dozen other studies probing the result of early life immune insults.

Those are some of my thoughts; I have many more, including a lot about the specific findings of the altered immune response in autism that we can discuss if you’d like.

Take care.

– pD

Lawrence, I never complained about Canada wanting to offer compensation for victims of vaccine damage! I know some people still feel the manufacturers should be responsible directly, but however it is done people who have been harmed by vaccines should be compensated. I believe Quebec is our only province to have some kind of no-fault compensation system.
Dedicated lurker and chemmomo, listen up because I’m only going to say this again once. I’m not a frickin’ toxicologist (I have a Child Studies and an Art History degree). Believe it or not it isn’t too hard to spot that a lot (though not all) of the safety studies are poorly done or they are just not enough for many consumers to feel safe- but as I have already told you it would really be up to experts to figure out better, longer more revealing toxicology studies looking at certain bio-markers after vaccination or to figure out a reasonable way to do a vaccinated VS unvaccinated primate study.

The bottom line is that the immune system is integral to the behavior of an individual. This has been well documented throughout the literature and at this point there are even college level textbooks written on this subject. The primary mode of behavioral modification is through the generation of specific cytokines, which can affect the brain both directly and indirectly through the peripheral nervous system. The best example of this is the induction of “sickness behavior” a subset of behaviors which become apparent as an individual becomes ill, I’m sure you are all aware of the behavioral changes associated with getting sick. Well, these happen to be adaptive in the sense that they confer a survival advantage to the individual. These also happen to be directed by the generation of various cytokines, which is the result of PRR (pathogen recognition receptor)activation.

This actually all make a hell of a lot of sense since the the immune system is just another sense organ. But unlike eyesight or hearing or other senses the immune system senses the microbial world and the metabolic state of the individual, relaying this information to the brain so that the organism can make concerted behavioral changes to adjust to its environment and enhance survival.

I don’t think anyone here would argue that the sensory information received by the retina which is subsequently integrated within the eye and then transmitted to the brain could have long lasting effects on brain structrure, function and ultimately behavior. But I would bet a lot of money that most people have no idea that, similarly, the sensory information received by the immune system is also integrated by the brain resulting in structural, functional , and behavioral changes. Why is that? Well the most obvious reason to me is that neurimmunology is a relatively nascent field of science that hasn’t gained mainstream traction. But it will, certainly as researchers all over the world are discovering that Major depressive disorder is highly correlated to certain levels of cytokines and further research has raised this from simply correlation to causation, as the specific neural substrates which cytokines effect are discovered.

Now, why is it so crazy to think that tinkering with the immune system during development can have no effect on brain and behavior. As a medical microbiology and immunology major from a prestigious university with an interest and education in neurobiology, it seems awfully messed up to me that scienceblogs, a bastion for science base medicine, is not more interested in discussing and elucidating the important connections of brain-immunology-and behavior. Why is that? The only answer I can come up with is arrogance of ignorance. Seriously, have none of you with a background in science explored these concepts? To me, it seems the most fundamental place to start. On the other hand, pD, a non-scientist (pD I mean absolutely no disrespect by this designation) is far far more educated on these matters than the god damn surgical oncologist that writes this blog (as well as the rest of the regulars that write here). Hello, red flag much, arrogance of ignorance knockin at your door.

Anyway, back to the subject. We have the following evidence:

1) Autism has very well documented immunological component.

2) The developmental period of an organism is a specifically sensitive period when sensory information is integrated and the organism makes long lasting predictive-adaptive responses (epigenetic changes)

3) Immunological information is integral in forming the behavioral patterns of an organism.

4) Vaccines affect the immune system both qualitatively and quantitatively (that is what they are supposed to do)

So based on this evidence wouldn’t it be important to explore these concepts? I’m certainly not suggesting that vaccines are the number one contributor to the development of autism, this claim is quite easily debunked. I am suggesting that a shit ton more research into this field must be done pronto. Specifically, I would suggest:

1) that we profile the cytokines generated from the normal childhood vaccines both quantitatively and qualitatively.

2) That we examine the timeline of immune activation from each and every childhood vaccine.

3) That we observe the effect of these cytokines on neural activity and behavior.

4) That we start to look at how these above items may differ between individuals taking into account specific immunogenetic parameters.

I personally don’t even know anyone who has autism. I don’t feel there is any conspiracy going on within the pharmaceutical and medical industry. I have absolutely no stake in this whatsoever.

I do however see a dogmatic approach riddled with arrogance of ignorance towards understanding the potential of childhood vaccines contributing to behavioral dysfunction. Please don’t take this the wrong way, I am a not trying to say autism is a dysfunction, to me it is simply another way the the human brain develops and can result in dysfunctional behavior (according to our social standards) but not always.

BTW pD, great recent posts(on your blog and of course this one), I had written a nice long response to your latest post and went to submit and somehow I didn’t fill in the name, so it ate it alive never to return it to me. damn, I had some good stuff to say.

@skeptiquette — it’s a shame your “prestigious university” and exceptional education have not equipped you with better research skills. Or, perhaps, powers of interpersonal communication and persuasion.

Just out of curiosity,

1. to what extent are you familiar with the extensive literature on autism and immune response, including mapping atypical cytokine levels?
and
2. given that as far as I can tell the vast majority of said literature implicates autoimmune issues, why do you think we should divert the massive amount of resources which would be needed to stage studies such as you suggest (and this is assuming you would get them approved) away from more likely genetic/environmental causes, to the rather unlikely (given the fact that we cannot find any statistical link at all) cause of “vaccines”? What exactly is your justification for this massive diversion of limited resource?

Has it ever occurred to you, in your wonderfully self-righteous “come in swinging” approach, that maybe, just maybe, someone out there HAS looked at immune system links to brain development, and it just doesn’t point in the direction of vaccinations?

passionlessDrone, here is the problem I have always had with your argument “about the possibility of vaccines modifying the immune system in ways that we can’t understand”.

The children in these studies are undoubtedly the product of the late-20th or early-21st Century developed world. As such, their mothers were adequately nourished during pregnancy; they were delivered in an environment as sterile as possible; they were attended in their first hours or days by people gloved, gowned, and masked to protect them from infection; they have been adequately nourished throughout their young lives; they have been protected from fleas, ticks, lice, bedbugs, and mosquitoes; they have lived among people who themselves are very healthy by any historical standard and thus unlikely to spread disease to them.

In other words, these children have lived their entire lives with abnormally few serious immunological challenges. The very way we live our lives undoubtedly modifies the immune system — ours as adults and theirs as children — in ways that we can’t understand. So detecting that there is a difference caused by an immunological challenge is interesting (and not unexpected since the whole point is to make a difference), but if it has no discernible harmful effect — an effect on the macro level of school performance, social interactions, and the like — scarce research funds probably shouldn’t be devoted to it. Of course, if you want to raise funds yourself to study it, that’s great.

So is there a discernible harmful effect? That’s really the initial question. Given that autism is not new (studies have found the same prevalence of autism — albeit undiagnosed — among adults fifty and up as among young people), given that diagnoses of mental retardation plus autism have not increased, though the proportions have changed, despite the increased vaccinations, what harmful effects do you think are visible among the vaccinated population?

The human species evolved in an environment of constant immunological challenge, beginning at birth and even before. If brain development could be completely disrupted by a single mild challenge in childhood, none of us would have escaped disruption.

Jen:

Believe it or not it isn’t too hard to spot that a lot (though not all) of the safety studies are poorly done

You should really stop saying this until you can come up with a qualified reference to support your claim.

All someone has to do is look up thread to see you bob and weave avoiding supporting your claim that the studies are poorly done. So support this claim, or stop using it.

And we say a “qualified” reference, it does not mean a letter from some random doctor whose credentials cannot be verified or Handley and friends. They must be like the examples I gave before, or like this old class on some Geier research: Study Fails to Show a Connection Between Thimerosal and Autism.

I feel that you need to be reminded that every time you make a claim, that you need to support it with a real reference.

Chris, believe it or not, I think it’s more important on a Science Blog to see discussion on details of immunology etc. than me for the umpteenth time saying I think there is something left to be desired in terms of vaccine safety research. There may or may not be supporting documents to this effect and that doesn’t change a thing about what I think (that there should be more extended toxicology studies or vacc/unvacc studies). I’m done. I do thank you guys (and Damien) for being civil and, really, pD and skeptiquette are asking interesting questions to which I hope people like yourself or Promethius etc. will answer, considering that it would take a fairly high level of science to really discuss.

Hi LW –

The children in these studies are undoubtedly the product of the late-20th or early-21st Century developed world. As such, their mothers were adequately nourished during pregnancy; they were delivered in an environment as sterile as possible; they were attended in their first hours or days by people gloved, gowned, and masked to protect them from infection; they have been adequately nourished throughout their young lives; they have been protected from fleas, ticks, lice, bedbugs, and mosquitoes; they have lived among people who themselves are very healthy by any historical standard and thus unlikely to spread disease to them.

I agree with you. In the past, I’d say that a lot of the infants that got pertussis, or the flu, or tetanus, or whatever at two months of age likely had a very low survival rate. I’d also say, however, that other things in our modern world might be contributing on the other end. As I tried to state above, I don’t have a particular problem with a complicated system.

So is there a discernible harmful effect? That’s really the initial question. Given that autism is not new (studies have found the same prevalence of autism — albeit undiagnosed — among adults fifty and up as among young people), given that diagnoses of mental retardation plus autism have not increased, though the proportions have changed, despite the increased vaccinations, what harmful effects do you think are visible among the vaccinated population?

Indeed that is the sixty four thousand dollar question. I don’t know. (?) I won’t argue the benefits of vaccination, that’s for sure.

Unfortunately, the ‘study’ that you raise involving adults is pretty much a joke if you start poking around the details.

Here’s a link to it:

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/mental%20health/mental%20health%20surveys/APMS_Autism_report_standard_20_OCT_09.pdf

For starters, their findings were along the lines of a staggering 9:1 male to female ratio!

Using this recommended threshold score on the ADOS, 1.0%of the adult population had ASD. The rate was higher in men (1.8%) than women (0.2%), which fits with the profile found in childhood population studies

There aren’t any childhood studies that show anything close to this value! At most, you’ll see 5:1. Should we take this to mean that all of our childhood studies, and I do mean all of them, are missing lots of boys with autism and incorrectly assigning almost all of the girls into this category? What evidence do we have to support this?

Hi LW –

I am inclined to doubt that there are two completely distinct populations with completely different responses to immune stimulation — the fact that autism is a spectrum suggests otherwise, assuming there is any validity to your theory — and therefore there will be a range of responses: extremely vigorous, vigorous, somewhat vigorous, normal.

Sure there is a range of immunological response, but the salient thing is that when you measure the response from children with autism versus children without autism, those with autism cluster at the high end of range. I was suffering from quote fatigue in my resopnse to Luna the Cat and didn’t include them, but I should be clear; you can’t just be inclined to doubt my statements, you need, instead, to be able to develop alternate theories, preferably with sources, as to why the published data from a variety of sources is wrong. Also, I should point out that my thoughts on potential autism causation are not limited to immune mediated mechanisms by any stretch, I’ve got a big tent approach towards a condition with such a heterogeneous manifestation. That being said, I do get bothered a lot when the reasons we get that a vaccinated / unvaccinated study is not necessary hinge on simplistic heuristics such as counting antigens between vaccination generations, or the crudest of observational methods; i.e., kids got sick in childhood in the past.

Our immune system has components, which are responsible for detecting non self protein structures (i.e., cell structures from different types of bacteria, viral dna strands, molecular patterns associated with fungus, ect) and marshalling the initial immune response, the innate immune response. These components, called toll like receptors, or TLRs, could be considered the first line of alert for our immune system. [There are other, related structures, some of which detect endogenous signals of infection. Most of the autism literature involves direct toggling of TLRs, though there is (at least) one study indicating other pattern receptors are also being triggered at increased rates in autism.]

That being said, if we want to see a measurement of the robustness of the immune response in autism, you can stimulate the toll like receptors (TLRs) in blood from children with autism with a variety of stimulants and see what happens: [snipping for length purposes / any emphasis mine]

Altered T cell responses in children with autism. [Ashwood / 20833247]

In vitro stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells with PHA and tetanus was used to compare group-associated cellular responses. The production of GM-CSF, TNFa, and IL-13 were significantly increased whereas IL-12p40 was decreased following PHA stimulation in ASD relative to TD controls. Induced cytokine production was associated with altered behaviors in ASD children such that increased pro-inflammatory or T(H)1 cytokines were associated with greater impairments in core features of ASD as well as aberrant behaviors.

Differential monocyte responses to TLR ligands in children with autism spectrum disorders [Enstrom / 19666104]

After in vitro challenge with TLR ligands, differential cytokine responses were observed in monocyte cultures from children with ASD compared with TD control children. In particular, there was a marked increase in pro-inflammatory IL-1beta, IL-6, and TNFalpha responses following TLR 2, and IL-1beta response following TLR 4 stimulation in monocyte cultures from children with ASD (p<0.04). Conversely, following TLR 9 stimulation there was a decrease in IL-1beta, IL-6, GM-CSF, and TNFalpha responses in monocyte cell cultures from children with ASD compared with controls (p .05). These data indicate that, monocyte cultures from children with ASD are more responsive to signaling via select TLRs.

Preliminary evidence of the in vitro effects of BDE-47 on innate immune responses in children with autism spectrum disorders

In contrast, cells cultured from subjects with ASD demonstrated an increased IL-1beta response to LPS (p=0.033) when pretreated with 100 nM BDE-47 compared with vehicle control. Preincubation with 500 nM BDE-47 significantly increased the stimulated release of the inflammatory chemokine IL-8 (p .04) in cells cultured from subjects with ASD but not in cells from TD controls.

Innate immunity associated with inflammatory responses and cytokine production against common dietary proteins in patients with autism spectrum disorder [Jyonouchi / 12378124]

ASD PBMCs produced elevated IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha, but not IL-5 with common DPs at high frequency as observed in DPI PBMCs. ASD PBMCs revealed increased proinflammatory cytokine responses with LPS at high frequency with positive correlation between proinflammatory cytokine production with LPS and IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha production against DPs.

[DP == dietary proteins; i.e., gliadin / cow milk protein]

There shouldn’t be any question that the immune response in autism is abnormal, and in these instances, stimulation clearly displayed a more robust immune response. But we, also have studies telling us that baseline levels of inflammatory cytokines are higher in autism (see my previous post for some), and that known promoters of the immune response, MIF and HMGB1 are also higher in the autism population. (See Grigorenko and Enzo in my previous post). If you want to doubt the findings in Grigorenko, or Enzo, or the rest of what I’ve posted here (and others), that’s fine, but this is a forum where evidence is supposed to trump doubt; so far, I haven’t seen any.

Fifty years ago, there were fewer childhood vaccines and many more childhood infections with severe diseases.

We don’t vaccinate against all that many pathogens; just the relatively easy ones that have a big impact; but we do it globally. Do you really think that 90+% of infants in the past had pertussis at two months, or polio, or Hib? These diseases, while very dangerous at young ages, were relatively rare at the earliest stages of life; especially in contrast to our vaccination rates. Also, the animal studies I’ve been referring to involve the neonatal period; timeframes very close after birth. “Childhood” is a lot different than early infancy, and indeed, the neonatal period.

Therefore, children would have many more opportunities to suffer immune stimulation, and those with vigorous and somewhat vigorous responses would also be likely to be driven over into autism.

You are assuming this subset of infants survived.

So the autism rate should have been higher fifty years ago, much higher a hundred years ago, and indeed higher now in less developed countries.

But you are using the most primitive tool, your guesses as to how frequently infants got sick fifty years ago, or one hundred years ago, and performed a back of the cocktail napkin analysis to reach your end game. This site, and it’s underlying theme, skepticism, is that we should strive to use good information on which to make conclusions, but in this instance, in this one particular instance, the opposite seems to be true.

My biggest concern, as I think I’ve stated, is that I just don’t think we are smart enough to understand the consequences of our actions without quality analysis; analysis that everyone will admit doesn’t exist when pressed on the issue. For example, take the relatively recent finding that paracetamol in infancy is associated with asthma and related disorders.

http://anthro-therapie.de/forschung/ergebnisse/lancet-paracetamol_240908.pdf

205 487 children aged 6-7 years from 73 centres in 31 countries were included in the analysis. In the multivariate analyses, use of paracetamol for fever in the fi rst year of life was associated with an increased risk of asthma symptoms when aged 6-7 years (OR 1·46 [95% CI 1·36-1·56]). Current use of paracetamol was associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of asthma symptoms (1·61 [1·46-1·77] and 3·23 [2·91 – 3·60] for medium and high use vs no use, respectively). Use of paracetamol was similarly associated with the risk of severe asthma symptoms, with population-attributable risks between 22% and 38%. Paracetamol use, both in the fi rst year of life and in children aged 6-7 years, was also associated with an increased risk of symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis and eczema.

The risk of this was always present, we just didn’t think to look for it until 2008. Unfortunately, our toolset didn’t allow us to understand the relationship between paracetamol and decreases in glutathione until relatively recently. This isn’t a slam on the failings of the scientific method, just the opposite; but once we understood how a particular insult might contribute to a subsequent condition in a biologically plausible way, tests were designed to evaluate for a relationship. That’s all that I am suggesting here; a cautionary approach to a health policy that affects nearly every infant. The animal paper I referenced above, Early Life Activation of Toll-Like Receptor 4 Reprograms Neural Anti-Inflammatory Pathways was published in June 2010; it wasn’t until 2008 that we started to understand exactly how adjuvants included in vaccines actually work to induce a robust immune response; and yet, when someone suggests this might be cause for detailed studies, the quality of the responses involves either misconceptions about the types studies that have been performed ‘relentlessly’, gross over simplifications of complex systems (i.e., counting ‘immunological components’), or common sense, but ultimately evidence free tales that try to go back a hundred years and substitute a single variable, i.e., kids used to get sick a lot. That isn’t approaching the problem by leveraging the force of the scientific method, but rather, with an mix of grade school approximations and faith. It is the opposite of skepticism.

– pD

passionlessDrone, I believe we may be talking at cross purposes to some extent. “I am inclined to doubt that there are two completely distinct populations with completely different responses to immune stimulation” — perhaps that is ill-phrased, but I certainly was not disputing that “those with autism cluster at the high end of range”.

I was describing the nature of the distribution: one possibility would be a discontinuous distribution with one population way over there on the right with extremely vigorous responses and everyone else way over there on the left with responses that have a narrow distribution around the mean response, and no one at all in between; the other possibility would be a continuous distribution with some people way over here on the right (those would include the autistic group) but many people at various positions between that extreme point and the mean. Since few traits look like the discontinuous distribution described, you would need some evidence to overcome the null hypothesis that there is a continuous distribution. I assume, therefore, that there is a continuous distribution, but that people with autism cluster at one end.

You seem to suggest that people with autism cluster at that end because their extremely vigorous response to immunological insults alters their developing brains, as opposed to the possibility that they cluster at that end because their extremely vigorous response and their altered brain development are simply linked manifestations of their genetic traits.

What I am suggesting is that (1) if there is a continuous distribution of response to immunological insults and (2) if an extremely vigorous response to such insults alters the developing brain so as to produce autism, then the more immunological insults infants in a population suffer for any reason, the more autism we should expect to see in that population.

You observe that in the absence of modern medicine, those on the extremely vigorous end of the response spectrum will simply die from their own over-reaction (or at least that’s what I understand you to say), but my comment was intended to convey that those who react strongly but not quite so strongly as the current (surviving) most extreme reactors will have a net response to the greater challenges that is equal to the response that the most extreme reactors have to the trivial challenges of today. Thus they should develop autism just as the most extreme reactors do today. And given the probable distribution, those who are closer to the norm will also be more numerous that those further away, and therefore there should be more autism and not less in environments with more immunological challenges.

You keep pointing out studies that the immune system is abnormally reactive in people with autism, but I’m not disputing that. I’m pointing out that you don’t need to know every jot and tittle of the immune response in order to formulate an hypothesis as to the effect of a much greater immune assault in infancy — which we know did and does occur.

@PKIDs No need to thank me. PKIDs was always one of my favorite sites, when I worked in public health. I had the opportunity of seeing first hand, as a case manager in the Perinatal Hepatitis B Prevention Program, the benefits of testing all pregnant women for the presence of hepatitis B surface antigen and the use of Hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immune globulin to protect vulnerable neonates. It was, and remains, a very intensive program to education women, their household contacts and practitioners about the importance of blood testing for hepatitis B status and vulnerability, the importance of completing the hepatitis B series and post immunization testing.

VT Mom and I aren’t the only ones in our community that promote education about infectious diseases. In my area of the country that has large groups of people born in areas of the world that have very high incidences of chronic carriage of the hepatitis B virus, organizations in those communities have wonderful programs to educate, provide blood testing and medical resources for people.

Thank you, PKIDs for providing the public, practitioners and parents with a wonderful resource.

I don’t think this discussion is going to get anywhere, since I think you’re missing the forest for the trees and you think I’m missing the trees for the forest. You keep arguing that immunological insults in infancy could have wide-ranging effects on the development of the brain. I am pointing out the obvious implication if you are right. I have not been saying that you are wrong, so it’s kind of pointless to keep citing studies at me.

Ugh, that’s hard to read. To put it in mathematical terms, say the maximum response is 100%, the challenge from a vaccine is 1, and the challenge from exposure to the disease itself is 100. Then an extreme responder challenged with a vaccine would have a response of 100% * 1 = 1, whereas a lesser responder (50%) exposed to the disease would have the greater response of 50% * 100 = 50. Therefore the lesser responder exposed to the disease would be even more likely to become autistic than the extremely vigorous responder exposed to the vaccine.

Unfortunately, if I were to ask you for actual measurements of the innate immune response from the pediatric schedule, on how you arrived at 1:100, you couldn’t give them to me.

Of course I couldn’t give them to you. I made these numbers up because I was trying to illustrate a point that I didn’t think I had adequately explained in words how the lesser responder, by actually getting the disease, suffers the same harm as the extreme responder suffered by getting vaccinated, or even more. I didn’t even name a disease because I wasn’t describing any real disease, just trying to describe the concept.

I drafted an extremely long response explaining my point with algebra rather than made-up numbers, but I don’t think I should abuse Orac’s hospitality. So I will let this drop.

Months ago the report by “The Genome Project” came out. In my mind it would be used to further the lie that there is no vaccine-autism connection. Oddly, they stated that children labelled autistic had genetic mutation that didn’t originate with their parents. It reminded me of an SV40 story that ARI had in a newsletter. A toddler died of brain cancer. Parents heard about SV40. Baby and parents checked for it, but only baby had SV40. Where did it come from? Contaminated polio vaccine. Genome project had me asking, “what happens to babies between birth and 3 years that could cause genetic mutation? Could it be breast feeding? Pablum, diaper change, being held lovingly, being shown to relatives, baptized, bottle fed, sleeping a lot, and I just couldn’t imagine these normal things causing autism or genetic mutation. So what else? How about something “UNNATURAL”? Like injecting a bunch of chemicals, viral entities, MSG, peanut oil, fish oil, stealth virus like SV40, or neuro- toxins like aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde and much more? How about I search aluminum and mercury and find out they can cause spontaneous genetic mutation? Well thats what I found..case closed.

faith, did it take you a whole year to come up with that fact free comment? Did you bother to read the articles posted this month, January of 2012? Or did you miss it like you missed that you hit your Caps lock key?