Articles

“Piltdown medicine” and Andrew Wakefield’s MMR vaccine fraud

Pity poor Andrew Wakefield. Well, not really. I tend to view what’s happening to him yet again as the chickens coming home to roost.

Let’s put it this way. 2010 was a terrible year for him, and 2011 is starting out almost as bad. In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. This case series, thanks to Wakefield’s scientific incompetence and fraud, coupled with his flair for self-promotion and enabled by the sensationalistic credulity of the British press, ignited a scare about the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in which, afraid that the MMR vaccine causes autism, parents in the U.K. eschewed vaccinating their children in droves. As a result, vaccination rates plummeted far below the level necessary for herd immunity, with the entirely predictable result of massive measles outbreaks in the U.K. Measles, which as of the mid-1990s had been declared under control by British and European health authorities, came roaring back to the point where in 2008 it was declared once again endemic in the British Isles. In a mere decade and a half, several decades of progress in controlling this scourge had been unravelled like a thread hanging off a cheap dress, all thanks to Andrew Wakefield and scandal mongers in the British press.

True, Wakefield had long since moved to Texas, the better to be the founding “scientific director” of a house of autism woo known as Thoughtful House. Thus, the removal of his license to practice had little practical import (or effect on his ability to earn a living), or so it seemed at the time, given that Wakefield did not treat patients and hauled in quite the hefty salary for his promotion of anti-vaccine pseudoscience. Fortunately, karma’s a bitch, and, as a result of the GMC’s action, in short order The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s 1998 paper; Wakefield was pushed out of Thoughtful House; and his latest attempt to “prove” that vaccines cause autism in an animal study was also retracted. Investigative reporter Brian Deer’s investigation finding that Andrew Wakefield had committed scientific fraud in carrying out his Lancet study joined prior findings that Wakefield had been in the pocket of trial lawyers (to the tune of £435 643, plus expenses) seeking to sue the vaccine industry at the time he carried out his “research” and the allegations by renowned PCR expert Stephen Bustin during the Autism Omnibus as to how shoddily Wakefield’s other research was carried out. Finally, the mainstream media started to back away from its previous embrace of Wakefield and his claims. As a result, for a while at least, Wakefield was reduced to lame appearances at sparsely attended anti-vaccine rallies last spring.

The rest of the story

As bad as the findings were that Wakefield had committed scientific fraud, it turns out that it was even worse than the original reports indicated. A few hours ago, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an analysis of the scientific fraud committed by Wakefield, fraud that journalist Brian Deer likens in an accompanying editorial to the Piltdown Man. The articles are:

And here is CNN reporting on the story last night:

Even better, Deer’s article is part one of a planned two-part series, the next part of which will look at Wakefield’s business plans and how he came to be fired. Basically, these latest two articles will grind to dust any remaining “scientific resepctability” Wakefield might have enjoyed. Actually, it grinds it to even finer dust–nanoparticles that disappear into the air–given that Wakefield’s reputation had already been pulverized quite thoroughly last year by the GMC. Deer begins, as he began one of his news stories before, with the testimony of a parent of one of the 12 children that Wakefield included in his study:

Mr 11, an American engineer, looked again at the paper: a five page case series of 11 boys and one girl, aged between 3 and 9 years. Nine children, it said, had diagnoses of “regressive” autism, and all but one were reported with “non-specific colitis.” The “new syndrome” brought these together, linking brain and bowel diseases. His son was the penultimate case.

Running his finger across the paper’s tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son’s age and other details. But then he pointed at table 2–headed “neuropsychiatric diagnosis”–and for a second time objected.

“That’s not true.”

Child 11 was among the eight whose parents apparently blamed MMR. The interval between his vaccination and the first “behavioural symptom” was reported as 1 week. This symptom was said to have appeared at age 15 months. But his father, whom I had tracked down, said this was wrong.

“From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study,” he wrote to me, after we met again in California, “the data clearly appeared to be distorted.”

Then Deer describes exactly how Wakefield rigged his study under the pay of trial lawyers to appear to suggest a link between MMR vaccination and autism. For instance, before Wakefield ever undertook his infamous study, he and a solicitor named Richard Barr had claimed to have identified a new syndrome consisting of bowel inflammation and regressive autism and aimed to show a temporal association between MMR vaccination and the onset of first symptoms. Unfortunately, Child 11′s case was a disappointment, as his discharge summary from the Royal Free Hospital, which showed that the boy’s regression began two months earlier than claimed in Wakefield’s paper and a month before he had ever received his MMR vaccine. Deer also describes Child 2, whose parents were the first to have approached Wakefield, sent by the anti-vaccine group JABS. This boy appeared in numerous news reports and was one of the four “best cases” used by Barr in a lawsuit. The boy’s mother’s story was vague and she wasn’t clear on how long it was between the child’s vaccination and the onset of his symptoms.

But that’s not all. The more the paper was investigated, the more anomalies were found. For example, only one child clearly had regressive autism, and three of nine described as having regressive autism did not. In fact, none of these three even had a diagnosis of autism at all! There were other anomalies as well. Several of the children clearly had preexisting conditions. For example, all twelve children were described in the paper as “previously normal,” but at least two of them clearly had developmental delay and facial dysmorphisms noted before they were vaccinated with the MMR. All twelve children taken together did not support the existence of a syndrome of bowel problems and regressive autism, at least not the syndrome as described in Wakefield’s paper. Deer summarizes how Wakefield “fixed the link” between MMR and regressive autism with enterocolitis:

The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:

  • Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism
  • Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns
  • Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination
  • In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results–noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations–were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”
  • The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations–all giving times to onset of problems in months–helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link
  • Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation

As Brian Deer so aptly puts it, Wakefield “chiseled” the data, “falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare.” The discrepancies between the case reports as described in Wakefield’s Lancet paper and the actual medical records are anything but random; all are in the direction of suggesting a link between the MMR and Wakefield’s as yet unverified syndrome of regressive autism and enterocolitis. The cases that were selected appear not to have been random, sequential patients but were rather recruited specifically through anti-vaccine activists and trial lawyers. Moreover, as Deer puts it:

Moreover, through the omission from the paper of some parents’ beliefs that the vaccine was to blame, the time link for the lawsuit sharpened. With concerns logged from 11 of 12 families, the maximum time given to the onset of alleged symptoms was a (forensically unhelpful) four months. But, in a version of the paper circulated at the Royal Free six months before publication, reported concerns fell to nine of 12 families but with a still unhelpful maximum of 56 days. Finally, Wakefield settled on 8 of 12 families, with a maximum interval to alleged symptoms of 14 days.

Between the latter two versions, revisions also slashed the mean time to alleged symptoms–from 14 to 6.3 days. “In these children the mean interval from exposure to the MMR vaccine to the development of the first behavioural symptom was six days, indicating a strong temporal association,” he emphasised in a patent for, among other things, his own prophylactic measles vaccine, eight months before the Lancet paper.

Yes, that’s exactly what Deer has found. When the time frame between vaccination and the onset of symptoms was too long to be useful for suggesting a link between MMR and regressive autism with enterocolitis, Wakefield systematically removed subjects whose parents blamed the MMR for their children’s autism until the time frame between vaccination and onset of symptoms in the remaining subjects was a much more impressive 14 days. There is no innocent explanation possible for the systematic and numerous discrepancies between the medical record and Wakefield’s paper, as the editors of the BMJ point out in their accompanying editorial:

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.

The antivaccine movement circles the wagons again

The degree of falsification and the number of discrepancies were breathtaking in their audacity and contempt for reviewers and Wakefield’s own collaborators, ten of whom retracted their names from the study back in 2004, when strong evidence of a serious conflict of interest on Wakefield’s part was first unearthed by Deer. The chutzpah Wakefield demonstrated in his fraud was truly breathtaking. So is the chutzpah he continues to exhibit today with his denials. Even after this report and all the stories reporting on it, Wakefield continues to deny that he has done anything at all wrong and blames the criticisms leveled against him on conspiracies. In reality, given the way the anti-vaccine movement has begun to circle the wagons to defend Wakefield yet again, it’s tempting to claim that this is a conspiracy. Personally, I consider it a conspiracy of utter cluelessness. For one example, check out this video of J.B. Handley:

Yes, Handley’s regurgitating antivaccine favorites like the “tobacco science” mischaracterization, touting Wakefield’s “monkey business” study (which he neglects to mention was withdrawn), and defending Wakefield. I will say one thing, though. Handley actually managed to keep himself from having one of his characteristic outbursts, although it was obvious that he was on the verge of one of his typical rants. Perhaps he’s had some media training since his last appearance on The Doctors or Larry King’s show.

For another example, check out this defense of Andrew Wakefield by the anti-vaccine National Autism Association, which makes the astonishingly ludicrous claim that the BMJ article is “yet another attempt to thwart vaccine safety research.” The anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism naturally reposted the NAA’s counterattack.

One of the NAA’s claims in its press release is that Wakefield’s study has been “repeatedly confirmed,” and the NAA cites five studies that allegedly confirm Wakefield’s fraudulent results. However, as Just the Vax and Sullivan show, these studies do not represent independent confirmation of anything. One of them was by a close associate of Wakefield; one is a case report of an adult autistic with enterocolitis; and none of the rest confirm Wakefield’s results either. Yet, every time a story pops up showing that Wakefield committed scientific fraud, Wakefield defenders in the anti-vaccine movement dutifully trot out the same five studies, as though any of them were independent confirmation of his work, while anti-vaccine activists launch ad hominem attacks against BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and regurgitate old attacks on Brian Deer. Particularly off-base is the NAA’s claim that somehow, by laying bare Wakefield’s clear cut and vile scientific fraud, the BMJ is interfering with “vaccine safety research.” No, it’s revealing a dangerous scientific fraud, nothing more.

“Piltdown medicine”

So egregious was Wakefield’s fraud that Deer likens it in an accompanying blog post to “Piltdown medicine,” making this direct comparison to the infamous “Piltdown Man” hoax:

The Piltdown contrivance involved the pre-arranged “discovery” of features brought together to be sensationally “found.” A piece of skullcap was human, a partial jaw was an orangutan’s, and a tooth was a chimpanzee’s, filed down. They were stained with chemicals and, to fabricate a temporal link, were buried with flint tools in datable gravel near the tiny village of Piltdown, East Sussex.

Some would suggest that their proximity was a matter of chance, but the odds of this would have taxed an astronomer. “That two different individuals were present,” one of the scientists who unmasked the fraud explained later, “a fossil man, represented by a cranium without a jaw, and a fossil ape, represented by a jaw without a cranium, within a few feet of each other and so similar in colour and preservation, would be a coincidence, amazing beyond belief.”

And so it was with Wakefield, eight decades after the Piltdown discoveries. Amazing beyond belief. For skullcap read “developmental disorders”, for the jaw “enterocolitis”, and for the tooth “parental complaints about MMR”. Bring them together at one hospital, with a 14-day temporal link, and another assemblage was “found”.

This is a very apt analogy. The more we find out about how Wakefield put together his case series for The Lancet, the more it becomes obvious that he calculatingly put together a fraud every bit as elaborate and planned as the Piltdown Man hoax. It might not have taken as long for Wakefield’s fraud to come to light. Although there were suspicions that not everything was as it appeared as early as within the first year after Wakefield’s case report, it was not until 2004 that serious allegations came to light of Wakefield’s conflict of interest. These allegations ultimately led to the GMC hearing that began in 2007 and the findings of scientific fraud announced nearly a year ago. Now, here it is, thirteen years later, and only now is the full story being told.

What I can’t figure out–I mean, really, really can’t figure out–is why the anti-vaccine movement continues to cling to Wakefield’s tattered “science” and lionize this fraud as a hero. Surely the more sober and intelligent members of the anti-vaccine mvoement (they do exist, believe it or not) must realize by now that Wakefield has become a huge liability. This was best demonstrated last year, when, after years of doing nothing about him, as soon as the GMC found Wakefield had committed scientific fraud, in short order The Lancet retracted his paper, Thoughtful House fired him, and his “monkey business” paper, which was to be his “comeback” as far as scientific respectability goes, was also retracted. Wakefield is now very much like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who, having had his arm hacked off by King Arthur declares it to be “just a flesh wound.” After hacking off all but the Black Knight’s left leg, the Black Knight keeps taunting Arthur, who retorts, “What are you going to do, bleed on me?” and finally, unable to take any more, cuts off the Black Knight’s last leg.

This article by Brian Deer is the last swing of the sword that hacks off Wakefield’s last limb.

Unfortunately, like the Black Knight, not realizing that, scientifically he’s been utterly discredited, Wakefield fights on. Worse, he is still feted by the anti-vaccine movement. Right now, he’s in Jamaica as part of a “vaccine safety” conference whose list of speakers is chock full of anti-vaccine activists.

For Wakefield, even 13 years later, fraud pays.

Posted in: Health Fraud, Neuroscience/Mental Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (124) ↓

124 thoughts on ““Piltdown medicine” and Andrew Wakefield’s MMR vaccine fraud

  1. windriven says:

    The Handley interview on CNN was theater of the absurd. It is hard to believe that anyone possesses an ignorance so impenetrable.

    But Handley mentioned two, apparently fairly recent, studies that I’m not familiar with: SUNY Stony Brook and U Pittsburgh. Could someone please direct me to these?

  2. windriven says:

    “Surely the more sober and intelligent members of the anti-vaccine mvoement (they do exist, believe it or not)…”

    More sober and intelligent than … an empty beer bottle? Upon what possible intellectual ground might a vaccination opponent stand?

  3. windriven says:

    “Surely the more sober and intelligent members of the anti-vaccine mvoement (they do exist, believe it or not)”

    More sober and intelligent than what exactly, an empty beer bottle?

    The Handley interview on CNN was theater of the absurd. No one’s ignorance can be that refractory.

    But he mentioned two apparently fairly recent studies that I’m not familiar with: SUNY/Stony Brook and U of Pittsburgh. Can anyone point me to either of those?

  4. windriven says:

    @All

    Sorry for the duplicate comment. It appeared that the third comment (the first written) had been lost. But there it is :-(

  5. hokieian says:

    The SUNY Stony Brook Study is just an abstract published in AEP in September 2009. I’m not sure that SBM has done an analysis of the study (at least a search doesn’t turn anything up). Here’s the abstract:

    AEP Vol. 19, No. 9 ABSTRACTS (ACE)
    September 2009: 651–680

    P24
    HEPATITIS B VACCINATION OF MALE NEONATES
    AND AUTISM
    CM Gallagher, MS Goodman, Graduate Program in Public
    Health, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY
    PURPOSE: Universal newborn immunization with hepatitis
    B vaccine was recommended in 1991; however, safety
    findings are mixed. The Vaccine Safety Datalink Workgroup
    reported no association between hepatitis B vaccination
    at birth and febrile episodes or neurological adverse
    events. Other studies found positive associations between
    hepatitis B vaccination and ear infection, pharyngitis, and
    chronic arthritis; as well as receipt of early intervention/
    special education services (EIS); in probability samples of
    U.S. children. Children with autistic spectrum disorder
    (ASD) comprise a growing caseload for EIS. We evaluated
    the association between hepatitis B vaccination of male
    neonates and parental report of ASD.
    METHODS: This cross-sectional study used U.S. probability
    samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey
    1997–2002 datasets. Logistic regression modeling was used to
    estimate the effect of neonatal hepatitis B vaccination on
    ASDrisk amongboys age 3–17 years with shot records, adjusted
    for race, maternal education, and two-parent household.
    RESULTS:Boyswho received the hepatitis B vaccine during
    the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD (nZ31
    of 7,486; OR Z 2.94; p Z 0.03; 95% CI Z 1.10, 7.90)
    compared to later- or unvaccinated boys.Non-Hispanicwhite
    boys were 61%less likely to haveASD(ORZ0.39; pZ0.04;
    95% CIZ0.16, 0.94) relative to non-white boys.
    CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates
    vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk
    of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.

  6. hokieian says:

    Upon further review, it appears that the SUNY Stony Brook study has been published:

    J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010 Jan;73(24):1665-77.
    Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.
    Gallagher CM, Goodman MS.

    PhD Program in Population Health and Clinical Outcomes Research, Stony Brook University Medical Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York, USA. cmgallagher@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
    Abstract
    Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.

  7. David Gorski says:

    Also, I provided a link above to the “University of Pittsburgh” study. It’s what I refer to as the “monkey business” study:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1989

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/too_much_vaccineautism_monkey_business_f.php

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6088

  8. davenoon says:

    You can read the SUNY-Stony Brook folks’ study in Google Docs here.

    The key, of course, is that the premise of the article rests on the danger of thimerosal, so there are immediate problems with the mechanism by which the authors suppose the hep B vaccine is linked to autism — and predictably, in the discussion section, the authors cite the ludicrous work of the Geiers as supporting evidence for their findings. The data are drawn from the NHIH — so it’s interview data with no independent confirmation of autism diagnoses, and there appears to be a lot of relevant information missing. For example, although they found about 193 cases of autism in the sample they used, only ~45 of those actually had usable vaccination records.

    It looks like crap to me.

  9. davenoon says:

    Also, what Science Mom said.

  10. windriven says:

    My thanks to hokieian for the link to the SUNY study.

    I hope that Dr. Gorski or one of the other bloggers will have an opportunity at some point to dissect this study. One thing leaps immediately to mind: does neonatal exposure to the Hep-B virus have a similar impact on ASD diagnosis? That is, is the causative agent the virus or some component of the vaccine?

  11. windriven says:

    And thanks to davenoon and Science Mom.

    The SUNY study discussion includes this:

    “Data suggested that aberrant innate immune responses of autistic children might enhance susceptibility to adverse reactions to vaccines (Jyonuchi et al., 2001) During the first 6 mo of life, the immature innate immune response develops a a balance between T helper (Th) 1 and Th2 cytokines (Marodi, 2002). Th1-Th2 imbalances were also reported in autistic children (Gupta et al., 1998; Ashwook et al., 2006). Skewed cytokine production may result in or exacerbate autoimmune disease (Hemdan et al., 2007).”

    So is Hep B or the Hep B vaccine triggering autism or is autism related biology in fact causing exposure to the virus/vaccine to manifest differently than in their non-autistic peers?

  12. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi windriven –

    So is Hep B or the Hep B vaccine triggering autism or is autism related biology in fact causing exposure to the virus/vaccine to manifest differently than in their non-autistic peers?

    People I tend to trust have told me that the Stonybrook authors used highly questionable methodologies in the past, I’m not sure their studies are useful. In any case, their raw numbers look pretty small.

    That being said, we do have a multitude of studies showing that the innate immune response is exaggerated in autism, and indeed, as the vigor of the immune response increases, so too does autistic behavioral severity. For example [Author, PMID]:

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

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

    Associations of impaired behaviors with elevated plasma chemokines in autism spectrum disorders [Ashwood, 21095018]

    Elevated plasma cytokines in autism spectrum disorders provide evidence of immune dysfunction and are associated with impaired behavioral outcome [Ashwood, 20705131]

    There are several others.

    At least one study has indicated that children with autism have very slightly higher rates of infection during their first month of life.

    Infection in the first 2 years of life and autism spectrum disorders [Rosen, 17200260]

    We also have animal models that seem to indicate neonatal immune actication can result in a variety of difficult to predict modifications into adulthood in behaviors, neuroimmune function, and hpa axis function, all areas known to be altered in the autism population. Some examples might be

    Neonatal programming of innate immune function [Spenser, 21045175]

    Early life activation of toll-like receptor 4 reprograms neural anti-inflammatory pathways [Mouihate, 20534845]

    Postnatal inflammation increases seizure susceptibility in adult rats [Galic, 18596165]

    Early-life programming of later-life brain and behavior: a critical role for the immune system [Bilbo, 19738918]

    Dopaminergic neuronal injury in the adult rat brain following neonatal exposure to lipopolysaccharide and the silent neurotoxicity [Fan, 20875849]

    There are many, many more.

    [Not linking to avoid ticking off the spam filter gods]

    The jump from rodent to human is fraught with unknowns, but this caution must be tempered by the relatively difficult problems with detecting subtle, but real, changes that may be possible from vaccination; if the animal models have salience towards humans. Again, if such relationships were possible, the propensity for a more robust immune response may make some infants a susceptible subgroup.

    Food for thought.

    - pD

  13. windriven says:

    Interesting, passionlessDrone. Thanks. It makes me wonder if there isn’t a thread there that might be followed to further illuminate the underlying causes of ASD.

  14. Watcher says:

    @PassionlessDrone

    There’s quite a few citations there. I will say that I just scanned the titles and didn’t make an effort to actually track down all of these, but, it seems like the majority indicate immunological changes in ASD individuals and not possible mechanisms. You take the outcomes and imply that a reasonable explanation for ASD prevalence is through vaccination. I don’t think you’re being logical saying that “ASD individuals have altered immune activity. Vaccines evoke an immune response. Therefore vaccines potentially cause autism.” What do you make of the many studies that show no change in ASD prevalence in populations of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated? Should we disregard those studies because “vaccines evoke an immune response and ASD individuals have altered immune activity?” You should recognize that a genetically-based hypothesis can explain ASD prevalence just as well, if not better, when you take into account all of the data out there pointing elsewhere.

  15. ConspicuousCarl says:

    Of course Wakefield claims that Brian Deer is a “hit man” sent by the drug manufacturers.

    That’s a typical defense offered by liars and lunatics, but it is especially unconvincing in this case because Brian Deer’s previous work has been exposing drug manufacturers! If Wakefield wasn’t a liar, Brian Deer would have been one of his strongest allies.

    David Gorski wrote:
    What I can’t figure out–I mean, really, really can’t figure out–is why the anti-vaccine movement continues to cling to Wakefield’s tattered “science” and lionize this fraud as a hero.

    I have argued with these nutters on youtube. It is full-blown conspiracy theory stuff now. Every single thing you point to, no matter how clear and supported, is declared to be a lie and part of a medical-industrial complex whatever whatever. Even Wakefield’s own admissions to the GMC are denied.

    If anyone wants to see real denialism, this is the arena for it. In the name of defending Wakefield, they deny his own words on patent applications. “No, he never did that!” Uh, yeah he did. He applied here, and then bragged about it over there, and wrote 10 pages about it in detail. “No he didn’t!”

  16. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Watcher –

    I will say that I just scanned the titles and didn’t make an effort to actually track down all of these, but, it seems like the majority indicate immunological changes in ASD individuals and not possible mechanisms.

    Considering the possible mechanisms for the overwhelming majority of cases of autism are unknown, I don’t think this is too big a problem. Most of the papers I included are very cautious in stating the difficult to discern arrow of causaility between immune alterations in autism. Perhaps I should have included more qualifiers into my post.

    I don’t think you’re being logical saying that “ASD individuals have altered immune activity. Vaccines evoke an immune response. Therefore vaccines potentially cause autism.”

    Sheesh, I tried as hard as I could to put a lot of ifs and mays in there.

    But as you’ve admitted you didn’t have time to look at the details of the study, I’d recommend you consider it; especially some of the animal studies. Several are available in full online. If you look at the details, what you are going to find is a growing body of evidence that immune activation during critical developmental timeframes can cause behavioral, neuroimmune, and hpa axis modifications that have strong parallels to what has been observed in autism. And ‘altered immune activity’ is a bit of an over simplication; there is a lot of evidence for a more robust innate immune response, including the same chemical messengers implicated in our animal studies. The details are important.

    What do you make of the many studies that show no change in ASD prevalence in populations of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated?

    I think that were you to try to look, what you would find is that there are no such studies. There are many studies that evaluate thimerosal, or the lack of thimerosal, and some studies that evaluate the MMR, or no MMR, but no studies that evaluate the process of vaccination; especially those that comprise the bulk of the schedule given shortly after birth, two months, four months, and six months. Try to find a study that fits your criteria; you might be surprised at how few (zero) studies there are that actually study vaccinated vs unvaccinated. This is one of the most common misconceptions concerning autism research, that vaccination has been studied. It hasn’t.

    You should recognize that a genetically-based hypothesis can explain ASD prevalence just as well, if not better, when you take into account all of the data out there pointing elsewhere

    I have no problems with genetically-based hypothesis.

    - pD

  17. skeptiverse says:

    Link to Anderson Cooper 360 interview with Wakefield:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/blog/

    Favourite part:

    Wakefield: The truth is in my book you can read it there

    Cooper: but if your study is a lie so is your book why should i read it?

  18. Watcher says:

    @pD

    there is a lot of evidence for a more robust innate immune response, including the same chemical messengers implicated in our animal studies. The details are important.

    A more robust immune response would be genetically based first and foremost. By your hypothesis the conditions have to be set first before vaccines “do their work” so to speak. What would you suggest these hypothetical individuals do during this critical period. Live in a sterile bubble until the period passes?

    Another thing to keep in mind is that animal models thus far haven’t been able to produce a good autism model. We have parts, but nothing that even comes close to mimicking the vast array of alterations seen in an autistic individual. I’m not saying that we won’t eventually, it may happen, but i don’t think we have anything to hang our hat on yet in this realm of research, let alone inferring anything from it.

    And, I will say that the study of critical periods in development, specifically behaviorally based critical periods, are nothing new. People like Michael Meaney have made their careers on it. The HPA axis would be the most logical place to look, so it should be no surprise that it too is altered from baseline. Critical organizing and development periods will always exist and there’s nothing we can do about it.

    Briefly glancing through some of the citations on animal models it seems like they use LPS to mimic bacterial infection. Their goal is to elicit a bodily immune response similar to that seen during bacterial or viral infection. However, this method is a poor comparison to a vaccination where little if any bodily change occurs in response to the antigen introduction. We’ve been over this before with an infamous poster on this site (who shall not be named lest they come out of their hole), vaccination does not equal infection. The goal of a vaccine is to stimulate the immune system just enough so that it makes memory cells for later.

    I guess my main problem with a vaccine potentially causing autism is this: a skinned knee or elbow would introduce more antigens into the body than a vaccine would and probably elicit a more robust immune response than a vaccine would. Literally, a vaccination is negligible when considering the “not-self” load an immune system sees each day. So why doesn’t a large bodily insult cause autism? I guess it would mean we were back to a genetic basis, right? To play the field, the field first has to be prepared.

  19. daedalus2u says:

    One of the most robust physical symptoms of ASDs is a larger brain, with more neurons, with more minicolums with smaller neurons. The number of minicolumns is fixed at 8 weeks in utero. A vaccine years later can’t change that number, nothing can.

  20. Dave McGinn says:

    Great to see this getting alot of attention by the media.

    Pretty sure it was Fiona Godlee (Editor in Chief of the BMJ) that I heard on the radio today in Ireland talking about this. Trying to find a podcast/replay, but no luck so far.

    A big PR win for skepticism, just like the recent power balance band ‘debacle’.

  21. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Watcher –

    A more robust immune response would be genetically based first and foremost. By your hypothesis the conditions have to be set first before vaccines “do their work” so to speak.

    OK and/or maybe. I think there could also be epigenetic components.

    What would you suggest these hypothetical individuals do during this critical period. Live in a sterile bubble unil the period passes?

    There is a big difference between everyday exposure and intentionally provoking an immune response, something to which I will post a reference towards later. There are things we can control (the discrete vaccine schedule), and things we cannot control (the rest of the world). Confusing the two is an over simplification, something this type of discussion doesn’t need.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that animal models thus far haven’t been able to produce a good autism model. We have parts, but nothing that even comes close to mimicking the vast array of alterations seen in an autistic individual.

    OK. But this argument would seem to maintain that unless a particular model could explain all of autistic behaviors, it is not worthy of consideration. For a condition with a very heterogeneous presentation like autism, I don’t think this is a realistic requirement to enforce.

    For example, an increased risk of seizures and/or epilepsy is very strongly associated with autism. In one of the studies I posted above, Postnatal inflammation increases seizure susceptibility in adult rats [Galic, 18596165] researchers report that a single, transient inflammatory response (or indeed, administration of tnf-alpha) was sufficient to permenantly alter the excitability of the neurons to provoked seizures. Should we cast away this finding because it only shows an increase in neuronal excitabilty, and doesn’t perfectly model autism?

    Critical organizing and development periods will always exist and there’s nothing we can do about it.

    Well, I would argue that we could consider not interferring with those periods if we could avoid it, but first, we’d need a better understanding of those periods, and what things might interferre with them.

    Briefly glancing through some of the citations on animal models it seems like they use LPS to mimic bacterial infection. Their goal is to elicit a bodily immune response similar to that seen during bacterial or viral infection. However, this method is a poor comparison to a vaccination where little if any bodily change occurs in response to the antigen introduction. We’ve been over this before with an infamous poster on this site (who shall not be named lest they come out of their hole), vaccination does not equal infection. The goal of a vaccine is to stimulate the immune system just enough so that it makes memory cells for later.

    My biggest concern with this argument is that we have no measurements of the inflammatory cytokine response as a result of vaccination in a pediatric population. But we do have evidence that getting a vaccine causes a spike in inflammatory cytokines; the same chemicals used directly in Postnatal inflammation increases seizure susceptibility in adult rats to modify susceptibility to seizures.

    For example, in HPV-16 L1 VLP vaccine elicits a broad-spectrum of cytokine responses in whole blood researchers report that

    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

    We really don’t know what the resultant profiles look like in infants in response to our schedule, we just haven’t looked. Considering that, I find the argument that ” a vaccination where little if any bodily change occurs in response to the antigen introduction” is based on the most rudimentary of tools, external observation, and completely deficient in the currency of science, data. I may be incorrect, do you know of any studies that measure inflammatory cytokine release in response to vaccination in a pediatric population? And remember, our population of interest has been shown by many studies to react with a more forcefull immune response; we shouldn’t apply normal responses in this framework.

    I guess my main problem with a vaccine potentially causing autism is this: a skinned knee or elbow would introduce more antigens into the body than a vaccine would and probably elicit a more robust immune response than a vaccine would.

    I will never understand why it is so frequent that otherwise intelligent people are unable to decouple infancy, with childhood. There is a big difference. Uptake of the Hep B (given within a week of birth) and the two month appointment shots are near 90%. What percent of infants do you really think have gotten a skinned knee within a week of being born? 90% 50% I’m going with far, far less than 1/10 of 1%.

    Literally, a vaccination is negligible when considering the “not-self” load an immune system sees each day

    If this is true, how would you explain the findings in HPV-16 L1 VLP vaccine elicits a broad-spectrum of cytokine responses in whole blood where researchers could easily discriminate between vaccine and placebo recipients based on assays of cytokine levels? How many ‘non-self’ loads that the body sees everyday come packaged with adjuvants designed to invoke an immune response? Preferrably, if you wanted to substantiate this claim, you would be able to submit a reference to this effect, as opposed to an appeal to authority or more observational. If the immediate effect of vaccination on the immune response has been studied sufficiently, providing such references should be relatively straightforward.

    So why doesn’t a large bodily insult cause autism?

    The overwhemling majorty of infants do not suffer large body insults.

    - pD

  22. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Daedulus2u –

    One of the most robust physical symptoms of ASDs is a larger brain, with more neurons, with more minicolums with smaller neurons. The number of minicolumns is fixed at 8 weeks in utero. A vaccine years later can’t change that number, nothing can.

    I do tend to like what I’ve read from Cassanova on this and the implication that these structural differences are capable of causing sensory and/or perception problems.

    In any case, for someone who generally tends to recognize the complexity of systems and the difficulty in applying simple rules towards their understanding, I’m a bit confused why you think this is such a slam dunk argument. Why can’t we have a complicated system that allows for multiple participants?

    For example, Cassanova, who has done the bulk of the minicolumn work I’ve seen, is working with rTMS to try to help alleviate autistic symptoms. His results claim to be promising; given that he certainly isn’t changing the density of minicolumns via rTMS, but still achieving behavioral modifications, I don’t know why conditions such as a chronically activated neuroimmune system, or for that matter, altered excitability, couldn’t work in concert with the structural changes you mention to worsen behaviors? [In fact, IIRC, the minicolumn theory of causation is heavy on altered excitability as a result of decreased minicolum proximity.]

    Please note, I’m not here arguing that vaccines cause all autism, or even any, just that there are plausible mechanisms by which our actions might be changing our children in ways we cannot anticipate based on our current studies. The more I do read, the more I become convinced that there are no free lunches when we try to manipulate biological systems with great complexity; only trade offs and the continuous discovery of additional unintended effects as a result of the tight intertwinement of our bodies systems. I’m not convinced we understand all of the trade offs in place for vaccination yet.

    - pD

  23. Davdoodles says:

    “There is a big difference between everyday exposure and intentionally provoking an immune response”

    No. There isn’t. How could the immune system possibly know whether the exposure was “intentional”.

    As was pointed by Watcher out above: “a skinned knee or elbow would introduce more antigens into the body than a vaccine would”

    The fact is that there is no difference. The “intentional” exposure is merely to ensure that the immune system is able to recognise and respond to that specific potential infectant, in addition to to the random thousands it becomes aware of anyway via cuts and scrapes, drinking impure water, rubbing its eyes etc.
    .

  24. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Davdoodles –

    No. There isn’t. How could the immune system possibly know whether the exposure was “intentional”.

    Everday exposure doesn’t include adjuvants designed to invoke an immune response, do they? [Please consider this question] And again, perhaps you have an explanation as to how researchers were able to discern vaccine recipients versus placebo recipients based on cytokine levels in the experiment I listed above? How is this possible according to your model?

    As was pointed by Watcher out above: “a skinned knee or elbow would introduce more antigens into the body than a vaccine would”

    What the hell kinds of households do you people run wherein two month olds routinely get skinned knees? Have you ever seen a two month old with a skinned knee? Is it common among the skeptical community or something? Seriously.

    The fact is that there is no difference. The “intentional” exposure is merely to ensure that the immune system is able to recognise and respond to that specific potential infectant, in addition to to the random thousands it becomes aware of anyway via cuts and scrapes, drinking impure water, rubbing its eyes etc.

    Consider this, according to the CDC, fevers result from vaccination up to 25% of the time (it depends on the vaccine). My children drank impure water, and rubbed their eyes 100% of the days, and yet, curiously, do not have a fever one quarter of the days, or anywhere close. Do you have an explanation for these seemingly paradoxical observations?

    How about this for a bet. We take a group of 100 children and each of us get to pick three days we can bet they’ll have a fever. I”ll pick the three days after their two month, four month, and six month well visits when they are vaccinated. You can pick any three days they drink water or rub their eyes. For every day that each of us is correct (ie., the child has a fever a day we pick), we get $100 from the other.

    If one day is just like the other, this should be an even bet for you to take. Tell you what, to sweeten the deal, I’ll take $90 for every $100 I give you. This should be a slam dunk bet for you, if all things are considered equal between post vaccination days and normal old eye rubbing days. Are you game?

    - pD

  25. Enkidu says:

    pD stated, “The overwhemling majorty of infants do not suffer large body insults.”

    My daughter was born with a large body insult, a raging GBS infection that she got while in utero. Luckily, her spinal tap was negative and antibiotics cleared it up. She is three years old now, and not autistic. Have there been studies examining infants either born with or aquiring infections soon after birth, and rate of autism? I know that infants with congenital rubella have increased risk of autism.

  26. Watcher says:

    Skinned knees or not, you can substitute many other potential insults. A child will experience minor scrapes, rashes, etc. through interacting with the environment. How often does a child that age put hands or other objects in their mouths daily? Each of these would have an antigen load at or above any combination of vaccines that they would receive in one visit to the doctor more than likely.

    One thing:

    fevers result from vaccination up to 25%

    Result from or occur after?

  27. Davdoodles says:

    “Everday exposure doesn’t include adjuvants designed to invoke an immune response, do they? “

    Again, this is fine to say, but by what possible mechanism could the immune system determine whether something was “designed” to stimulate it? Either foriegn substances do, or they do not, stimulate the immune system to respond.

    Consider: a bee sting stimulates the immune system, and so does an aduvant. Can you provide a citation showing how the immune system can tell the intentions of the vector, let alone anything which supports a claim that the intention of the vector causes the body to react differently as a result?

    “And again, perhaps you have an explanation as to how researchers were able to discern vaccine recipients versus placebo recipients based on cytokine levels in the experiment I listed above?”

    Perhaps I lack the requisite imagination, but maybe because a vaccine stimulates the immune system, whereas a placebo does not. What do your researchers say about cytokine levels after bee stings?

    “I will never understand why it is so frequent that otherwise intelligent people are unable to decouple infancy, with childhood. There is a big difference. Uptake of the Hep B (given within a week of birth) and the two month appointment shots are near 90%. What percent of infants do you really think have gotten a skinned knee within a week of being born? 90% 50% I’m going with far, far less than 1/10 of 1%.”

    I’d also take issue with virtually everything here.

    First, simply saying that there is a “big difference” between infancy and childhood doesn’t make it so. Can you cite anything which shows that recieving the Hep B innoculation in in “infancy” is more dangerous than receiving it later in “childhood”?

    The medical consenus seems, if anything, to support the opposite – presumably because, even if there is an increased danger to innoculating in infancy, it is more than offset by the added risk of exposure to Hep B proper if delayed until childhood.

    Next, while, as you say, the risk, at least in a modern western household, of an infant getting a skinned knee is small, it is hardly as negligible as you have suggested. It’s a big world, full of babies, and imperfect parents. I took a flap of skin off my firstborn’s head when I turned too fast in a supermarket aisle while wearing her on my back in one of those papoose things. I’m better at the gig nowdays, and usually only hurt my children on purpose ;)

    Additionally, exzema, severe nappy rashes, exposed umbilical stumps all compromise bub’s skin integrity. Impetaigo is common in infants. So is sitting for hours a day in its own faeces, rubbing traces of it into its eyes and mouth, being sneezed on by big brothers, taking gulps of dirty bathwater and so forth. Babies are frankly disgusting things, come to think of it…

    In less sterile cultures, you can add bee stings, mosquito, flea, tick, louse bites, and, I would imagine, a larger possibility of skinned knees and (maybe even) heads.

    It’s at this point that those concerned about jabby-nasty vaccines usually say “Ah, but (most of) those things don’t bypass the body’s natural immune defences!”

    That is of course is an artificial and un-useful distinction. Sure, the immune system is generally assisted by the barrier- and other anti-biotic characteristics of the skin, but nobody who makes the above claim ever seems to be able to actually describe how it is that easier-than-’natural’ passage through the skin would alter the subsequent effect of a pathogen on its host’s body.

    Why (presuming it could be introduced that way) would the body respond differently to the the Hep B vaccine if it was introduced into the body via, say, eyedrops? Antigens is antigens, and the immune response is what it is.

  28. Davdoodles says:

    “Consider this, according to the CDC, fevers result from vaccination up to 25% of the time (it depends on the vaccine). My children drank impure water, and rubbed their eyes 100% of the days, and yet, curiously, do not have a fever one quarter of the days, or anywhere close. Do you have an explanation for these seemingly paradoxical observations?”

    I couldn’t say, but perhaps it’s because:

    ““Everday exposure doesn’t include adjuvants designed to invoke an immune response, do they? “
    .

  29. Th1Th2 says:

    Gorski,

    “Fortunately, karma’s a bitch”

    Deaths per year due to medical allopathy: More than 700,000.

    Ouch.

  30. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Eniduku –

    My daughter was born with a large body insult, a raging GBS infection that she got while in utero. Luckily, her spinal tap was negative and antibiotics cleared it up. She is three years old now, and not autistic. Have there been studies examining infants either born with or aquiring infections soon after birth, and rate of autism? I know that infants with congenital rubella have increased risk of autism.

    Well, I listed a reference above, Infection in the first 2 years of life and autism spectrum disorders [Rosen, 17200260] somewhat shows what you are referring to, showing a slight increase in infections during the first thirty days of life in the autism group.

    Another study from Denmark showed an increased risk of hospitilization for sickness throughout childhood in the autism population.

    Association of hospitalization for infection in childhood with diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders: a Danish cohort study [Altodittir, 20439799]

    (In this instance, the authors argue against a causal link based on the fact that there was not a difference between bacterial and viral infections.)

    The in utereo component is very likely is more common that rubella alone. This week, in fact, a pretty cool paper was published that sheds light some of the finer mechanisms by which maternal immune and the resultant cytokines may influence deveopment through endocrine disruption.

    Activation of the Maternal Immune System Induces Endocrine Changes in the Placenta via IL-6. [Patterson, 21195166]

    This paper, and it’s prececessors implicate an inflammatory cytokine, IL-6, as the putative mechanism behind a possible maternal immune activation / autism theory.

    - pD

  31. passionlessDrone says:

    HI Watcher –

    Skinned knees or not, you can substitute many other potential insults. A child will experience minor scrapes, rashes, etc. through interacting with the environment. How often does a child that age put hands or other objects in their mouths daily? Each of these would have an antigen load at or above any combination of vaccines that they would receive in one visit to the doctor more than likely.

    So putting your hands in your mouth is an immune challenge?

    OK. Explain to me the results of the HPV vaccination / blood cytokine study I posted above. Remember, there was an observed increase in cytokines, in one group, and one group only. Why would this be the case? Why? Do you suppose that the placebo group, somehow, exposed themselves to absolutely zero insults during the intervening timeframe? And worse off for your ideas, doesn’t this mandate that the treatment group did something other than get vaccinated that resultd in an increase in cytokines?

    This is a forum where, at the least, you are expected to provide rational explanations for why your thoughts seem to be at odds with published listerature; but to really avoid ridicule, provide actual references to support your position. You don’t seem to be intersted, or able, to do such a thing.

    Result from or occur after?

    Are you arguing that it is a coincidence, totally random chance, that the CDC tells you that a fever will occur 33% of the time after Pneumococcal vaccination?

    In studies, most reactions after PCV13 were mild. They were similar to reactions reported after PCV7, which has been in use since 2000. Reported reactions varied by dose and age, but on average:

    About 1 out of 3 had a mild fever, and about 1 in 20 had a higher fever (over 102.2°F).

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

    Why do you suppose the CDC refers to a fever as a side effect of vaccination? Do you believe they fail to understand the concepts underlying correlation and causation?

    I would refer you to the growing body of literature that indicates an immune response, specifically inflammatory cytokines, are capable of participating in, and generating a fever:

    Tumor necrosis factor (cachectin) is an endogenous pyrogen and induces production of interleukin 1 [Dinarello, 3486936]

    Circulating interleukin-6 induces fever through a STAT3-linked activation of COX-2 in the brain. [Rummel, 16809483]

    There are a great many others. It just so happens, that these cytokines, IL-6, tnf-alpha, are the same cytokines shown to increase in the HPV vaccine study I linked to above. This is not a coincidence.

    - pD

  32. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Davdoodles –

    Again, this is fine to say, but by what possible mechanism could the immune system determine whether something was “designed” to stimulate it? Either foriegn substances do, or they do not, stimulate the immune system to respond.

    You are missing my point. What matters is, was there a stimulation of the immune system or not? Considering you can’t explain why fevers are a common side effect of vaccination, nor provide an answer as to why the vaccine / cytokine study I provided above showed increases in cytokines in one group only, you might want to reconsider your position on the frequency with which foreign substances do, or they do not, stimulate the immune system to respond.

    I do not have to advocate that we live in sterile environments to show that vaccines represent a change above basline exposure, something you seem to acknowledge when admitting that adjuvants aren’t an everyday exposure. Considering I have provided evidence to that vaccines do represent abnormal stimulations, perhaps it is time you give thought towards either providing references to support your claim that the immunogenic response from vaccines is not measurable, or reconsider why you seem to have a belief that you are unable to substantiate through the literature. This is, supposedly, a forum wherein assertions can be backed with references. Do you have any data that can show immunological response to vaccine is indistinguishable from being a normal, gross baby, or is the entirity of your evidence an appeal to your own common sense authority?

    Perhaps I lack the requisite imagination, but maybe because a vaccine stimulates the immune system, whereas a placebo does not.

    You’re starting to get there, but I think maybe you don’t understand your own position. After all, you are the one, that just a few posts ago, stated:

    , in addition to to the random thousands it becomes aware of anyway via cuts and scrapes, drinking impure water, rubbing its eyes

    Did the placebo gropu avoid water and rubbing their eyes? If, as you sometimes agree, a vaccine stimulates the immune system, doesn’t this also mean that because our placebo group showed no effect, all of their water drinking and eye rubbing was not significant? You can’t have it both ways!

    First, simply saying that there is a “big difference” between infancy and childhood doesn’t make it so

    Ack! Ack! Do you think there is any difference the the formation of the brain during these timeframes? Have you noticed any cognitive or developmental differences between a two month old, and a five year old? Perhaps you are unaware that autism is a disorder that is diagnosed by the age of three, and for which, signs are seen as early as six months? Do you know that the majority of our vaccine schedule is clustered at two, four, and six months?

    But even more, if you looked at any of the animal studies I referenced above, they indicate the time dependent nature of the findings involved in early life immune actication. All four of the studies I referenced contained the phrases “neonatal”, or “early life” in the abstracts. This is why alll this hand holding about bee stings is so much ridiculousness, it completely ignores the possibility of time dependent effects.

    If you don’t think that there is a difference between a two month old and a five year old, I’m not sure what to tell you.

    Next, while, as you say, the risk, at least in a modern western household, of an infant getting a skinned knee is small, it is hardly as negligible as you have suggested. It’s a big world, full of babies, and imperfect parents. I took a flap of skin off my firstborn’s head when I turned too fast in a supermarket aisle while wearing her on my back in one of those papoose things. I’m better at the gig nowdays, and usually only hurt my children on purpose

    :)

    But, you are still replacing a curve (nasty stuff happened to some infants) with a flat line (90+% vaccine compliance) and assuming all things are equal based on broad simplifications. That is the opposite of what this site is supposed to be teaching people.

    Additionally, exzema, severe nappy rashes, exposed umbilical stumps all compromise bub’s skin integrity. Impetaigo is common in infants. So is sitting for hours a day in its own faeces, rubbing traces of it into its eyes and mouth, being sneezed on by big brothers, taking gulps of dirty bathwater and so forth. Babies are frankly disgusting things, come to think of it…

    Great. Why not take my bet then? You pick three days at random, I pick the days following vaccination, and we see who has the better prediction rate for fevers. I’m giving you a 10% freebie, isn’t this a good bet from your perspective?

    Why (presuming it could be introduced that way) would the body respond differently to the the Hep B vaccine if it was introduced into the body via, say, eyedrops? Antigens is antigens, and the immune response is what it is.

    It wouldn’t, but again, your missing the point. What percentage of children do you think got Hep B through whatever mechanism? Anywhere close to 90%?

    Also, you might be interested in knowing that we have evidence that when the body detects that is under assault by different classes of pathogens simultaneously, the resulting immune response increases non linearly.

    Toll-like receptor ligands synergize through distinct dendritic cell pathways to induce T cell responses: Implications for vaccines [Zhu, 18845682]

    Synergistic activation of dendritic cells by combined Toll-like receptor ligation induces superior CTL responses in vivo.[Warger, 16537810]

    Considering this, comparing a single infection to our current schedule, which simulates invasion by many classes of pathogens simultaenously provides an invalid analogy.

    You are trying to take an extremely complicated system, one we are still trying to understand, and apply the most rudimentary rules to claim you understand its function. Instead of providing references to support your claims, you provide annectode, over simplification, and the apparently inexplicable question as towards whether or not there are differences between infancy and childhood.

    - pD

  33. Th1Th2 says:

    Watcher,

    “vaccination does not equal infection. The goal of a vaccine is to stimulate the immune system just enough so that it makes memory cells for later. ”

    General rules of vaccination according to the CDC:

    1. The immune system does not differentiate between an infection with a weakened vaccine virus and an infection with a wild virus.

    2. The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.

    I am tired explaining these to ‘kids’.

  34. Th1Th2 says:

    passionlessDrone,

    Not surprisingly, most of these so called ‘growing body of literature and evidence’ can be found in Chapter 1 in most Immunology books. (Hint: Innate immune system)

  35. Davdoodles says:

    Instead of providing references to support your claims, you provide annectode, over simplification, and the apparently inexplicable question as towards whether or not there are differences between infancy and childhood.”

    An anecdote, about my kid. And obviously, I wasn’t relying on it to answer your odd claim that it virtually never happens (“…far, far less than 1/10 of 1%”). Rather, to illustrate that injuries to infants are in fact rather pedestrian, and hardly extremely rare or unusual.

    It is not “over-simplification” to say that there is no logical reason to believe that the immune system does anything more than mindlessly respond to whatever threats befall it as best it can. Whether water, tetanus, evil adjuvant or bee sting.

    The fact that a body responds differently to different substances (water v snake venom) does nothing to advance your concerns. Some things do provoke a fever, and some do not.

    Regarding “references”, you are the one making claims, and therefore you are the one who needs to support them. I’m not making claims, so I don’t need “references”.

    If you believe that there is something about vaccines that sets them apart from the rest of the natural world, then you will need to provide some fairly convincing proof of that, particularly at a site called “Science-Based Medicine”.

    So far, as best as I can make out, you have not shown that some entirely unremarkable reactions to vaccinations are somehow any more significant than they appear to be, which is to say no more significant (or likey to ’cause’ autism or anything else), than those same reactions when triggered by non-vaccines.

    Why, precisely, is a fever (a very common thing in infants and children) following vaccination more concerning than any other fever? Why are cytokine levels after some vaccinations of more concern/significance than similar levels following any one of myriad other ‘natural’ exposures? What is the possible mechanism by which these unremarkable reactions might lead to doom, while others, otherwise identical, do not?
    .

  36. Chris says:

    One may safely ignore Th1Th2, it has had no experience with real children. Did you know that toddler like to stay on sidewalks and not play in dirt? Reality is not part of the world that Th1Th2 lives in.

  37. windriven says:

    Thing-
    Go away. No one is interested in your idiotic ramblings. Your position is inane and your arguments are eye-rollingly boring. You humiliate yourself every time you touch the ‘Submit Comment’ button. Your vapid assertions are meaningless. You never cite facts, only your tortured speculations. We’ve all heard it from you a zillion times before. We’ve worked patiently with you. We’ve asked you to back up your assertions with verifiable data. In return we get the same nonsense ad nauseum. So go. Please. Get a job. Go to a movie. Find Jesus. Whatever. Just do it somewhere else.

  38. Th1Th2 says:

    “Did you know that toddler like to stay on sidewalks and not play in dirt? Reality is not part of the world that Th1Th2 lives in.”

    Failed parenthood on your part and the result….I know.

  39. Th1Th2 says:

    windriven,

    Medical allopathy is killing more than 700,000 patients every year, boring you said?

  40. BillyJoe says:

    Enkidu,

    “My daughter was born with a large body insult, a raging GBS infection that she got while in utero.”

    GBS is Guillain Barre Syndrome. It is not an infection, but the result of the immune response to an infection that generally presents 3-4 weeks after the infection has cleared, though it can occur within hours.

    “Luckily, her spinal tap was negative and antibiotics cleared it up.”

    Antiobiotics have no effect on GBS.
    However, they might clear the infection if it is of bacterial origin.

  41. Th1Th2 says:

    She’s referring to Group B strep.

  42. Davdoodles says:

    “She’s referring to Group B strep.”

    By Jove! Being correct, now and again, must be refreshing.

    Thank you for your contribution there.
    .

  43. Chris says:

    Th1Th2 is the one who has never had any children and cannot understand basic developmental behavior. It is an idiot, and continues to prove that through its pronouncements without any proof. Ignore it.

  44. Dawn says:

    Now, Chris, give the troll credit where credit is due. It DID correctly state that Enkidu’s GBS was Group B Strep, not Guillain-Barre Syndrome as BillyJoe thought.

    However, that is probably the ONLY thing I can ever recall that TH1 got correct, in all of its pronouncements.

  45. Enkidu says:

    Wow, I contributed to a useful post by Th1Th2. O_o

    @pD: Thanks for the link to the Rosen study.

  46. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Davdoodles –

    The fact that a body responds differently to different substances (water v snake venom) does nothing to advance your concerns. Some things do provoke a fever, and some do not.

    The fact that water does not provoke an immune response, but a vaccine does is at the heart of my concerns! My concerns are founded on the fact that our animal literature tells us that an immune response and an immune response alone is capable of affecting long lasting change, if it happens during critical developmental periods.

    It is not “over-simplification” to say that there is no logical reason to believe that the immune system does anything more than mindlessly respond to whatever threats befall it as best it can. Whether water, tetanus, evil adjuvant or bee sting.

    You seem to be impervious to the possibility of time dependent effects fo reasons that I honestly, just cannot comprehend. All of the animal studies I referenced above, all of them, involved the neonatal period. Vaccines are given early in life. Bee sting uptake in the first two months of life is not anywhere near 90%! Nor, for that matter, is tetanus exposure! Trying to make vaccine exposure that almost every infant is exposed to equivalent to the exceedingly rare tetanus infection or bee sting in an infant is absolutely an over simplification. Regarding water, have you considered that the placebo group in the HPV vaccine study I referenced likely drank water post vaccination, but somehow, had lower levels of cytokines compared to the treatment group? Doesn’t this pose problems for the idea that the immune system is responding to water?

    I’m not making claims, so I don’t need “references”.

    Hahahaha.

    So you haven’t claimed that everyday exposure to drinking water, or eye rubbing, is immunologically equivalent to vaccination?

    If you believe that there is something about vaccines that sets them apart from the rest of the natural world, then you will need to provide some fairly convincing proof of that, particularly at a site called “Science-Based Medicine”.

    Again, time. Early infancy is a priviledged period in brain development. And again, why not take a look at my references indicating that triggering multiple TLRs simultaneously results in a synergistic response from the innate immune system? That sets them apart from the natural world.

    Why, precisely, is a fever (a very common thing in infants and children) following vaccination more concerning than any other fever? Why are cytokine levels after some vaccinations of more concern/significance than similar levels following any one of myriad other ‘natural’ exposures?

    Because of when they are happening. Take a look at the animal studies I posted; they have identified critical periods during which persistent changes can be made; the period directly after birth. Natural infections pose exactly the same threat, except we have no reason to believe that 90+% of infants got fevers three or four times by the time they were six months old! [See the references I listed above showing a slight increase in infection during the first thirty days of life for infants who went on to have a diagnosis of autism.]

    - pD

  47. windriven says:

    “Medical allopathy is killing more than 700,000 patients every year, boring you said?”

    The death rate for all causes in the US is 8.38 per thousand*. There are roughly 300 million Americans so that means about 2.5 million die each year. By your numbers, evil and incompetent medical doctors and their twisted henchmen kill more than a quarter of all those who die in this country each year.

    Think before you open your mouth.

    *CDC

  48. passionlessDrone:
    “[W]e have no reason to believe that 90+% of infants got fevers three or four times by the time they were six months old!”

    Really? Not my domain, but I thought feverish babies were completely standard.

  49. Th1Th2 says:

    “Think before you open your mouth.”

    Obviously, you are unaware of this situation.

  50. Th1Th2 says:

    pD,

    “Again, time. Early infancy is a priviledged period in brain development. And again, why not take a look at my references indicating that triggering multiple TLRs simultaneously results in a synergistic response from the innate immune system? That sets them apart from the natural world.”

    SBM does not believe that the innate immune system of a newborn exists. Goodluck convincing them.

  51. Th1Th2 says:

    AC,

    “Really? Not my domain, but I thought feverish babies were completely standard.”

    For the sick-minded parents who advocate vaccines and natural exposure to pathogens (pox parties), you’re getting what you wished for.

  52. Th1Th2 says:

    pD,

    “Vaccines are given early in life. Bee sting uptake in the first two months of life is not anywhere near 90%! Nor, for that matter, is tetanus exposure!”

    Why tetanus? You’re not being realistic. Try HbsAg exposure.

  53. superdave says:

    ACtually, many of the parents who encourage “Pox parties” are in the anti vaccine camp. They don’t think there is any problem with exposing kids to chicken pox naturally compared to getting a vaccine. Are you claiming that these people are wrong? Is there a subset of anti vaccine people who are more correctly anti vaccine than others?

  54. Watcher says:

    @ pD

    First, the Rosen study is at best a first foray into this idea. They even state themselves that their results are tenuous at best. The slight increases they observed were just a bit above statistical noise and could be just that, noise. It’s been three years since that study. Where’s the followup?

    Also, you keep keying in on one specific example I give, this time it’s “putting hands in their mouths.” People have given other examples of ways to challenge the immune system that provide as much of a chance for an immune response as any vaccine. Sometimes they would cause fever, other times they wouldn’t. However, now it seems like you’re making the argument that the number of insults, or the degree to which the immune system is stimulated isn’t what potentially causes autism, but the way in which it’s stimulated. Your argument is that through activation of specific cytokine pathways that result in fever, a certain subgroup may be more susceptible to vaccine injury than others, right?

  55. Th1Th2 says:

    ” Are you claiming that these people are wrong? ”

    Without a doubt, they are terribly misguided. These people have no clue about the immune system let alone immunity.

  56. Watcher says:

    General rules of vaccination according to the CDC:
    1. The immune system does not differentiate between an infection with a weakened vaccine virus and an infection with a wild virus.
    2. The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.

    Do you think that backs up your argument? If the immune system could differentiate, then immunization wouldn’t occur. The point is to mimic infection, not actually cause it. It’s an illusion of the highest order, a hallucination, designed to illicit the response with none of the sickness.

    Don’t worry bro, I get tired of explaining too :)

  57. Th1Th2 says:

    Watcher,

    A pig with a lipstick is still a pig. That’s what the immune system sees.

  58. Chris says:

    Just a reminder that it is pointless to interact with Th1Th2. Not only does he/she have no idea how the immune system works, but has no understanding of childhood development:

    Why should I let the child walk on the dirt when there is a dry concrete pavement next to it? A toddler would readily know which is the safe path to take even without the knowledge of C. tetani, but I am just fascinated how parents are offering very poor choices (or lack thereof).

  59. Th1Th2 says:

    Watcher,

    “Do you think that backs up your argument? If the immune system could differentiate, then immunization wouldn’t occur. The point is to mimic infection, not actually cause it. It’s an illusion of the highest order, a hallucination, designed to illicit the response with none of the sickness.”

    Interesting, so people with VAPP/VDPV, and all other vaccine-induced infections like measles, varicella, parotitis, otitis media, etc are not true infections but rather a mimicry? They should suck it up them and stop faking it.

  60. Th1Th2 says:

    It’s pretty obvious one of the posters here has never heard of Trust vs Mistrust or has achieved that milestone ever.

  61. Dawn says:

    @Chris: thanks for the reminder, or some of the comments from the Thing would have gotten a response from me – they are so over the top.

  62. Watcher says:

    @Alison

    Really? Not my domain, but I thought feverish babies were completely standard.

    I think he’s saying that a fever is just a symptom, so to speak, of blood cytokine presence. I believe he’s making the argument that it’s a storm of cytokines that interferes during a critical period which causes autism.

  63. Watcher says:

    @Alison

    Really? Not my domain, but I thought feverish babies were completely standard.

    I think he’s saying that a fever is just a symptom, so to speak, of blood cytokine presence. I believe he’s making the argument that it’s a storm of cytokines that interferes during a critical period which causes autism.

  64. Watcher says:

    @ Th1Th2

    Are we using your definition of infection or the standard medical definition of infection?

  65. Davdoodles says:

    “So you haven’t claimed that everyday exposure to drinking water, or eye rubbing, is immunologically equivalent to vaccination? “

    Correct. I haven’t made that claim, or any claim.

    What I’ve said, repeatedly with what is becoming suspiciously little effect, is that the body reacts as effectively as it can, to what befalls it.

    Sometimes, a fever results. Sometimes not. Hardly controversial.

    In contrast, you have, among other things, claimed that the body can tell the difference between antigens which have been deliberately introduced and those which occur randomly, on that basis.

    More recently, you have claimed that there is some disturbingly low numerical threshold (3-4 mild fevers before 6 months old) beyond which a healthy human baby is put at risk of…. what, exactly? Your careful avoidance of the word marks it clearly, so I will say it for you: Autism.

    I get the point that multiple TLRs increase the immune system’s workload and resultant stress on the body. I also get the point that the infant brain is in a ‘privileged’ developmental state. I also get the point that damage in that period can affect later development. What I don’t see see is any causal link to autism from vaccines, frequency of fevers, infections etc.

    For example, you pointed me to something suggesting that children later diagnosed with autism had an early history of more-than-normal infections. There are many explanations for this, the least plausible of which is that autism is the result of a baby suffering one-too-many infections. Folk with Downs syndrome are more susceptible to infections that the wider population, as are children born with HIV AIDS. Probably had plenty more fevers than your rather arbitrary 3-4 in infancy. But no-one is seriously suggesting that their lifelong challenges resulted from the fevers.

    But, credit where it’s due. I’m pleased that you have at least backed away from your earlier claim that fevers caused by vaccinations are somehow, inexplicably, distinct from fevers caused by ‘natural’ antigens.

    At the end of the day, you are making implausible claims, confusing correlation with causation, over-reaching with minor statistical blips, and I’m pointing that out. As I’ve said, I’m not ‘claiming’ anything, you are.
    .

  66. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Watcher –

    First, the Rosen study is at best a first foray into this idea. They even state themselves that their results are tenuous at best. The slight increases they observed were just a bit above statistical noise and could be just that, noise. It’s been three years since that study. Where’s the followup?

    I don’t know. (?) There are a great number of studies showing that prenatal infection can cause problems, including autism; I’m just not convinced that the action of being born is an event that necessarily makes the potential for danger go away completely.

    People have given other examples of ways to challenge the immune system that provide as much of a chance for an immune response as any vaccine

    You mean like ‘drinking impure water’?

    But they’ve failed to provide any that are as frequent during infancy as vaccinations have become. Sure, bee stings would marshall an immune response. So would rattlesnake bites. So would getting tetanus. Those things happen very infrequently during the neonatal period compared to vaccination. The the facts on the ground are that 90+% of infants get a Hep B vaccine within the first week of life.

    However, now it seems like you’re making the argument that the number of insults, or the degree to which the immune system is stimulated isn’t what potentially causes autism, but the way in which it’s stimulated.

    I apologize for being unclear; you have misunderstood my position, but I do appreciate that you recognize I am only advocating for potential problems.

    In any case, the most elegant animal studies I’ve read have found time dependent effects of innate immune activation; i.e., increases in tnf alpha at postnatal day 14 cause persistent changes, but increases in tnf alpha at postnatal day 21 don’t. [Take a look at the Galic paper I posted above]. To my mind, the ‘way’ in which the immune system is stimulated is ultimately unimportant, what is important is, was there an increase of inflammatory cytokines during critical periods or not. Of course, this means that actually getting tetanus, or a bee sting are potentially capable of the same actions; but only if they occur in early infancy period..

    The degree of stimulation, as it relates to increase in proinflammatory cytokine release would definitely be critical; it is what makes the autism group potentially susceptible. Again, check Galic for my thoughts on this; in this instance, concurrent administration of tnf-alpha antibodies was sufficient to attenuate effects.

    Your argument is that through activation of specific cytokine pathways that result in fever, a certain subgroup may be more susceptible to vaccine injury than others, right?

    They need not necessarily result in fever; the CDC / fever ratios simply serve as good examples of the failure of the ‘everyday exposure’ is the same as vaccine exposure argument. Clearly there is a difference between what we encounter on a daily basis and what we encounter from a vaccine.

    But, you have hit on the other key component of my thought process; that because children with autism seem to create more tnf-alpha, il-6, and il-1b than children without autism in vitro, this population is more susceptible to the potential effects of an increase in inflammatory cytokines in infancy; they would create more proinflammatory cytokines than ‘normal’ infants. [See my references to Enstron, and Ashwood above for papers showing an exaggerated immune response, and increased baseline levels of cytokines in the autism group].

    Also, I wouldn’t call it ‘vaccine injury’, that’s a loaded term. I think it might be more appropriate to say ‘persistent modifications’.

    But what really drives it home, for me anyways, is that the animal findings often times have very similar physiological or behavioral findings that we see in autism. For example, here is the abstract for Dopaminergic neuronal injury in the adult rat brain following neonatal exposure to lipopolysaccharide and the silent neurotoxicity

    Our previous studies have shown that neonatal exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) resulted in motor dysfunction and dopaminergic neuronal injury in the juvenile rat brain. To further examine whether neonatal LPS exposure has persisting effects in adult rats, motor behaviors were examined from postnatal day 7 (P7) to P70 and brain injury was determined in P70 rats following an intracerebral injection of LPS (1mg/kg) in P5 Sprague-Dawley male rats. Although neonatal LPS exposure resulted in hyperactivity in locomotion and stereotyped tasks, and other disturbances of motor behaviors, the impaired motor functions were spontaneously recovered by P70. On the other hand, neonatal LPS-induced injury to the dopaminergic system such as the loss of dendrites and reduced tyrosine hydroxylase immunoreactivity in the substantia nigra persisted in P70 rats. Neonatal LPS exposure also resulted in sustained inflammatory responses in the P70 rat brain, as indicated by an increased number of activated microglia and elevation of interleukin-1β and interleukin-6 content in the rat brain. In addition, when challenged with methamphetamine (METH, 0.5mg/kg) subcutaneously, rats with neonatal LPS exposure had significantly increased responses in METH-induced locomotion and stereotypy behaviors as compared to those without LPS exposure. These results indicate that although neonatal LPS-induced neurobehavioral impairment is spontaneously recoverable, the LPS exposure-induced persistent injury to the dopaminergic system and the chronic inflammation may represent the existence of silent neurotoxicity. Our data further suggest that the compromised dendritic mitochondrial function might contribute, at least partially, to the silent neurotoxicity.

    (my emphasis)

    Check that out; a single challenge in the perinatal period resulted in hyperactivity, stereotyped behaviors, altered mitochondrial function, and a chronically activated neuroimmune system; all behavioral or physiological effects we’ve seen in autism!

    Though it isn’t discussed much on this site, we have a several studies that directly show chronically activated microglia in autism (Vargas, 2005 / Morgan 2010), and others that measured an ongoing immune response (Li 2009, Garbett 2008, Chez 2007) in the CNS.

    I was accused earlier of not providing sufficient references for my claims. [I'm trying to be very cautious about my ideas, as possibilities only.] But, what I have provided evidence for is the following:

    1) Children with autism create more inflammatory cytokines than their undiagnosed peers in vitro.

    2) Children with autism have higher baseline levels of inflammatory cytokines in vivo.

    3) Preliminary studies showing an increased risk of infection in the autism group in the first thirty days of life.

    4) Animal studies that show that immune activation during the perinatal period resulting in, among other things, chronic activation of the neuroimmune system, altered hpa axis behavior, increased susecptibility to seizures, and behavioral deficits including stereotypy.

    5) Children with autism also show chronic activation of the neuroimmune system. [If you wanted, altered hpa axis metabolite information could also be provided, I'm starting to tire of this again.]

    That’s my argument; that there is a plausible mechanism by which children with autism are suceptible to unforseen effects of early life immune activation. That’s all.

    You can argue with validity about the problems of rodent proxies, but at the end of the day we should counter this problem with the quality of evidence against what I’ve put forward. Thus far, it seems to be comprised of annectodes, the idea that infants are yucky and sitting in a diaper can invoke an immune response with the same robustness of a vaccine, and debates over the frequency of sickness in the infant population.

    Take care.

    - pD

  67. maus says:

    “Surely the more sober and intelligent members of the anti-vaccine movement (they do exist, believe it or not) must realize by now that Wakefield has become a huge liability.”

    Some may believe he has become a huge liability, but it is because he affects their ability to disseminate propaganda and lies, they’re interested in LOOKING trustworthy, not being trustworthy. I’m sure that plenty of them are intelligent in their other areas of life, but they’re hardly sober, if sincere they are drunk on emotion.

  68. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Dadvoodles –

    What I’ve said, repeatedly with what is becoming suspiciously little effect, is that the body reacts as effectively as it can, to what befalls it.

    OK.

    What I’ve said, repeatedly with what is becoming suspiciously little effect, is that the body reacts as effectively as it can, to what befalls it.

    OK. I see where we may have become disconnected. We seem to have a difference of opinion towards wether or not everday exposure, and vaccination vary in regards to how robustly the immune reacts.

    In your first response to me, you quoted me: [silly SBM doesn't have posting numbers]

    There is a big difference between everyday exposure and intentionally provoking an immune response”

    then, you said:

    No. There isn’t. How could the immune system possibly know whether the exposure was “intentional”.

    As was pointed by Watcher out above: “a skinned knee or elbow would introduce more antigens into the body than a vaccine would”

    I believe at this point, we diverged. My point was not that the immune response to a vaccine is qualitatively different than a response to an actual pathogen (disregarding, for the moment, the implications of multiple TLR interactions), but rather, that ‘everyday exposure’ is qualitatively different than getting a vaccine, in that one (vaccination) is much, much more likely to actually elicit a robust immune response, while the other (‘everyday exposure’) are things that literraly happen every day, and are much less likely to elicit an immune response. My evidence for this was the HPV study I posted as direct evidence, and adverse reaction rates from vaccinatiion as indirect evidence.

    It seems I’ve misfired in understanding your intents, with your repeated claims of not having made any assertions. My apologies. Given that I’ve tried to refine my thoughts more precisely, what would you think about the statement that the immunological response generated from a vaccine (and associated adjuvants) is, very likely, quantitatively more robust than drinking impure water, rubbing eyes, or even, a skinned knee? If you don’ t think so, could you provide any evidence for such an opinion?

    My biggest concern is that we really have no analysis of the innate immune response as a result of vaccination in the pediatric population. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that studies the mimic the HPV study I posted above, i.e., baseliine cytokine evaluation, vaccination, and post vaccine cytokine evaluation in vivo is completely absent from the pediatric vaccine schedule.

    Considering that we have no direct evidence one way or the other regarding the vigor of the innate immune response following vaccination, I think that simpleton analogies; i.e., an antigen is an antigen, or a skinned knee has the same immunological impact that a vaccine does, are the type of primitive observations, and reliance on rudimentary logic that this site is supposed to teaching people to avoid, no matter how inconvenient the findings.

    Consider this, at one point, you said:

    Antigens is antigens, and the immune response is what it is

    I think that the the idea that we can, or should, simply count antigens and be done with our analysis a dangerously simplistic view of something as complicated as the immune system. For example, in this paper, by Paul Offit, we have a list of vaccines and the number of antigens in each one:

    http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/overwhelm.pdf

    If you look closely at table s, you’ll notice that the varicella vaccine has 69 antigens, while the DTAP has 5. Do you think this means the varicella vaccine has thirteen times the immunological impact of the DTAP, if, as you seem to claim when you state, ‘antigens is antigens’?

    Even more curious, if we look to see how frequently side effects occur from vaccination, we can see that the DTAP causes side effects like fever much more frequently (1/4) than varicella (1/10). Why would a vaccine with so few antigens cause more side effects than a vaccine with many more, if ‘antigens is antigens’? [these are your words, btw]

    Could the reality be that simply counting antiens is an insufficient metric by which to gauge the eventual immunological response to an insult? [I claim, 'yes']

    We make over reaching statements about complex systems at great risk to our conclusions.

    What I don’t see see is any causal link to autism from vaccines, frequency of fevers, infections etc.

    I would encourage you to evaluate some of the animal studies I posted above, in this instance. They are critical towards my thoughts, for they provide strong expiermental evidence that immune challenges during early life are capable of causing long term changes with similarities to what we see in autism. The mechanism of action, an innate immune response, is exaggerated in our population of interest. If you refuse to evaluate these types of studies, I can’t do much else to convince you. Your insistence that I have not posted any evidence for my claims indicates you haven’t read much of what I have posted, or perhaps I have failed to be as concise as necessary.

    More recently, you have claimed that there is some disturbingly low numerical threshold (3-4 mild fevers before 6 months old) beyond which a healthy human baby is put at risk of…. what, exactly?

    I would encourage you to read “Postnatal Inflammation Increases Seizure Susceptibility in Adult Rats” (fully avaialble online) wherein the authors report:

    The most exciting finding of the present study is that a mild inflammatory response evoked by LPS during a critical period of development causes a long-lasting increase in hippocampal excitability in vitro, and enhanced seizure susceptibility to the convulsants LI-PILO, KA, and PTZ in vivo. The latter effect was observed over a range of mildly inflammatory doses of LPS and was only evident if administered during the second postnatal week (P7 and P14), and not before (P1) or after (P20) this time. Importantly, inactivation of the proinflammatory cytokine TNF with an intracerebroventricular TNF antibody blocked the long-term changes to seizure susceptibility induced by LPS, whereas intracerebroventricular administration of rrTNF alone mimicked the effect of LPS on seizure susceptibility. These novel results indicate that a single transient inflammatory episode during development can modify the brain through a TNF-dependant mechanism, making it more susceptible to generate seizures in adulthood.

    (my emphasis)

    It didn’t matter what caused the tnf alpha increase, all that mattered was, was there an increase or not. The neural excitability of the treatment group was permenantly altered by a signle, transient inflammatory episode during development. When we look at what happens in the autism population when we stimulate their TLRs with agonists, one of the results is significant increases in tnf-alpha, the same cytokine identified as a mechanism of action in this study. We also know that seizures, and epilepsy are very highly over reprsented in the autism population. I’m not saying this is the only way that might be happening, but rather, pointing out experimental data that shows that such a link is plausible, and correspondingly, our analysis in the vaccine realm for our earliest vaccination schedule and autism is non existent.

    Your problem isn’t with me, it’s with the data, you just don’t know it.

    - pD

  69. daedalus2u says:

    pD, the problem with the idea that immune system stimulation at specific hypersensitive times causes autism is that one of the most reliable symptoms of autism is the larger brain with more neurons with higher numbers of minicolums.

    The number of minicolumns is fixed in utero at ~8 weeks gestation. A vaccine years later can’t increase that number. Nothing can.

    All of the known teratogens that cause autism, cause it in the first trimester in utero.

    All of the known environmental exposures that increase the incidence of autism, cause it via exposure in utero.

    Infants are exposed to many thousands of bacteria. The infant must raise an immunological defense against each and every one, or the one that escapes will grow out of control. People without immune systems can’t tolerate the kind of exposure to dirt that children have, and which children actually need to develop their immune systems.

    Countless generations of very high infant mortality due to infections caused human infants to have a pretty good immune system at birth (because the ones that didn’t have a good immune system at birth don’t have any descendants). Infants now are exposed to many fewer antigens than infants were exposed to 100 or 1,000 years ago.

    1,000 years ago, children weren’t exposed to vaccines, they were exposed to the actual diseases. They were exposed to smallpox. The Black Death killed a large fraction of Europe. Why were there no epidemic of autism then?

    Vaccines do cause an immune system stimulation. That stimulation is tiny compared to the disease. A large number of deaths from infectious diseases are actually deaths from the immune system stimulation. Evolution has configured the immune system to minimize the sum of deaths from too weak an immune system activation (death from the infection not being controlled) and death from too much immune system activation (sepsis, shock, anaphylaxis, multiple organ failure).

  70. Davdoodles says:

    I read the paper and it appears that you are conflating two very different things: “fever” is not remotely the same as acute “inflammation” of the hippocampus.

    No-one here would doubt that encephalitis, meningitis or indeed hippocampitis (I think made a new word!) can have serious consequences.

    But that has nothing to do with a few mild fevers in childhood.

    Imagine how much of your, and others’, time you’ve wasted with this absolute BS. Seriously, what were you thinking?
    .

  71. Davdoodles says:

    Maybe need to clarify which paper I’m taking about: “Postnatal Inflammation Increases Seizure Susceptibility in Adult Rats”, which pD referred me to.

    “Postnatal day 14 (P14) male Sprague Dawley rats were injected with the bacterial endotoxin lipopolysaccharide (LPS)…We examined …[the sectioned] hippocampus (3 and 6 h after injection) of P14-treated rats to determine the amount of acute inflammation after LPS”

    The real question now is what effect (if any) will this have on pD’s thesis…
    .

  72. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Davdoodles –

    I read the paper and it appears that you are conflating two very different things: “fever” is not remotely the same as acute “inflammation” of the hippocampus.

    But the animals were injected with the LPS in the periphery which resulted in inflammation in the hippocampus! You are making my point for me, and then jumping up and down about how I don’t get it!

    To determine whether a single inflammatory event during development can influence seizure susceptibility in later life, male rats were injected intraperitoneally on P14 with LPS (Escherichia coli, serotype O26:B6; 25, 100, or 250 µg/kg) or pyrogen-free saline.

    Want more? Here is another study that shows that inflammation outside the CNS results in inflammation inside the CNS.

    Microglial activation and TNFα production mediate altered CNS excitability following peripheral inflammation

    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/44/17151.abstract

    Peripheral inflammation leads to a number of centrally mediated physiological and behavioral changes. The underlying mechanisms and the signaling pathways involved in these phenomena are not yet well understood. We hypothesized that peripheral inflammation leads to increased neuronal excitability arising from a CNS immune response. We induced inflammation in the gut by intracolonic administration of 2,4,6-trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS) to adult male rats. To examine the excitability of the brain in vivo, we administered pentylenetetrazole (PTZ; a GABAergic antagonist) intravenously to evoke clonic seizures. Rats treated with TNBS showed increased susceptibility to PTZ seizures that was strongly correlated with the severity and progression of intestinal inflammation. In vitro hippocampal slices from inflamed, TNBS-treated rats showed increased spontaneous interictal burst firing following application of 4-aminopyridine, indicating increased intrinsic excitability. The TNBS-treated rats exhibited a marked, reversible inflammatory response within the hippocampus, characterized by microglial activation and increases in tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) levels. Central antagonism of TNFα using a monoclonal antibody or inhibition of microglial activation by i.c.v. injection of minocycline prevented the increase in seizure susceptibility. Moreover, i.c.v. infusion of TNFα in untreated rats for 4 days also increased seizure susceptibility and thus mimicked the changes in seizure threshold observed with intestinal inflammation. Our finding of a microglia-dependent TNFα-mediated increase in CNS excitability provides insight into potential mechanisms underlying the disparate neurological and behavioral changes associated with chronic inflammation.

    And again, we see a tnf-alpha mediated modification to neural excitability. Administration of tnf-alpha antibodies attenuated the effect; what is being observed is the result of an immune response, and an immune response only; and it need not originate within the CNS to be meaningful.

    But that has nothing to do with a few mild fevers in childhood.

    For someone with such great concern about my supposed conflations of findings, you seem to have a particular problem detangling the concept of childhood and infancy.

    And remember, children with autism create more tnf-alpha than their undiagnosed peers in response to the same challenge.

    From Differential monocyte responses to TLR ligands in children with autism spectrum disorders

    Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are characterized by impairment in social interactions, communication deficits, and restricted repetitive interests and behaviors. Recent evidence has suggested that impairments of innate immunity may play an important role in ASD. To test this hypothesis, we isolated peripheral blood monocytes from 17 children with ASD and 16 age-matched typically developing (TD) controls and stimulated these cell cultures in vitro with distinct toll-like receptors (TLR) ligands: TLR 2 (lipoteichoic acid; LTA), TLR 3 (poly I:C), TLR 4 (lipopolysaccharide; LPS), TLR 5 (flagellin), and TLR 9 (CpG-B). Supernatants were harvested from the cell cultures and pro-inflammatory cytokine responses for IL-1beta, IL-6, IL-8, TNFalpha, MCP-1, and GM-CSF were determined by multiplex Luminex analysis. After in vitro challenge with TLR ligands, differential cytokine responses were observed in monocyte cultures from children with ASD compared with TD control children. In particular, there was a marked increase in pro-inflammatory IL-1beta, IL-6, and TNFalpha responses following TLR 2, and IL-1beta response following TLR 4 stimulation in monocyte cultures from children with ASD (p<0.04). Conversely, following TLR 9 stimulation there was a decrease in IL-1beta, IL-6, GM-CSF, and TNFalpha responses in monocyte cell cultures from children with ASD compared with controls (p<0.05). These data indicate that, monocyte cultures from children with ASD are more responsive to signaling via select TLRs. As monocytes are key regulators of the immune response, dysfunction in the response of these cells could result in long-term immune alterations in children with ASD that may lead to the development of adverse neuroimmune interactions and could play a role in the pathophysiology observed in ASD.

    Or, from Altered T cell responses in children with autism

    Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are characterized by impairment in social interactions, communication deficits, and restricted repetitive interests and behaviors. A potential etiologic role for immune dysfunction in ASD has been suggested. Dynamic adaptive cellular immune function was investigated in 66 children with a confirmed diagnosis of ASD and 73 confirmed typically developing (TD) controls 2-5years-of-age. In vitro stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells with PHA and tetanus was used to compare group-associated cellular responses. The production of GM-CSF, TNFα, and IL-13 were significantly increased whereas IL-12p40 was decreased following PHA stimulation in ASD relative to TD controls. Induced cytokine production was associated with altered behaviors in ASD children such that increased pro-inflammatory or T(H)1 cytokines were associated with greater impairments in core features of ASD as well as aberrant behaviors. In contrast, production of GM-CSF and T(H)2 cytokines were associated with better cognitive and adaptive function. Following stimulation, the frequency of CD3(+), CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells expressing activation markers CD134 and CD25 but not CD69, HLA-DR or CD137 were significantly reduced in ASD, and suggests an altered activation profile for T cells in ASD. Overall these data indicate significantly altered adaptive cellular immune function in children with ASD that may reflect dysfunctional immune activation, along with evidence that these perturbations may be linked to disturbances in behavior and developmental functioning. Further longitudinal analyzes of cellular immunity profiles would delineate the relationship between immune dysfunction and the progression of behavioral and developmental changes throughout the course of this disorder.

    (my emphasis)

    When I ask for some measurement, any measurement, of the status of inflammatory cytokines following vaccination in the pediatric schedule, no one can provide any references. (there are none to provide). For that matter, you cannot provide references towards the robustness of response for knee scrapes, or dirty diapers.

    Seriously, what were you thinking?

    Considering that you appear to think ‘antigens is antigens’, and seemed oblivious to the fact that the insults in the paper originated outside the CNS, but resulted in inflammation inside the CNS, I’m going to take your incredulity at my thought process with a statistically significant grain of salt.

    - pD

  73. passionlessDrone says:

    Hi Daedulus2u –

    I tried to respond to you earlier in the thread, but this site doesn’t have numbers. Try looking at timestamp 06 Jan 2011 at 8:06 pm for my thoughts on your post. I believe I responded to most of your concerns at that time.

    Regarding minicolumns, they don’t really seem to be that robustly replicated a finding. I show 11 hits in pubmed for autism and minicolumns. Maybe I’m missing something.

    1,000 years ago, children weren’t exposed to vaccines, they were exposed to the actual diseases. They were exposed to smallpox. The Black Death killed a large fraction of Europe. Why were there no epidemic of autism then?

    This analysis allows for no time dependent effects. No doubt, any neonate that got smallpox, or the black death did not survive to an age that would have warranted strange behaviors. I won’t argue that disease can’t do the same thing, it woudl be very hypocritical of me to do so, but I can argue that the number of neonates that caught virulent diseases at the earliest stages of life was significantly lower than our vaccine uptake rates; and those that did, many times did not survive.

    I’m not arguing against the functionality of vaccines or the dreadfullness of diseases; but the idea that we can simply count antigens to come up with meaningful equations on how our environment has changed is a big over simplification. Do you suppore there might be other changes to our environment besides the presumed reduction in antigens that might have occurred since the black death? I am also so tired of the idea that ‘antigens is antigens’; we shouldn’t be using addition to understand the immune system.

    My biggest concerns are that, as a species, we are just too dumb to understand the consequences of our actions. Go to pubmed; try to find a single study on the release of inflammatory cytokines as a result of a pediatric vaccine. They aren’t there. The assumption has always been that immune activation without pathogenic virulence was harmless, but recently, this has been looking shaky based on the animal models.

    We all know that vaccines can modify the adaptive arm of the immune system, but if someone comes along and suggests that maybe, just maybe, they can also modify other functions in the immune system, and provides largely relevant animal studies seeming to show an innate immune response, and an innate immune respone alone, can cause long term effects in neural functioning, suddenly, back of the cocktail napkin analogies are termed sufficient evidence.

    I think you are a very smart person and almost always enjoy reading your responses on a variety of blogs, be they NO centric or not, but in this instance, I honestly expect a little better from you.

    - pD

  74. daedalus2u says:

    I don’t disagree that immune system stimulation can cause changes in neuroanatomy and in behaviors. I don’t disagree that the timing of those immune system stimulations can have a very large effect.

    Immune system stimulation is non-specific. Any type of antigen, viral, bacterial, environmental will cause immune system stimulation, will cause the release of cytokines both pro and anti-inflammatory. The idea that the only “important” or common, or most frequent immune system stimulations in early life are vaccines is simply unsupported and very likely wrong. There are zillions of colds, fevers, diarrheas, and other mild and self-limiting diseases that young children get. Many more than the number of vaccinations.

    There isn’t an assumption that cytokine release in the absence of an infection is harmless. In many cases of sepsis, the patients are on effective antibiotics when they experience the worst of their symptoms. The Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction is well known and it occurs after the infecting organisms are killed. It is well known that chronic inflammation causes long term adverse effects.

    Immune system stimulation in the absence of an infection is limited to the quantity of antigen administered. Once the antigen is cleared by the immune system, there is no more immune system stimulation.

    I looked at “cytokines children” in Pubmed and got 17,968 hits, “cytokines children vaccination” gets 337, “cytokines vaccination” gets 6729. I see lots of papers discussing cytokines following vaccination.

    Children did get smallpox and survive, only ~25% of them died. Childhood mortality killed a gigantic proportion of humans in pre-industrial times. Those deaths were mostly from infections.

    It is difficult to look at minicolumn density because it can only be done post-mortem. Head size is looked at frequently and correlates with minicolumn density and is one of the most common observations. Stress in utero increases brain size in experimental animals, stress in utero increases the incidence of autism.

    There is no basis to suggest that a post-birth immune system stimulation can produce the neuroanatomy changes that are observed in autism. There is no data to support that it can, nothing in our understanding of neurodevelopment to suggest that it can. I am not surprised that there are no papers suggesting that it can. If you look at my blog, I have a post on immune system stimulation and mitochondrial dysfunction. I think that is the mechanism for most multiple organ failure in sepsis, but that is an acute effect and has nothing to do with long term ongoing mitochondrial difficulties.

    The immune system is affected in autism, but so is every other system. The focus on vaccine causation is because of greed because vaccine manufacturers have deep pockets. Wakefield tried to scam the vaccine compensation board because of greed. There isn’t a smoking gun that implicates vaccines.

    The immune system deviations observed in ASDs are consistent with low NO causation and low NO maintenance. So is every other symptom observed. Beating the dead horse of vaccine causation is only making the ultimate acceptance of the actual cause more difficult.

  75. Watcher says:

    @ pD

    I see your argument and can appreciate it. I see the path you’re taking and I appreciate you putting so much time into this. :)

    That being said, i have serious misgivings about a few of your points which are holding me back. I don’t necessarily believe the preliminary Rosen data that constitutes number three ( I think …) out of your five reasons. And the animal data still bothers me. I’m not saying that animal studies are bad, all of my work is with animal models, not human. But, just from the example you’ve given, LPS injection at day 7 would be comparable to a toddler in humans, right? In order for an animal to have the correct time period of immunization-like effects they would need to be injected within the first day of life, probably sooner.

    As for the other

  76. Watcher says:

    Whoops got cut off.

    But they’ve failed to provide any that are as frequent during infancy as vaccinations have become. Sure, bee stings would marshall an immune response. So would rattlesnake bites. So would getting tetanus. Those things happen very infrequently during the neonatal period compared to vaccination. The the facts on the ground are that 90+% of infants get a Hep B vaccine within the first week of life.

    This is also, I think, a pertinent point that a few on here are making. During a critical period, any tampering with will result in changes to the critical element. Regardless of how often vaccines are given, we would expect that certain experiences during this early critical period would cause similar effects. Receiving an insult during the same time period as any vaccine should yield the same result right? Hypothetically?

  77. Th1Th2 says:

    “Immune system stimulation in the absence of an infection is limited to the quantity of antigen administered. Once the antigen is cleared by the immune system, there is no more immune system stimulation.”

    Rubbish. Where did you learn this fairy tale idea? Natural infection is also limited and cleared by the immune system even in a non-adaptive mechanism. Your assertion is a total wreck. If you administer those ‘antigens’ in the skin/ mucosal surfaces, they will be eliminated. But if your going to infect the deeper muscle tissues and areas which are physiologically sterile, you will need a SYRINGE in order to do that. It is worse than natural infection. Stay away from vaccines just like you have to stay away from an infectious individual.

  78. Th1Th2 says:

    daedslus2u,

    “It is difficult to look at minicolumn density because it can only be done post-mortem. Head size is looked at frequently and correlates with minicolumn density and is one of the most common observations.”

    What can be more obvious than the giant heads of those malnourished children in the famine areas of Africa? Are they also autistic based on your laughable and nonsense claim. Minicolumns my a$$. Of course, no vaccine can change it if the baby’s already dead (in utero IUFD + postmortem).

    Medical science again has advanced with utter stupidity.

  79. Th1Th2 says:

    daedalus2u,

    ” the problem with the idea that immune system stimulation at specific hypersensitive times causes autism is that one of the most reliable symptoms of autism is the larger brain with more neurons with higher numbers of minicolums.”

    Failure to differentiate a sign from a symptom is a red-flag that the rest of the rest of his/her assertions are unreliable thus not trustworthy. When does self-recognition of a big head by the baby take place in infancy? “Mommy, do ya think I got a big $&@!’ head?”

  80. Th1Th2 says:

    Daedalus2u,

    “1,000 years ago, children weren’t exposed to vaccines, they were exposed to the actual diseases. They were exposed to smallpox. The Black Death killed a large fraction of Europe. Why were there no epidemic of autism then?”

    Who would diagnose autism 1,000 years ago? Are you kiddin’ me?

  81. Th1Th2 says:

    pD,

    “We all know that vaccines can modify the adaptive arm of the immune system, but if someone comes along and suggests that maybe, just maybe, they can also modify other functions in the immune system, and provides largely relevant animal studies seeming to show an innate immune response, and an innate immune respone alone, can cause long term effects in neural functioning, suddenly, back of the cocktail napkin analogies are termed sufficient evidence. ”

    What do you think happens when someone is being inoculated, that the innate immune response is not being activated/triggered/modified?

  82. BillyJoe says:

    …oops

    Sorry for giving the crank his first victory here with my confusion regarding the acronym GBS.

    It is also an acronym for Gay Bowel Syndrome (obsolete), Gastric Bypass Surgery, and Glasgow Blanchford Score. However, “GBS infection” could only refer to “Group B Strptococcus Infection”.

  83. BillyJoe says:

    “Stay away from vaccines just like you have to stay away from an infectious individual.”

    The cranks entire postings here are motivated by what he has expressed in the above sentence. It’s like saying, “stay away from Emergency Departments and stay away from car accidents” or “stay away from surgeons and stay away from appendicitis”.

  84. Davdoodles says:

    “But the animals were injected with the LPS in the periphery which resulted in inflammation in the hippocampus! You are making my point for me”

    I never said (or thought) otherwise. They were injected with a substance that had been selected to inflame the hippocampus, so the researchers could observe what resulted. What difference would the injection site make (blood brain barrier issues aside)?

    The fact that substance A or B insults the hippocampus tells us nothing about what vaccine components would or wouldn’t do.

    And, encephalitis is still not a few mild fevers in, ok, infancy.

    I don’t doubt that encephalitis, particularly in a neonate, can cause brain damage which result in that most common of features: seizures. But a mild fever is not encephalitis, and “seizures” are not autism. For what it’s worth, I am aware that there might be a link between herpes encephalitis and the onset of autism symptoms. I’m not suggesting that it would be impossible for encephalitis to trigger (or cause for that matter) autism. I’m just saying that your animal study does not advance things in that regard.

    I would certainly be interested in seeing that experiment repeated, but with vaccination components instead of LPS, and then look at the hippocampus. If you could point me to point me to something which shows the rate of vaccine-induced encephalitis, that would be a start. I certainly can’t see anything which goes beyond its status as a possible adverse reaction, that is, extremely rare.

    Momentarily off-topic: I’m surprised it need to be said, but would you please quit crowing “antigens is antigens” as a way of ridiculing my criticisms. As you well know, that quote was in the context of my refutation of your odd argument that the body reacts differently depending on whether the antigen was introduced naturally or via deliberate action. And only that. Or, am I to take it that you’ve actually backpedaled from your concession in that regard?
    .

  85. Davdoodles says:

    “For that matter, you cannot provide references towards the robustness of response for knee scrapes, or dirty diapers. “

    Ditto for this nonsense too please. But, here’s your answer: what response, and its ‘robustness’, doesn’t depend on the method by which the antigen is introduced, it depends on the antigen, and the available defences. I assumed we both understood that.

    If a scraped knee introduces tetanus into the bloodstream, it will be responded to vigorously. If it’s a splinter of wood, it will be sloughed out of the wound site with nary a whisper. Etc blah and so forth if the baby gets a diaper-related e-coli infection, an influenza virus from granny slobber, amoebic meningitis, or sinister vaccination components. It will respond, in short, in as well-targeted a manner as it is able.

  86. Th1Th2 says:

    Billi Joe,

    “The cranks entire postings here are motivated by what he has expressed in the above sentence. It’s like saying, “stay away from Emergency Departments and stay away from car accidents” or “stay away from surgeons and stay away from appendicitis”.”

    Deaths by medical allopathy: More than 700,000 a year

    Fatal car accidents: 43,443 (2005)
    http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/statistics.html
    http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html

    Death from appendicitis: I just hope it surpasses 700,000

    And so the saying goes, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away”.

  87. Th1Th2 says:

    Davdoodles,

    “I would certainly be interested in seeing that experiment repeated, but with vaccination components instead of LPS, and then look at the hippocampus. If you could point me to point me to something which shows the rate of vaccine-induced encephalitis, that would be a start. I certainly can’t see anything which goes beyond its status as a possible adverse reaction, that is, extremely rare.”

    So you think current vaccines do not contain LPS?
    —-

    Endotoxin Content in Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccine
    http://www.nih.go.jp/JJID/57/58.pdf

  88. Th1Th2 says:

    Here’s one:

    Acellular Pertussis Vaccines

    Acellular pertussis vaccines contain inactivated pertussis toxin (PT) and may contain one or more other bacterial components (e.g., filamentous hemagglutinin {FHA}, a 69-kilodalton outer-membrane protein — pertactin {Pn}, and fimbriae {Fim} types 2 and 3). PT is detoxified either by treatment with a chemical (e.g., hydrogen peroxide, formalin and/or glutaraldehyde) or by using molecular genetic techniques. Acellular pertussis vaccines contain substantially less endotoxin than whole-cell pertussis vaccines.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00048610.htm

  89. BillyJoe says:

    IN reply to the crank,

    My point is that you can’t stay away from infected people 100% of the time, therefore you should take the extra protection afforded by vaccination.

    “Deaths by medical allopathy: More than 700,000 a year”

    Explained here:
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=136

    Some points:
    You can’t claim medicine does more harm than good by just listing the harms.
    The number of deaths is based on an extrapolation.
    Post surgical infections can result in death but, without surgery, the person could have died of the underlying condition.
    Medical intervention can prolong life in seriously ill patients but can then be the eventual cause of their death.
    Some of the death were as a result of high-risk treatments in high-risk patients who had no other option.

  90. Davdoodles says:

    “So you think current vaccines do not contain LPS?”

    Trace amounts of a dose-dependent, endemic substance.

    Is this a homeopathy thing? Please don’t answer.
    .

  91. Chris says:

    I tried to warn you. But no, you had to go and engage in the loon.

  92. Th1Th2 says:

    BillyJoe,

    “My point is that you can’t stay away from infected people 100% of the time, therefore you should take the extra protection afforded by vaccination.”

    Here’s the reason behind the insanity of both of these infection-promoting groups aka pro-vax and pro-pox. If you are going to stay away from infected people with varicella virus, you are also protecting yourself from being infected with the pathogen. Now tell me, what kind of imaginative protection do vaccines have to offer if the process itself involves direct inoculation of the pathogen? And for the pro-pox, of course, they are just as sick-minded as well.

    “You can’t claim medicine does more harm than good by just listing the harms.”

    We are talking about death!

    “The number of deaths is based on an extrapolation.”

    These are human deaths, not guinea pigs in the lab.

    “Post surgical infections can result in death but, without surgery, the person could have died of the underlying condition.”

    Well, the underlying condition is that these patients are the long-time faithful customers of medical allopathy- a clear pathway to deterioration.

    “Medical intervention can prolong life in seriously ill patients but can then be the eventual cause of their death.”

    Modern Medicine prolongs and aggravates the suffering of these patients and thereby creating a cascade of different illnesses. From one pill to many.

    “Some of the death were as a result of high-risk treatments in high-risk patients who had no other option.”

    Even a healthy person is at a high-risk situation in the hands of a medical allopath (iatrogenesis).

  93. Th1Th2 says:

    Davdoodles,

    “Trace amounts of a dose-dependent, endemic substance. ”

    So much blah blah blah. Just answer the question.

  94. Davdoodles says:

    I can accept that eight whole words might appear like ” blah blah blah” to you. Very courageous and insightful of you to admit it.

    Hopefully there will be a cure for whatever awful malady it is that causes that to happen in your brain.

    But those eight words are the answer to your question. Sorry it dismays and confuses you. But science can sometimes take longer than one would wish.

    Try resting for awhile, maybe have some ecinacea and an ear candling, come back, and read them again. Slowly…
    .

  95. BillyJoe says:

    If you are going to stay away from infected people with varicella virus, you are also protecting yourself from being infected with the pathogen.

    And people with varicella have labels on their forheads proclaiming “I have varicella” which appear magically as soon as they become infectious so there is no excuse for anyone becoming infected.

    Now tell me, what kind of imaginative protection do vaccines have to offer if the process itself involves direct inoculation of the pathogen?

    And what kind of imaginative protection do surgeons have to offer if all they do is perforate the appendix so as to mimic the natural course of appenditis.

    We are talking about death!

    Yes, if a doctors try to save 3 people with terminal illnesses and they save 2 of them but the last one dies, it’s still death we are talking about here!

    These are human deaths, not guinea pigs in the lab.

    Yes, what were they thinking, they could simply have prevented all this by becoming vets.

    Well, the underlying condition is that these patients are the long-time faithful customers of medical allopathy- a clear pathway to deterioration.

    Well, I have to correct you a little there. Most are reluctant patients who find themselves with conditions they didn’t ask and didn’t deserve and then find themselves taken advantage of by doctors who want to take out some body parts just because they got infected.

    Modern Medicine prolongs and aggravates the suffering of these patients and thereby creating a cascade of different illnesses. From one pill to many.

    Yes, how dare they. Isn’t appendicitis bad enough without having to put up with the added suffering from knifings and gas and chemical poisonings.

    Even a healthy person is at a high-risk situation in the hands of a medical allopath (iatrogenesis).

    Yes, just because HIB vaccination can virtually eliminate death from epiglottitis is no reason to hurt healthy children with sharp needles.

  96. windriven says:

    Hey, Dufus Thing-
    Where are you getting this inane 700,000 deaths per year number? Cite the source.

  97. Th1Th2 says:

    “And people with varicella have labels on their forheads proclaiming “I have varicella” which appear magically as soon as they become infectious so there is no excuse for anyone becoming infected.”

    Sane people with active varicella infection simply do not call for a pox party. Also, you do not invite susceptible individuals to come into house every time you’re sick. You’re just propagating infection transmission. Of course, in vaccination, deliberate infection is a famously being referred to as a ‘recommendation’.

    “And what kind of imaginative protection do surgeons have to offer if all they do is perforate the appendix so as to mimic the natural course of appenditis.”

    They just don’t perforate a normal appendix, they take it out! Nothing short of butchery.
    —-
    Normal appendix

    If a normal appendix is found during a classic appendectomy operation, it is almost always removed, unless bowel inflammation is present (e.g. Chrohn’s disease). Otherwise, if the patient develops appendicitis in the future, the diagnosis is likely to be discounted if a classic appendectomy scar is present. Doctors will assume the appendix has already been removed.
    ——-

    Of course, their so-called medical diagnosis is just a product of their imagination.

    “Yes, if a doctors try to save 3 people with terminal illnesses and they save 2 of them but the last one dies, it’s still death we are talking about here!”

    Funny. They couldn’t even save a normal appendix. To save face because of gross incompetence and idiocy, of course, they have to take it out.

    “Yes, what were they thinking, they could simply have prevented all this by becoming vets.”

    Pet animals are given vaccines, drugs and undergo surgeries too. Are they invulnerable to iatrogenic death?

    “Well, I have to correct you a little there. Most are reluctant patients who find themselves with conditions they didn’t ask and didn’t deserve and then find themselves taken advantage of by doctors who want to take out some body parts just because they got infected.”

    Are you talking about a healthy newborn who you think is susceptible unless the newborn is deliberately exposed to HbsAg? Are you sure that’s your idea of protection?

    “Yes, how dare they. Isn’t appendicitis bad enough without having to put up with the added suffering from knifings and gas and chemical poisonings.”

    How many deaths are there in a year as a result of untreated appendicitis?

    “Yes, just because HIB vaccination can virtually eliminate death from epiglottitis is no reason to hurt healthy children with sharp needles.”

    So you’re saying newborns nowadays are destined to die of Hib-induced epiglotitis sans the vaccines? But first, how do you prevent the endotoxin from the Hib vaccine from entering the newborns’ system? Are you really protecting them? Sounds like inoculation is the opposite of protection.

  98. Chris says:

    Did I not try to warn you guys? Clueless troll is clueless, and completely insane.

    But there is hope, trolls tend to go away if you ignore them. Ignore the troll who knows nothing about the immune system, nor anything about normal childhood development.

    Ignore the troll.

  99. Davdoodles says:

    Some folk like confounding trolls.

    Some believe it’s the better of two evils to tie die-hard trolls up in dead-threads.

    It’s a crazy world.
    .

Comments are closed.