Picking up one’s marbles and going home

I read Wright’s latest rant against scientific research, at AoA. She has gotten a lot more strident…and vicious…as of late, because of her devotion to the junk science theory of vaccine-induce autism.

You are so right Orac, in your appraisal of her deranged thinking processes. She has some sort of educational background in some basic sciences…I believe she has a degree in psychology or social work. Apparently her minimum science education is overwhelmed by her one-track mind.

It is nothing short of amazing how “she just knows” that Klonopin was prescribed as an anti-psychotic for one of the children whose brain was studied. Katie is too dumb or too devious to acknowledge that Klonopin was originally developed and prescribed…and continues to be prescribed for treatment of certain seizure disorders.

Katie is J.B.’s tool against the fine research into the preconception, prenatal causes of autism and the genes mutations that have been identified as causing autism. Those breakthrough research studies are being conducted and funded by Autism Speaks, SFARI, NYS-IBR (Institute for Basic Research) and other groups.

Her fixation on the funding stream that goes into real research and the activities of the IACC is truly pathological. She frequently composes long screeds about these topics for AoA. She (sadly) holds on to her beliefs that studies of genes and the in utero “environment” are dead end topics. She’d much rather cling to the thoroughly debunked theories of her hero Andy Wakefield that claim that kids are “damaged” by vaccines or by other postnatal environmental toxins.

Katie, you and your friends at AoA are always welcome to post at RI because Orac doesn’t have the “moderation policy” that exists at AoA. So, why not “join us” in a lively discussion of your “interpretation” of the Courchesne Brain Study and your critique of the study?

I have a special interest in your discouraging parents of deceased disabled children to make anatomic gifts of their child’s tissue for research and to meet the needs of people who are in desperate need of donor organs and tissues to restore their health. I’d also like to discuss the illustration of the toilet, that is pictured above your article.

Jamie @2

I’m unsure how donation occurs anywhere apart from my own country.

I recommend that you approach your nearest medical school, possibly the Anatomy Department, and ask them for advice.

Jami@2: Yes, contacting your local medical school is your best bet. I don’t know how it works in the US, but for those in the UK, here’s the guidelines: Human Tissue Authority – How to donate your body.

So, basically, this woman has gotten it in her head that vaccines are IT, and no mountain of evidence to the contrary is going to change her mind ?

Sounds a lot like Global Warming Denialism, 9/11 Trooferism and general conspiracy theory nuttyness.

Jamie @2 : organ/body donation procedures vary by locality. Assuming you live somewhere in the USA (a big assumption on my part — ORAC has an international following), your state will likely have it’s own laws and rules regarding donation.
Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to look up your local medical school on the internet and see if they have a section on their website or person to contact.

Hm. I thought I carried an organ donation card in my wallet, but evidently I don’t. Wonder what happened to it and how long I’ve been without it …

Somewhat less importantly, I also wonder where the SIM card I do carry in my wallet comes from, and how long I’ve been carrying it about.

Hello friends –

Regarding the donation of tissue for the autism research program, this is a big problem, as mentioned by Courchesne in other statements, there is a very real dearth of quality brain tissue from patients with autism. For the people out there that have a child with autism, or have autism, please, please consider learning more about the autism tissue donation program. Here is the url: http://www.autismtissueprogram.org

The unyielding facts of the matter are that the brain tissue needs to be collected within twenty four hours of death. This is something you have to know about, care about, and be prepared to deal with quickly during the worst of times, but ultmimately is a resource our community really needs.

Mrs. Wright’s article was a tour de force in dumbness, if anything, we need a lot more study of the brain tissue of children who experienced drastic loss of skills. Sad.

Regarding the Courchesne study, which I’ve yet to get a copy of myself, (?!!??!), I have seen it stated that the children in question were severely affected by autism, and most (or all) macroencepelatic during infancy, further warranting caution in extrapolating the results. Also, I ran into this the other day, which indicates that there may be some mechanisms by which neurons are created in the prefrontal cortext for a brief period postnatally.

Corridors of migrating neurons in the human brain and their decline during infancy (Nature 478, 382-386 (20 October 2011)

Here we find that the infant human subventricular zone and RMS contain an extensive corridor of migrating immature neurons before 18 months of age but, contrary to previous reports8, this germinal activity subsides in older children and is nearly extinct by adulthood. Surprisingly, during this limited window of neurogenesis, not all new neurons in the human subventricular zone are destined for the olfactory bulb—we describe a major migratory pathway that targets the prefrontal cortex in humans. Together, these findings reveal robust streams of tangentially migrating immature neurons in human early postnatal subventricular zone and cortex.

– pD

Please ignore the “blackhearted” derailing-the-thread troll.

It’s beginning to become an AoA Thanksgiving tradition to post tasteless offensive articles and “artwork” at this time of year.

If the same study supported Wright’s claims, she wouldn’t give a fart about sample size or where it was published.

I don’t get these people, I really don’t.

I read the article yesterday- without even going into the physio**- I regard AoA as an avenue for mis-education and mis-directed activism that rivals any of the efforts by Mssrs Adams and Null. Awful.

However,this “think tank” is, in many ways, a support group and network for parents who may feel as if they have nowhere else to go. The tragedy is that the sort of speculation broadcast and discussed actually works against better understanding of autism, SB therapies, reality-based physio, and reasonable coping strategies for parents * by pre-emption*.

If ( like followers of the aforementioned woo-meisters) a parent puts all of their effort, financial resources, faith,and “heart” into a whimsy-based path towards “cure”-eventually they will be mightily disappointed. How do you feel after you have exhausted yourself in pursuit of a dream fed by un-reality?

To compare this further: either by website or broadcast, followers recieve “education” on a regular basis, along with a measure of indoctrination against SB research. Because I have, over the years, steeped myself in this nonsense***, I can describe how the pseudo-science is merely window-dressing for the real deal: it’s a cult of personality. You have the Brave Rebel Paradigm-shifter/ Truth-teller or the Brave Maverick Doctor: supporters cluster to bask in their icon’s wisdom. Supporters in turn task a lesson from their masters and emulate them.

Of course as the material becomes more wildly off-base supporters become more isolated from the mainstream -including friends, associates, and family members- thus they have painted themselves into a corner with like- minded cohorts, re-inforcing each others’ outlandish beliefs, further distancing themselves from the general public. Thus, we have young Jake in pursuit of Dr Godlee and an epi we all know and love as well as his other *betes noires*. And us. All of whom could conceivably *help* him in the world.

I just shake my head.

** check out LONI @ UCLA
*** @ dt- don’t worry about the neurons, you’ll be fine. I can still do mental computations and follow my investments.

Hello friends –

Regarding the donation of tissue for the autism research program, this is a big problem, as mentioned by Courchesne in other statements, there is a very real dearth of quality brain tissue from patients with autism. For the people out there that have a child with autism, or have autism, please, please consider learning more about the autism tissue donation program. Please google the autism tissue network for more information.

The unyielding facts of the matter are that the brain tissue needs to be collected within twenty four hours of death. This is something you have to know about, care about, and be prepared to deal with quickly during the worst of times, but ultmimately is a resource our community really needs.

Mrs. Wright’s article was a tour de force in dumbness, if anything, we need a lot more study of the brain tissue of children who experienced drastic loss of skills. Sad.

Regarding the Courchesne study, which I’ve yet to get a copy of myself, (?!!??!), I have seen it stated that the children in question were severely affected by autism, and most (or all) macroencepelatic during infancy, further warranting caution in extrapolating the results. Also, I ran into this the other day, which indicates that there may be some mechanisms by which neurons are created in the prefrontal cortext for a brief period postnatally.

Corridors of migrating neurons in the human brain and their decline during infancy (Nature 478, 382-386 (20 October 2011)

Here we find that the infant human subventricular zone and RMS contain an extensive corridor of migrating immature neurons before 18 months of age but, contrary to previous reports, this germinal activity subsides in older children and is nearly extinct by adulthood. Surprisingly, during this limited window of neurogenesis, not all new neurons in the human subventricular zone are destined for the olfactory bulb we describe a major migratory pathway that targets the prefrontal cortex in humans. Together, these findings reveal robust streams of tangentially migrating immature neurons in human early postnatal subventricular zone and cortex.

– pD

ps: Previous post got held up in moderation w/a single link so re-posting w/out link to autism tissue program. Orac you can nuke the other response. Am I in a special queue for moderation?

@ Daniel J. Andrews:

I suspect that one of the reasons some parents fight against genetic/ physio data is because of the imagined *stigma* involved- contributing genes that may be related to ASD doesn’t make you responsible but it might be *inferred* by some people that your genes are “inferior” to the average person’s… that SBM is calling them “lesser beings” or suchlike. Even though conditions may be caused by mutation. Casting aspersion on vaccines relieves them of this burden. It’s what they want to hear.

So a big part of her complaint is that the study is small–so she discourages people from donating brains to autism research?

In this field 7 brains is doing quite well, particularly at the younger ages. Of course, smaller numbers reduce sensitivity, but the differences were large enough that the results were significant. It doesn’t prove that every autistic child has excessive prefrontal neurons (there was some overlap in the ranges of the two groups), but it certainly supports other evidence that indicates that early brain overgrowth is often found in autism.

The children all seem to be classically autistic. There have been few studies of Asperger brain, and my understanding is that there is not much Asperger tissue available for research. I hope that this will change in the future, as people with Asperger Syndrome are becoming more organized, and many are interested in science.

The effects of medications are always a worry in studies of this nature. Most people with autism receive some drug therapy, so researchers who look at postmortem tissue cannot avoid the issue. But there aren’t any obvious commonalities in the medication histories, making it unlikely that this is the cause of the neuronal excess. While it is not impossible that a drug could cause neuronal proliferation, loss of neurons is more likely–it is a lot easier to kill neurons than to make them proliferate–so a similar proliferative effect from different drugs is a big stretch.

Based upon what I saw at the latest Neuroscience Meeting, and my conversations with autism researchers, it is simply not true that nongenetic causes are not being pursued. It is clear that hardly anybody in the field takes the vaccine or mercury hypothesis seriously anymore, but that does not exclude other environmental causes, such as prenatal exposure to viruses or drugs, and a recent study found a higher concordance of autism among nonidentical twins than previously reported, suggesting a role for shared environment. However, there has been good progress in the genetic area. It is clear that genetic traits play a role in at least some cases of autism, so this is an important direction. Animal models being pursued include both pharmacological and genetic models. A good animal model would be extremely valuable for screening for possible therapies, but at the moment there is something of an embarrassment of models, and their relevance to human autism is unclear. There were a lot of reports describing disruption of rodent social behavior resulting from various pharmacological and genetic manipulation, and the only real conclusion that I was able to draw was that rodent social behavior is fragile, and there are a lot of ways to screw it up. Evaluation of these animal models based upon what can be learned from postmortem human brain is going to be crucial for identifying models that may be relevant to man, so tissue donation remains critical to progress in the field.

Katie Wright is AoA’s resident accountant/analyst of the funds and resources being devoted to the preconception and prenatal influences, on the brain development of children diagnosed with autism…she is not pleased.

As “brian” noted, Katie’s parents’ generous support of Autism Speaks has enabled science-based genetic research to go forward.

Other groups and governmental agencies such as IBR (Institute for Basic Research) funded by NYS are world-renowned for their past research and breakthroughs that add to our knowledge of genetic disorders.

Why doesn’t Katie and the other “journalists” at AoA, urge their readership to agree to blood tests on their autistic children to determine if these children have gene-based disabilities? What are they afraid of? Could it be that participating is such research would disprove their pet pseudoscience theories of vaccines-causing-autism, post-natal environmental “toxins” causing autism and further damaging the reputation of their heroes such as Wakefield, the Geiers and other snake oil salesmen?

Thingy knows “Unit 731” was something bad, but has absolutely no idea what it was.

What Orac thinks of Unit 731:

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2007/03/doctors_of_depravity.php

As a researcher on autism treatment who regularly reads outside their particular field, I’ve found Courchesne’s group is prolific, properly tempered in their assertions about their work, and have had their worked independently verified by other researchers. This particular study is a natural extension of their work on structural differences in the brains of persons with ASDs.

@ Edith Prickly:

From what I can ascertain a few of the posters do make use of therapy and state sponsored ed ( Hallelujah!); it appears that the reality-based co-exists along with the whimsical,i.e. GFCF,HBOT, chelation, and supplements. Can I venture a guess as to what set of therapies they would attribute any improvement?

It could be that this biological difference in the brain is what makes some children more susceptible to vaccine injury.

If there was good scientific evidence suggesting that some children were more susceptible to vaccine injury than others, then it would be worth devising hypothesis to explain the difference. However, we do not have good scientific evidence to suggest that autism has ever occured as a result of vaccine injury, so speculating on a possible mechanism by which it might be happening on a regular basis is like trying to build a case for murder before even checking to see if maybe the victim is actually alive and well.

Denice @21

I think it’s more than the “stigma.” It’s personal. If the genetic hypothesis is correct, then Katie Wright is to blame for her child’s autism. For a parent, that’s a horrifying thought — the idea that you were the cause of your child’s problems. The fact that the AoA crowd regard autism as an unmitigated disaster for a family makes it that much worse.

She clings to the vaccine idea (not even a hypothesis by this time) is because it shifts the blame onto “them” — the CDC, BigPharma and their many minions in the medical milieu.

Brain differences Orac … brain differences. Introverts have more brain activity in general, specifically in the frontal lobes; something that is hardwired in the from birth and can be seen on brain scans. Introverts have a lower baseline for arousal because of a biological difference in the brain.

I see that “Rachael” posted that same specious argument… verbatim…on the AoA website three hours ago.

Rachael, why don’t you go back to AoA and tell Katie that we are waiting for her to post here? I’m especially interested in her disingenuous argument against organ and tissue donations.

What I see here is a lot of people bringing forward rational arguments. But what you fail to see is that the line of thinking among vaccine critics has nothing to do with rationality. Take this,

The brain processes information much differently in introverts, than in extroverts. It could be that this biological difference in the brain is what makes some children more susceptible to vaccine injury.

and note how a far-fetched assumption is put on the same playing field as a small, but scientifically sound study.

Shorter Katie Wright for the TL;DR; crowd:

I feel ritually impure when confronted with the reality that vaccines are not causal agents of autism.

I could never be a physician or psychologist; then I’d be obligated to treat people who are this staggeringly stupid – they cling so much to their favored hypothesis that vaccines cause autism that they plug their ears about how brains work – if they solicited my help.

Lilady- how is ?Blackheart de-railing the thread???? He’s bang on topic. Are you a moderator or paid blogger?

The only topic of discussion one can get from blackheart’s post is “How can any human be so mind-blowingly arrogant?

It is nearly as good as the time MJD decided to give out a reading assignment, though.

Or do I detect a whiff of unwashed socks…?

Not enough random multidimensional, multilayered use of boldface.

I’d seen too many folks doing disrespectful things to various bodies and body parts.

That’s fine with me. I like the idea of some techs playing touch football with my urinary bladder or some other useless bits after the good bits have been harvested. I’m having plenty of fun with my body in life; it’s only fair it should continue to be a source of fun after my death. I won’t be around to care.

I’m not a neuroscientist, but I used to maintain computers for one, so here’s what I wonder:

It should be feasible to scan these brains post mortem in an NMR scanner, using a diffusion weighted scan. With enough samples, one could get a reasonable mapping from a DWI-MRI image to an estimate of neuronal density.

Once you have that you can start scanning living children and get the same kind of data, at which point you can have data points by the gross.

Now would be a good time for these kooks to leave the game while they’re behind.

are you sure:

“It was incredibly difficult to find 13 suitable brains from children to study.” Funny how 13 ish monkeys was way too few to study in the Hewitson primate study. Because, I guess primates are really easy to obtain and house.

First off, yes, monkeys are easier to obtain and house than human beings. Much easier. You can actually buy them. It’s illegal to buy humans, as you may have noticed. (Quite a lot of Americans killed quite a lot of other Americans over that very issue 150 years ago.)

But that’s not the main problem with the Hewitson study. In addition to the small sample size (a problem, but not an insurmountable one), the control and study groups were imbalanced — only three controls for 13 study animals. By contrast, this brain study had six children with ASD and seven controls. There were also animals unaccountably dropped from the study, and certain data sets were also unaccountably dropped from the final version of the study — perhaps because they weren’t supporting the hypothesis? But the most glaring problem, in my mind, was that even if the study had the power to detect a real vaccine problem, the way they were administering the vaccines in the trial to duplicate the full childhood schedule had a pretty good chance of causing behavioral problems in the animals anyway — they tried to scale the timing of the shots to the animals’ much more rapid development, which meant that they were pulling animals out of the community pretty frequently and then sticking them with needles.

This study, examining post mortem the brains of children with and without ASDs, is very intriguing. It is not sufficient to explain the cause, or even *a* cause, of autism, and the researchers themselves state that. (Quite a contrast to Hewitson, who was very confident in her rather dubious conclusions.) But the results are provocative, and it provides fertile ground for new research. That’s a good thing.

@…are you so sure?

Type “Laura Hewitson” into the search box of this blog. Read. Learn. Her study was a horribly designed study.

IMO this black, black heart is about as relevant to the vaccine-autism manufactroversy as blackheart’s contributions to this thread.

I wanna be a halloween decoration, or a marionette!
Pinata possibility!

the way the brain is wired may very well be a contributing factor as to why some children are biologically more vulnerable to vaccine injury, than others.

It would be nice at this point to have some evidence that “some children are biologically more vulnerable to vaccine injury” rather than slipping it in as if it were a universally accepted fact.

The whole “subgroup of children susceptible to vaccines” line of argument is weird. The only reason for postulating that vaccines were EVILZ was to explain a supposed epidemic of autism. Then the epidemiology and the results of removing thimersoral showed that this was bullshit. So the anti-vax campaigners withdrew to a fallback position, the “vulnerable subgroup” claim.

Obviously this assumption no longer accounts for the purported epidemic so what is the sodding point of assuming it at all? Apart from saving face by making a graceful retreat from one’s original claims rather than an outright admission of error?

I am reminded of the member of the House of Lords years ago, a committed Buddhist and a foe of elaborate funerals that turn into morbid celebrations of death, who wanted to donate his body to the Battersea Dogs’ Home. The Home’s board of directors were forced to reject his offer, stating that they were not questioning his Lordship’s culinary or nutritive qualities, but they were bound by legal constraints.

Speaking as a member of the group being talked about, I find the idea of vaccine’s being the cause of Autism just plain stupid.

I know in my case I was not diagnosed until adulthood(after my symptoms had significantly improved through my own efforts, yay me) because my family have a very strong ‘people with poor social skills and mental illness(s) are bad/inferior’ attitude.

Reading a bit about family life and social attitudes through the ages suggests to me that the above attitude is fairly common. If so, then it seems reasonable to suggest that in those of us who are vulnerable that being ostracised to any extent would aggravate our symptoms. The question now is, with greater population densities are we required to be more socially adept now? Could this be causing at least some of us to be mildly Autistic in stead of borderline, severe instead of mild, etc?

Please note: I am not advocating that the above is the cause or even a cause, I am merely throwing a hypothesis to the wind so to speak.

@68:

Of all the stupid arguments you antivaxx morons have come up with, “Too many too soon” has to be the absolute stupidest. You could concentrate all the active ingredients from the entire vaccine schedule—even the ridiculously inflated numbers of “shots” you idiots quote, and stick them into a baby before it was all the way out (would that it were possible!), and that wouldn’t be a thousandth part of the antigens they’re going to be exposed to that day! They’re just exquisitely targeted, is all.

I have difficulty expressing my reaction to Ms. Wright’s post. One of the key things I learned at IMFAR was the paucity of brain tissue for research and how important this is. Last thing anyone wants is the untimely death of a loved one. But tissue from autistics, children and adults, can help a great deal in furthering autism research.

Suffice it to say that if Ms. Wright’s article results in 1 fewer brain for research, she has done the community a great disservice.

Let me instead focus on a tiny detail: “It is estimated that 50% of the ACE budgets go to overheard.”

I suspect Orac knows more about this than I, but, yes, overhead charges at academic institutions are high. Overhead can be about 50%. Of course, an overhead “tax” of 50% is not the same thing as “50% of the budget is overhead”. If a university has a 50% overhead, that means that if a budget is $100,000, the grant would pay $150,000, 50% of the budget.

Somehow I doubt this would be a question were a giant grant given to, say, Martha Herbert who is at Harvard, and who is supportive of the vaccine causation idea. Harvard’s overhead (F&A) is about 71%.

Idiot @ 71:

Anybody with a brainstem, who’s ever looked through a microscope, would know that 100,000 is a ridiculous underestimate.

citations please
Posted by: MD1970

Heh. A random commenter condemns Courchesne et al. as “lousy” without offering a better study; asserts without evidence that “Brain pruning may be halted by vaccines”; then demands citations from other commenters.
It’s like intellectual jiu-jitsu, as performed by someone who learned the skills by watching a martial-arts movie.

@WaffleMaster #64: And I have no doubt that I’m wasting my breath, especially on this forum, but here I go anyway. All I have to go on is the eyewitness accounts of parents who say that their children were completely normal, prior to a vaccination.

Autism experts say, that they recognize the subtle signs present in infants as young as six months who are at risk for developing autism. but, perhaps those signs were just those of a normal, developing introverted child. Introversion is not an illness, a handicap or a social problem, but introverts do tend to have a lower baseline for arousal and have more brain activity in general, specifically in the frontal lobes. They are usually more sensitive to noise and sounds. There is a statistical correlation between introversion and giftedness. Think of the many children who have developed autism, who have also demonstrated signs of being gifted (artists, musicians, scientists, mathematicians).

Introversion is a trait born in about a quarter of the population. Seeing as many parents of autistic children have said, that their child’s autism developed after receiving a vaccination and considering that vaccines stimulate the immune system, perhaps, the introverted child may have grown up to be a happy, healthy introverted adult, like many of their parents.

(PET scans reveal that introverts have more activity in the frontal lobes of the brain and anterior, or front, thalamus. Extroverts exhibit more activity in the anterior cingulate gyrus, temporal lobes and posterior thalamus.)

“We have to account for the relationship between environmental factors as well as genetics. This is not an either/ or.” Dr. Derrick MacFabe, directorof the Kilee Patchell-Evans Autism Research Group at the University of Western Ontario

The original research was done 9 years ago. This is merely an update,not
impressive at all.
http://www.lookingupautism.org/Articles/EricCourchesne.html

@ MD1970: Thanks for the linkage to a completely different study done by Eric Courchesne at UCSD on LIVE children with ASD, whose parents were recruited through an outreach program. The earlier study was a retrospective chart review of autistic live children that plotted the head circumference differences at birth and through the live children’s early years.

You do know the difference between the two studies, don’t you?

You do know the difference between measuring head circumference of living children versus microscopic analysis of dead children’s brain tissue, don’t you?

You do know that Courchesne’s latest study compared the numbers of neurons and weight of the entire brain of dead autistic children and the numbers of neurons and weight of the entire brain of dead “normal” children, don’t you?

Thanks for the unintended laughs you provided me.

It took 9 years to go from measuring head size and brain overgrowth to studying neurons in brain size? That’s a very slow brain.

MD1970 @ 84:
It took 9 years to go from measuring head size and brain overgrowth to studying neurons in brain size?

Is this a graceful way of accepting that your earlier claim (that “This is merely an update”) was not intended to be factual?

It took 9 years to go from measuring head size and brain overgrowth to studying neurons in brain size?

I know. I mean, it’s not like he’s been busy conducting 65 other studies since 2002 or anything.

Rogue Epidemiologist. Wrong. Katie has already ascertained that the “waste” would be in offering up her “good specimen” for fucking pointless “research.” and Lilady I think speculating on the Wrights preferring Alison Singer over their own daughter has really actually de-railed the blog. Why don’t you try and answer Blacheart’s question @ 6 which was actually on-task.

Sick sauce:

If you have any substantial criticisms of Courchesne et al 2011 instead of repeating Katie’s superficial ones, please do share, as we’ve just read an entire blog post on why Katie’s criticisms don’t pass muster. Maybe you missed it?

@ Sicko: You really need to take some reading comprehension courses…before you post here about your “expertise” in immunology, vaccine-preventable diseases, microbiology and pathology. You know you made a fool of yourself on another blog with your unsubstantiated claims about hepatitis B vaccine’s side effects versus the risks of vertical and horizontal transmission of the virus to neonates and young children.

Perhaps you could take some basic science courses, so that you don’t make a fool of yourself again by discussing gene expression, de novo gene mutations and the prenatal environment, which is the cutting edge now, of autism research.

I have every right to comment about Katie Wright’s ability as a “science reporter” and, unlike the sycophant posters at AoA, I find her understanding of basic science and the causes of autism to be woefully lacking. Every time she analyzes a real study done by real researchers, she displays her simplistic one-track mind.

I’m still waiting for her to post here to defend her junk science article and to defend her latest screed.

I have a special interest in her discouraging parents of deceased disabled children to make anatomic gifts of their child’s tissue for research and to meet the needs of people who are in desperate need of donor organs and tissues to restore their health. I’d also like to discuss her illustration of the human brain and the toilet, that is pictured above her article.

MD1970, Passionless Drome

Congratulations on really starting the debate rolling.

Well done for raising the bar here and extra points for the extra information.

Lilady

Sorry you’ve failed

Why does it have to be vaccines?

Autism Now: Dr. Martha Herbert Extended Interview

ROBERT MACNEIL: Do you think vaccines have been exonerated by all the epidemiological studies, which say they are not implicated in autism?

DR. MARTHA HERBERT: Well, with vaccines, what I think is that in the last, let’s say, 10 years, we’ve had such an explosion, particularly of immunology, that we’re learning things about the immune system that we could never even have conceived. We have ways of measuring and studying that we’ve never even conceived. That these things could never possibly have been known when our vaccine system was designed and developed.

And I think we have a really great opportunity to apply this advanced science to making our ways of protecting the population from devastating, infectious disease really powerful and optimal in a way that was never conceivable before. So I think that we know, at the population level, what the statistics are. What we need to know now is what the biology is for each person.

ROBERT MACNEIL: Could there be a subset of children with a genetic predisposition to have a toxic reaction to vaccines that, for the rest of the children, have no adverse affect?

DR. MARTHA HERBERT: I think it’s possible that you could have a genetic subgroup. You also might have an immune subgroup. There are a variety of subgroups. But the problem with the population studies is, they aren’t necessarily designed to have the statistical power to find subgroups like that if the subgroups are small.

The aptly-named blackheart is a lawyer? Well, that explains a lot.

Basically, Wright is saying that she used to think she would donate her child’s body to science if he were ever to die

Is anyone else just ever so slightly relieved at Wright’s decision? Maybe I’m over sensitive, but what parent plans what to do with their child’s body if s/he dies? Don’t most parents expect that their children will probably outlive them? It seems like Wright now has one fewer justifications for allowing her child to do dangerous things, perhaps subconsciously hoping for an accident that would rid her of a child she dislikes. Poor kid.

Chris@101, I hope the Indiana Jones reference was intentional, it made my day.

The aptly-named blackheart is a lawyer? Well, that explains a lot.

I was more thinking a Fellow of the English Association of Estate Agents and Valuers.

Not a lawyer and not a doctor…just a troll.

Well, Mu, I happen to like snakes. Now trolls are a completely different matter.

Sigh. If only we could make this sign a reality.

(Hmmm, how many folks have seen the Norwegian mockumentary, “Trollhunter”? That could be worth a few laughs.)

Why does it have to be vaccines?

Because vaccination is infection promoting. If Jenner is alive today, he would concur.

@120
Do you have any evidence for that claim?

@121- do you have any evidence that it’s not?

@ Chris: Ooooh, now I know why you attract trolls…. Norwegian ancestry. They can sniff you guys out. Big trouble for trolls.

MD1970:

1% of the population cannot tolerate the current vaccine schedule for various reasons.

That’s fine; they can get medical exemptions and as long as the remaining 99% of us don’t freak out unnecessarily and get ourselves vaccinated, that 1% will be protected by our herd immunity. (For the most part. Tetanus is an exception.) If 1% cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, then honestly, that’s all the more reason for the rest of us to get vaccinated.

@127- follow the current schedule and wind up 1 in 6 developmentally disabled?

That’s fine; they can get medical exemptions and as long as the remaining 99% of us don’t freak out unnecessarily and get ourselves vaccinated, that 1% will be protected by our herd immunity.

See that? They totally disregarded vaccine-induced outbreaks in a highly vaccinated population. Cranks.

@123; that’s not how it works. Burden of proof always lies upon the claimant, in science and medicine as well as in law.

Thought experiment; if I stand up and say, “MD1970 is a pedophile” and when asked for proof, say, “Prove he/she isn’t!” exactly how far through the justice system should the charge go? Should you be forced to prove your innocence? If so, how often?

As for the fatuous claims about developmental disabilities relating to vaccines, how could a 1% sensitivity in population lead to a 1 in 6 (~16%) incidence? Not only do you not have proof, you don’t even have math…

— Steve

Please do not feed delusional, uneducated, disease-promoting health care professional wannabe troll. It needs “terminal disinfection”.

They’re talking – or should be talking – about people who for immunological reasons, like yeast allergies – cannot take the whole vaccination schedule.

Now, of course, to take this uncontroversial fact and see what leap of equivocation comes next.

I know, I know!

* 1% can’t tolerate the current vaccine schedule
* That means vaccines are harmful to 1%
* Autism incidence is close to 1%
* The numbers are so close!
* Therefore vaccines cause autism

QED

Wow, it sounded better than “50% of the population are below the mean”…

…but “more than one standard deviation below the mean are [term for more than one standard deviation below the mean] in a population that has been [something irrelevant to the bell curve]” takes clever dissembling to new heights.

pD said:

I get about a 75% response rate from corresponding authors when I request papers from them, and a better rate when it is a ‘big’ paper. Thus far, I have no response from the authors.”

Well! Obviously that means They Don’t Want You To Know, at least in pD‘s world. I’ll have to remember that explanation the next time I can’t find full-text of a journal article online without paying for it. Rather than getting it from a medical library, I’ll just speculate as to nefarious motives on the part of the authors, using lots of meaningful punctuation (!!!?!?!?).

If, indeed, a large percentage (or all) of the children in question were macroencephelatic (note-pD still has no evidence of this), then this study really gives us clues towards a phenotype.

But that’s not what you said in your previous post. Key phrase:
“most (or all) (were) macroencepelatic during infancy, further warranting caution in extrapolating the results”
You were trying to cast doubt on the study’s findings rather than expressing curiosity about an autism phenotype.
Maybe there’s misunderstanding surrounding your use of the terms “macroencepelatic” and “macroencephelatic”, which I do not recognize as actual English words.

“I happen to think that the use of ‘toxins’ by both sides of this discussion is a large over simplification.Certainly almost anything on AOA would fall into this classification. Your shoot from the hip assertion above, that ‘actual toxin exposure’ would necessarily result in fewer neurons is just as simplistic.”

Actually, expecting neurotoxins to kill neurons (via apoptosis or other mechanisms) is pretty standard among neuroscience professionals. You could look it up, starting with the Wikipedia entry on neurotoxins. In terms of autism, valproic acid is a drug thought on the basis of at least some preliminary evidence to be associated with a higher risk of autism when expectant mothers take it, and it has been linked to lower neuron counts.

“While the AOA guys don’t seem to understand nuance, that doesn’t mean that we have to follow suit…Are we here to have a cheering club, or approach findings with objectivity?”

“We”?

For casual readers who may not be familiar with pD‘s posts, pD has previously stated here that he is the father of an autistic child, and has devoted many posts on RI to speculating about vaccines causing autism, typically by blaming “inflammatory cytokines” supposedly induced by vaccines, while having zero evidence backing this alleged mechanism as causing autism, and being unconcerned about such cytokines being produced by vaccine-preventable diseases (i.e. it’s gotta be the vaccines).
This background doesn’t prevent pD from possibly presenting valid points on occasion. It does make laughable assertions by pD that he is approaching the subject of the etiology of autism with “objectivity”.

@132 your comments are as stupid as your website,Nym.

Says the guy who doesn’t know how a bell curve works.

Denice @90,you probably mean 22q11.2 deletion,or duplication,something that is well associated with not only ASD,and schizophrenia,and autoimmune/inflammatory disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763000/pdf/v086p00422.pdf

Among other articles.

I have both an ASD diagnosis,as well as a long history of other medical issues.Among these are systemic vasculitis,chronic pneumonia,diet resistant celiac,and a few metabolic problems besides.The same is true of both of my sisters,one of whom is also on the spectrum,the other was diagnosed as schizophrenic in her teens.

I have been shown to have applicable mutations on 22q11.2,and am trying to get tested for the deletion or duplication.

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/grants/social-cognition-22q112-ds-adolescents-asd-vs-without-asd-imaging-and-genetic-correla

Those of us who have been following this stuff are aware of the study cited by MD1970 @ 88,especially the part about immune regulation,and inflammation,but I have not seen any follow up,about a possible connection to 22q.It may have been those who had donated the “Autism-A” brains had an undiagnosed 22q11.2 deletion or duplication.I am sure a lot of these “vaccine damaged kids”,whose parents go on and on about their complex medical problems no doubt do.

MD1970:

Phenotypic expression of autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD): a major subset of autism.

By VK Singh, a friend of Wakefield and also Hugh Fudenberg. He is no longer in academic research, but is part of a transfer factor supplement through a Multi-Level-Marketing company, “4Life.” He is also a crank.

What makes Brian Deer qualified to carry out his witch hunt? Even more interesting, what enables him to carry out his witch hunt?

” Even more interesting, what enables him to carry out his witch hunt?”

There’s this thing called journalism, in which people called reporters investigate corrupt doctors who mistreat children. Parents and other interested parties who like to know about crooked doctors will actually pay money to such reporters. If you’d like to learn more, local elementary schools might be able to help you

@ Andrew, Chris, Rev, D.Bacon:

Oh, we will never get through to these people about AJW. I am reminded a play by Mamet in which an exasperated real estate salesman expresses how impossible making a particular sale would be ( paraphrase):” Smith** buy this property? Never. Even though he has 100000 in his mattress. Even if the price were halved. Never. Even if Jesus** came down ,took him by the hand and said, ‘Buy this property’- he’s not going to buy.” It ain’t gonna happen. WE will never get through to them. It’s almost funny.

-btw- I wonder what does “MD”, as in “MD1970”, stands for? Not “medical doctor” I venture *but* could it be “Michael Something”? MD?

** Anglicised because I don’t like ethnic stereotypes. Uh oh… well, you know what I mean.

Hi Dangerous Bacon –

Well! Obviously that means They Don’t Want You To Know, at least in pD’s world.

Your inability to understand ‘my world’ continues at breakneck pace. Thus far, each of the posts I’ve written on this thread (three) have gone to moderation before showing up; at least I have gotten the moderation message after posting. I doubt this is normal, but perhaps it is. (?!?!?!?!)

Rather than getting it from a medical library, I’ll just speculate as to nefarious motives on the part of the authors, using lots of meaningful punctuation (!!!?!?!?).

While this may surprise you, not all of us have the time to goto a medical library every time they want to read a paper; especially those of us with autistic kids that want to read lots of papers. I’m betting maybe that does surprise you.

Maybe there’s misunderstanding surrounding your use of the terms “macroencepelatic” and “macroencephelatic”, which I do not recognize as actual English words.

I’m pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant. The good news is that I have gotten a copy of the paper, (thank you, anonymous benefactor!), and can report that there is no mention of increased head size (or decreased head size) in the autism group. [Thanks, RAJ.]

Actually, expecting neurotoxins to kill neurons (via apoptosis or other mechanisms) is pretty standard among neuroscience professionals.

But this only goes to show the disingenuous nature of your argument.

Here is your initial statement:

what’s bugging Katie Wright (and probably other members of the vaccines-cause-autism alliance) is that the JAMA report flies in the face of assumptions that vaccine “toxins” cause autism, seeing as how the authors’ preliminary results demonstrated significantly more neurons in the brains of autistic children, while you’d expect fewer neurons in the case of actual toxin exposure.

In the first place, considering your keen interest in my spelling errors, I’m curious as to your rather sudden change from ‘toxin’ to ‘neurotoxin’ that your argument seems to have evolved. Or, is it that in ‘Dangerous Bacon’s world’, all toxins are neurotoxins?

But the intellectual dishonesty of your argument goes much deeper. The entire thrust of Orac’s post, one which I largely agree with, is that the guys and girls who post at AOA don’t have the first clue about what they are talking about, immunology, epidemiology, autism, toxicology, or almost anything else. But, when they say they don’t like ‘toxins’ in their vaccines, not only are they adequately versed in toxicology (but just this once), but they also mean neurotoxins. Wow! You don’t get to apply competency towards a group of people when it is convenient to the argument you would like to make, and incompetency towards the same people, on the same issue, every other time.

In terms of autism, valproic acid is a drug thought on the basis of at least some preliminary evidence to be associated with a higher risk of autism when expectant mothers take it, and it has been linked to lower neuron counts.

Citation required regarding ‘lower neuron counts’. Do your citations include findings from the prefrontal cortex?

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. In that case, however, what that means is that the current study, which showed higher neuron counts is a different phenotype than a situation wherein prenatal valporic acid resulted in decreased neuron counts. Is this this your way of saying that you think there are different pathways to autism causation, and for that reason, we shouldn’t extrapolate the findings from Courchesne too widely? Maybe we agree on things after all!

For casual readers who may not be familiar with pD’s posts, pD has previously stated here that he is the father of an autistic child, and has devoted many posts on RI to speculating about vaccines causing autism, typically by blaming “inflammatory cytokines” supposedly induced by vaccines, while having zero evidence backing this alleged mechanism as causing autism, and being unconcerned about such cytokines being produced by vaccine-preventable diseases (i.e. it’s gotta be the vaccines).

Now here is where I am going to post a link and anyone can see for themselves the intellectual bankruptcy of Dangerous Bacon’s representation of my position. The real masochist can read the entire thread and see if I provided ‘zero evidence’ of this alleged mechanism.

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2010/11/the_strange_science_and_ethics_of_the_an.php

Check out comment # 75, where I write, specifically to Dangerous Bacon

But even here, just six posts above I told Calli Arcade that infections during early infancy would have the same functional effect.

Or later in post 75:

Natural infection, LPS, and vaccines all trigger the innate immune system, you aren’t getting around that simple, simple fact, and one of the results of that is the creation of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Or in post 78:

You still don’t understand the concept that the effects of an inflammatory response in vivo as an immediate consequence of a vaccination (or natural stimulation of the immune response) are the focus of my concerns, and why a study that involved months old blood stimulated in vitro to measure responses is a very, very different type of measurement.

Does this sound like someone who is advocating ‘it’s gotta be the vaccines’? Either Dangerous Bacon cannot read, or he is intentionally misrepresenting my positions. [BTW – one of the cases in the autism group in Courchesne was hospitalized for a fever four days after birth. Go figure.]

Finally, for anyone actually interested in the growing body of literature on the effects of early life activation of the immune system, I would recommend some of the following papers, which have come out recently (most, since the post that I just linked to):

A Lifespan Approach to Neuroinflammatory and Cognitive Disorders: A Critical Role for Glia

Or

Microglia and memory: modulation by early-life infection.

Or

Neonatal programming of innate immune function

All of which have similar shades, the immune system and CNS and very tightly coupled in ways that were black swan unknown just a decade ago, and interventions within the immune system during critical developmental timeframes can have widely varied results on the organism. This is a data stream that is only going to get more inconvenient.

This background doesn’t prevent pD from possibly presenting valid points on occasion.

Thank you.

It does make laughable assertions by pD that he is approaching the subject of the etiology of autism with “objectivity”

I’m willing to put my objectivity up against your any time.

– pD

Even more interesting, what enables him to carry out his witch hunt?

“Being right” perhaps? Or is that too simple?

This study suggests that, whatever causes autism, it probably happens before birth, not after. If true, that rules out vaccines as a cause.

a) Vaccines – We don’t know the vaccine status of the mother. Therefore we can’t dismiss a role for vaccine either directly or indirectly causative.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/preg-guide.htm

b) Autism – This research addresses Autism not the full spectrum of Autism so this type of physiology has not been shown in say Asperger’s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum

c) Phenotypes – This study does not address differing phenotypes as identified by University of California researchers.

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/research/app/

d) Co-morbid conditions – This study does not identify whether the extra cortical cells are directly causative to autism only or may be part of another pathology that is often seen in patients with autism.(Or indeed whether it could be a protective factor for ‘autism’.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110419003648.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19187292

e) Gene Expression – This study does not elucidate whether the physiology is related to gene expression through ‘insult’ or another mechanism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22065254

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22030357

f) Multi- factorial – There is no clarity to the research to elucidate whether this ‘single event’ is causative to autism or whether it is a matter of several factors that have to be in play over time.

http://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/abstract/S0166-2236%2808%2900038-6

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22085436

g) Lamarck This study does not address the possibility of epigenetic inheritance that has been elucidated by researchers. (One for the real deep thinkers)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518111723.htm

h)Neuroinflammation – This study does not address other physiology such as neuroinflammation and other immune system markers found in CSF autistic patients.

http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/neuroimmunopath/autism_faqs.htm

i)Brain Growth – This study does not address aberrant brain growth found in autistic patients after birth.Or address other anatomical features found in autism.

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/24/42/9228.full

http://brainposts.blogspot.com/2010/09/common-brain-anatomy-features-in-autism.html

http://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/abstract/S0166-2236%2808%2900038-6

j)Regressive Autism – This study does not elucidate the finding by Hornig of 88% regressive autism .

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

Comment of mine in moderation.

A few fine examples of how eyewitness accounts are not always reliable:

Totally OT: happy Thanksgiving to all the RI minions, and to Orac’s, even more!

and here’s another. Watch all three parts. “Vaccines and Autism: Mixed Signals”

@ Rachael: I would “go with” the pediatrician’s diagnosis of roseola rather than measles…based on the doctor’s examination of the child:

Roseola is a viral disease commonly known as Sixth’s Disease, usually caused by the Herpes 6 virus. The rash is different than a measles rash; it is a flat rash versus the maculapapular rash of measles. The rash after measles vaccination, that occurs in ~ 5 % of vaccine recipients does not appear for at least 3 days (up to 21 days) after the vaccine is given…not 1 day after, as “claimed” in the video. I’m certain that the physician explained to the parents that the absence of chorizo, cough and Koplix’s xanthum spots in the mouth all rule out a diagnosis of measles.

Thanks however, for your link to the anti-vax videos…it gave me the opportunity to view the hilariously funny “case” of Desiree Jennings.

Ooops:

chorizo = spicy Spanish sausage

**coryza = nasal congestion

** It’s been a while since I investigated a measles outbreak.

Half a “gotcha” awarded to any poster who picked up on my mistake.

@ Rachael:

I really think that introversion and autism should be considered separately- yes, I’ve seen speculation about this: I don’t want to go into the whole history of introversion/ extroversion as a concept but here’s a few things to consider- introverts may be very well versed in social cognition- trying to understand other people, thinking recursively, being sensitive to subtle communications like gesture, facial expression, prosody; extroverts are not necessarily as “tuned in”,; then there’s the reflective/ impulsive dimension- I could easily imagine arguing a link in the opposite direction. I personally might test fairly highly on measures of introversion but am painfully aware of non-verbal signals et al and my score on ASQ basically doesn’t register.

If you like material like this go to sites that are science based or take a course in general psychology at a 2 or 4 year college. AoA, NVIC, NaturalNews, Progressive Radio Network etc do not provide reality-based information in the life/social sciences. I could write a book on this.

Racheal

Autistic behaviours or signs of introversion?

The autism experts who actually viewed the tape said Autistic – not introversion. Generally, informed export opinion trumps wishful speculation.

@ Rachael: Things getting a little “hot” for you here? Why not toddle over to AoA where they have a posting moderation policy of excluding any real science…and including any crank theory about precipitating factors (vaccines) “causing” autism?

You do know the difference between personality traits and developmental disabilities, don’t you?

Denice Walter has offered you some good advice about taking some courses at your local community college; I suggest that you register for Psychology 101 to learn the difference between introverted and extroverted personality traits.

Let us know how you fare in Psychology 101…then we could suggest some other, more advanced courses in normal early child development versus early developmental lags observed in children with developmental disabilities.

Is that “introvert” meme a Rachel special or is it the new AoA theme?

Rachael:

An anecdote for you.
I am an introvert, from a family of introverts. All of my parents’ descendents have had the full range of vaccines recommended for the places we live and have travelled. There are introverted children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Not one is on the autism spectrum.

The only one suspected of having autism was me.
I was examined by an autism specialist a few years back to see if I had Asperger’s (I won’t go into why). She categorically denied that I was on the spectrum. She thought my symptoms were caused by enormous stress I was going through at the time. The symptoms (and stress) are now resolved.

The point of this is that anecdotes can be used to “prove” anything. Since my anecdote is as valid as yours, do I get to claim it as “proof” that vaccines have no role in causing autism? No I don’t.

The answer lies in scientific investigation and methods – epidemiology, experimentation, statistical analysis etc.
As has been said many times – people are easy to fool – and the easiest person to fool is yourself. Science, done properly, avoids this.

pD said:

“Your inability to understand ‘my world’ continues at breakneck pace. Thus far, each of the posts I’ve written on this thread (three) have gone to moderation before showing up; at least I have gotten the moderation message after posting. I doubt this is normal, but perhaps it is. (?!?!?!?!)”

This is standard conspiratorial fare from our antivax contingent. I have seen a number of my own posts go to moderation when there is but a single included link, or even sometimes when there is no link at all. pD needs to recognize that there is no plot to silence him or the vociferously loony antivax commenters.
As for accessibility of the JAMA article under discussion, there are plenty of us who have not had immediate access to it (or other newly published fare), but who’d prefer to make the effort to search it out rather than gripe about how the authors were keeping if from us deliberately, while speculating groundlessly about a physical characteristic of the subjects potentially invalidating the study (congratulations for finally acknowledging that there’s no evidence of this). Seeing as how your specialty on RI has been a Gish-Galloping citation-fest of minimally relevant articles, I’d been under the impression that you had multiple journal subscriptions and a “world-class” article-review service (like the Geier’s “world-class” lab in their basement), but maybe not.

“Citation required regarding ‘lower neuron counts’. Do your citations include findings from the prefrontal cortex?”

See, this is an example why it is often fruitless to try to debate with you. You make an assertion, it is contradicted, then you try to weasel around it by creating new conditions. This happened awhile back when you claimed that there was no research investigating inflammatory cytokine production in connection with vaccines. When I demonstrated to you that indeed there was, I got responses on the order of “well, they didn’t look at these cytokines”, didn’t delve as deeply as you thought they should, etc., never admitting that you got caught out in an inaccurate statement.

This is the poster accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. Irony meters explode.

What we do agree on currently is that the JAMA study under discussion offers some interesting if limited evidence deserving of further study, and that parents of autistic children shouldn’t condemn and withhold their support of research if it produces findings contrary to their beliefs.

I’m willing to put my objectivity up against your any time.”

I’ve never said that I’m “objective”. I think vaccines have provided enormous public health benefits while establishing an excellent safety record, and that repeated attempts to damage public faith in them through specious arguments and bad science need to be counteracted through good evidence and effective public relations. Fairness demands that quality evidence be weighed and accepted even if it runs against long-held beliefs. “Objectivity”, in daily life or reporting in the media, is not a quality we can expect in human beings, and I am especially wary of those who claim to be objective, particularly when they have repeatedly given us examples of why they are not.

Rachael @177:
I’m trying to suppress my inflated ego and my natural dismissiveness. Bear in mind that these are actually my introvert strategies for dealing with unwanted stimulation from outside.

I am happy to accept that the difference between introverts’ and extroverts’ behaviour is accompanied by differences in the patterns of brain activity in functional-imaging studies. It would be a wonder if there was no connection. But these are *subtle* differences; you can’t look at a snapshot of a person’s brain activity and say “She’s an introvert!”

So when you say “The brain processes information much differently in introverts, than in extroverts”, that’s where I think you’re drawing too long a bow. The neurons are the same, the cortical pathways are the same, the difference in the overall distribution of activity is subtle.

And crucially, there’s no hint of *any* difference in immune response (if there were, wouldn’t introverts also be more vulnerable to childhood diseases, and therefore more in need of immunisation?). If someone had found a genetic difference between introverts and extroverts that produced an identifiable difference in their neurons — a special allele for one of the neurotransmitter receptors, for instance — *then* there would be some point to wondering if they are more vulnerable to an immune-system response.

Autism experts say, that they recognize the subtle signs present in infants as young as six months who are at risk for developing autism. but, perhaps those signs were just those of a normal, developing introverted child.

Serious question here. Has anyone reported infant markers of introversion, i.e. behavioural signs in infants who grow up to be introverted?
I know there’s a 1999 paper by Schwartz, Snidman & Kagan about ‘reserved’, inhibited, avoidant infants, who tended to be inhibited and reserved when they were assessed as teenagers — but ‘inhibition’ is not the same thing as ‘introversion’.

@The Christian Cynic

Your experience is not unusual. Prospective studies of children as they develop ASD show that the parents of children with ASD routinely miss the subtle early signs of ASD as the condition develops in their younger children; in fact, even such “experienced” parents regularly miss the development of regression.

Here’s an example:

http://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/webprogram/Paper7432.html

Of course, the physical signs associated with ASD can be detected much earlier, since in infants eye movements or muscle tone can be assessed more easily than can behaviors.

Wow……

My first visit to Orac’s blog in a while, and I see that Th1Th2 still posts here.

You going to try to back up that last assertion, or do you give up?

“It’s the vaccines dummies.”

With such an eloquent statement, I’m convinced. Who needs scientifically sound studies and published peer reviewed articles anyway?

@ Antaeus Feldspar
Even if Rachael might not appreciate it I like it when you go analytical.
I’ve got an anecdote about that gorilla video. When I studied neurobiology our Professor showed us that video. In our class of 32 people I was the only one that noticed the gorilla.
1/32.
The gorilla was bleeding obvious and only one spotted it. What does that tell you about eyewitness accounts? And for the record my classmates thought I was totally bonkers when I started laughing and talking about a gorilla.

Do everything he responded. Orac thrive? Unless Orac I just could have any medication whatsoever, unless you then wore gloves again. It’s just like a better idea.

You’re late. As the next to humans.

@ Antaeus Feldspar
Even if Rachael might not appreciate it I like it when you go analytical.

Thank you for saying so! I have to say, it’s really nice to hear that someone appreciated that post, ’cause it’s kind of obvious Rachael didn’t pay any attention. “See, here’s why eyewitness accounts don’t convince scientists the way that you think they might.” “Oh, yeah?? Well, here’s an eyewitness account! Didn’t expect me to totally crush you like that, did you??”

I’ve got an anecdote about that gorilla video. When I studied neurobiology our Professor showed us that video. In our class of 32 people I was the only one that noticed the gorilla.

1/32.

The gorilla was bleeding obvious and only one spotted it. What does that tell you about eyewitness accounts? And for the record my classmates thought I was totally bonkers when I started laughing and talking about a gorilla.

1/32? Wow! I have an anecdote, too, but it’s only about a 2/3: me showing the video to my brother and his friend on the computer, and finishing off with “woud you believe, half the people on average don’t see the gorilla?” A pause, and then my brother, half-laughing, half-hesitant: “… what gorilla?”

My fellow and sister minions:

Brave and exquisitely reasoned responses- however any argument provided by our opponents will eventually be reducible to vaccines. Either the vaccines do damage all on their own or in conjunction with a condition that already exists in the child.

Whether their follow-up shifts into conspiratorial gear ( re AJW) or waxes psychological ( as above), it always boils down to an objection about vaccines. Counsellors often return again and again to the central issue presented: we should do the same.

brian mentions very early signs : I wonder if when this becomes more general knowledge how *it* will be circumambulated? Perhaps then the new suspect will be the earliest vaccines ( day of birth) or even vaccines that “damaged” the mother during or prior to pregnancy. We have heard that even unvaccinated children suffer from their mother’s childhood vaccine “damage”.

And whoever points this out or shoots holes in conspiracy theories that prop up the failed vaccine-autism hypothesis will be labelled a pharma shill. I really should start investing in these companies** and claim my well-earned portion of limitless wealth.

** I only own pharma via mutual funds that I inherited.

(slightly OT) My autistic grandson is visiting us for the weekend. He has improved so much in these past three years. Still lagging verbally, but I was thrilled to hear he likes to play school – what an opportunity to help him with skills!

(back to the topic)
I was amused – when I first attempted to try to comment on the article ORAC reviewed AofA had already banned the previously used email address (please, please don’t ban me!). I was rather shocked. I’m pretty sure my last comment over at AofA was very polite and actually in the form of a question, even.

Regularly, between posts, attitude and evidence I am further assured that the assertion above that there is no “elite closed club” in science-based medicine, but rather, just a big difference between the education levels that allow understanding is a very true thing. Some write more accessible posts than others, but I love what I’ve been learning as I’ve lurked on these blogs.

@Rachael:
First of all, I’d like to say that I sympathize with Madison and her parents. It is unfortunate that this has happened.

However, just by stating that her decline started immediately post vaccination doesn’t prove that the vaccine caused it.

From a logical perspective:

1. To a person who does not know what parameters to look for while determining the growth and development of a child (like the parents and the target audience for the video) the child may look like she is developing normally but they may miss subtle signs. The information provided in the video is not adequate to determine that the child was growing and developing normally up until the vaccination. For e.g. only her gross motor skill (sitting without support) has been mentioned with the age (5 months). What about the chronology of other milestones? Other than gross motor skills, what about specific fine motor skills and the age at which they were achieved? What the chronology of the milestones indicative of social development? Obviously, these aren’t questions that the target audience of the video are going to be asking because most would not know that these are important criteria to consider.

The eye sees only what the mind knows. Which is why an expert maybe able to detect subtle signs (because s/he knows what to look for) which parents may not.

To illustrate, you have had your heart all your life. But, I’m sure you are not aware of what the normal events during the cardiac cycle are; what their normal duration is; or what the specific pressure changes should be in each chamber of the heart. You also wouldn’t know the molecular mechanisms responsible for contraction of the muscle fibres or how the energy is supplied or how the control mechanisms work. In fact, if you have not been taught or have not taught yourself the anatomy of the heart, you probably are not even familiar with the normal anatomy of the heart, either. Without knowing the normal (even though you have been in possession of it all your life), how do you expect to know the abnormal?
Similarly, just because they are the parents and have been seeing the child since birth does not mean that nothing unusual will elude them. They have to first know that it is unusual. And as far as subtle signs are concerned, they are after all, subtle.

2. If the child already had subtle signs OR sub-clinical changes which were eventually going to lead to her decline into clinical symptoms it is still possible that the age around which the (noticeable) decline were to start could be around the same age at which the vaccines are administered. That doesn’t implicate vaccines as the cause. It just means that vaccination is an event which occurred in parallel to beginning of the clinical decline.

3. The much touted

“immunological mechanisms have been seen to be highly active in autistic brains Immunological mechanisms are responsible for autism” + “vaccines stimulate immunological phenomena” = “vaccines cause autism”

equation is again fallacious:

a] Vaccines are not the ONLY triggers for immunological mechanisms. Most foreign antigens that we are exposed to stimulate an immunological reaction to it – why don’t you implicate them? Considering that the vaccines contain the same antigens as (in most cases, lesser antigens than) the pathogen against which it provides immunity, how is it any different from being exposed to the pathogenic strains of the organism? Without MMR vaccination, the child will get measles, mumps and rubella (especially when the herd immunity goes down) and will still be exposed to the same antigens as those in the vaccine. If natural infection with greater antigenic exposure isn’t a trigger for autism, why should the same antigenic exposure (but iatrogenically) cause autism?

b] Again, just because immunological activity has been found to be high in the autistic brain tissue samples, does not mean that it is the cause. The other possibilities are –

i) The cause of autism could be a defect in a cellular signalling pathway which causes faulty neuronal migration. The disruption of this same signalling pathway genes could also make the signalling between leukocytes abnormal leading to an abnormal immunological functioning. In that case the, findings would be indicative of two parallel phenomena, NOT “cause and effect”.

ii) The cause of autism could be a yet unidentified misfolded protein. This misfolding may alter its function probably causing autism. This misfolding may also alter its immunological properties to which the immune system maybe reacting.

iii) The cause of autism could be a yet unidentified pathogen to which the immune system maybe reacting. Thus the pathogen may be directly responsible or the immune reaction to that pathogen maybe responsible for the development of autism.

iv) The cause of autism could be an immune reaction against a sequestered antigen in the CNS getting exposed. This exposure again can have so many causes.

You see, the surety with which you draw your conclusions from the equation above is because of your lack of knowledge of pathophysiology and your inability to consider other possibilities based on it. Yet again, the eyes see only what the mind knows.

Having spoken of the multiple possibilities which could logically follow from your observations (unlike your ability to see only one logical possibility), let us consider what reality says: 14 years after the “vaccine causes autism scare”, multiple studies have been conducted and no reputable, well designed study has shown that there is a causal link between vaccination and autism. Studies to which the regular posters have frequently posted links on this forum. Please feel free to check them out. If you detect a flaw in those studies (other than that they do not support your notions) please point them out to us.

Parents know their child best?

Some things maybe. But I recall feeling a fool with my own baby on my lap and the doc pointing out a particular action. Whoops! Absolutely incontrovertible sign of pain in the ear. Thanks very much. I will get that prescription filled pronto.

And many years later, dealing with other people’s children. Educational not medical, but some clients referred to specialists because of sight and hearing issues.

People really do _not_ notice that their children exhibit classic signs of illness or distress or disability which are glaringly obvious to a professional. The number of times I’ve had to ring families to ask if something’s gone wrong … and been told grandma sick, pet dog died, house move or divorce in the offing.

Why did you ask? they say. Well, I noticed that your Johnny/Jenny was having some problems. Varies from child to child, but professionals really can observe things about children that parents haven’t noticed themselves.

@Rachael:
Autism is not the extreme end of being an introvert.
Autism is not starting out as an introvert + vaccine causation. Please see above.
Yes, some traits or behaviors overlap. Not all.
In fact, I’d wager there are more traits that don’t overlap than do.
If you wish to continue the discussion, I will.

People may be motivated to in-attend to certain cues they observe that are *disturbing* to them- the flip side of the coin is seeing what they would prefer to see- it’s feasible that negative signs of development might be ignored as surely as expected improvement would be high-lighted. It’s important for families ( I did some advising way back-not ASD) to keep written- and dated- track of events, interventions, meds, illnesses, appointments. Memories have a way of transforming and melting together. Many people have the mistaken idea that there is some sort of infallible video-like record that can be easily accessed.

I like that Antaeus discusses the un-reliability of eye-witness testimony ( see Loftus); another illustration involves memory of sentence fragments ( meaningful)- subjects are shown combinations of fragments either alone, two together, and three together. Later they are most confident of having seen *four* together- which never happened! Meaning acts like a magnet and what clumps together often isn’t there because what actually occured but because the meanings “fit” together. I think I just explained woo-ful theory-generation as well.

Memory can of course be assisted by external aids ( like notes) but that doesn’t control for the emotional factors and lack of experience in observation which professionals provide. Because anti-vax – both leaders and followers- relies upon emotion we shouldn’t expect anyone in that camp pointing this out – parents’ witness always trumps data. andis great ad copy.

Hi Chemmomo –

pD, I’m still interested in how you think my son fits into your hypothesis. As a younger sibling, he was exposed to a lot more immune challenges as an infant than my older child. This includes, as we’ve discussed before, his first cold at only three weeks old (we jury rigged raising one end of the pack’n’play bassinet with phone book to elevate his head to help drain his runny nose). He had his first ear infection subsequent to a bad cold at five and a half months. There were numerous colds in between. And he also had the full immunization schedule in 2006-7.

I don’t remember this discussion. Can you find a link to it? If you asked this question and I failed to respond to it, I apologize, perhaps it got lost in the tide of posts, or I moved on. In any case, I’ll try to respond now. I would be interested in seeing the original post, to see if I responded previously, and how this response matches up with what I wrote in the past.

So, pD, now what? Is my child an outlier, a freak of nature, who by random chance escaped the neurological changes leading to autism in spite of repeated early immune system activation? Or will you consider that your hypothesis might not be as robust as you assume?

I cannot believe that I need to say this on this site, but a single annectode, while a form of data, is generally not considered to be strong data. There is a limitation to what we can understand from single data points. For example, if we consider valporic acid as a potential prenatal cause of autism, there is not a one hundred percent concordance between exposure to VPA and an eventual autism diagnosis, not even close. This is why even though specific children may be exposed to VPA or similar agents in utero and do not receive a diagnosis we do not find that the underlying theory is invalid. Do you think that every child exposed to VPA prenatally who does not have an autism to be a ‘freak of nature’?

But you raise a more important point, namely, a misunderstanding of my thoughts, something that it would appear is widespread. I am a bit despondent on this, considering the care I’ve tried to take on that kind of thing.

I am not advocating that vaccines do cause, or even contribute towards, autism based on the findings in papers like the three that I referenced above, only that such a pathway is possible, and the immunological findings within the autism cohort are in alignment with the possibility of a susceptible subgroup. I am not advocating that there is an autism epidemic driven by vaccination and vaccination alone. I do not claim to be able to answer the very problematic questions of the degree of a true rise in autism diagnosis. I believe that genetics play a big part in autism, in some cases, the entire part.

The fact that your son, and many others, got infections early in their life, and went on not to receive an autism diagnosis does as little towards the robustness of my hypothesis than the fact that another persons child may have been exposed to valporic acid prenatally, and went on to become outgoing. Should the fact that a great many children who have mothers and fathers over forty do not receive a diagnosis of autism affect the robustness of what our studies on older parents have shown, a consistent, but moderate increase in risk? Are all of these children ‘freaks of nature’?

My worldview is one wherein there ins’t a single ’cause’ of autism, even within a single individual, but lots of little differences. Furthermore, while the prenatal experience is clearly paramount, there is nothing sacred about postnatal life, especially early in the perinatal period, that protects infants from long term effects of envirornmental exposures.

Here’s the bigger thing, Chemmomo, the findings of developmental programming of the immune system are robust, and they don’t change one iota based on your experience. For example, check out one of the papers that I referenced above:

Microglia and Memory: Modulation by Early-Life Infection (The Journal of Neuroscience, 26 October 2011, 31(43): 15511-15521; doi: 10.1523/?JNEUROSCI.3688-11.2011). Here is the abstract:

The proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) is critical for normal hippocampus (HP)-dependent cognition, whereas high levels can disrupt memory and are implicated in neurodegeneration. However, the cellular source of IL-1ß during learning has not been shown, and little is known about the risk factors leading to cytokine dysregulation within the HP. We have reported that neonatal bacterial infection in rats leads to marked HP-dependent memory deficits in adulthood. However, deficits are only observed if unmasked by a subsequent immune challenge [lipopolysaccharide (LPS)] around the time of learning. These data implicate a long-term change within the immune system that, upon activation with the ‘second hit,’ LPS, acutely impacts the neural processes underlying memory. Indeed, inhibiting brain IL-1ß before the LPS challenge prevents memory impairment in neonatally infected (NI) rats. We aimed to determine the cellular source of IL-1ß during normal learning and thereby lend insight into the mechanism by which this cytokine is enduringly altered by early-life infection. We show for the first time that CD11b+ enriched cells are the source of IL-1ß during normal HP-dependent learning. CD11b+ cells from NI rats are functionally sensitized within the adult HP and produce exaggerated IL-1ß ex vivo compared with controls. However, an exaggerated IL-1ß response in vivo requires LPS before learning. Moreover, preventing microglial activation during learning prevents memory impairment in NI rats, even following an LPS challenge. Thus, early-life events can significantly modulate normal learning-dependent cytokine activity within the HP, via a specific, enduring impact on brain microglial function.

The journal that published this paper, The Journal of Neuroscience, has an impact factor of 8.2, which is quite high. It is but one of dozens of papers that tell us that the immune system is maleable during critical developmental timeframes, and this maleability can manifest behaviorally due to the interconnected nature of the immune system and the brain.

The quote from Mrs. Herbert earlier in this thread hit the nail on the head; our existing vaccine studies are not approriately designed to detect if we are changing our infants in ways other than protection from disease with vaccination. Unfortunately, research undertaken long after the development of the vaccine schedule indicates that the immune system is playing a much more active part in learning, memory, and behavior than we even thought possible. We are very much in the beginnings of understanding of how the immune system interacts with the formation and function of the brain. That’s OK, it is the reality, but we shouln’t pretend that we understand our actions just because it is comforting and the alternatives are frightening.

Does that help answer your question?

– pD

Parental observation of their children can be problematic at times and some of the anecdotes shared here may show some minor matters, but on the whole parental observations drive medical intervention not the other way round.

Apparently “eyewitness testimony” usually a single moment in time, quite distinct from parental observations over long periods of time, has been confused in this issue as well.

Each and every days millions of observations are made by parents that lead to direct medical intervention on the behalf of their children.

So what are we to then make of the facts surrounding the following –

1. Parents reporting high levels of regression in their children.Lancet 12 for instance.

2. Medical authorities report low levels of regression around 20% (Smeeth 2004)

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2917020-7/fulltext

3. Then when a focused study by Hornig … 88%

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140#pone.0003140-Luyster1

That 88% still not elucidated fully …I would have thought the medical and ethical imperative would have been to investigate further.

Would it be a food allergy for instance ?

Perhaps but …unlikely unless 88% of the parents were introducing eggs , peanuts or lobster bisque a child’s diet rarely changes that significantly.

hmm … perhaps some mechanism that has had an immunostimulatory response on the child’s immune system. In the present or the past. Something that led to a change in gene expression perhaps… virus , bacteria …

What isn’t a surprise is the amount of literature being developed that indicates a clear immune system dysfunction in autism.

The one disappointing thing is we’ll probably never know because the opportunity was lost …

Thus ends the cautionary tale of the skeptik.

@ Rachael:

I’d really like to get through to you – I truly believe that looking at introversion is a roundabout way to invoke the spurious vaccine-autism link- which is not supported by data. The anti-vaccine movement has already tried the ideas of contamination and auto-immunity. I firmly believe that the “information” they provide is a dis-service to the public.

When you focus on complicated *speculative* avenues of physiological interference with development ( courtesy of AoA and others), you are distracted from the existing data that show no link between autism and vaccines.

I have absolutely no stake in the debate other than the fact I despise pseudo-scientists mis-leading people for their own gain, either monetary or ego-enhancing.

Many of the people who comment here are well-educated in science: listen to them. We’re not being paid to write here, we neither sell nor profit from vaccines- we feel it’s the right thing to do.

Please consider my words: I have to get ready to leave for my excursion. Have a nice day.

Now let’s go back to science Treg,

Vaccines are not the ONLY triggers for immunological mechanisms. Most foreign antigens that we are exposed to stimulate an immunological reaction to it – why don’t you implicate them?

Like what foreign antigens other than vaccine antigens?

Considering that the vaccines contain the same antigens as (in most cases, lesser antigens than) the pathogen against which it provides immunity, how is it any different from being exposed to the pathogenic strains of the organism?

So you’re saying that after delivery, newborns are normally being exposed to HbsAg? Where in Gangta’s paradise do you live?

Without MMR vaccination, the child will get measles, mumps and rubella (especially when the herd immunity goes down) and will still be exposed to the same antigens as those in the vaccine.

MMR vaccination is the fulfillment of primary infection and that is precisely your job as an infection promoter.

@ Rachael: Why do you continually post here about anti-vax topics you have just read at the AoA website? Your theory about personality traits and autism have been thoroughly debunked by the “regulars” here…yet you still persist in reworking other “theories” that you have just read about, on AoA.

Please don’t feed the delusional, uneducated, health-care-professional wannabe Thingy troll. It needs “terminal disinfection”.

MMR vaccination is the fulfillment of primary infection and that is precisely your job as an infection promoter.

Citation needed, and that records of goalpost? Crap, but it. So-called herd immunity secondary spread of Modern Medicine because there were two weeks after giving me this kid? I don’t expect diagnose yourself a cesspool or sewage. For what? You’re only come again.

Two things, Rachael:

1) If we went back to colonial Salem we could without a doubt collect multiple “eyewitness accounts” of people being afflicted by a witch giving them the evil eye. Just like the parents you cite can talk about how their child got a vaccination and shortly thereafter started showing signs of autism, so could the parents of Salem can tell how old Goody Harkness gave their child a glare and shortly thereafter the child became sickly. Do you believe that witches curse people with evil eyes and hexes, or do you believe that eyewitness accounts are not always the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

2) If someone says “I’ve lost so much weight on this diet! I used to be 180 pounds; now I’m down to 180 pounds!” you wouldn’t need to hear their speculations on the mechanism by which the diet helps them lose weight in order to decide that the diet isn’t helping them lose weight. You would conclude that the diet is not having an effect on them just from the fact that there is a difference of zero between the weight they started at and the weight they reached.

You have voiced your speculations on a mechanism by which some children who might be introverted but who would not otherwise become autistic, who get vaccinated, become autistic after all. If such a mechanism existed, then the population of unvaccinated children would have a certain percentage of children who became autistic obviously because of non-vaccine factors; the population of vaccinated children would have the same percentage of autistic children, plus an additional percentage who became autistic through your suggested mechanism.

The best scientific evidence, using techniques that have been previously used to find effects happening at rates as rare as 1 in 100,000, fails to show any difference in autism rates between the two populations. If you wouldn’t take seriously a diet plan that results in weight loss of zero, why do you expect us to take seriously a mechanism for causing autism that makes zero difference in autism rates?

Antaeus Feldspar: See 224.

Hi Dangerous Bacon –

Virtually all of your myriad posts on RI have been dedicated to the proposition that vaccines must be suspected of causing autism. You’ve promised before to get off that kick and delve into other etiologies, but it always seems to get back to the vaccines.

The first post I had in this thread, didn’t have anything to do with vaccines. Primarily I wanted to highlight the time sensitive nature of donating tissue, especially brain tissue, in the event of a tragedy. I happen to think that is important.

Secondly, I asserted, incorrectly, that I thought there were physical characteristics of the children involved that might be meaningful in terms of phenotypes.

Lastly, I noted that there was research indicating not all neurons in the prefrontal cortex were created prenatally.

After that, I also discussed the potential for impairment in programmed cell death as a participatory player in the increased neuron numbers observed. You are the one who jumped up and down about my posting history, assignment of conspiratorial motives based on punctuation, and vaccination.

You are confusing joining a discussion about vaccines (or having one forced upon you!), with the inability to have a discussion about anything else.

The unfortunate reality is that nearly all discussions about autism on this site, and many others, involve vaccination. Try out my post on MET at my blog, here, for an example of me ‘delving into other etiologies’.

http://passionlessdrone.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/autism-alphabet-soup-met-hgf-plaur-serpine/

You also dismissed existing studies because they didn’t cover the cytokines you felt important. This is known as “changing the goalposts”, and is a common dodge among antivaxers

I dismissed the existing study because there are meaningful differences between measuring the in vivo response to vaccination in terms of innate immune response and in vitro response to a particular agent, months after the vaccination. You understand this, but can’t get yourself to admit it in public.

It isn’t changing the goalposts, it is recognizing that because a study has the words ‘vaccination’ and ‘cytokine’ in it, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it provides relevant information towards whether or not we understand the quality and quantity of the innate immune response generated by vaccination. That is something we still do not have observations for.

My ideas on the possibility of vaccination to affect our infants in ways other than we understand hinges on the creation of an innate immune response at developmentally critical timeframes. Within this context, I think it is important to note that we just don’t have any information on the quality and quantity of the immune response generated from the pediatric vaccine schedule.

A study wherein children are vaccinated with one vaccine, blood is taken fifteen months afterwards, put in a test tube, and exposed to measles antigen and the resultant immune response is measured doesn’t give us any idea of what happened in the child after vaccination, just what happens in a petri dish when blood from that child is exposed to measles virus fifteen months afterwards.

Lets admit that you were technically correct; there was a study that measured a cytokine and a vaccination. I was wrong. I am curious, however, if you could help me understand something. Within the context of the animal studies I have been providing as a reference point on varied effects of early life immune activation how much can we understand about the resultant release of inflammatory cytokines in infants following administration of the pediatric vaccine schedule from an in vitro study from blood taken fifteen months previous?

Perhaps the problem is that I am just too dim to see how we can learn about the immediate, in vivo effects of vaccination from the study you provided. Like many humans, I’ve been wrong about lots of stuff. With that in mind, and considering how much effort you’ve put into insisting that you ‘proved’ something with that study, maybe you could explain to me, here, how we can use your study to understand the innate immune response in an infant following a two month well visit? I’m honestly asking for your thoughts on this. With a little luck, I’ll be capable of following your explanation.

It’s nice that you’re relatively civil in comparison to most of the antivaxers who post here, pD and can string together coherent sentences.

Well, that’s something!

– pD

Rachael at 224:
you are never going to convince me
OK, that saves a lot of time.

Here is a posting from AoA by “Rachael” when she commented on Kent Heckenlively’s article “XMRV (HGRV) is Not Dead-The Rituximab Story”:

“David: I actually became sick during strenuous exercise and the consumption on one too many aspartame containing “diet sodas” (a chemical poisoning of sorts). It was the height of the fitness craze and even though I was always was more of a sprinter than a long distance runner, I pushed myself to do aerobic classes. Drinks with “zero calories”, that contained aspartame, had just come on the market and I began drinking way too many of these beverages. I was exercising and downing yet another diet cola, when I suddenly developed severe flu-like symptoms. Those flu-like symptoms have remained with me since that day over twenty-five years ago, although, like I said in my previous post, I have found things that help ease my symptoms, somewhat.

However, I do believe, like you, that vaccinations are responsible for the development of CFS in many individuals. A series of adult vaccinations about ten years ago made me tremendously ill and it took years to regain what I lost by subjecting myself to those shots. I personally have always been more sensitive that the average person to the effects of prescription medications and I have always had chemical sensitivities; a part of my genetic make-up I guess (sensitivity) being that I am a artist. I believe that just like in autism, the genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger.

Posted by: Rachael | October 29, 2011 at 11:17 AM”

Rachael also posted in an earlier comment that her “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” was directly caused by ingestion of Aspartame contained in diet soda…not vaccines.

Yes Rachael, you are bullsh** artist.

Rachel

“you are never going to convince me that a “one size fits all vaccine schedule” is safe for everyone.”

Perfectly fine and sensible reasoning. Which is clearly evidenced in the medical literature.

Each of our bodies respond in differing ways to differing medications including vaccines.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm

Developmen­­­­t of Newborn and Infant Vaccines

Guzman Sanchez-Sc­­­­hmitz Children’s Hospital Boston and Ofer Levy Harvard Medical School recently commentate­d

Therefore, understand­­­­ing and modeling age-specif­­­­ic human immune responses will be vital to the rational design and developmen­­­­t of safe and effective vaccines for newborns and infants.”

http://www­.scienceme­dicine.org­/content/3­/90/90ps27­.short

Paediatricians around the world are concerned with how our food is manufactured and what substances are placed within it.

Nature magazine is running a special edition on allergies and their impact on health.

http://www.nature.com/nature/outlook/allergies/index.html

Once again it seems you have some valuable information to relay in your own personal circumstances that I think some researchers would indeed find interesting.

That you are able to articulate that gene expression may play a pivotal role in this discussion is an important indicator that you have given this issue some very thoughtful time.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7351/full/474294a.html

There is an emerging body of evidence that clearly implicates the immune system in autism and is probably a major ‘group’

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/us-researchers-discovery-promises-answers-on-autism/story-e6frg8y6-1226131763200

So does your type of personal story make sense to some medical professionals certainly …

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/lifestyles/8393890-423/fillers-used-in-medication-can-cause-adverse-reactions.html

Apologies to you from those of us who like open science discussion

@ Chris: Apparently, I used to be a “gifted, very sensitive (including my immune system), highly intuitive person …”, but then I was immunized against polio during my adolescent years. I had to give up a promising career as “an artist” and go for the fall-back career in public health nursing.

I threw my back out really badly for the first time a mere three days after I first “specified” sea cucumber in my Happy Family. This cannot be a coincidence!

Refuse all Happy Family with a “Sea cucumber optional, please specify” label! Buy my book!

I do feel a great deal of sympathy for people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome who’ve been told it’s “all in their head”. I had asthma really bad as a kid (say 1959-1968, more or less). That was the era when asthma was all in your head, too.

That doesn’t mean I accept as a given that CFS is all one thing.

A review of the Hannah Poling case-

Vaccines caused her encephalopathy.
How many other children were similarly affected?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904

I believe, if untreated, Lyme does progress over time – from simple flu-like symptoms, to joint issues, to finally attacking the organs themselves.

If I am incorrect in that (again, completely untreated Lyme), let me know.

The Polings response to an OpEd piece by Paul Offit MD.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E6DC1F30F936A35757C0A96E9C8B63&ref=hannahpoling

Wow – from three years ago….

Now, see, among adults, an ability to change your mind when you encounter new evidence is considered to be a good thing, a mark of intellectual honesty and emotional maturity. It just boggles me that anyone would come out and say “You’re never going to convince me!” without realizing that they are admitting to a failing.

I would certainly change my mind about vaccinations being the smart way to go if those who oppose them were able to produce actual evidence for the dire claims they make; do people like Rachael who boast of their inadequacy in that respect think I’m somehow confessing to a failing by saying I could be convinced? Sorry, but clinging on to a belief no matter what and refusing to consider questions because you don’t like the answers they give you – that’s not being “gifted,” or “sensitive,” or “intuitive,” that’s being a fanatic.

@ Lawrence: I posted a comment about “chronic Lyme disease”…and it is stuck in moderation.

c j f:

Did she have a fever with any of the ear infections? If so, how is it that she didn’t develop encephalopathy with those fevers? What am I missing?

The medical records that the parents refuse to release. You can find more information here. In short, the award was not for autism, she had an uncommon pre-existing condition, and her parents have been less than open about the whole case (including the father not proclaiming a conflict of interest in a paper he published).

“Polarization of immune responses by vaccination may influence the outcome of future infections.

Epidemiologic studies have shown that immunization with live attenuated vaccines that elicit predominantly type 1 immune responses , such as M. bovis BCG and measles vaccine had a non-specific beneficial effect on childhood survival.

In contrast, diphtheria-pertussis-toxoid (DPT) vaccine, which primarily elicits type 2 immune responses, had the opposite effect

(Kristensen et al., 2000; Garly et al., 2003; Shann, 2004; Roth et al., 2005).”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1462-5822.2005.00653.x/full

Thank you blackheart! Thanks just for listening and thanks for your links. I’ve known for a very long time, that having someone listen to me is not usually the case, when it comes to CFS. The CFS/autism overlaps have intrigued me for a very long time.

A new study out of Norway adds much to the data that chronic fatigue is an autoimmune disease. If not entirely definitive, it points in the direction that many CFS sufferers and clinicians have argued for decades, that the illness is a disorder of the immune system and is preceded in most cases by some kind of infection, stimulation or change to the immune system.

Rachel

No worries. I must admit there bark is worse than their bite.

Have a look here … 67 odd studies on immune system dysfunction and related research starting at Post #571

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2011/09/the_fixed_mindset_of_the_anti-vaccine_activist.php

————————-

Interestingly you mentioned before “introversion” …

Immune-to-brain signaling pathways, CNS cytokine production, and roles of immune signaling in the brain

http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/lcmr/sfn/neuroimmun.html

In another set of projects, we seek to understand how immune-related molecules influence mood and anxiety behaviors in rodents. Our focus is on the role of the NF-kB transcription factor in emotional states such as fear and anxiety.

We are characterizing anxiety-like behaviors in NFkB1-/- (p50 knockout) mice that show altered emotional states. These mice are normal in most simple tests of appearance and sensorimotor function, but they show altered fear and anxiety-like behaviors.

Inhibition of NF-κB Signaling as a Strategy in Disease Therapy

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u01487xrj6034825/

As described extensively in this issue, NF-κB transcription factors regulate a number of important physiological processes, including inflammation and immune responses, cell growth and survival, and the expression of certain viral genes. Moreover, NF-κB activity is elevated in and contributes to the pathology of several human diseases, including many cancers and chronic inflammatory diseases.

Psychiatric disorders: The dark side of depression

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n8/full/nrn3072.html?WT.ec_id=NRN-201108

Leonie Welberg

Depression is associated with disruptions in circadian rhythms, including altered sleep–wake patterns, and with immune system activation, as indicated by increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Monje et al.

—————

GO enrichment analysis of the 11 genes shared by Autism, Schizophrenia, and Epilepsy.

GO: 0032103 Positive regulation of response to external stimulus – Anxiety
(Any process that activates, maintains or increases the rate of a response to an external stimulus).

GO: 0031622 Positive regulation of fever – (Any process that activates or increases the frequency, rate, or extent of fever generation.)

GO : 0031620 Regulation of fever generation

GO: 0031650 Regulation of heat generation

GO: 0031652 Positive Regulation of heat generation

———–

Evidence for activation of nuclear factor kappaB in obstructive sleep apnea

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a risk factor for atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis evolves from activation of the inflammatory cascade. We propose that activation of the nuclear factor kappaB (NF-kappaB), a key transcription factor in the inflammatory cascade, occurs in OSA.

NF-kappaB activation occurs with sleep-disordered breathing. Such activation of NF-kappaB may contribute to the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis in OSA patients.

I’ve known for a very long time, that having someone listen to me is not usually the case,

And since you plainly cover your ears and chant “LA LA LA” when you think you might hear something you don’t like, that seems entirely fair.

pD: “You are the one who jumped up and down about my posting history, assignment of conspiratorial motives based on punctuation, and vaccination.”

Your posting history (including “just asking questions” about vaccines in this thread) is relevant to understanding where you’re coming from, protestations of “objectivity” not withstanding.
I have not assigned conspiratorial thinking to you. You’re the one who sees nefarious activity behind your inability to immediately get a full-length copy of a newly published journal article, and having comments placed briefly in moderation on RI like lots of other posters. Most of us can handle this sort of thing without going all !!?!?!?? about it.
If you want to be taken seriously it’d be a good idea to ditch the “they’re plotting against me” mindset, as it’s a typical component of the usual antivax herd from which you appear to want to distance yourself.

“The unfortunate reality is that nearly all discussions about autism on this site, and many others, involve vaccination.”

That’s because this site has a heavy focus on quackery and pseudoscience, including antivax activities. It is not primarily about autism, although evidence for its true etiology(ies) is touched on. Whatever you do on your own blog is nifty, but when you post here it is typically to try to implicate vaccines in causation of autism, directly or indirectly (by pooh-poohing any evidence that suggests an alternate mechanism, as was the case in this thread).

“It isn’t changing the goalposts, it is recognizing that because a study has the words ‘vaccination’ and ‘cytokine’ in it, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it provides relevant information”

Uh, it isn’t “a study”, it’s numerous studies* that have examined cytokines and other molecular aspects of immune response following vaccination (which I alluded to in previous discussion). Apparently none of them satisfy your great concern about the unique threat of the immune response to vaccination (never mind the daily antigenic challenge we all face from myriad antigens from birth onwards, or the antigenic challenge of actual infectious disease which dwarfs that involved in vaccination – because, well, it’s gotta be the vaccines. That probably accounts for the latest pD goalpost shift, demanding comprehensive research into “the innate immune response in an infant following a two month well visit”, otherwise, well, we can’t possibly know enough to recommend vaccination of infants against dangerous infectious diseases.

*PubMed is your friend here. Beware however – it is possible that some of the articles may not be available to you in complete form for free, either because some journals like paying customers, or because They Don’t Want You To Know (!!?!??!??).

@passionlessDrone #212
pD, thank you for your well thought out response. First, I’d like to say that I appreciate the fact that you do try to follow the science yourself, and your most recent comments here suggest that your position has evolved over time and new data (I haven’t had time to check your blog to see to find out if that is true). I don’t think I can find the other thread; it was probably at least a year ago, maybe two. You didn’t fail to respond – we had gone around and around the same problem I still have with your hypothesis. Clearly, I didn’t make that much of an impression on you.

So the short version of your hypothesis vs my anecdata (and sorry, since I don’t do medical research that’s all I’ve got) would be is my kid’s an outlier. Or, if you prefer, part of a non-susceptible subgroup.

I do agree we still have much to learn about how the immune system affects development. The abstract you posted is interesting, but it’s a rat study, and I don’t have access to the journal to read it for myself, so I can’t judge how it translates to research in humans.

Here’s where we disagree. You concluded:

Unfortunately, research undertaken long after the development of the vaccine schedule indicates that the immune system is playing a much more active part in learning, memory, and behavior than we even thought possible.

The vaccine schedule did not significantly increase the number nor the timing of immune challenges an infant faces. Sure, some challenges (i.e., the vaccines) have become regularly spaced, rather than random. But what my anecdote was intended to illustrate is that infants’ immune systems have always been challenged, even in very early life. The current vaccine schedule has not changed that fact. To me, that’s the elephant in the middle of your hypothesis.

OK, let’s try another track. Do you have any ideas about how to distinguish special cases for whom the standard vaccination schedule is unsuitable, from children for whom it is OK?

We could use science.
“Further, we currently have no way to identify those children who might respond adversely to vaccines.”

Evidently blackheart’s answer to the question is “no”. So we are left with the unpredictive post-facto paradigm of “Oh, this child is old enough to be diagnosed with condition X; this child was vaccinated in the last 6 months; therefore vaccination causes condition X.”

herr Doktor

Obviously you missed … (Patient History)

“Practically, if your child has clinical indications of an immune system abnormality, such as unusual or difficult to treat infections, or your family has a long and extensive history of immunological problems, we recommend that you consult with your physicians about the safest options for immunizing your children.”

But such things as biomarkers or perhaps partial wave spectroscopic (PWS) microscopy are being developed.

There’s a reason blackheart didn’t want to give a citation for his latest statement, alas we might read the whole article:
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/newsroom/vaccineposition.html
It’s not really supportive of his position if put back into context.

Mu @270

Colour me unsurprised. Racheal, why are you praising someone (blacheart) who continually demonstrates such dishonesty? This does explain why blackheart admires Wakefield – they are both champions of mendacity.

I have a comment stuck in moderation. You could also look up the entire ACIP 2011 General Recommendations, “immunization of immune compromised individuals”, instead of the cherry-picked UC-Davis citation provided by blackheart.

Look especially for the definitions of immune-compromised states (genetic versus treatment related). If it is all too complicated you can check the VIS (Vaccine Information Sheets) to locate instances when a particular vaccine may be contraindicated or delayed.

Most vaccines are especially recommended for immune-compromised individuals because of the risks of the actual diseases to such people.

The entire article supplied by Mu makes mention of some instances where a physician may delay or defer a vaccine for a particular individual.

Rachael should try and read these recommendations and not rely on the crap she reads at AoA or the advice from her new internet BFF blackheart.

(never mind the daily antigenic challenge we all face from myriad antigens from birth onwards, or the antigenic challenge of actual infectious disease which dwarfs that involved in vaccination – because, well, it’s gotta be the vaccines.

So Dangerous Bacon has implied that “daily antigenic challenge” is also “daily pathogenic challenge” like what he described as “antigenic challenge of actual infectious disease”. Now who in their right mind would do something abnormal like going to India just to get a daily challenge with WT poliovirus? Seriously provax have lost the debate every time they use the “antigen gambit”. Ass always they are barking up the wrong tree.

Militant Agnostic:

This does explain why blackheart admires Wakefield – they are both champions of mendacity.

There is really no point in engaging blackheart. He is just a more verbose version of Thingy. How can you tell blackheart and Thingy are lying: they typed a comment on a blog.

Hmmm… Let’s see…
Measles virus comes in contact with the mucosa from where it eventually gains entry into the blood and disseminates.
Ditto polio…
Oh wait! the mumps and rubella viruses also gain entry into the human host by the same route…
Diptheria and pertussis toxins also get absorbed from the mucosa…
MALT (mucosa associated lymphoid tissue) is constantly coming in contact with antigens in the food that we ingest… Infact that is where the body comes in contact with gliadin and reacts to it…
The oral and respiratory mucosa are colonized by several bacteria including Staphylococci, Streptococci and Haemophilus… Their antigens are continuously in contact with the MALT…
The Gut is colonized by various species of bacteria including E.coli…
Yes, our skin and mucosa protect us from several INFECTIONS but they are also continuously acquainting our immune system with the myriads of antigens which we come in contact with in our environment….

Nope… We don’t get exposed to any antigens because our skin and mucosa protect us…

yet you insouciantly breach the protective barrier

Wow, we’ve never heard the bot giggle during an update before.

@Mu-
From your link- quote
“Does this mean that we can say without a doubt that vaccines do not cause autism in some children? The answer to this question is “no”. There is emerging evidence that some children are immunologically compromised and therefore may respond in an atypical way to vaccinations. We do not currently understand how atypical immune responses might influence the developing nervous system or how commonly such adverse effects occur. Further, we currently have no way to identify those children who might respond adversely to vaccines. Several research projects at the MIND Institute are attempting to find such diagnostic markers. Clearly more research needs to be carried out on the relationship between the immune system and autism. Practically, if your child has clinical indications of an immune system abnormality, such as unusual or difficult to treat infections, or your family has a long and extensive history of immunological problems, we recommend that you consult with your physicians about the safest options for immunizing your children.”

Questioner, who wrote that and why are all of the references more than five years old?

And, Mady Hornig’s autistic mice study came under severe criticism (the question was “how can you tell if a mouse is autistic?”). So really, why should we care about what was written in an undated anonymous press release?

And, Mady Hornig’s autistic mice study came under severe criticism (the question was “how can you tell if a mouse is autistic?”)

From what I remember, the signs of autism presented were normal patterns of mouse behavior, such as territorial aggression. That’s just plan sad.

The other unfortunate thing is that we can no longer read what the AutismDiva wrote about Mady Hornig’s “Rain Mice.”

Racael (#258) missed my request for further information (#257) so I’ll repeat it here.
The argument has been that there is some small subgroup of children — let’s call it X — who should not be vaccinated because it puts them at risk of adverse condition Y. But is there any way of identifying members of group X in advance?
If the answer is simply that “any child who is diagnosed with Y after vaccination must have belonged to X”, we are not actually any the wiser.

@ Sharon Astyk: It is so nice to hear from you and your opinion about tissue donation after death for research.

I have been thinking about this article that was written by Katie Wright, in response to this small study and have come to the conclusion, that it will have little or no impact outside of the echo chamber readership of AoA.

While there is a slight chance that a few parents at AoA understand the value of brain tissue donation for study into the causes of autism, any comments they might submit will never pass “moderation” at AoA. I believe the overwhelming majority of their readership is in lockstep with their “cause” and, I don’t think any of them would ever consider such donations. It would destroy all the theories that are promulgated by this anti-science, anti-vax crowd.

Ooooh, yet another undated anonymous press release from blackheart the liar!

@Chris
Re: Refs
Read the CDC’s on Autism Spectrum Disorders
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

See, beings of Thingy’s species never breathe or eat or drink, and never have breaks in their skin.

Well, there are things that a normal reasonable human being would not do to himself and to others–that is, to promote infection. You eat, breathe and drink because it’s a physiological need not because you’re promoting infection. Do you have any better idea of promoting infection other than eating, drinking and breathing? And I don’t know why someone would intentionally inflict injury to themselves and other people just to promote infection, do you?

And of course, they believe that only actual disease pathogens cause an immune response and not the millions of other antigens we’re exposed to in our lifetime, most of which we would never know were there if it weren’t for the ham-handed response of the Rube Goldberg contraption we call our immune system.

Well, those millions of antigens we’re exposed to cannot cause diseases unless they are pathogenic. Do you dispute this?

Oh Th1Th2bot…are you still entertaining offers to manage you? If so, I would like to submit an offer. Do you have a trained technician to manage the Th1Th2bot Service Center? Perhaps I could offer the services of my daughter who is trained as a software release manager. (I know, I know, this is the child who must have been “switched at birth”.)

We may have a need for another “bot” soon…if Dangerous Bacon tires of offering up redundant explanations.

MD1970:

Read the CDC’s on Autism Spectrum Disorders

So what? It is a general information page, not a scientific document. Which is quite a bit different than outdated anonymous press releases from research labs.

There is a difference.

@ Thingybot: Thanks for your usual extraordinary interpretation of Thingy’s brain droppings.

P.S. My offer still stands for “managing” your bot and your Service Center…just contact Orac, for my e-mail address.

@Chris
Johns Hopkins

Recently I’ve quoted a Thomson Reuters NPR poll (Sept 2011) that revealed that 31% of parents of children (under age 18) had worries about vaccination while only 18% of those over age 65 were. This suggests a few things to me:
let’s assume that the “worried” groups are each normally distributed running the gamut from mild to severe worry,
and
there is interaction between the groups ( some in the older group have grandchildren and/or are influenced by their adult children- the younger group)-

perhaps our job isn’t as mind-bogglingly huge as we might fear because there are not as many die hards in the general population as there are in anti-vax groups- plus older people may be easier to convince because they are old enough (to remember many of the actual illnesses that are now preventable by vaccines) and who may influence younger people, like their own children, nieces and nephews.

Many people are frightened of being in a plane crash although the risk is extremely minute- although not as rare as a vaccine injury- talking to them about probabilities, addressing their fears sympathetically, *explaining* just *why* air travel *is* so frightening, teaching them to relax, and teaching them about the risk relative to other *daily* risks (car crashes) may help them feel a little better about air travel.

If alt med is fuelled by fear we can present insight into how that mechanism works and is used to manipulate people.

@Denice-
If alt med is fuelled by fear we can present insight into how that mechanism works and is used to manipulate people.

Vaccine schedule- How horrid it would be to delay or choose an alt schedule!
Fear of Heb B, Tetanus,Diphtheria, Rubella,HPV -need I say more

This article is interesting and it seems like it might be relevant to a discussion of the John Hopkins lab findings.

Expression Profiling of Autism Candidate Genes during Human Brain Development Implicates Central Immune Signaling Pathways

Interestingly, there is also mounting evidence at the cellular and tissue levels that more in depth investigation of an immune component is warranted in ASD [46]. For instance, multiple studies have demonstrated altered cytokine profiles in ASD patients [47], [48], and altered TGF-B concentration in serum and CSF correlates with disease severity [49]. Others have described various autoimmune phenomena including autoantibodies to neural antigens and maternal-fetal cross-reactive neural antibodies [50]. There is also indication of altered innate cellular immunity in ASD, such as differences in gene expression and altered response to immunostimlulatory ligands in both natural killer and monocytic cells from ASD patients [51], [52]. Post-mortem brain tissue from ASD patients shows increased microglial density in grey matter, an activated morphology, and secretion of a cytokine profile consistent with a pro-inflammatory state, most prominent in the cerebellum [53], [54]. Moreover, microglia from MeCP2- null mice—a model of the Autism Spectrum Disorder Rett Syndrome—produce a conditioned media that damages synaptic connectivity via a glutamate-excitotoxicity mechanism [55]. While all of this work provides post-hoc evidence for altered immune response in ASD, our results suggest a direct link between implicated genes in ASD and molecular pathways involved in immune signaling.

This considerable attention to the immune response in previous ASD research has resulted in two prevailing theories: one suggests exogenous factor(s) stimulate neuro-inflammation during development, while the other postulates autoimmune activation causes ASD pathology [56], [57]. However, it is equally possible—as our results support—that the mutations described in ASD result in aberrant signaling regulation of immune cells during neurodevelopment. This could result in cell-autonomous activation and/or improper response to otherwise nominal stimuli, such as occurs in the autoinflammatory syndromes [58]. Alternatively, as glia are increasingly implicated in normal formation of synaptic connectivity [24]—and we have demonstrated a significant proportion of ASD-implicated genes appear to be glial-specific—it is possible that genomic aberrations ultimately funnel through core signaling pathways of glial cells to disrupt formation of neural networks independent of an inflammatory mechanism. In support of this notion, a number of recent reports have demonstrated that these same cytokine signaling pathways are central to proper brain development [59], [60]. Furthermore, signaling through the NFkB pathway has been shown to be important in synaptic plasticity independent of an inflammatory mechanism [61].

Moreover, two of three genome-wide expression studies in Autism brain tissue conclude that the most prominent transcriptome changes are related to neuro-immune disturbances. In the Garbett et al study, the most significant functional pathway implicated was NFκB signaling [31]. The most comprehensive transcriptomics study of ASD post-mortem brain to date (Voineagu et al) concludes that one of two significant co-expression networks is involved in immune function [32]. While our results are only a first step in linking common molecular interaction pathways to the underlying genetic heterogeneity of ASD, they provide integrated genomic evidence, which is supported by these transcriptomics, cell, and tissue level studies that further investigation into cytokine signaling in ASD is needed.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024691

From the CDC-Diphtheria
A confirmed case has not been reported in the U.S. since 2003. Approximately 0.001 cases per 100,000 population in the U.S. since 1980; before the introduction of vaccine in the 1920s incidence was 100-200 cases per 100,000 population. Diphtheria remains endemic in developing countries with low vaccination coverage. During the 1990s, the countries of the former Soviet Union reported >150,000 cases in a large epidemic.

From the CDC website- adverse events of the DtaP
Moderate Problems (Uncommon)

* Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
* Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
* High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)

@Denice
Comments in moderation-(Trying short version)
-Incidence of Diphtheria CDC
A confirmed case has not been reported in the U.S. since 2003. Approximately 0.001 cases per 100,000 population in the U.S. since 1980;

DtaP Moderate Problems (Uncommon)CDC
* Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
* Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
* High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)

MD1970:

Vaccine schedule- How horrid it would be to delay or choose an alt schedule! Fear of Heb B, Tetanus,Diphtheria, Rubella,HPV -need I say more

Well, considering you are actually not saying anything: yes, you need to say more.

What about meningitis from haemophilus influenzae type b? Neonatal tetanus? Someone returning overseas and spreading diphtheria?

The MMR is not given until a child is a year old, yet kids under age one have been infected by others (like those in San Diego). And the HPV is not given until age twelve or so… how long did you want this “delay” to be?

Here is what you need to “say more”:

Evidence that any alternative vaccine schedule will actually protect children. You must show that diphtheria will not return like it did to several former Soviet countries after the fall of the USSR. You must show that measles and mumps will not return like they have in Japan, UK, Germany, France, etc. Show that children will not get tetanus from scrapes, scratches, bug bites, etc (there is no herd immunity for tetanus).

And you need to do it with real scientific citations and not undated anonymous press releases.

@Chris -Comments in moderation

I took the test mentioned way up there and scored a 33. Last I knew I wasn’t on any kind of spectrum and never suffered any kind of delay (I was reading before I entered grade school).

I really suspect the biggest reason that vaccines are often chosen as the culprit is our fear of injury and the unknown (we can’t see all the microscopic ingredients), which is even further exacerbated when we are dealing with our young and our natural protectiveness of them.

I have to admit that I am curious if resistance to vaccination is any stronger during economic or political turmoil? Since it is usually government-mandated I have to wonder if public distrust increases with dissatisfaction with or lack of trust in those in power?

I had a comment held up in moderation, as well, and it ended up landing up in the thread @318. It linked to a study that kind of addressed the question about whether the John Hopkins lab research had been replicated. The study doesn’t replicate the John Hopkins work but seems to possibly support it with some related research.

Compare and contrast:

And that exposure is restricted on the skin and mucosal surface by the physical barriers of the innate immune system. Which goes to show that you have no idea of how many infections are being prevented by the non-adaptive mechanism of the innate immune system alone.

I know of an effective route not requiring mucosal contact: the measles vaccine that causes viremia, primary measles infection and immunosuppression.

Flip flop: first she says muscosa protects and so no entry into the host. After I say that it enters via mucosal contact she says but vaccines are an effective route – no refutation of my statement so is it an admission of its valididty of my statement?

Then flip again:

You see a wild-type measles virus must first overcome the innate immune system before it can cause infection.

A statement made with such confidence but yet, horribly wrong! Seriously, you have no idea of how the measles virus causes disease. It enters the mucosal epithelial cells directly on contact by adhering to and then fusing with the epithelial cells. Here it replicates and is laterally transmitted to adjacent cells. It also infects monocytes, T an B cells and NK cells, down regulating their activity producing immunosuppression. It is this immuno-suppression which makes the WT measles virus all the more dangerous as it throws open the doors to other infections. I had mentioned this on a previous thread that the true cost of measles cannot just be judged from mortality and morbidity caused directly by measles because the ‘weakening’ of the immune system that it causes makes the child vulnerable to other infections which also tend to be more severe, if acquired post measles.

Now flop:

Of course, who would forget OPV wherein infection and replication in the GIT is a must.

Now flip:

The mumps and rubella vaccines would bypass that protective barrier resulting to unrestricted infection.

So you can’t make up your mind whether the skin and mucosa are impermeable to pathogens or not. You can’t because you don’t know.
Well, here’s the answer – many pathogens have evolved means to bypass the natural immune barriers. Many have also evolved ways to trick the immune system into not attacking them. That’s precisely why they are such successful pathogens.

So you have to switched to antigens, why? I thought we were discussing pathogens?

Well, you thought wrong. I was talking about antigens all through (pathogens came into the picture because they too are a source of the antigens that we are exposed to):
The part of my post to which you reacted:

a] Vaccines are not the ONLY triggers for immunological mechanisms. Most foreign antigens that we are exposed to stimulate an immunological reaction to it.

my post at 279 in response to your reaction:

I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that on Htrae only antigens present in vaccines were foreign to the human body while antigens on pathogens were actually native to the human body. My bad – I’m not traines in Htrae biology.
Here on earth, we have this funny situation that even the antigens on a pathogen are foreign to the human body and that there are far more of them that the human body is exposed to since birth than the amount contained in all the vaccines put together. Your bad – you are not trained in human biology/medicine/health sciences.

So what? Colonization does not mean infection.

Correct, but, Either ways, there still is antigenic exposure. You don’t have a clue what I am talking about, do you? It is pretty evident that You don’t know what you are talking about.

The skin and mucosal surface are there to prevent entry of pathogenic microorganism from causing infection. They don’t need to be “acquianted”

When did I say that the skin and mucosa need to be acquainted with the antigen? is said

continuously acquainting our immune system

. You do realize (probably not) that the skin and mucosa do not constitute our immune system, do you? They are only immune barriers. The B-cells an T-cells (MALT, which I mentioned above, is basically sub-mucosal congregations of these) do need to be acquainted with the antigen before the immune system can launch a targettted response to it.

skin and mucosal surface…. their only purpose is to expel and eliminate foreign and pathogenic microorganisms

Really? Would you care to elaborate on how they achieve this supposed function?

How many times are you allowed to move the goalpost?

I’m sorry, I forgot that you do not understand sarcasm.

” According to Center for Disease Control (CDC) tetanus vaccine experts, The 1988 to 1991 serosurvey indicated that 20 per cent of children 10 to 16 years of age did not have a protective level of antibody. A 1979 study found that in a sample of 1900 adults over 20 years of age, only 386 per cent were fully immunised. If we extrapolate from that study alone, about 120 million or so citizens (60 per cent of 200 million) were unprotected yet virtually none of them was getting tetanus, let alone dying from it. Walene James, in her book Immunization: the Reality Behind the Myth, points out that in the United States in 1990 there were 25,700 cases of tuberculosis with 1800 deaths, tuberculosis therefore immensely outweighing tetanus as a cause of death. (Mothers of unvaccinated children who might be worried about them contracting tetanus because theyve just joined the pony club, take note!) In the United States, with an average of seven to 10 deaths per year from tetanus, there is a 180 to 260-times greater chance of dying from tuberculosis. In fact, since lightning strikes about 1800 people a year in that country, with an approximate mortality rate of 25 per cent (450 deaths), there is a 45-times greater chance of being killed by lightning than tetanus! “

Oh, and diabetics. It forgot to claim that only diabetics are really at risk.

@Narad-
I am not arguing against vaccines. You didn’t bother to read the previous posts. I am arguing for a separate pertussis but that would be too costly for vaccine
manufacturers. The Tetanus could be delayed.
Parents should be able to choose a vaccine schedule they feel comfortable with.

Please do not feed any trolls, including the delusional, uneducated, germ phobic, disease-promoting health-care-professional-wannabe Thingy. I recall a thread here where the Thingy managed to “engage” posters with approximately 500 of it brain-dropping posts about tetanus.

I see that Todd W. at Harpocrates Speaks has released this weeks “Quacktion Figure”…just in time for holiday gifts:

Friday, November 25, 2011
Quacktion Figure™ Friday: Faith Healer
Do you dream of working only one day a week? Have you ever thought how nice it would be to draw crowds of thousands to pack a stadium, all to see you? Ever thought how easy it would be to pay for that private jet, California mansion and the latest Porsche if only you were willing to take advantage of the religious faithful?

Well, now you can. Harpocrates Speaks brings you Faith Healer!

Faith Healer

That’s right. With Faith Healer, you can pack ’em into the nearest stadium and convince them you can actually speak to God. With the easily hidden radio ear piece, your wife can feed you information on attendees gleaned as they entered, wowing them with your miraculous insights into their lives. Call the believers up on stage and use the lever in back for Miracle Faith Healing action! To drain the pockets of those who couldn’t attend your stage act, just sell them your Miracle Money Incense. Your promises to pray for them when they send you back the ashes and $50 will end their money woes. After all, if they have no money, they have nothing to worry about!

Faith Healer stands 5¾” tall and comes with:

* Radio ear piece
* Miracle Money incense
* Wad o’ cash

Wheelchair for “Make ‘Em Walk Again” scam sold separately.

The Fine Print
Figure not actually for sale. Figure and text intended as a work of satire. Image copyright Todd W. and Lil Peck. Quacktion Figure™ is a trademark of Todd W. and Harpocrates Speaks.

Ah, OK, I completely screwed that up. The attribution for the text actually quoted goes to one Jason Sanders, so I retract everything aside from the initial complaint. Sorry about the waste of electrons.

MD1970, sorry I missed it. Where was that alternative schedule with the corresponding scientific documentation to support it? How is your application to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices coming along?

All I saw was some statements you claim are from the CDC but without a webpage or documentation. And really, what is the risk of seizures from the DTaP compared to diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis? Because I have something like:

Lack of association between acellular pertussis vaccine and seizures in early childhood.
Huang WT, Gargiullo PM, Broder KR, Weintraub ES, Iskander JK, Klein NP, Baggs JM; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
Pediatrics. 2010 Aug;126(2):263-9. Epub 2010 Jul 19.

Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

Those are known as a peer reviewed papers. Look at them. I included the titles, some of the authors and the journals, dates and issue information. Ooh, look! They even include the page numbers. Now where did you include such details?

Oh, here is another one!

Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
Smith MJ, Woods CR.

And really, you did not mind that several children got tetanus? Even the two neonatal cases? And you think that would not happen some more if we delayed tetanus vaccination? Dude, that is cold.

Here is what happens when you don’t vaccinate for diphtheria, do tell us how your schedule will prevent the following:

Diphtheria outbreak in Norway: Lessons learned.
Rasmussen I, Wallace S, Mengshoel AT, H Iby EA, Brandtz G P.
Scand J Infect Dis. 2011 Dec;43(11-12):986-9. Epub 2011 Aug 26.

Implications of the diphtheria epidemic in the Former Soviet Union for immunization programs.
Galazka A.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S244-8.

Epidemic diphtheria in the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union: implications for diphtheria control in the United States.
Golaz A, Hardy IR, Strebel P, Bisgard KM, Vitek C, Popovic T, Wharton M.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S237-43. Review.

Contraindications to vaccination in the Russian Federation.
Tatochenko V, Mitjushin IL.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S228-31.

Epidemic diphtheria in the Republic of Georgia, 1993-1996: risk factors for fatal outcome among hospitalized patients.
Quick ML, Sutter RW, Kobaidze K, Malakmadze N, Strebel PM, Nakashidze R, Murvanidze S.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S130-7.

Diphtheria epidemic in the Republic of Uzbekistan, 1993-1996.
Niyazmatov BI, Shefer A, Grabowsky M, Vitek CR.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S104-9.

Epidemic diphtheria in the Kyrgyz Republic, 1994-1998.
Glinyenko VM, Abdikarimov ST, Firsova SN, Sagamonjan EA, Kadirova R, Nuorti JP, Strebel PM.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S98-S103.

Diphtheria epidemic in the Republic of Georgia, 1993-1997.
Khetsuriani N, Imnadze P, Dekanosidze N.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S80-5.

Epidemic diphtheria in the 1990s: Azerbaijan.
Vitek CR, Velibekov AS.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S73-9.

Epidemic diphtheria in Ukraine, 1991-1997.
Nekrassova LS, Chudnaya LM, Marievski VF, Oksiuk VG, Gladkaya E, Bortnitska II, Mercer DJ, Kreysler JV, Golaz A.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S35-40.

Diphtheria in the Russian Federation in the 1990s.
Markina SS, Maksimova NM, Vitek CR, Bogatyreva EY, Monisov AA.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S27-34.

Successful control of epidemic diphtheria in the states of the Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: lessons learned.
Dittmann S, Wharton M, Vitek C, Ciotti M, Galazka A, Guichard S, Hardy I, Kartoglu U, Koyama S, Kreysler J, Martin B, Mercer D, Rønne T, Roure C, Steinglass R, Strebel P, Sutter R, Trostle M.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S10-22. Review.

Control of epidemic diphtheria in the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, 1990-1998.
[No authors listed]
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S1-248. No abstract available.

Note: All but the first one are in the same issue of one journal, and I did not include all of the papers. They are also mostly available without going through a pay wall. So your job, MD1970, is to present a vaccine schedule that avoids what happened there, with supporting documentation.

Come on! If you are going to be so much smarter than the folks on the ACIP, then show it! Produce some evidence that you know what you are writing about. Or just admit that you don’t care if some kids get very sick just because you are scared of needles.

MD1970, sorry I missed it. Where was that alternative schedule with the corresponding scientific documentation to support it? How is your application to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices coming along?

All I saw was some statements you claim are from the CDC but without a webpage or documentation. And really, what is the risk of seizures from the DTaP compared to diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis? Because I have something like:

Lack of association between acellular pertussis vaccine and seizures in early childhood.
Huang WT, Gargiullo PM, Broder KR, Weintraub ES, Iskander JK, Klein NP, Baggs JM; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
Pediatrics. 2010 Aug;126(2):263-9. Epub 2010 Jul 19.

Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

Those are known as a peer reviewed papers. Look at them. I included the titles, some of the authors and the journals, dates and issue information. Ooh, look! They even include the page numbers. Now where did you include such details?

Oh, here is another one!

Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
Smith MJ, Woods CR.

And really, you did not mind that several children got tetanus? Even the two neonatal cases? And you think that would not happen some more if we delayed tetanus vaccination? Dude, that is cold.

Here is what happens when you don’t vaccinate for diphtheria, do tell us how your schedule will prevent the following:

Diphtheria outbreak in Norway: Lessons learned.
Rasmussen I, Wallace S, Mengshoel AT, H Iby EA, Brandtz G P.
Scand J Infect Dis. 2011 Dec;43(11-12):986-9. Epub 2011 Aug 26.

Implications of the diphtheria epidemic in the Former Soviet Union for immunization programs.
Galazka A.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S244-8.

Epidemic diphtheria in the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union: implications for diphtheria control in the United States.
Golaz A, Hardy IR, Strebel P, Bisgard KM, Vitek C, Popovic T, Wharton M.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S237-43. Review.

Contraindications to vaccination in the Russian Federation.
Tatochenko V, Mitjushin IL.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S228-31.

Epidemic diphtheria in the Republic of Georgia, 1993-1996: risk factors for fatal outcome among hospitalized patients.
Quick ML, Sutter RW, Kobaidze K, Malakmadze N, Strebel PM, Nakashidze R, Murvanidze S.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S130-7.

Diphtheria epidemic in the Republic of Uzbekistan, 1993-1996.
Niyazmatov BI, Shefer A, Grabowsky M, Vitek CR.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S104-9.

Epidemic diphtheria in the Kyrgyz Republic, 1994-1998.
Glinyenko VM, Abdikarimov ST, Firsova SN, Sagamonjan EA, Kadirova R, Nuorti JP, Strebel PM.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S98-S103.

Diphtheria epidemic in the Republic of Georgia, 1993-1997.
Khetsuriani N, Imnadze P, Dekanosidze N.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S80-5.

Epidemic diphtheria in the 1990s: Azerbaijan.
Vitek CR, Velibekov AS.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S73-9.

Epidemic diphtheria in Ukraine, 1991-1997.
Nekrassova LS, Chudnaya LM, Marievski VF, Oksiuk VG, Gladkaya E, Bortnitska II, Mercer DJ, Kreysler JV, Golaz A.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S35-40.

Diphtheria in the Russian Federation in the 1990s.
Markina SS, Maksimova NM, Vitek CR, Bogatyreva EY, Monisov AA.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S27-34.

Successful control of epidemic diphtheria in the states of the Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: lessons learned.
Dittmann S, Wharton M, Vitek C, Ciotti M, Galazka A, Guichard S, Hardy I, Kartoglu U, Koyama S, Kreysler J, Martin B, Mercer D, Rønne T, Roure C, Steinglass R, Strebel P, Sutter R, Trostle M.
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S10-22. Review.

Control of epidemic diphtheria in the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, 1990-1998.
[No authors listed]
J Infect Dis. 2000 Feb;181 Suppl 1:S1-248. No abstract available.

Note: All but the first one are in the same issue of one journal, and I did not include all of the papers. They are also mostly available without going through a pay wall. So your job, MD1970, is to present a vaccine schedule that avoids what happened there, with supporting documentation.

Come on! If you are going to be so much smarter than the folks on the ACIP, then show it! Produce some evidence that you know what you are writing about. Or just admit that you don’t care if some kids get very sick just because you are scared of needles.

lilady

“using this information to draw inferences about whether particular vaccines are indicated or whether caution is advised with use of live or inactivated vaccines is more complicated and might require consultation with an infectious disease or immunology specialist.”

Compared with … Blackheart UC Davis

“Practically, if your child has clinical indications of an immune system abnormality, such as unusual or difficult to treat infections, or your family has a long and extensive history of immunological problems, we recommend that you consult with your physicians about the safest options for immunizing your children.”

Actually it would have been easier to read the vaccine insert … but hey.

Advanced Neurobiology for Skeptiks

Devin Terhune at the University of Oxford studied the brains of six people with this kind of synaesthesia using a non-invasive technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation.

He found that neurons in the primary visual cortex were more active than expected. Suspecting that these hyperactive neurons played a role in synaesthesia, Terhune used transcranial direct current stimulation to damp down their activity. Surprisingly, this actually intensified the synaesthetic experience

(Current Biology, DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.032).

——————————–

Synaesthesia and autism

Julian Asher, Donnie Johnson, Carrie Allison, Simon Baron-Cohen

We identified a chromosomal region linked to synaesthesia that has previously been linked to autism which is the first piece of evidence for a connection between the two conditions. We are now investigating this potential connection and the accompanying implications for our understanding of both conditions. This study is comparing people with autism who also have synaesthesia to people with autism without synaesthesia, and also to synaesthetes without autism.

References

416: J. Asher, J. Lamb, D. Brocklebank, J. Cazier, E. Maestrini, L. Addis, M. Sen, S. Baron-Cohen, A. Monaco (2009)
A Whole-Genome Scan and Fine-Mapping Linkage Study of Auditory-Visual Synesthesia Reveals Evidence of Linkage to Chromosomes 2q24, 5q33, 6p12, and 12p12 American Journal of Human Genetics 84, 279-285

450: S. Baron-Cohen, D. Bor, J. Billington, J. Asher, S. Wheelwright, C. Ashwin (2007)
Savant memory in a man with number-shape synaesthesia and Asperger Syndrome Journal of Consciousness Studies 14, 237-52

326: J. Asher, M. R. F. Aitken, N. Farooqi, S. Kurmani and S. Baron-Cohen (2006)
Diagnosing and phenotyping visual synaesthesia – a preliminary evaluation of the revised test of genuineness (TOG-R) Cortex :137-146

4: S. Baron-Cohen (1987)
Perception in autistic children

——————————————-

“Another interesting find is that three medical conditions – synaesthesia, autism and epilepsy – actually seem to be related in a way, because they all show up in the same regions of a human chromosome, which suggests that they share an underlying forming mechanism. This would also account for why most synaesthesia cases appear in autistic people, and why some autistic individuals have epilepsy as children.”

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scientists-Find-Genetic-Cause-of-Synaesthesia-103956.shtml

Association with “Courchesne Brain Study” above ?

Found in some autistic people ?

Not found in some autistic people ?

Found in people without autism ?

Found in people with epilepsy ?

Well that just got confusing. That’s the thing about small studies they just get so problematic.

Thus endeth the lesson for skeptiks

Ah, Thing-ding, keeping it classy. Nice going.

Flip flop: first she says muscosa protects and so no entry into the host. After I say that it enters via mucosal contact she says but vaccines are an effective route – no refutation of my statement so is it an admission of its validity of my statement?

There’s no refutation because you’re an infection promoter.  Your method of promoting infection through inoculation is an effective and easy route for vaccine pathogens to gain access in your blood, lymph nodes and other organs by circumventing the mucosal barrier. So thank you for validating that you are in fact an infection promoter. You deserved it.

Seriously, you have no idea of how the measles virus causes disease.

Your method is guaranteed to work the same way only easier.

So you can’t make up your mind whether the skin and mucosa are impermeable to pathogens or not. You can’t because you don’t know.

It depends. First, there must be a letdown of the immune system (i.e. poor health). Secondly, your method.

Well, here’s the answer – many pathogens have evolved means to bypass the natural immune barriers. Many have also evolved ways to trick the immune system into not attacking them. That’s precisely why they are such successful pathogens.

See above.

Correct, but, Either ways, there still is antigenic exposure. You don’t have a clue what I am talking about, do you? It is pretty evident that You don’t know what you are talking about.

Colonization occurs at the skin/mucosal surface. Your method exposes the deeper tissues, the blood and other sterile areas.

. You do realize (probably not) that the skin and mucosa do not constitute our immune system, do you?

Are you serious? Or is that supposed to be a sarcasm? Where did you study Medicine again?

So now skin and mucus membranes are a part of the immune system and not just passive immune barriers? I suppose so is the HCl in the stomach.
Where ever I may have studied medicine from, at least I did study medicine. Besides, it is recognized as legitimate and at par with the training in your country. Plus I am gainfully employed in the health care system.

Thingy, Where did you study medicine from? Oh right… you didn’t.

The rest of your post is just more nonsense. I’ve already refuted it in my post before.

@ T-Reg: As Dr. Harriet Hall has stated regarding the Thing’s evasiveness and redundancy “it is like trying to nail jello to the wall”. Others have described “engagement” with it as “fighting with a pig…you get yourself dirty…and the pig likes it”.

Please do not feed delusional etc, etc, etc.

So now skin and mucus membranes are a part of the immune system and not just passive immune barriers? I suppose so is the HCl in the stomach.

Bet your house they are. (Hint: Innate immune system)

@ Mrs Woo (# 328)

I would take test results with a grain of salt ( actually, more like a quarter teaspoon of salt)- the better approach might be looking at how you function in the real world- can you communicate with people, “read” facial expressions, gestures, prosody? My guess is: “Nothing to worry about!

On a more serious note: you bring up an interesting question- you asked someone if they were a doctor. Formal study enables people to look at the “big picture” as well as understanding the historical track that led to the current situation in a particular field.

Woo-meisters make use of the fact that non-experts cannot survey everything- they then use actual research as a jumping-off point for their own wild speculations- and it’s a great leap they take. It’s also a *distractor*. Of course they “inform” you about this _after_ their “instruction” about *why* you shouldn’t trust experts like doctors, universities, the CDC, governments, the media, ad nauseum. “Don’t trust *them*, trust ME!”

Upthread, someone compared infectious disease (specifically tetanus) to lightning strike, apparently arguing that since one is more likely to be struck by lightning, and this is already a very rare event, we should not worry so much about tetanus. Why risk adverse events from the vaccine, if you’re more likely to be struck by lightning?

Well, we’re more likely to be hit by a car as a pedestrian than struck by lightning, and even that’s not very common. Yet it’s still a good idea to get out of the shower if a thunderstorm arrives, fishermen are supposed to come in off the lake, and golfers are supposed to stop waving their metal clubs in the air. Just because you will probably be fine doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still take steps to reduce your risk further. One can also extend that thinking into morbidity versus mortality. Most people who get tetanus will live. Some will live even without treatment, though it won’t exactly be a picnic. For the others, they will require anti-tetanus injections and quite possibly ventilation. No fun at all, so do look beyond mortality. Lightning strike can also be survivable — most will, in fact, survive. The mortality rate is about 10%, and there are a number of people who have been struck multiple times. Although most mortalities are direct strikes, these can even be survivable, because lightning follows the path of least resistance, and in some cases this is the outside of the body rather than the inside. (It depends on a lot of things, and the actual events can be quite complicated.) But it being rare and usually survivable is obviously no reason to take it lightly — 80% of victims suffer life-long injuries, and a lot of wildfires and building fires are caused by lightning, which can lead to more loss of life than that caused directly by the lightning itself.

Tetanus and tuberculosis were compared as well; it’s true that tuberculosis is a bigger threat, and honestly, I wouldn’t be upset if the US started vaccinating against it. I understand the main problem is that while the vaccine is pretty effective against childhood TB, it has poor success against adult TB, and unlike things like measles and chickenpox (traditional childhood diseases), TB is mostly an adult disease. I would not object, however, if the US began vaccinating against it. If nothing else, it would improve our security — right now, our main defense is quarantine, and there is quite a bit of dread of illegal immigrants importing it. (I’m not sure how reasonable that dread is, but it’s still there in any case and is dictating some of our national policy — that can have very big ramifications.)

Please don’t feed cherry-picking delusional etc., etc., etc.

Eur J Epidemiol. 2000;16(7):601-6.
Herd immunity and herd effect: new insights and definitions.
John TJ, Samuel R.
Source

Department of Clinical Virology, Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abstract

The term herd immunity has been used by various authors to conform to different definitions. Earlier this situation had been identified but not corrected. We propose that it should have precise meaning for which purpose a new definition is offered: “the proportion of subjects with immunity in a given population”. This definition dissociates herd immunity from the indirect protection observed in the unimmunised segment of a population in which a large proportion is immunised, for which the term ‘herd effect’ is proposed. It is defined as: “the reduction of infection or disease in the unimmunised segment as a result of immunising a proportion of the population”. Herd immunity can be measured by testing a sample of the population for the presence of the chosen immune parameter. Herd effect can be measured by quantifying the decline in incidence in the unimmunised segment of a population in which an immunisation programme is instituted. Herd immunity applies to immunisation or infection, human to human transmitted or otherwise. On the other hand, herd effect applies to immunisation or other health interventions which reduce the probability of transmission, confined to infections transmitted human to human, directly or via vector. The induced herd immunity of a given vaccine exhibits geographic variation as it depends upon coverage and efficacy of the vaccine, both of which can vary geographically. Herd effect is determined by herd immunity as well as the force of transmission of the corresponding infection. Clear understanding of these phenomena and their relationships will help improve the design of effective and efficient immunisation programmes aimed at control, elimination or eradication of vaccine preventable infectious diseases.

PMID:
11078115
[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

how could there be a reduction in herd immunity?

Because people keep having babies.

lilady,

I don’t see any reason why you have to double post. Does that make you smarter?

Anyway here’s the first page of the original article in PDF.

h ttp://www.jstor.org/pss/3582376

Kevin,

how could there be a reduction in herd immunity?

Because people keep having babies.

Vaccinated or unvaccinated?

Well, I guess Thingy showed me. I said 10 or 12 antigens were a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands any baby is exposed to their first day, but 14! That’s totally different! I’m an antivaxxer now! </sarcasm>

@Chris –

Thank you very much for the link. From what I understand from a quick overview, that is the committee that oversees the vaccination schedule and recommends new vaccines to be included, changes, etc. They aren’t the ones, though, that would actually determine what safety level the FDA is willing to accept in a vaccine.

The FDA’s overview of the process didn’t give me any more information than I already know. I have to admit that a few years in the first decade of the 21st century have made me skeptical about the FDA’s concerns for patient safety when it comes to new drugs. They’re more than willing to recall a drug if there is no way to argue against the probability that it is doing harm, but they are very willing to let a drug be marketed which might cause harm if a strong enough argument is made for the drug’s approval.

Do I guess correctly that annual flu vaccines have some sort of abbreviated process? I would think that full-scale trials would be impossible to finish in the time frame available.

lilady:

BCG is very rarely used in the USA for very valid reasons…we simply are not an area of the world which has high TB endemicity.

I’m aware of that; I just wanted to state for the record that if the situation changed, I would be happy to start vaccinating my children against it. But thank you for posting all that wonderful information about TB for the benefit of other readers. Currently, we rely on testing and quarantine. Here in Minnesota, we do not require TB testing for entry to school.

Blackheart @270:
“Practically, if your child has clinical indications of an immune system abnormality, such as unusual or difficult to treat infections, or your family has a long and extensive history of immunological problems, we recommend that you consult with your physicians about the safest options for immunizing your children.”

This advice is not particularly germane to my question at #257, which was about identifying *objectively* “special cases” rather than assuaging parental anxieties.

I confess, though, that because Rachael was the one initially concerned about special subgroups of vaccine-vulnerable children, I was and remain more interested in what sheviews as the best way of distinguishing such subgroups.

So, anyway, to try to salvage a bit of this without a load of Benadryl on board, MD1970’s source for the “tetanus, shmetanus” quote, Jason Sanders, is almost certainly this fellow:

Mr Sanders complained that although Mr Law was invited to participate as a leading critic of the campaign, he was “shut out” by the presenter.

That would be this Ron Law. Jason Sanders, amusingly, is even concerned about homeopathic vaccines:

There is one last argument against homoeopathic prophylaxis. It is that, as with vaccines, any induced immunity is almost certainly not going to last into adulthood and certainly not a lifetime. Homoeopathically induced immunity is still artificial. I believe it’s preferable to contract the childhood ailments when young, when they are much more likely to be mild and uncomplicated.

So, yah, “I am not arguing against vaccines.” It’s just that the accordion folder is full of quotes from those who do to toss out when not doing so. Gotcha.

Looks like there’s a new study out today from Dr. Amaral and the MIND Institute:

Abnormal brain growth starting at four months of age occurs in a type of autism in which toddlers lose language and social skills they once had, according to a US study.

The brains of boys with regressive autism grew six per cent larger than typically developing counterparts and toddlers who showed signs of autism early in life, a form called early onset autism.

–snip–

“The major finding of this study is that a subset of boys with regressive autism have normal head circumference at birth, which diverges from normality around four to six months of age, well before any loss of skills were documented,” say the study’s authors, calling for more research.

“Thus, rapid head growth beginning around four-six months of age may be a risk factor for future loss of skills.”

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/29/3378940.htm

Julian Frost As has been pointed out, anti-vaxxers exaggerate the risks of vaccination.

I’ve seen a very similar exaggeration even by public health officials as well as the ubiquitous skeptik

Hmm, half a million deaths. Would those half a million deaths be due to vaccine injury, or due to the new vaccine not being as effective as the old one?

No

The supposed role of vaccines in neurological damage has been researched to death (excuse the pun).

I am of course of a differing opinion.

If you have compelling evidence of harm or a promising hypothesis for a mechanism of damage, please reveal it.

That’s been discussed previously the underlying mechanism has not yet been uncovered. But we do know that something is having an effect on child mortality.

If you have compelling evidence of harm or a promising hypothesis for a mechanism of damage, please reveal it.

It’s being worked on by a range of scientists and researchers. Aaby and his group are represented and London School of Tropical Medicine I believe.

It’s really simple “Professor” Blackheart. If fewer people vaccinate …

If you studied the literature and understood the implications of the research, more effective and safer vaccines could effect positive changes to child mortality.We need to understand the mechanisms that are in play and have a greater understanding of the infant immune system and how to tailor vaccination more accurately perhaps to specific cohorts of the population….

Saving millions of additional lives …

There’s a simple truth.

Several research projects at the MIND Institute are attempting to find such diagnostic markers.

Although I missed where you attributed that quotation, blackheart, I did find it. It happens that the most recent reference cited on that page was from 2004.

Herr Doktor

This advice is not particularly germane to my question at #257

Individual patient assessment is a major focus area of medicine.

, which was about identifying *objectively* “special cases”

Medicos can be subjective but they try their best.

I was and remain more interested in what she views as the best way of distinguishing such subgroups.

Perhaps she does not know of an answer at this time … I fail to see the relevancy of that point when we know that there is indeed an answer articulated by others.

…of course we could always spit on the ipod.

“HANDHELD gadgets could one day diagnose infections at the push of a button by using the supersensitive touchscreens in today’s smartphones.

“Many believe that in the future collecting samples of saliva, urine or blood could be performed using a cheap, USB-stick-sized throwaway device called a lab-on-a-chip. The user would inject a droplet of the fluid in the chip, and micropumps inside it would send the fluid to internal vessels containing reagents that extract target disease biomarker molecules. The whole device would then be sent to a lab for analysis.”

c j f

So the work has now been published … here’s an interview earlier this year. Robert MacNeil

Amaral

“But I think what’s clear is that there’s — a reemergence of the idea that the immune system might also be involved in children with autism. But in a subset. We have found, here at the MIND Institute, work by Dr. Judy Van de Water, that about 12 to 14 percent of women who have children with autism have peculiar antibodies that are directed at the blood. And she’s pursuing the possibility that those antibodies, circulating during fetal life, in some way interact with the developing brain and that might be one path to autism.

We have other folks here that are looking at environmental factors. And again, we haven’t found a smoking gun; one single environmental factor that causes autism over and over again. But I think there’s accumulating evidence that there are a lot of things in the environment that might increase the risk.

So at this point, I think we’re looking at genetics. We’re looking at the immune system. We’re looking at environmental factors. Not a single one of those are going to be the answer. But there’s more evidence suggesting that all of them may contribute in some complex way.

——-

But over the successive years, as it became clearer and clearer that, first of all, genetics wasn’t the only answer. Something else must but going on. And increasing evidence by a number of epidemiologists showing that there are environmental factors that seem to be conferring risk. That people are taking the environment much more seriously now.

———

ROBERT MACNEIL: You mentioned in a talk in San Diego, that you can’t understand the genes in isolation. You said there are many routes through which environmental factors may exert consequences leading to autism. Like, what routes?

DR. DAVID AMARAL: Yeah. So, for example, let’s say some of the genes that might be impacted in autism are genes that set up our immune system or allow our immune system to function properly. Well, if you were to have a child that had that gene and they were never to come into contact with something in the environment that would challenge the immune system it may never produce autism.

But given that our environment is incredibly, increasingly more complex. And that the immune system is actually increasingly more challenged. Both by chemicals that we’re putting into the environment that we’re creating. As well as things like pesticides and whatever.

That it may be that genes that were defective or perturbed, leading to a perturbed immune system function. Are now actually undergoing more challenges in our environment. And that may be one of the reasons that we’re seeing an increase in autism.

So again, it’s not the entire answer. But that’s a genes-by-environment interaction. The genetic problem is there. But the genetic problem, in isolation, wouldn’t cause autism. It has to be the genetic problem and then being challenged by something in the environment.

——-

ROBERT MACNEIL: What is your position today on vaccines and autism?

DR. DAVID AMARAL: So I think it’s pretty clear that, in general, vaccines are not the culprit. There has been enough epidemiological evidence showing that if you look at children that receive the standard childhood vaccines that, if anything, those children are at slightly less risk of having autism than children that aren’t immunized.

And so, you know, I think it probably is a waste of effort at this time to try and understand vaccines as a major culprit for, or a major cause of, autism. It’s not to say, however, that there is a small subset of children who may be particularly vulnerable to vaccines.

And in their case, having the vaccines, or particular vaccines, particularly in certain kinds of situations — if the child was ill, if the child had a precondition. Like a mitochondrial defect. Vaccinations for those children actually may be the environmental factor that tipped them over the edge of autism. And I think it is incredibly important, still, to try and figure out what, if any, vulnerabilities, in a small subset of children, might make them at risk for having certain vaccinations.”

—————

And I think, more importantly, what the whole vaccine issue has done. Has opened our eyes again to the idea that the immune system is an important component of autism. And I think, at least at the MIND Institute, some of our early parent advocates, who are very concerned about the vaccine issue. And rather than using all of our resources purely to look at vaccines we have — established a fairly extensive immune — analysis of autism.

Which in myriad differences are found in the in the children who have autism. Not all, again, but a subset. As well as the parents of children with autism. So I think the issue of the immune system and disregulation of the immune system has been an important — outcome of worrying about vaccines. I’d rather put our effort on understanding the immune system and how– beyond the small subset of children that might be damaged by vaccines. Some disregulation of the immune system might be causing autism.

—-

It’s a disorder that is incredibly heterogeneous. I already mentioned that there’s not a single autism gene. There’s going to be many, many genes that are involved. And then when you look at the children or at the individuals who have autism. The complexity is mind-boggling.

30 percent of people with autism have epilepsy as well. But 70 percent don’t. 20 percent or so have big heads. But a large number don’t. And there’s even a small number of people with autism who have small heads and small brains. If you look at other things, like gastrointestinal problems. People say, “Well, what does gastrointestinal problems have to do with autism?” Well, a fair number of individuals with autism, probably more than the general population, certainly more than the general population and arguably, even more than children who have other developmental disorders, have chronic gastrointestinal problems.

And we’re trying to figure out, you know, is that a chicken or egg? Do the gastrointestinal problems potentially cause autism? Or does the autism cause the GI problems? But why does it only happen in a subset of kids with autism? Often times, when I’m talking to a lay audience, I say, “You know, if you put a pear and an apple and an orange in front of me and said, figure out those fruit,” I could do it. I could look at the genetics of each one of them.

—

I’ve talked to clinicians who have been working in autism for the last 30, 40, 50 years. And their view is that there really has been an increase in the number of individuals with autism.

But regardless it’s 1 percent of the population in the United States now. 1 out of 100 children are being diagnosed with autism. And to me, that’s too many children to lose to this disorder. And it’s not the only disorder that we have to deal with. But it is incredibly prominent.

While They are moderating my last posting (!!?!?!??$$), I should mention some “interesting” facts about my influenza vaccination last Wednesday.

I specifically requested extra thimerosal and adjuvants, and the employee health nurse laughed (!). Immediately after the shot I noticed my arm was very sore. Of course, it had been very sore immediately before the shot (or jab as the Brits call it) because I sprained it somehow while gardening (!@@#). In the last few days it has gotten much less sore, which I attibute to the boost in IL-6, or maybe the extra neurons. Has anyone studied this effect? I don’t think so. Hmmm….

@ Julian, brian, c j f, & other minions:
re: Blackie

Ever feel like Sisyphus? Oh, I do. It’s almost as though the more material we submit illustrative of autism being “set up” neurologically *prior* to any vaccines, the more weighty contrariness he rolls down upon us.

I think it might be more productive if – although we might *address* our responses to Blackie- we should *intend* them as messages to the silent and pensive lurkers. At least then we would have a better chance of being heard than does a snowball of lasting in hell.

@lilady,
I think the significance of the newer study is that the rapid head growth is found only in a specific subset of kids with autism, boys with regressive autism. They didn’t find larger than normal head circumference for kids who had signs of autism early in life or for girls. Also, they found that the head circumference was normal at birth and the excessive growth began at 4-6 months.

Previous studies have suggested that clinical signs of autism tend to coincide with a period of abnormal brain and head growth that becomes apparent between the ninth and 18th month of life.

However this study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to show a difference in brain size between toddler boys with regressive versus early onset autism.

New finding
“The finding that boys with regressive autism show a different form of neuropathology than boys with early onset autism is novel,” says lead author Christine Wu Nordahl, a researcher at the MIND Institute.

“Moreover, when we evaluated girls with autism separately from boys, we found that no girls – regardless of whether they had early onset or regressive autism – had abnormal brain growth.”

The findings showed that boys with regressive autism had a “pronounced increase” in head circumference beginning as early as four months of age and lasting through 19 months.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/29/3378940.htm

Previous research has found that kids with autism tend to have accelerated brain growth early in life. This study drills down into greater detail about which kids experience that growth and when, said Dr. Joseph Horrigan, assistant vice president and head of medical research at Autism Speaks.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2011/11/28/head-size-tied-to-regressive-autism-in-boys

Dangerous Patient,

I specifically requested extra thimerosal and adjuvants, and the employee health nurse laughed (!).

Since you requested and amenable, the nurse should have given you a Merthiolate shot if it was only available right?

Immediately after the shot I noticed my arm was very sore. Of course, it had been very sore immediately before the shot (or jab as the Brits call it) because I sprained it somehow while gardening (!@@#).

Of course that would be a reflection of a dumb patient who having had a pre-existing muscle injury would take another needlestick injury. How wonderful. If that nurse happened to be lilady, she would have injected you on the unaffected arm right?

In the last few days it has gotten much less sore, which I attibute to the boost in IL-6, or maybe the extra neurons. Has anyone studied this effect? I don’t think so. Hmmm….

It’s called patient education and you’re certainly lacking in that area.

Since you requested and amenable, the nurse should have given you a Merthiolate shot if it was only available right?

As asymptomatic infection, is evident or Splenda. I don’t even take a fatal candle light; please. I do you refer exposure to become a better analogy. Next topic instead.

@ Th1Th2bot: Well done!! I just don’t have patience to attempt a translation of the Thing’s brain droppings…it still needs “terminal disinfection”; Hmmm, where did I leave the bottle of merthiolate?

Julian Frost

Citation needed

You’ll have to ask Dr Amaral … they were just having a chat.

In other words, what this data shows to be dangerous and harmful is not vaccination but inadequate vaccination.

You’ve lost me and Peter Aaby.

Speak for yourself; you have no authority to speak for anyone else.

The logic is quite elementary, and can be easily understood by any honest, competent person. If the data you have is a comparison of A to B, you cannot announce “this data shows the superiority of C to A,” because your comparison didn’t measure A and C, it measured A and B.

You offered the extrapolated figure of 1/2 million deaths in Africa to support the proposition “… that vaccines are dangerous and cause harm.” But that figure of 1/2 million deaths represented the superiority of one vaccine over another vaccine. It does not in any way represent a danger that vaccination represents when compared to not vaccinating, because “not vaccinating” was not one of the alternatives compared.

The old vaccine is A; the new vaccine is B; the Peter Aaby Bandim Health Project said that contrary to expectations, A proved superior to B. Anyone who claims that this means C, not vaccinating at all, is superior to B, or even more stupidly, superior to A and B, is merely spewing idiocy. I have very little doubt that you will continue on your current course, of course.

Yeah, like A is deadlier than B. That’s easy.

Your evidence just suffering from the latter. Is already occurred at what you sound: you are the dry concrete pavement. Next topic instead. Maybe the squirrel to you, by asserting the sidewalk. No solely for no? Myth.

Of course, who could ever forget A- the genocidal high-titer measles vaccine.

Of course, who could ever forget A- the genocidal high-titer measles vaccine.

Two is completely harmless: to remain uninfected cause harm. Don’t you deny this thread; is not so that I blame. Hence, the gist of the whole piece of children’s parents on than getting raped instead; hence, the vaccine dunce: nor present. So what, you’re confused.

Th1Th2bot is becoming more and more intelligent as we watch—how sure are we that this isn’t how Skynet got started?

We have high hopes for the nascent print ad campaign.

And then some:
1. OPV causing paralytic polio and VDPV
2. DPT causing encephalopathy
3. M-M-R causing meningitis and encephalitis
4. Rotavirus vaccine causing intussusception

It’s gone now.

Thanks Orac.

And then some:

Reading Thingy’s brain droppings

Watching it mangle its sentences

Please do not feed attention craving delusional etc., etc., etc.

To explain why Blacky is a complete idiot: this is Dr. Aaby’s research program. Compare that part of the world to the UK and USA. Or, for fun, actually read his research. It does not even come close what Blacky the Complete Idiot says.

Of course, Blacky was the same guy who when asked to provide evidence that the MMR vaccine was more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella proffered up the latest IOM report that actually said there was much less risk to the MMR than the actual diseases.

Oh, and don’t bother to reason with Blacky the Complete Idiot, because he is also a liar. He does not reference his quotes, and will gladly edit comments from others to change their meaning. Which is why he will try to tell you that Aaby was actually researching a suburb in Wales and not somewhere in Africa.

Sure thing, MD 20/20. Where was that alternative schedule with the corresponding scientific documentation to support it? How is your application to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices coming along?

@ Chris: I was wondering when MD1970 was going to grace us again with his “medical” opinions. I too would like to see the alternative schedule for childhood immunizations from a reputable source.

Now remember MD1970, that when you “cherry-pick” some sentences from a source and present them as your own…it is plagiarism.

@Chris-
Your fear mongering is a threat. Get as many vaccinations as you want. Just
don’t tell me what to do based on outdated citations. You are ten years behind
the times.

@ Chris: You must be kidding…everyone knows which bacterium causes scarlet fever.

I bet he doesn’t even know which bacteria cause secondary severe infections in the poxes associated with varicella infections.

I wonder if the dull one sent in his CV and application to sit on the ACIP?

I wanna say, MD1970, just as an epistemological question, how is it that you come to the conclusion (if you do) that you are not an idiot? I mean, have you stumbled across some random blob of text suitable for naked copying and pasting that says so, or something?

Oops, one correction, that was not the same paper Blackheart’s quote referred to, but the later reanalysis of the data by the same researchers. Sorry for the error.

“… compared to the thousands any baby is exposed to their first day…”

This provoked a memory for me. Some film star or other spent a fair amount of time in Africa – can’t recall which country/ies. She reported that she was invited as one of several village women attend the birth of a baby.

She had to do some quick thinking after the birth. The baby was handed to each woman in turn – who was expected to spit into the baby’s mouth. She made up some acceptable excuse to not take her turn, because she knew full well that her particular assemblage of bugs, bacteria and other goodies would be so out of synch with the others that she might do the infant harm rather than good.

But this was obviously one bit of folk medicine/ culture that benefited infants by giving them a small initiation into the exposures expected in that community. Clearly a whole heap more than 14, and all within an hour or so of birth.

@Not an MD1970:

There is no proof that too many vaccines given in a short period of time in the first two years of life are not screwing up children’s innate immune system and making them more susceptible to strep and other bacteria.

There is no proof that the current schedule is “too many, too soon”. You are the one insinuating that it is. You are the one who has to stump up the proof.

But this was obviously one bit of folk medicine/ culture that benefited infants by giving them a small initiation into the exposures expected in that community. Clearly a whole heap more than 14, and all within an hour or so of birth.

Benefited infants with what? You tell me.

Still of one mind with him?

Yes….and over to you.

Sounds multidimensional, or egregorian, or something. How does it work? Do you have to trade off with each other, or do you just get the bits that control boldface and laughable posturing?

There is no proof that too many vaccines given in a short period of time in the first two years of life are not screwing up children’s innate immune system and making them more susceptible to strep and other bacteria.

Again, I think this is a tactical error and you just gave them an idea regarding a better and safer vaccine schedule. You fell trap into “too many, too soon” gambit. Now they’re asking and you should reply.

Again, I think this is a tactical error and you just gave them an idea regarding a better and safer vaccine schedule. You fell trap into “too many, too soon” gambit.

Many to perform this whole straw man and newborns, children, and at what? How nice to resort to mention that crude science but until then, that since whose antibodies in vaccines? So next time you keep this thread; is pretty obvious the effectiveness.

However, you’ve fallaciously compared the real life story when you don’t have neither. Anything to intentionally mislead uninformed parents are, so he continued with Hib deaths is essential. Do you go down now? Tsk. But I know a human immunology. Does not associated with label me the nice.

Talking to yourself. I see.

It’s hideous and parents have to your question is, did not as you? No loitering allowed.

There is no proof that the current schedule is “too many, too soon”.

Hmmm let’s see….

36 deliberate infections with some 14 known pathogens in just under two years of age. I don’t know but these little retards looked so “overwhelmed” to me.

Does anyone know of any other rituals comparable to this?

36 deliberate infections with some 14 known pathogens in just under two years of age. I don’t know but these little retards looked so “overwhelmed” to me.

Signs and indicated important. You are the argument child, muscle.

First, get your facts straight. The varicella vaccine is a single-antigen vaccine.

Way to realize his order, for someone already an infection control. Varicella when indicated; no indication. Mother is a straw leash on your rectum.

Can anyone explain to me the findings from the study I posted in 383 wherein the researchers reported:Cytokine profiles from WB samples clearly discriminated between vaccine and placebo recipients and between pre and post-vaccination responses. Significant increases in Th1, Th2 and inflammatory cytokines were observed in WB assays following vaccination
How is this possible? Why would a drop in the bucket allow the authors to ‘clearly discriminate’ between vaccine and placebo groups?

Wow, I don’t think I would consider that a “revelation” but more like a general information in Immunology. You know the body’s immune response to infection?

Let’s not comment for a little while…I’m enjoying the brilliant comments between passionlessDrone and Thingy.

Perhaps Thingy and pD would like to take their running commentary back to pD’s blog?

Thingy…did you read this blurb from pD’s blog? Why don’t the both of you shove off together and become “study partners”?:

“So what is this all about?

I am currently seeking self awarded degrees in immunology, neurobiology, gastroenterology, genetics, metabolism, epigenetics, and other areas to try to see how they all work together in the world of autism. Any commentators are welcomed to come along for the ride. Hopefully we can learn something from each other.”

“I am currently seeking self awarded degrees in immunology, neurobiology, gastroenterology, genetics, metabolism, epigenetics, and other areas to try to see how they all work together in the world of autism. Any commentators are welcomed to come along for the ride. Hopefully we can learn something from each other.”

Please tell me that’s a joke and not a passage from pD‘s blog.

Hell, why not award yourself the top job at the NIH*? Then you could hand out all the research money to people willing to demonstrate an inflammatory cytokine-vaccine-autism connection (!!?!?!??).

*or, second-best — the position of editor at Medical Hypotheses.

“…whatever causes autism, it probably happens before birth, not after. ”
Uh, I’m sure you’ve heard of how cancer can be caused by radiation, viruses, chemicals, etc? Things can have more than one cause. What if some percentage of those who get the rather sloppy (?) spectrum category of “autism” get it from some environmental influence later, unlike most people with autism? Shouldn’t you and others be aware of such possible complexity?

Nobody can be as stupid as Passionless Drone pretends to be—except Thingy of course…and MD1970, and—oh, never mind.

Yes, you moron, the results of an immune response can be detected to the few drops representing vaccine antigens, because researchers know what to look for. The results of exposure to the rest of the ocean are not detectable because they aren’t looking and wouldn’t know which of millions of antigens to look for responses to. That doesn’t alter the fact that the 14 antigens people are vaccinated with are A Drop In The Ocean!

Yes, Neil, sometimes the neurological damage from measles and other diseases can cause autism-like symptoms.

I’ve never heard of that kind of $#!+ before.

Which is why there are vaccines to prevent those diseases.

Do I hear vaccine-preventable autism?

“It is worse than that. If we look at the turd de force by Paul Offit, Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System? (DOI: 10.1542/peds.109.1.124 Pediatrics 2002;109;124-129 )”

Does pD believe that the foremost expert in vaccine preventable diseases and a clinician who is the director of the Infectious Diseases Department of CHOP…and who is a member of the ACIP and the IOM, came by his knowledge accidentally?

Dr. Offit first learned, and I first learned, the definition of “antigen” in biochemistry classes and we learned that humans are exposed to antigens as soon as they are born…millions of them in infancy.

We also learned the body’s immune response to antigens that produce antibodies and learned what the difference in the immune response is, when exposed to a virus versus exposure to a bacterium.

The practical application of what we learned in medical school and nursing school was when we did residencies or rotations through hospitals and where we encountered patients who had infectious diseases.

I believe that Dr. Offit whom pD labels as authoring “turd de force” articles for the Pediatrics Journal, completed at least a three residency in pediatrics then a post-doc fellowship in infectious diseases.

I had a lesser education (BSc-Nursing)and was a relative naif when I began working as a public health nurse, doing case surveillance in all communicable/notifiable diseases. Studying vaccines and how they are manufactured, tested, licensed, their efficacy, the contraindications to a particular vaccine, immunizing “special populations” and the constantly changing vaccine schedules for children, adolescents and adults was part of my “learning curve”.

I was mentored by senior nurses, epidemiologists, ID physicians and the directors of our health department virology and bacteriology laboratories. I attended CDC conferences, hospital grand rounds and regional vaccine seminars. I read every article about VPDs and other communicable diseases that I was responsible to do case surveillance on, in every issue of the JAMA, the NEJM and the Pediatrics Journal, Every time a new vaccine was licensed or a new combination vaccine was licensed, special teleconferences were set up with the CDC and members of the ACIP…including Dr. Paul Offit. Dr. Offit is this generation’s foremost expert on VPDs.

So, pD comes along and wants to be self-educated and is “currently seeking self awarded degrees in immunology, neurobiology, gastroenterology, genetics, metabolism, epigenetics, and other areas to try to see how they all work together in the world of autism.”

pD it doesn’t work that way…you need a science background to barely begin to understand immunology, the body’s responses to viruses, bacteria and the toxins they produce and the very different vaccines that prevent these diseases. BTW, Dr. Offit stated there are 5 antigens in pertussis vaccine, but not all pertussis vaccines have that many antigens.

Try to read the first two chapters of the CDC Pink Book and then go on to the Pertussis chapter and the Varicella chapter. Get a copy of the AAP Red Book and a copy of “Control of Communicable Diseases Manual” (19th edition, published by the American Public Health Association). But first enroll in some college-level classes such as biology, organic chemistry and immunology.

(Hint) If you don’t want to be classified as a dolt troll…stop behaving that way.

@ lilady:

As soon as the self-awarded degree-recipients gather their thoughts, assemble their results, and are ready to host their first symposium I will gladly… no, I will *estatically* volunteer to serve as moderator and will promise to *absolutely* refrain from any criticism whatsoever of the material or the manner in which it is discussed but will only preside over introductions and other points of order.

I have a nice dark suit and speak very well.

@ herr doktor bimler:

Certainly. I have manners: allowing such impropriety would be extremely rude to the other participants and would probably be really boring as well. We couldn’t have that now, could we?

@ lilady:

But you see, those participants of Jake’s calibre will already be on the stage- where I can keep my eye on them- whatever the questioners do will be mild by comparison.
And while I have manners that doesn’t mean I’m *nice*.

Hi Lilady –

Does pD believe that the foremost expert in vaccine preventable diseases and a clinician who is the director of the Infectious Diseases Department of CHOP…and who is a member of the ACIP and the IOM, came by his knowledge accidentally?

No, but that article is terrible. It is scientifically undefendable in many instances and relies on the same gross over simplification that we see here, namely, that ‘counting antigens’ is a useful metric. It isn’t, and you’ve done absolutely nothing to prove otherwise here. In fact, I’d bet that it is the origin of why so many people seem so enamoured with the fairytale that counting antigens in vaccines is meaningful.

Dr. Offit first learned, and I first learned, the definition of “antigen” in biochemistry classes and we learned that humans are exposed to antigens as soon as they are born…millions of them in infancy.

You are making my point for me! Babies are exposed to millions of antigens from the get go. We are in complete agreement on that point. So why does a vaccine with dead bacteria, with just five (or fewer!) antigens in it cause infants to get a fever with such great frequency? Why is it that only the treatment group showed a clear innate immune response to the HPV vaccine? Weren’t both groups exposed to ‘millions’ of antigens in the intervening time period? And yet, only one group showed indications of immune activation. Why? How do you explain this? Can you?

Why is that that I can get exposed to millions of antigens every day, then get exposed to five from the DTAP, and I can expect those measly five antigens to give me a fever one in four times? I don’t need your personal history to understand this paradox, I need you to explain to me the rationale behind the belief that we can count antigens in vaccines and reach a conclusion about the stimulation on the innate immune response. Can you provide that?

Studying vaccines and how they are manufactured, tested, licensed, their efficacy, the contraindications to a particular vaccine, immunizing “special populations” and the constantly changing vaccine schedules for children, adolescents and adults was part of my “learning curve”.

Great! Maybe then, you can provide some actual studies that tell us what the innate immune response looks like for the pediatric vaccine schedule? All we know for sure is that Dangerous Bacon won’t!

pD it doesn’t work that way…you need a science background to barely begin to understand immunology, the body’s responses to viruses, bacteria and the toxins they produce and the very different vaccines that prevent these diseases. BTW, Dr. Offit stated there are 5 antigens in pertussis vaccine, but not all pertussis vaccines have that many antigens.

Well, why not use your science background to explain to me why a vaccine with 69 antigens in it causes adverse effects much less frequently than one that contains 5 antigens in it if counting antigens is a useful metric? With your background this should be a straightforward task, even to someone as uneducated and simple as myself.

If you have the scientific background you say you do, and I bet you do, then you know as well as I do that we can’t just count antigens in the vaccine schedule, count up antigens people are exposed to everyday, perform subtraction and then proceed to a santimonious victory dance. The two things are not equal, and I think you know it. You certainly haven’t provided any data to the opposite, that’s for sure.

You know your way around pubmed well enough if you want to pepper TH1TH2 with studies over and over, why not just come up with the evidence that tells us that the number of antigens in a vaccine is a meaningful measurement?

pD it doesn’t work that way…you need a science background to barely begin to understand immunology, the body’s responses to viruses, bacteria and the toxins they produce and the very different vaccines that prevent these diseases.

Thanks for that. By the way, does this mean that there might be factors other than the number of antigens in a vaccine that are meanignful in understanding the immune response?

BTW, Dr. Offit stated there are 5 antigens in pertussis vaccine, but not all pertussis vaccines have that many antigens.

Well then, that makes it even more amazing that the DTAP seems to cause an immune response when all the millions of antigens we all get exposed to everyday don’t. Do you have any idea why this might be?

If you don’t want to be classified as a dolt troll…stop behaving that way.

If you don’t want to be classified as someone who will not, or can not, support an argument, . . . provide some data. That’s what I asked from you again and again in my posting to you, and instead trying to actually show me some data, I get a history lesson, a personal biography of whose meetins you attended, a civics lesson, and an education primer. This is a scientific debate, and our currency is studies from the literature. Thus far, you have provided nothing to make the point that we can, or should, perform equivalencies between the number of antigens in a vaccine and everday exposure. If you continue to not provide any data to support such a claim, the lurkers might come to believe that there is no such data.

An appeal to authority is usually recognized as a fallacy on this site, especially when that authority happens to be yourself.

– pD

Hi LW –

You know, passionlessDrone, you had seemed surprisingly pleasant compared to the trolls. I would have thought a casual gutter insult like “turd de force” was beneath you.

Fair enough and point taken. I’ll admit to being a little tweaked by the fact that people would actually make fun of me for openly admitting a desire to learn more.

I’ll try to better.

That being said, do you think that we can learn anything about the effect on the immune system of a vaccine by counting the antigens up?

If you think our understanding of the innate immune response following vaccination is complete, or anywhere close, you might try poking around Ontogeny of Toll-Like Receptor Mediated Cytokine Responses of Human Blood Mononuclear Cells. Full paper is freely available online.

– pD

“That being said, do you think that we can learn anything about the effect on the immune system of a vaccine by counting the antigens up?”

I’ve always found that quite bewildering myself.

Oo, more installments in the continuing pD series, Hilarity Ensues.

“…after the Wakefield debacle, there were several very large studies on the MMR and autism. If, ‘safety and efficacy’ studies were all that you’d like them to be cracked up to be, why perform these studies at all?…Why would they follow infants for two years performing experiments, wasting money, when this information was largely already available from existing safety and efficacy studies?”

Hmmm…could it possibly be because antivaxers such as yourself keep hammering away at public confidence in vaccines with invented “toxins” and other imaginary dangers?

What a classic argument – on the one hand, research is manifestly insufficient to establish safety of immunization, yet when research is performed that repeatedly demonstrates vaccine safety, it’s an ominous sign because gee, if vaccines are so safe, why do they need to keep studying their safety?

You’re a real piece of work, pD.