If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oil Vigilantes continue the Cover Up
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal applauds this ruling. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=57629 The federal government continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, but the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of a child alleged to have regressed into autism as a result of vaccinations. (NOTE FROM ILENA; The Snake-oil (Vaccination) Propagandists spread these same denials. www.breastimplantawareness.org/snake-oil.htm) Several of the vaccinations included the controversial mercury-based preservative thimerosal, points out the National Autism Association, which sees the ruling as confirmation of the claims of many parents. "This case echoes the stories of thousands of children across the country," said NAA President Wendy Fournier. "With almost 5,000 similar cases pending in vaccine court, we are confident that this is just the first of many that will confirm what we have believed for so long – vaccines can and do cause children to regress into autism." Fournier called on the Centers for Disease Control "to acknowledge that the current vaccine schedule is not safe for every child and as with the administration of any medicine, individual risks and susceptibilities must be considered for each patient." (Story continues below) The government's unprecedented concession – filed Nov. 9 and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identity – was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case, said David Kirby, author of "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and The Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy." The concession was made by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the defendant in all vaccine court cases. A CDC panel, meanwhile, voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend flu shots for all school-age children. The move would compel private insurers to cover the costs and require the CDC to make the vaccine available to anyone who can't afford it. The NAA criticized the CDC decision, noting thimerosal is still found in flu shots recommended for children and pregnant women. Thimerosal in vaccines is suspected of causing brain damage and weakening the immune system, making some children susceptible later to infection from measles, mumps and rubella shots. Kirby, writing for the Huffington Post, reported the government's written concession said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots and ultimately resulted in a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, or ASD. "This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require," Kirby writes. "But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain." The government's concession, he says, seems to raise more questions than it answers. The Department of Health and Human Services said its Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, or DVIC, "has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination." Kirby said that for most affected families, the fine distinction between claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism is a fine distinction that is not so important. While it's too early to tell, he said, "this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is 'absolutely no link' between vaccines and autism." It also puts the federal government's vaccine court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy, he said. "DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component," he pointed out. "And, they insist, it's simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder. Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case." The bottom line, he said, is that the public will demand to know what is going on inside the U.S. federal health establishment. "The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way – and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions," Kirby writes. "Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away." The key words contained in the concession, he says, are "aggravated" and "manifested." "Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all," Kirby argues. "When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say 'his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death,' he continues. "No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today." Whatever the government's further explanation, says Kirby, "they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case: The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism. And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oilVigilantes continue the Cover Up
On Feb 29, 9:59*am, Ilena Rose wrote:
*http://ilenarose.blogspot.com Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal applauds this ruling. * * http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=57629 The federal government *continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, but the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of a child alleged to have regressed into autism as a result of vaccinations. That, plus your subject line, "Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ..." is incorrect. The decision held that the child's *un-diagnosed* pre-existing condition was aggravated by a vaccine and the child developed "autism- like" symptoms. The decision did not find that the child developed autism. Kirby's spinning, and the peanutty story above, are merely feeble efforts to make this decision more than it is. Kirby is desperate to hold on to his original ideas since they have been disproven time and again. Kirby is an anti-vaccination Merchant of Disease, Disability and Death. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
No Evidence of Harm
For an excellent analysis of the medical considerations regarding the
recent decision by the US Government see: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=203 Kirby is wrong. Period. Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism? No. But David Kirby and other anti-vaccinationist ideologues and members of the so-called mercury militia would like you to think so. For background, the Autism Omnibus refers to a set of hearings before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program regarding claims by about 5000 parents that their childrens' autism was caused by vaccines. These claims are primarily based upon the various hypotheses that the MMR vaccine, or thimerosal in some vaccines (but not MMR), or the combination of both, is a cause of autism. So far there have been hearings, but only one final decision. In November the US government settled one case in favor of the petitioner. This is the case those who have supported the failed hypothesis that vaccines cause autism now point to as admission that they were right all along (or at least as a means of stoking the flames of fear about vaccines.) But the US government did not admit vaccines cause autism - they conceded one case that is highly complex and not necessarily representative of any other case and cannot be reasonably used to support the vaccine/autism connection. David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, wrote a highly misleading article the other day in the Huffington Post on this issue. Orac has already done an excellent job of tearing down Kirby's claims. He points out that legal cases are often decided for legal - not necessarily scientific - reasons. That the government only conceded that "compensation is appropriate." That is all - they conceded nothing about the larger question of vaccines and autism. Orac also points out that if this case were a concession of a connection why would the petitioner's lawyers settle and give away a case that could win them all their other cases? David Kirby has also written a follow up article, where he publishes verbatim the US government's decision. Kirby asks his readers: If you feel this document suggests that some kind of link may be possible, you might consider forwarding it to your elected representatives for further investigation. But, of course, if you feel that this document in no way implicates vaccines, then let's just keep going about our business as usual and not pay any attention to all those sick kids behind the curtain. I think Kirby is hoping that most people will not have the patience or medical background to read and understand the entire document, and that they will come away with a vague notion that there must be something to all this vaccine fear-mongering. What does the document really tell us? To summarize the case history, the child in the case appeared normal and healthy, except for chronic otitis media, until about 20 months of age at which time he had a series of vaccines according to the routine vaccination schedule. Two days later the child had a fever to 102.3, was lethargic, irritable, and would arch his back when he cried. The child then developed a rash. It was later determined that the child had: "encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness." The child regressed and developed symptoms similar to those of autism spectrum disorder. However, the child does not have autism - he has a regressive neurological disorder that includes blood and muscle abnormalities not seen in autism, and any clinical resemblance to autism is not a reflection of a common cause. Six years after symptoms began the child also developed partial temporal lobe epilepsy that required treatment. During this time the child also had an extensive workup, which discovered: A CSF organic acids test, on January 8, 2002, displayed an increased lactate to pyruvate ratio of 28,1 which can be seen in disorders of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. A muscle biopsy test for oxidative phosphorylation disease revealed abnormal results for Type One and Three. In February 2004, a mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") point mutation analysis revealed a single nucleotide change in the 16S ribosomal RNA gene (T2387C) It if often difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions from a single case, so I will lay out what I see as all the possible alternative hypotheses to explain this information. 1) One possibility is that the child was perfectly normal prior to the vaccines, which caused an encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) which caused brain damage, including the later seizures. The metabolic disorder and mutation may be a red herring and have no bearing on the child's clinical condition. 2) The mitochondrial disorder predisposed the child to have a reaction from the vaccines, resulting in encephalitis. The subsequent neurological regression was due to some combination of the vaccine- induced encephalitis and the underlying mitochondrial disorder. 3) The child's mitochondrial mutation is the primary cause of their neurological regression, but that this regression was exacerbated by the vaccine-induced encephalitis (this seems to be the US government's conclusion). 4) The child has a mitochondrial encephalopathy which is the sole cause of all of the child's neurological signs and symptoms. The reaction to the vaccines may have played no role at all in the subsequent regression, and the child's current neurological condition is exactly what it would have been had they never been vaccinated. It is even possible that the encephalitis was merely the first manifestation of the mitochondrial disorder and the timing after the vaccines was merely coincidental. That lays out the spectrum of possibilities in this case. At this point in time we do not have (or at least I am not privy to) sufficient scientific information to say definitively where along this spectrum the truth lies. The US government's decision was based partly on this uncertainty - erring on the side of compensating the child and family. But we can discuss the plausibility of each scenario. Kirby dismisses anything resembling option 4, but his dismissal is naive and unjustified. In fact the patient's clinical syndrome resembles what is called a mitochondrial encephalopathy - with increased lactic acid, abnormal muscle biopsy, neurological regression, appropriate age of onset, even seizures. It is probably not a coincidence that the child has a point mutation in a gene that has been previously linked to these very mitochondrial disorders. Kirby incorrectly argues: While it's true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene. This is misleading. Kirby refers to "this particular gene" which makes me think that he believes T2387C is a gene. It's not - it describes a point mutation (at location 2387 a thymidine has replaced a cytosine). The gene is the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Mutations in this gene have been identified to cause mitochondrial encephalopathy. So Kirby is just wrong. It is true that I could not find that this specific mutation has been identified before, but that is common in genetics - a disease is linked to point mutations in a specific gene (or perhaps specific regions of a gene) but most or all families identified have their own specific mutation. This makes option 4 very plausible - it would be an incredible coincidence if this child just happened to have a mutation in a gene that was known to cause their exact constellation of neurological signs and symptoms and yet the mutation was not the sole or primary cause of those symptoms. But it does not rule out option 3 - that the mitochondrial disorder was the primary cause of the child's neurological disorder but that a reaction to the vaccines worsened the ultimate symptoms. Therefore the government's decision was reasonable - but is absolutely not a concession about any claim made by the petitioners concerning a link between vaccines an autism. It does, however, make any hypothesis resembling option 1 or 2 extremely unlikely. Further testing regarding the physiological effects of this child's specific mutation would be helpful, and such testing may be under way but I could find nothing published to date. It is theoretically possible that the identified mutation does not cause a change in the gene product or mitochondrial function, and is therefore just a coincidence. But this is unlikely given the clinical features in this case are a good match to known mutations of that gene. Kirby, however, apparently wants to wring as much fear and confusion out of these events as he possibly can. So now he speculates wildly that maybe children diagnosed with autism really have this mitochondrial disorder combined with vaccines (he has to keep vaccines in the loop). Given the rarity of such mutations, and the fact that there were specific features in this case that would likely be uncovered in the routine evaluation of a child with autism (like an elevated lactic acid), it is highly unlikely that there are many children with vaccine-triggered mitochondrial encephalopathy mimicking autism out there. It has been found that some children with autism have mitochondrial dysfunction - one study found that 7.2% of subjects with autism had "definite mitochondrial respiratory chain disorder." Poling et al, in response to this child's case, did a retrospective study of children with autism and with other neurological disorders and found that "Aspartate aminotransferase was elevated in 38% of patients with autism compared with 15% of controls." Such findings are preliminary - the only conclusions that can be drawn is that the association between autism and metabolic disorders requires further investigation. However, these studies did not look at the incidence of suspicious mitochondial mutations in autism, and these findings may not be relevant to this case. Kirby also wildly speculates that perhaps the evil toxins in vaccines caused the mutation in the first place. He writes: Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms? Among stiff competition, this is perhaps the most absurd and scientifically ignorant thing Kirby has every written. AZT does NOT cause a genetic disorder. AZT blocks DNA replication (it blocks the copying of DNA) - that is its mechanism as an anti-retroviral drug. In patients it can also block mitochondrial DNA replication, thereby causing mitochondrial depletion. This results in there being too few mitochondria (the energy factories of cells) in some cell populations and causes dysfunction in tissue that is especially susceptible to the effects of this dearth of mitochondria. This is a side effect of AZT and also other retrovirals because of sustained use at doses designed to inhibit DNA replication. This does result in some effects that are similar to mitochondrial genetic disorders - because both result in insufficient mitochondrial activity. But that is the only similarity. AZT does not cause a disseminated somatic mutation, which is the incredible analogy that Kirby is making. What Kirby is suggesting is that in infants and toddlers toxins can cause the same point mutation in millions of different cells throughout the body. Toxin-induced mutations do not cause genetic diseases, unless they occur in a germ cell in which case a mother or father can pass the mutation onto their children. If it occurs in the womb then large cell populations may be affected (whatever cells derive from the cell that had the mutation). But in a child a point mutation would affect only one cell and any cells that derive from it. A toxic mutagen would cause different random point mutations in different cells. This could not cause the mitrochondrial encephalopathy in this child. It can increase the risk of cancer, because cancer can develop from a single mutation in a single cell that causes it to become neoplastic. Conclusion This is a unique and idiosyncratic case that raises more questions than it answers. In my opinion as a neurologist, with the information provided, the child has a mitochondrial encephalopathy. The role of the vaccines is unclear, but at worst a rare vaccine reaction exacerbated the underlying mitochondrial disorder. This case has no clear implication for the larger question concerning vaccines and autism, which is likely why both sides agreed to settle. Yet those who insist, despite the evidence, on claiming that vaccines or mercury are linked to autism are likely to add this permanently to their litany of misinformation and fear-mongering. Note: I am searching for any follow up information pertinent to this case and will post any addendum here. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
No Evidence of Harm
For an excellent analysis of the medical considerations regarding the
recent decision by the US Government see: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=203 Kirby is wrong. Period. Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism? No. But David Kirby and other anti-vaccinationist ideologues and members of the so-called mercury militia would like you to think so. For background, the Autism Omnibus refers to a set of hearings before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program regarding claims by about 5000 parents that their childrens' autism was caused by vaccines. These claims are primarily based upon the various hypotheses that the MMR vaccine, or thimerosal in some vaccines (but not MMR), or the combination of both, is a cause of autism. So far there have been hearings, but only one final decision. In November the US government settled one case in favor of the petitioner. This is the case those who have supported the failed hypothesis that vaccines cause autism now point to as admission that they were right all along (or at least as a means of stoking the flames of fear about vaccines.) But the US government did not admit vaccines cause autism - they conceded one case that is highly complex and not necessarily representative of any other case and cannot be reasonably used to support the vaccine/autism connection. David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, wrote a highly misleading article the other day in the Huffington Post on this issue. Orac has already done an excellent job of tearing down Kirby's claims. He points out that legal cases are often decided for legal - not necessarily scientific - reasons. That the government only conceded that "compensation is appropriate." That is all - they conceded nothing about the larger question of vaccines and autism. Orac also points out that if this case were a concession of a connection why would the petitioner's lawyers settle and give away a case that could win them all their other cases? David Kirby has also written a follow up article, where he publishes verbatim the US government's decision. Kirby asks his readers: If you feel this document suggests that some kind of link may be possible, you might consider forwarding it to your elected representatives for further investigation. But, of course, if you feel that this document in no way implicates vaccines, then let's just keep going about our business as usual and not pay any attention to all those sick kids behind the curtain. I think Kirby is hoping that most people will not have the patience or medical background to read and understand the entire document, and that they will come away with a vague notion that there must be something to all this vaccine fear-mongering. What does the document really tell us? To summarize the case history, the child in the case appeared normal and healthy, except for chronic otitis media, until about 20 months of age at which time he had a series of vaccines according to the routine vaccination schedule. Two days later the child had a fever to 102.3, was lethargic, irritable, and would arch his back when he cried. The child then developed a rash. It was later determined that the child had: "encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness." The child regressed and developed symptoms similar to those of autism spectrum disorder. However, the child does not have autism - he has a regressive neurological disorder that includes blood and muscle abnormalities not seen in autism, and any clinical resemblance to autism is not a reflection of a common cause. Six years after symptoms began the child also developed partial temporal lobe epilepsy that required treatment. During this time the child also had an extensive workup, which discovered: A CSF organic acids test, on January 8, 2002, displayed an increased lactate to pyruvate ratio of 28,1 which can be seen in disorders of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. A muscle biopsy test for oxidative phosphorylation disease revealed abnormal results for Type One and Three. In February 2004, a mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") point mutation analysis revealed a single nucleotide change in the 16S ribosomal RNA gene (T2387C) It if often difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions from a single case, so I will lay out what I see as all the possible alternative hypotheses to explain this information. 1) One possibility is that the child was perfectly normal prior to the vaccines, which caused an encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) which caused brain damage, including the later seizures. The metabolic disorder and mutation may be a red herring and have no bearing on the child's clinical condition. 2) The mitochondrial disorder predisposed the child to have a reaction from the vaccines, resulting in encephalitis. The subsequent neurological regression was due to some combination of the vaccine- induced encephalitis and the underlying mitochondrial disorder. 3) The child's mitochondrial mutation is the primary cause of their neurological regression, but that this regression was exacerbated by the vaccine-induced encephalitis (this seems to be the US government's conclusion). 4) The child has a mitochondrial encephalopathy which is the sole cause of all of the child's neurological signs and symptoms. The reaction to the vaccines may have played no role at all in the subsequent regression, and the child's current neurological condition is exactly what it would have been had they never been vaccinated. It is even possible that the encephalitis was merely the first manifestation of the mitochondrial disorder and the timing after the vaccines was merely coincidental. That lays out the spectrum of possibilities in this case. At this point in time we do not have (or at least I am not privy to) sufficient scientific information to say definitively where along this spectrum the truth lies. The US government's decision was based partly on this uncertainty - erring on the side of compensating the child and family. But we can discuss the plausibility of each scenario. Kirby dismisses anything resembling option 4, but his dismissal is naive and unjustified. In fact the patient's clinical syndrome resembles what is called a mitochondrial encephalopathy - with increased lactic acid, abnormal muscle biopsy, neurological regression, appropriate age of onset, even seizures. It is probably not a coincidence that the child has a point mutation in a gene that has been previously linked to these very mitochondrial disorders. Kirby incorrectly argues: While it's true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene. This is misleading. Kirby refers to "this particular gene" which makes me think that he believes T2387C is a gene. It's not - it describes a point mutation (at location 2387 a thymidine has replaced a cytosine). The gene is the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Mutations in this gene have been identified to cause mitochondrial encephalopathy. So Kirby is just wrong. It is true that I could not find that this specific mutation has been identified before, but that is common in genetics - a disease is linked to point mutations in a specific gene (or perhaps specific regions of a gene) but most or all families identified have their own specific mutation. This makes option 4 very plausible - it would be an incredible coincidence if this child just happened to have a mutation in a gene that was known to cause their exact constellation of neurological signs and symptoms and yet the mutation was not the sole or primary cause of those symptoms. But it does not rule out option 3 - that the mitochondrial disorder was the primary cause of the child's neurological disorder but that a reaction to the vaccines worsened the ultimate symptoms. Therefore the government's decision was reasonable - but is absolutely not a concession about any claim made by the petitioners concerning a link between vaccines an autism. It does, however, make any hypothesis resembling option 1 or 2 extremely unlikely. Further testing regarding the physiological effects of this child's specific mutation would be helpful, and such testing may be under way but I could find nothing published to date. It is theoretically possible that the identified mutation does not cause a change in the gene product or mitochondrial function, and is therefore just a coincidence. But this is unlikely given the clinical features in this case are a good match to known mutations of that gene. Kirby, however, apparently wants to wring as much fear and confusion out of these events as he possibly can. So now he speculates wildly that maybe children diagnosed with autism really have this mitochondrial disorder combined with vaccines (he has to keep vaccines in the loop). Given the rarity of such mutations, and the fact that there were specific features in this case that would likely be uncovered in the routine evaluation of a child with autism (like an elevated lactic acid), it is highly unlikely that there are many children with vaccine-triggered mitochondrial encephalopathy mimicking autism out there. It has been found that some children with autism have mitochondrial dysfunction - one study found that 7.2% of subjects with autism had "definite mitochondrial respiratory chain disorder." Poling et al, in response to this child's case, did a retrospective study of children with autism and with other neurological disorders and found that "Aspartate aminotransferase was elevated in 38% of patients with autism compared with 15% of controls." Such findings are preliminary - the only conclusions that can be drawn is that the association between autism and metabolic disorders requires further investigation. However, these studies did not look at the incidence of suspicious mitochondial mutations in autism, and these findings may not be relevant to this case. Kirby also wildly speculates that perhaps the evil toxins in vaccines caused the mutation in the first place. He writes: Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms? Among stiff competition, this is perhaps the most absurd and scientifically ignorant thing Kirby has every written. AZT does NOT cause a genetic disorder. AZT blocks DNA replication (it blocks the copying of DNA) - that is its mechanism as an anti-retroviral drug. In patients it can also block mitochondrial DNA replication, thereby causing mitochondrial depletion. This results in there being too few mitochondria (the energy factories of cells) in some cell populations and causes dysfunction in tissue that is especially susceptible to the effects of this dearth of mitochondria. This is a side effect of AZT and also other retrovirals because of sustained use at doses designed to inhibit DNA replication. This does result in some effects that are similar to mitochondrial genetic disorders - because both result in insufficient mitochondrial activity. But that is the only similarity. AZT does not cause a disseminated somatic mutation, which is the incredible analogy that Kirby is making. What Kirby is suggesting is that in infants and toddlers toxins can cause the same point mutation in millions of different cells throughout the body. Toxin-induced mutations do not cause genetic diseases, unless they occur in a germ cell in which case a mother or father can pass the mutation onto their children. If it occurs in the womb then large cell populations may be affected (whatever cells derive from the cell that had the mutation). But in a child a point mutation would affect only one cell and any cells that derive from it. A toxic mutagen would cause different random point mutations in different cells. This could not cause the mitrochondrial encephalopathy in this child. It can increase the risk of cancer, because cancer can develop from a single mutation in a single cell that causes it to become neoplastic. Conclusion This is a unique and idiosyncratic case that raises more questions than it answers. In my opinion as a neurologist, with the information provided, the child has a mitochondrial encephalopathy. The role of the vaccines is unclear, but at worst a rare vaccine reaction exacerbated the underlying mitochondrial disorder. This case has no clear implication for the larger question concerning vaccines and autism, which is likely why both sides agreed to settle. Yet those who insist, despite the evidence, on claiming that vaccines or mercury are linked to autism are likely to add this permanently to their litany of misinformation and fear-mongering. Note: I am searching for any follow up information pertinent to this case and will post any addendum here. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oil Vigilantes continue the Cover Up
Mark S Probert ... STOP HIGHJACKING THREADS TO POST THE VACCINATION
PROPAGANDA. No wonder you were disbarred ... http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...istProbert.htm Discussion subject changed to "No Evidence of Harm" by Mark Probert. (Typical Barrett / Quackwatch / Snake-oil Tactics) http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...m#Mark-Probert Here is more from David Kirby ... who you seen greener with envy of than Shrek's toush! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...t_b_89318.html Dear Senator McCain, It was with some amazement that I read about your comments, made tonight while campaigning in Texas, about a possible link between mercury in vaccines and autism. According to Jake Tapper at ABC News, a Texas mother of a child with autism asked you about the Federal Court document, first reported on Huffington Post last Monday, in which Justice Department officials conceded that vaccines had aggravated one child's underlying medical condition, resulting in a diagnosis of autism. Your courage -- some would (and will) call it lunacy, or at best political suicide -- to step into this quagmire, while running for President, no less, is an inspiration and comfort to those of us who continue to ask such discomfiting questions in the public realm. It's not the nicest place to be, but welcome to our world anyway. Given your war record, you are much better prepared than anyone I can think of for the incoming missiles of vitriol that are about to come your way. "Why are you trying to scare parents away from vaccinating their kids?" some will demand. "Don't you know that children will get sick and die, because of your reckless questioning?" others will say. "Are you really so stupid that you believe this issue hasn't been put to rest by the best science money can buy? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?" Oh that's right: War Hero. U.S. Senator. De Facto Presidential Nominee. Well, Senator, if you are unafraid to ask the tough, unpopular, and, yes (gasp!) controversial questions about what you aptly call the "indisputable" increase in autism cases - and to be so bold as to suggest that "there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines" -- then no one in America, least of all journalists, should fear asking the same questions. In the meantime, get ready for a whole new type of infantile sloganeering that will be heaped upon you with tedious repetition. You, Senator, like it or not, are now a card-carrying member of the "Mercury Militia." You are a tin-foil hatter, a "denialist dead-ender," and an "anti-science" nut job grasping at emotional, litigious straws. You, Senator, in the raw vernacular of your newfound enemies, are one of those awful, ragtag "anti-vaxers" who just want to see kids get sick from preventable diseases and die. Yet, when you raise questions in the US Senate about aviation safety, no one angrily labels you "anti-airplane," do they? Inquire about reducing highway accident rates? Nobody runs around calling you "anti-car." But raise a question about the Federal Government conceding a vaccine-autism case; or ask why more and more studies from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of California and elsewhere continue to show a potential link between mercury (from the environment and, yes, from vaccines) and autism, or even call attention to the fact that autism is epidemic (and thus not purely genetic), and suddenly it's battle stations: Prepare to fend off the overheated wrath of indignant health officials and their blogger allies, who, to be honest, aren't always that adept at turning an original phrase against their foes. Sir, I only hope that your Democratic opponent will be equally unafraid to address these admittedly thorny issues up front and honestly. (My sources tell me that one indeed will. The other one, not so much). Whoever wins the White House, let's pray that he or she gets to the bottom of this national emergency while funding vital new treatment research on a Manhattan Project scale. And let's hope their Administration is remembered for presiding over the waning days of the Great American Autism Epidemic. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Feds admit vaccine 'aggravated' autism ... The Snake-oil Vigilantes continue the Cover Up
This is a joyous day for the Snake-oil Vaccination Team ... with a
Presidential wannna-be being brave enough to make such a statement ... the PR machine is cranking away like crazy! www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/snake-oil.htm On this point alone, I agree with McCain: McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ccain-ent.html John McCain Enters the Autism Wars February 29, 2008 7:11 PM At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that "there’s strong evidence" that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. -- a position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment. McCain was responding to a question from the mother of a boy with autism, who asked about a recent story that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had issued a judgment in favor of an unnamed child whose family claimed regressive encephalopathy and symptoms of autism were caused by thimerosal. "We’ve been waiting for years for kind of a responsible answer to this question, and are hoping that you can help us out there," the woman said. McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines." McCain said there’s "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that’s not the cause of it." The established medical community is not as divided as McCain made it sound, however. Overwhelmingly the "credible scientists," at least as the government and the medical establishment so ordain them, side against McCain's view. Moreover, those scientists and organizations fear that powerful people lending credence to the thimerosal theory could dissuade parents from getting their children immunized -- which in their view would lead to a very real health crisis. The Centers for Disease Control says "There is no convincing scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site." The American Academy of Pediatrics says"No scientific data link thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines with any pediatric neurologic disorder, including autism." The Food and Drug Administration conducted a review in 1999 -- the year thimerosal was ordered to be removed from most vaccines -- and said that it "found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions." The Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded "that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism." And a study of California Department of Developmental Services data published last month indicated that there was "an increase in autism in California despite the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines." Yet there is a vocal, determined, passionate group -- including some medical researchers and organizations -- who vehemently dispute what the established medical community says about this wrenching issue. One of the questions they ask is why would the thimerosal have been removed from the vaccines if there was no real harm? (The answer according to the Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers was "because any potential risk is of concern.") In any case, here we have a major political figure, the presumptive Republican nominee, who stated that he at the very least isn’t as sure about thimerosal as the medical establishment is. Moreover, he made it sound as if the thimerosal is still in vaccines -- though as I understand it, thimerosal is all but gone in almost every childhood vaccine now, and has been for years. This could be quite controversial. - jpt John McCain Enters the Autism Wars February 29, 2008 7:11 PM At a town hall meeting Friday in Texas, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that "there’s strong evidence" that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was once in many childhood vaccines, is responsible for the increased diagnoses of autism in the U.S. -- a position in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment. McCain was responding to a question from the mother of a boy with autism, who asked about a recent story that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had issued a judgment in favor of an unnamed child whose family claimed regressive encephalopathy and symptoms of autism were caused by thimerosal. "We’ve been waiting for years for kind of a responsible answer to this question, and are hoping that you can help us out there," the woman said. McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines." McCain said there’s "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that’s not the cause of it." The established medical community is not as divided as McCain made it sound, however. Overwhelmingly the "credible scientists," at least as the government and the medical establishment so ordain them, side against McCain's view. Moreover, those scientists and organizations fear that powerful people lending credence to the thimerosal theory could dissuade parents from getting their children immunized -- which in their view would lead to a very real health crisis. The Centers for Disease Control says "There is no convincing scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site." The American Academy of Pediatrics says"No scientific data link thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines with any pediatric neurologic disorder, including autism." The Food and Drug Administration conducted a review in 1999 -- the year thimerosal was ordered to be removed from most vaccines -- and said that it "found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions." The Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded "that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism." And a study of California Department of Developmental Services data published last month indicated that there was "an increase in autism in California despite the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines." Yet there is a vocal, determined, passionate group -- including some medical researchers and organizations -- who vehemently dispute what the established medical community says about this wrenching issue. One of the questions they ask is why would the thimerosal have been removed from the vaccines if there was no real harm? (The answer according to the Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers was "because any potential risk is of concern.") In any case, here we have a major political figure, the presumptive Republican nominee, who stated that he at the very least isn’t as sure about thimerosal as the medical establishment is. Moreover, he made it sound as if the thimerosal is still in vaccines -- though as I understand it, thimerosal is all but gone in almost every childhood vaccine now, and has been for years. This could be quite controversial. - jpt |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
No Evidence of Harm
Ilena Z. Rosentha: Stop posting propaganda from the Merchants of Disease, Disability and Death. For an excellent analysis of the medical considerations regarding the recent decision by the US Government see: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=203 Kirby is wrong. Period. Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism? No. But David Kirby and other anti-vaccinationist ideologues and members of the so-called mercury militia would like you to think so. For background, the Autism Omnibus refers to a set of hearings before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program regarding claims by about 5000 parents that their childrens' autism was caused by vaccines. These claims are primarily based upon the various hypotheses that the MMR vaccine, or thimerosal in some vaccines (but not MMR), or the combination of both, is a cause of autism. So far there have been hearings, but only one final decision. In November the US government settled one case in favor of the petitioner. This is the case those who have supported the failed hypothesis that vaccines cause autism now point to as admission that they were right all along (or at least as a means of stoking the flames of fear about vaccines.) But the US government did not admit vaccines cause autism - they conceded one case that is highly complex and not necessarily representative of any other case and cannot be reasonably used to support the vaccine/autism connection. David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, wrote a highly misleading article the other day in the Huffington Post on this issue. Orac has already done an excellent job of tearing down Kirby's claims. He points out that legal cases are often decided for legal - not necessarily scientific - reasons. That the government only conceded that "compensation is appropriate." That is all - they conceded nothing about the larger question of vaccines and autism. Orac also points out that if this case were a concession of a connection why would the petitioner's lawyers settle and give away a case that could win them all their other cases? David Kirby has also written a follow up article, where he publishes verbatim the US government's decision. Kirby asks his readers: If you feel this document suggests that some kind of link may be possible, you might consider forwarding it to your elected representatives for further investigation. But, of course, if you feel that this document in no way implicates vaccines, then let's just keep going about our business as usual and not pay any attention to all those sick kids behind the curtain. I think Kirby is hoping that most people will not have the patience or medical background to read and understand the entire document, and that they will come away with a vague notion that there must be something to all this vaccine fear-mongering. What does the document really tell us? To summarize the case history, the child in the case appeared normal and healthy, except for chronic otitis media, until about 20 months of age at which time he had a series of vaccines according to the routine vaccination schedule. Two days later the child had a fever to 102.3, was lethargic, irritable, and would arch his back when he cried. The child then developed a rash. It was later determined that the child had: "encephalopathy progressed to persistent loss of previously acquired language, eye contact, and relatedness." The child regressed and developed symptoms similar to those of autism spectrum disorder. However, the child does not have autism - he has a regressive neurological disorder that includes blood and muscle abnormalities not seen in autism, and any clinical resemblance to autism is not a reflection of a common cause. Six years after symptoms began the child also developed partial temporal lobe epilepsy that required treatment. During this time the child also had an extensive workup, which discovered: A CSF organic acids test, on January 8, 2002, displayed an increased lactate to pyruvate ratio of 28,1 which can be seen in disorders of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. A muscle biopsy test for oxidative phosphorylation disease revealed abnormal results for Type One and Three. In February 2004, a mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") point mutation analysis revealed a single nucleotide change in the 16S ribosomal RNA gene (T2387C) It if often difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions from a single case, so I will lay out what I see as all the possible alternative hypotheses to explain this information. 1) One possibility is that the child was perfectly normal prior to the vaccines, which caused an encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) which caused brain damage, including the later seizures. The metabolic disorder and mutation may be a red herring and have no bearing on the child's clinical condition. 2) The mitochondrial disorder predisposed the child to have a reaction from the vaccines, resulting in encephalitis. The subsequent neurological regression was due to some combination of the vaccine- induced encephalitis and the underlying mitochondrial disorder. 3) The child's mitochondrial mutation is the primary cause of their neurological regression, but that this regression was exacerbated by the vaccine-induced encephalitis (this seems to be the US government's conclusion). 4) The child has a mitochondrial encephalopathy which is the sole cause of all of the child's neurological signs and symptoms. The reaction to the vaccines may have played no role at all in the subsequent regression, and the child's current neurological condition is exactly what it would have been had they never been vaccinated. It is even possible that the encephalitis was merely the first manifestation of the mitochondrial disorder and the timing after the vaccines was merely coincidental. That lays out the spectrum of possibilities in this case. At this point in time we do not have (or at least I am not privy to) sufficient scientific information to say definitively where along this spectrum the truth lies. The US government's decision was based partly on this uncertainty - erring on the side of compensating the child and family. But we can discuss the plausibility of each scenario. Kirby dismisses anything resembling option 4, but his dismissal is naive and unjustified. In fact the patient's clinical syndrome resembles what is called a mitochondrial encephalopathy - with increased lactic acid, abnormal muscle biopsy, neurological regression, appropriate age of onset, even seizures. It is probably not a coincidence that the child has a point mutation in a gene that has been previously linked to these very mitochondrial disorders. Kirby incorrectly argues: While it's true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene. This is misleading. Kirby refers to "this particular gene" which makes me think that he believes T2387C is a gene. It's not - it describes a point mutation (at location 2387 a thymidine has replaced a cytosine). The gene is the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Mutations in this gene have been identified to cause mitochondrial encephalopathy. So Kirby is just wrong. It is true that I could not find that this specific mutation has been identified before, but that is common in genetics - a disease is linked to point mutations in a specific gene (or perhaps specific regions of a gene) but most or all families identified have their own specific mutation. This makes option 4 very plausible - it would be an incredible coincidence if this child just happened to have a mutation in a gene that was known to cause their exact constellation of neurological signs and symptoms and yet the mutation was not the sole or primary cause of those symptoms. But it does not rule out option 3 - that the mitochondrial disorder was the primary cause of the child's neurological disorder but that a reaction to the vaccines worsened the ultimate symptoms. Therefore the government's decision was reasonable - but is absolutely not a concession about any claim made by the petitioners concerning a link between vaccines an autism. It does, however, make any hypothesis resembling option 1 or 2 extremely unlikely. Further testing regarding the physiological effects of this child's specific mutation would be helpful, and such testing may be under way but I could find nothing published to date. It is theoretically possible that the identified mutation does not cause a change in the gene product or mitochondrial function, and is therefore just a coincidence. But this is unlikely given the clinical features in this case are a good match to known mutations of that gene. Kirby, however, apparently wants to wring as much fear and confusion out of these events as he possibly can. So now he speculates wildly that maybe children diagnosed with autism really have this mitochondrial disorder combined with vaccines (he has to keep vaccines in the loop). Given the rarity of such mutations, and the fact that there were specific features in this case that would likely be uncovered in the routine evaluation of a child with autism (like an elevated lactic acid), it is highly unlikely that there are many children with vaccine-triggered mitochondrial encephalopathy mimicking autism out there. It has been found that some children with autism have mitochondrial dysfunction - one study found that 7.2% of subjects with autism had "definite mitochondrial respiratory chain disorder." Poling et al, in response to this child's case, did a retrospective study of children with autism and with other neurological disorders and found that "Aspartate aminotransferase was elevated in 38% of patients with autism compared with 15% of controls." Such findings are preliminary - the only conclusions that can be drawn is that the association between autism and metabolic disorders requires further investigation. However, these studies did not look at the incidence of suspicious mitochondial mutations in autism, and these findings may not be relevant to this case. Kirby also wildly speculates that perhaps the evil toxins in vaccines caused the mutation in the first place. He writes: Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms? Among stiff competition, this is perhaps the most absurd and scientifically ignorant thing Kirby has every written. AZT does NOT cause a genetic disorder. AZT blocks DNA replication (it blocks the copying of DNA) - that is its mechanism as an anti-retroviral drug. In patients it can also block mitochondrial DNA replication, thereby causing mitochondrial depletion. This results in there being too few mitochondria (the energy factories of cells) in some cell populations and causes dysfunction in tissue that is especially susceptible to the effects of this dearth of mitochondria. This is a side effect of AZT and also other retrovirals because of sustained use at doses designed to inhibit DNA replication. This does result in some effects that are similar to mitochondrial genetic disorders - because both result in insufficient mitochondrial activity. But that is the only similarity. AZT does not cause a disseminated somatic mutation, which is the incredible analogy that Kirby is making. What Kirby is suggesting is that in infants and toddlers toxins can cause the same point mutation in millions of different cells throughout the body. Toxin-induced mutations do not cause genetic diseases, unless they occur in a germ cell in which case a mother or father can pass the mutation onto their children. If it occurs in the womb then large cell populations may be affected (whatever cells derive from the cell that had the mutation). But in a child a point mutation would affect only one cell and any cells that derive from it. A toxic mutagen would cause different random point mutations in different cells. This could not cause the mitrochondrial encephalopathy in this child. It can increase the risk of cancer, because cancer can develop from a single mutation in a single cell that causes it to become neoplastic. Conclusion This is a unique and idiosyncratic case that raises more questions than it answers. In my opinion as a neurologist, with the information provided, the child has a mitochondrial encephalopathy. The role of the vaccines is unclear, but at worst a rare vaccine reaction exacerbated the underlying mitochondrial disorder. This case has no clear implication for the larger question concerning vaccines and autism, which is likely why both sides agreed to settle. Yet those who insist, despite the evidence, on claiming that vaccines or mercury are linked to autism are likely to add this permanently to their litany of misinformation and fear-mongering. Note: I am searching for any follow up information pertinent to this case and will post any addendum here. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vacciation Quote of the Day again! | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | January 25th 08 04:02 PM |
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vacciation Quote of the Day | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 19 | December 31st 07 01:33 PM |
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vaccination Quote of the Day | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 4 | December 29th 07 07:16 PM |
Snake-oil Salesman Andrew Kingoff Wins Snake-oil Vaccination Quote of the Day | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | December 28th 07 10:46 PM |
Vaccine / Autism Link Cover Up alleged | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 1 | August 21st 04 12:48 AM |