Vaccine fears about autism trouble researcher, father

[Kacey]

Fathering Autism
A Scientist Wrestles with the Realities of His Daughter's Illness

...
The notion that a vaccine expert would deliberately cover up the cause of a growing public health problem cuts Peter Hotez to the quick. That narrative suggests that someone like him -- with firsthand knowledge of the devastation autism can cause a family -- would stand by idly as medical science knowingly allowed thousands of Rachels to be put through the suffering that she and her family have endured.
...
It was also true that science does not have an objective way to pinpoint autism in young children. There is no laboratory test for the disorder and, although it clearly has a strong genetic component (having one child with autism confers a 90 percent risk of being autistic on an identical twin), diagnosis involves a subjective evaluation of a constellation of symptoms that do not always stand out until children are older. There is also a great deal of variation among autistic children. The broad signs of the disorder are a lack of social connectedness, communication problems and repetitive, obsessive behaviors, but those umbrellas encompass a wide range of problems. Rachel, for example, is much more verbal than other autistic children but is severely impaired in other domains.
...
Peter Hotez responded to his wife's fears in the only way he knew how. He consulted studies, research, data. He told her about Minamata disease in Japan, where kids had been exposed to high levels of mercury. There is strong evidence that mercury exposure in the womb can cause limb deformities and gait abnormalities. In older children, it can cause brain abnormalities. To a layperson, that might all sound like a clear-cut connection with autism, but to Peter Hotez, the difference between autism and an abnormality caused by a toxin such as mercury was like the difference between a computer virus that shuts down all telecommunications in a city and a hurricane. A city deprived of its telecommunications can be just as paralyzed as a city that has suffered a natural disaster, but the two kinds of destruction leave different trails.
"This is not something that can be caused by a toxin after birth. This is a deeply patterned mis-wiring in the brain, and this is not how a toxin works," Peter Hotez told his wife. "It can only be a genetic condition that affects the whole neurobiology of development."
Ann pointed out that this was not what she was reading on the Internet. "She said, 'Why does no one say that?' and I said, 'I don't know why they don't say that,' " Peter Hotez recalled. "As a society, we are quick to want to point fingers and find blame."

This is a very emotional and controversial issue. As a special education teacher, I often deal with the parents of students toward the more interactive end of the autism spectrum (less interactive students are placed in less-inclusive settings in my school district) - and many of them are desperately seeking a reason for why their child (sometimes children) are dealing with autism. Many blame vaccinations - but the above article seems to be giving a different viewpoint. Other articles suggest that high EMF levels are linked to autism spectrum disorders; still others suggest that people on the high end of the autism spectrum are migrating to the same areas, for jobs that appeal to people with their skills sets (such as Silicon Valley) - although the same article(an interview) notes other possible explanations as well:

[SIZE=-1]Lamb: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Why do some geographical areas, such as Silicon Valley in California, have such high rates of autism in children? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Waltz: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A number of factors have been suggested. There could be environmental factors at work--something affecting people in discrete areas, such as high background levels of mercury, or exposure to pesticides. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]In Silicon Valley, it's been suggested that quite a few people with Asperger's syndrome or autistic traits were drawn to the area by the lure of high-tech jobs, met partners with the same sort of traits, and passed on a "double dose" of the genes--the result being more autistic children, with more severe forms of the condition. It's an interesting theory, and bears looking at. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]However, Silicon Valley's rates are similar to those of Brick Township, New Jersey, which is a working-class industrial area rather than a high-tech mecca. The island of Jersey in the UK is also reporting extremely high rates, and it has very little in-migration and almost no industry. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Lamb: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Has a genetic predisposition to autism been proved? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Waltz: [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Yes, as much as such a thing can be "proved." Twin studies have shown that if one twin is autistic, the other is also likely to be autistic, or to have autistic traits. Non-twin siblings and other close relatives of people with autism are also more likely to be autistic. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]However, it's not as straightforward as early researchers had hoped--there's no "autism gene," although the genes responsible for causing several conditions that include autistic traits have been identified (Rett syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, and Angelman syndrome, to name just three.) The genetics of autism appear to be very complex. Several genes have been identified, but it looks like it takes a combination of genes, and that more than one combination can have similar effects. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It also appears that it's not purely genetic. Your genes may give you a high susceptibility to autism, but they may not be expressed until certain environmental factors kick in. [/SIZE]

Personally, I lean toward the explanation at the end of the quoted piece of the interview - that there is a genetic susceptibility that can be triggered by environmental factors - but that doesn't fully account, to me at least, for the recent increase in the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders, even with wider definitions. I also think that, given the high numbers, better diagnostic methods are need (the first article also pointed to the difficulty in getting children diagnosed, both because there is such a wide range of possible symptoms and because of the negative connotations of a diagnosis of autism) as well as better and earlier interventions - early intervention having been proven to be the most effective.

What do other people think?

 

[tellner]

What do I think?

I think that stories like this that use "mother" and "father" whack 40% off their credibility before the first word of the text.

The vaccine-autism link isn't even close to established, let alone well-established. But it's popular and keeps getting brought up the same way "electric power lines cause cancer" did a while ago. Thimerosal was a bad idea for a number of reasons. I'll be happy when it's not used any longer.

Most of all, this is the latest technique of the anti-vaccination crazies. They've been at it for decades and keep changing their tune every time they get slapped down. Consider The Emperor's New Mind, the "Science == Rape" campaign, the animal rights tack, the "vaccines actually caused polio", the "smallpox was already going extinct" non-argument and a bunch of others. Now it's "vaccines cause autism". And that's just in my lifetime.

It must be noted that the fans of the speculation - it can't be dignified with the word hypothesis, let alone theory - have nothing concrete to say about which vaccinations or how many of them are at fault. They can't explain why this didn't show up in earlier decades when our vaccination rates were higher. That doesn't even address the question of why the supposed link only occurs in the US among all industrialized nations.

When there's actual data come back and talk. It had better include really substantial proof that the costs of a tenuous lost in the noise correlation (not causal relation) between vaccination and autism completely overwhelms the benefits. Until then? No. Not even a little bit. The world-changing value of universal vaccination is beyond dispute and nearly beyond discussion.

 

[shesulsa]

Andrew Wakefield had some rather convincing evidence but it was thrown out - along with that of other studies.

My son is absolutely vaccine-damaged, though I don't think his autism is solely linked to that. And I have to say - I've argued this point much before and tire of arguing it again before I even start.

I received all vaccines as a child I was supposed to and never got sick except for chickenpox (vaccine unavailable at the time). I developed an allergy to the diphtheria toxoid, slowly increasing as I grew such that if I were to have a standard tetanus booster today (a "dT" shot) I would go into aniphylactic shock and possibly die. The abject apathy to this fact by my family physician who encouraged me to either get the shot and go into the ICU or face ICU due to tetanus left me rather disenamored with the medical establishment in America and their focus on patient care and need rather than mass vaccination.

I am pro-vaccine ... I am for SAFE vaccination of the population at large. We have the money, the science and the technology to make this a reality for every child in America. And yet we don't. We accept 1 in 150 children with autism as collateral damage. We accept ADHD and its mass medication as collateral damage.

Vaccinations work by altering mitochondria and DNA. Mitochondria are not supposed to change from mother to child, yet my son's is altered from my donation via gestation. How do you think that happened? By vaccination.

Here's what I think about the vaccine-autism connection: *I* think the autism problem is not just one but a group of causations connected to proteins and hormones that we don't yet monitor as general health concerns. I think the mitochondria and chromosones function together in ways we don't yet understand, affecting hormones we don't measure because science does not yet think they are "important." I think the body's ability to process the programming vaccinations and other immuno-intrusive introductions is faulty for some, altering several things which cross the blood/brain barrier changing dopamine levels in the brain, gut peptides and immunological programming.

I think viruses such as measles live in parts of the body we don't think they are supposed to survive in. There is more than enough evidence to show measles viral infection in organs of autistic children. Where does that come from and how does it get there?

The biggest problem right now is there is not a physical test for autism, only a behavioral one. So while the "experts" are looking at social behavior and it's development at 15-20 months, parents are watching their children experience neurological changes which affect their behaviors.

You can tell the doctor, "when my son puts his hands in water of any temperature above chilled water, he screams - this started six weeks ago" and they will write "child doesn't like warm water."

The autism puzzle is enormous and there are as many people dismantling the solved portions as there are ones constructing them.

Sadly, I don't see an answer to autism in my son's lifetime. I don't see an answer for autism within the next 150 years with the current influence from the WHO and their pharmaceutically-greased palms. Funny how things just slip right through their fingers.

 

[MA-Caver]

I've a friend who has refused to vaccinate his children at the required ages. In so far they've only had mild colds (they're now 6 yrs. old-- twins). They've been exposed to the traditional childhood diseases and haven't acquired anything.
Are they taking a risk? Or have they actually shown that all those vaccinations were/are un-necessary.

The idea of injecting a dead virus into a child's body so that the immune system can "familiarize itself with it and have the means of killing it when the live virus enters the body..." I dunno. If the virus or bacteria is already dead then why would the immune system attack it. Immune systems are supposed to attack threats to the body... a dead virus wouldn't be a threat now would it? So the immune system would probably ignore it.

I myself have never had a flu shot or I should say not for quite a long time. I've gotten the flu maybe once or twice I think in the last 10-15 years but well, obviously recovered. I don't have the TB scar that you sometimes see on people's shoulders... mainly because I never had the TB shot. I've gotten tetanus shots before after a injury that was treated in the E.R. I would suppose that helped and I won't argue that fact.
Pretty soon I'll be applying for a rabies program. Where I'll get a rabies shot and then when I donate plasma that will be used to create more serum. I'm doing this for two reasons... 1. Where I go hiking (caving) the chances of encountering a rabid animal are pretty good (but yet to have happened). 2. They pay extra money which translates into extra gas money.

If they prove that the vaccinations are causing Autism then there be hell to pay to be sure. One hopes that they're wrong in this case.

 

[Kacey]

Here's what I think about the vaccine-autism connection: *I* think the autism problem is not just one but a group of causations connected to proteins and hormones that we don't yet monitor as general health concerns. I think the mitochondria and chromosones function together in ways we don't yet understand, affecting hormones we don't measure because science does not yet think they are "important." I think the body's ability to process the programming vaccinations and other immuno-intrusive introductions is faulty for some, altering several things which cross the blood/brain barrier changing dopamine levels in the brain, gut peptides and immunological programming.

That would certainly fall into my belief that it's a genetic predisposition based on a set of as-yet unidentified genes - likely more than one combination - that is triggered by environmental interactions; vaccinations could easily be one of the triggers. The number of clearly differentiated types of autism would seem to support the idea that there is more than one cluster of genes at work, perhaps with some genes in common and others that cause the differentiation between the types.

The biggest problem right now is there is not a physical test for autism, only a behavioral one. So while the "experts" are looking at social behavior and it's development at 15-20 months, parents are watching their children experience neurological changes which affect their behaviors.

That was one of the points made in the first article - that the lack of direct assessments prevents early identification, along with doctors trying to avoid the stigma of labeling a child autistic - and thus preventing early interventions, which have been proven to be the most effective. I know that we've seen more kids on the autism spectrum come through my school - and too many are not identified as having any problem - much less a specific diagnosis of PDD - until they enter school, unless they are non-verbal... and too many of them were previously misdiagnosed as mentally retarded. That, at least, seems to be changing.

The autism puzzle is enormous and there are as many people dismantling the solved portions as there are ones constructing them.

There are so many people guessing, and second guessing, and triple guessing... I think the problem is that, IMHO, there is not one "single" cause, and people who insist that there must be miss clues that don't fit the tree they are looking for throughout the forest that contains all the possible causes.

Sadly, I don't see an answer to autism in my son's lifetime. I don't see an answer for autism within the next 150 years with the current influence from the WHO and their pharmaceutically-greased palms. Funny how things just slip right through their fingers.

I agree that way too many people - and especially kids - are being treated with drugs because it is quick, easy, and convenient. But that doesn't make it right.

It's not just autism that is being over-diagnosed; I had a student last year who was diagnosed as ADHD and bipolar, and placed on psychoactive medications... at the age of 3. Her mother (a nurse) finally had her medications reassessed this year - not because of concerns about her behavior, but because she'd been placed on Abilify, and it was causing her to gain weight. Due to the weight gain, mom had the girl taken off all the medications (she'd been on 3 - 1 each for ADHD, bipolar disorder, and an anxiety disorder) - and her reading scores improved 3 years from January to May, which really makes me wonder about the cause of the girl's "learning disability".

At some point, this country needs to stop taking the "easy" way out - yes, there are illnesses, mental and physical, for which the appropriate reaction is short- or long-term medication or other medical treatments - but reliance on medication limits the investigation of other potential treatments, and even cures. Autism, sadly, is hardly alone in that those diagnosed with it are suffering from attempts to find a purely "medical" diagnosis and response.

 

[Makalakumu]

I've begun to become very distrustful of bland absolute assertions made by BigPharm and their proponents. When the medical industry controls the scientific journals that publish the data that they use to tout their products, you suddenly reach a point where the bottom line turns green.

...and now we start to see the ramifications of all this, heart medication that gives people heart attacks, anti-depressents that are actually a lot less effective then reported, vaccines that are not only harmful, but plainly do not work...

On one hand, I agree with Tellner, the benefits of universal vaccination have been great indeed, but as Bob Dylan says, "the times they are a changin.'" There is a lot that we don't know about the human body and that alone is enough to not be absolutely certain about the effects of this or that vaccine. More troubling is the fact that what we "do" know is proveably being covered up in order sell medicine.

It's hard to even have this discussion when the so-called facts can be so tightly controlled. With that being said, I don't think you need to take everything with a grain of salt the side of Gibralter. A certain level of skepticism is warrented though...

Its a symptom of making medicine a product, IMHO.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. This study deals with anti-depressents, but I think that it is a product of a much larger malady.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/ohs-sro011108.php

You can't read something like this and wonder what else is being ignored or hidden?