Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
Sadly, it's almost here.
I'm referring, of course, to the "Green Our Vaccines" rally led by that useful idiot for the antivaccinationist movement Jenny McCarthy and sponsored by Talk About Curing Autism (TACA), Generation Rescue, and a variety of other , which will take place a mere day from now. I'll give the organizers credit for one thing. They have come up with a slogan that's truly brilliant in an Orwellian sort of way, namely "Green our Vaccines," with an accompanying press release:
McCarthy, author of the best-selling book "Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism," and Carrey have joined forces with national advocacy organizations in the battle to eliminate toxins from children's vaccines and to encourage national health agencies to reassess mandatory vaccine schedules. While they do support immunization, like many parents and experts in the medical community, McCarthy, Carrey and their many allies feel that children are receiving too many vaccines, too soon, many of which are toxic. Their goal is to demand a safer vaccine supply and schedule for children.
The marchers also have a logo to match:
The logo may be--how shall I put this?--either charmingly minimalist or done on the cheap by Jenny herself, but the slogan is potentially quite effective. After all, who wouldn't want "greener" vaccines, whatever that means? In the meantime Jen and Jim's merry band of antivaccinationists is going out of its way to assure the press and anyone who will listen to their spokespeople and members that they are really, truly, and honestly "not anti-vaccine" but rather "pro-safe vaccine." Indeed, the Grand Poobah of propagandists for the antivaccine movement, David Kirby, even went way, way out of his way yesterday to try to answer charges that he is antivaccine, albeit not particularly convincingly to those of us who have followed his writings. Again, I doff my hat to the organizers at this march for how they've--if you'll excuse the term--framed the issue. It's brilliant and very difficult to counter. After all, who doesn't want "safer" vaccines as well? No one, not even the the man who is to antivaccinationists the Devil incarnate, Paul Offit, would say that he doesn't want safer vaccines. Certainly I would be in favor of making vaccines as safe as possible. They're incredibly safe now, but there's always room for improvement. What the press and others at whom this crunchy eco-friendly message of reassurance and seeming reason that fits right in with the current mood of the country is aimed don't realize is just one thing.
It's a load of fetid dingo's kidneys
Nowhere is the utter disingenuousness of this strategy more apparent than from the "toxin" gambit, which is the new bogey man that has replaced the previous bogey man of thimerosal in vaccines. Take a look at this companion emblem that is contains the other major slogan that antivaccinationists are using for this rally (more on that later):
Check out the bottom bit:
Vaccine ingredients: Mercury, aluminum, antifreeze, formaldehyde, aborted human fetus cells, chick embryos, monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, etc.
Here's another sign for the rally:
Yes, it's the dreaded "toxin" gambit, a variation of which Jenny McCarthy has been mindlessly parroting and that I presciently deconstructed a while back when Kent Heckenlively produced such an over-the-top and idiotic invocation of this particular canard that I had a hard time believing anyone could be so utterly scientifically clueless that he could spout such misinformation without his head exploding. Not only was Heckenlively's version of this gambit wrong, but it was so extravagantly and outrageously wrong that it threatened to tear a rent in the fabric of the space-time continuum that would suck all remaining intelligence out of any intelligent organism anywhere in the universe. Heckenlively's stupidity was just that potent. Indeed, when I deconstructed the full idiocy of this gambit, I feared that even my mind, which has been hardened through long exposure to just this sort of pseudoscientific babble, might be hard pressed not to have many of my neurons undergo a dramatic wave of apoptosis in protest against my subjecting them to this sort of toxic level of dumb.
Given that I've already dealt with this in detail before, I don't see the need to do it again, other than to point out a couple of things. I think that I can best illustrate why the "toxin" gambit is in fact an antivaccine gambit by going back to a time three years ago when I lurked on the discussion boards of Mothering.com, where the prevailing opinion is pro-woo and anti-vaccine. This was perhaps best encapsulated by a comment by a woman using the 'nym Jen123:
Mercury seems to be getting tons of coverage. When that deal is settled and we win, we need to go after another ingredient. We'll dismantle the vaccine industry ingredient by stupid ingredient if we have to.Who is with me?
Suffice it to say, no one, apparently, wasn't with her. I will give Jen123 kudos, though. She perfectly and succinctly stated the true aim of the "toxin" gambit. The "Green Our Vaccines" (GOV) movement is nothing more than the same sentiment wrapped up in a nice, friendly slogan that on the surface sounds so very reasonable, particularly when antivaccinationists mention all those really scary-sounding ingredients and either fail to understand or fail to mention that there is a reason why every one of those ingredients is in there and that the dose makes the poison. Many of those "ingredients" are not ingredients at all but rather cells used to grow up the viruses used to make the vaccine and then later removed, and others are used in the manufacturing process to do things like lyse cells, inactivate virus, and other necessary steps. In the end vaccine, they are present in no more than trace amounts.
Antivaccinationists are also not too concerned with getting the actual niceties of the chemistry right, confusing ethylene glycol (antifreeze, which is not in vaccines) with polyethylene glycol (PEG, which is in some vaccines and is also in a number of skin creams, toothpaste, and medications, including laxatives) or ethyl ether (the flammable anaesthetic) with polyethylene glycol pisooctylphenyl ether (Triton X-100, a kind of soap/detergent). Nor are they concerned with getting the niceties of the biology right, either. They like to mention "aborted fetuses," as though vaccines were somehow made from aborted fetal tissue, when in reality some viruses are grown in cells derived from an aborted fetus nearly 45 years ago. Antivaccinationists know that, but they like to try to feed in to religious objections to abortion by playing this gambit, which is in reality no more than a variant of the "toxin" gambit (although they do appear to have gotten a bit smarter about it and don't say "tissues" anymore). The whole bit about "monkey cells" is pretty dumb as well. Some viruses are indeed grown in monkey kidney cells, but it's not as though these cells are retained in the vaccine. There's a little step called "purification" that antivaccinationists seem to think that manufacturers forget The viral particles are isolated and the cells are eliminated, just as the human fetal cells are. Maybe they believe in a homeopathic theory of vaccination, in which the vaccines somehow retain a memory of the monkey cells with which they have been in contact but that have been removed from the final product. Finally, antivaccinationists aren't too concerned about the niceties of pharmacology. They'll rant on and on about formaldehyde, neglecting the fact that most people are exposed in a single day to more formaldehyde from plastics, plywood, furniture and furniture finishes, and a variety of other household products and objects in every house than babies are exposed to from their entire vaccine schedule.
The "toxin" gambit is also nothing more than moving the goalposts, a tried-and-true crank technique. Now that thimerosal is increasingly being vindicated by clinical and epidemiological studies that have failed to find a link between its presence in vaccines and autism, antivaccinationists have moved on to other ingredients. They will continue to do so as long as there are vaccines, and the GOV slogan is just a far more media-savvy manifestation of this goalpost-shifting that has always been part and parcel of the anti-vaccine movement. It's also a clever co-optation of the environmental movement, although the attempt to be green has brought out some questions of such jaw-dropping ignorance that it's hard for me to believe that they came from the mind of a human:
But Mason, who has two autistic children, warns that autism is on the rise, and that something has to change. "ideally the legislators would enact legislation that would force companies to use natural ingredients", she argues. "Not what they're using now."
That's right. Mrs. Mason wants manufacturers to use "all natural" ingredients in vaccines, as though she were getting her vaccines from Whole Foods. I have news for Mrs. Mason: Polio, the measles, mumps, influenza, smallpox, and every other vaccine-preventable disease are nothing but all natural ingredients.
With this background in mind, let's look at some more signs being sold for the rally:
Of course, the organizers of this rally, even though they sympathize with the anti-vaccine movement, have been trying very hard to keep them quiet and out of sight, mainly because such sentiments undermine the "we're not anti-vaccine" message that the organizers are trying to promote. Unfortunately, the antivaccinationists are among the most vocal and rabid supporters of this rally, which will make keeping them in line difficult. Indeed, about a month ago, on a mailing list for people planning to go to the rally, a woman wanted assurances that the rally was not going to be "taken over by anti-vaccine groups." People were urged to discuss this "PRIVATELY." It was also mentioned that this was a very contentious topic, hence the reason for urging the discussion to be private.
The other major slogan being used is "Too many, too soon." This, too, is a conveniently vague but oh-so-reasonable-sounding slogan. Of course, no scientific evidence is presented that rises above the level of Dr. Laura Hewitson's badly designed monkey study to support their contention that the current vaccine schedule is harmful. Moreover, when the GOV movement claims that current vaccines haven't been tested in combinations, it's just plain wrong. Vaccines being tested in clinical trials are administered in conjunction with vaccines already on the market according to the recommended vaccination schedule. Not to do so would be highly unethical, as it would involve withholding existing protective vaccines from a group participating in a clinical trial and leave that group of children exposed to serious infectious diseases. Moreover, contrary to the claims that the current vaccine schedule "overloads the immune system," there are actually fewer antigens now in more vaccines, thanks to better vaccine design. Like the "Green Our Vaccines" slogan, the "Too many, too soon" slogan is also nothing more than a fairly clever strategy of preemptively moving the goalposts. Conveniently, the GOV folks never quite tell us which vaccines should be delayed and why or what the tradeoff would be in terms of exposing children to vaccine-preventable disease for a longer period of time before they are vaccinated.
So what will this demonstration look like? I can't say how large it will be, but I'm guessing it will look very similar to the Power of Truth rally three years ago, at least in terms of the signs. Mercury will not be the predominant theme this time around, though. Even the thickest-headed antivaccinationists are starting to realize that the vast preponderance of evidence is failing to support a connection between thimerosal and autism. That's the entire reason for the goal post moving strategy of emphasizing "toxins" and the "Green Our Vaccines" slogan, after all. Still, it's instructive to look at photos of the original demonstration (more here). I predict that, mixed in with the "Green Our Vaccines" signs, we'll see signs like these:
Vaccines = Russian Roulette
My son was poisoned by booster shots
Weapons of mass destruction
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
Orac, you are truly a world class idiot.
I suppose you would think that the inventors of seatbelts were "anti-car".
What a joke.
Posted by: Mad Mom | June 3, 2008 10:31 AM
@MadMom
No, the idiot here is yourself.
But then you call yourself mad. Look it up.
Posted by: BB | June 3, 2008 10:35 AM
I remember reading an old issue (mid-80s) of National Geographic as a kid. A chemical company (Dupont or Dow, I'm not sure...) had an advertisement that showed an orange with an ingredient label. It contained a huge list of scary-sounding chemical names that you would find if you isolated every "natural" compound in the fruit.
The point was that "chemical" was not a bad word, and that big science words did not imply evil-scientist polts to poison children.
I still think of that ad everytime I run across people using fear-mongering to oppose genetic engineering, chemical research, or medical products.
Posted by: Mark | June 3, 2008 10:36 AM
Orac, would you be in favor of infants being tested for contraindications before vaccinating?
I would hope you are, as we need vaccines, yet we also need to ensure that the number of children adversely affected by vaccines remains minimal.
In today's fast food style healthcare system, these children are often overlooked, and suffer the consequences.
Why do you think this is ok?
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 10:38 AM
This is much more fun when you address content rather than making personal attacks.
Posted by: LJ | June 3, 2008 10:39 AM
Oops. "Polt" should be "plot".
Posted by: Mark | June 3, 2008 10:39 AM
Nice talking point. Did you get it from David Kirby off the AoA site? Why, yes, I bet you did.
Now if the inventors of seatbelts claimed, as many of the GOV movement do, that cars should not be used until they are absolutely, positively safe you might have a point. I've written about this sort of issue before in terms of relative risks. Do you you let your child play baseball? It's an incredibly dangerous activity compared to getting vaccinated, and it doesn't even protect against disease. Should we ban baseball until every kid wears a helmet and mask? (There was a story in the Chicago Tribune on just the issue of baseball and safety, which is why I remember this.)
No, you're just unhappy that I have shown pretty clearly that, while perhaps you may tell yourself you're not "antivaccine" the rally itself is indeed anti-vaccine. It's just better hidden than in the past. Ask yourself this: What "toxins" (be specific) would have to be removed from vaccines before you would vaccinate your child. If they were all removed would you vaccinate. Ask yourself honestly.
Posted by: Orac | June 3, 2008 10:40 AM
It depends. I'm assuming you're talking about the Poling case, which is a bad one to use for this sort of question. You see, even if mitochondrial disorders do predispose to vaccine injury (and there's no good evidence that they do yet or that the risk of vaccinating in such children is higher than the risk of what disease can do to them), it's not the sort of test that can be applied on a mass screening basis. Testing for mitochondrial disorders requires a major workup; there is no single blood or urine test that's cheap and accurate. Lots of tests are needed, and sometimes even muscle biopsies, a surgical procedure. Would you really want to subject 999 children to such invasive tests to find one with a mitochondrial disorder? Or even 99 to find one? Besides being unnecessarily cruel to the vast majority of children, it's not an efficient use of our resources that will benefit many children. Remember, none of those tests now being advertised by the autism biomedical industry are reliable; they're generally just as dubious as provoked mercury testing.
All mass screening programs represent a balance between how many benefit, invasiveness and accuracy of tests, and cost. In the case of mitochondrial diseases, there is no evidence that undertaking such a massive program would help. If there is a condition that predisposes to vaccine injury that is much more common and can be cheaply and easily screened for, then it would be reasonable to consider doing so.
Posted by: Orac | June 3, 2008 10:51 AM
The seatbelt thing, I coined that 3 yrs ago after my daughter suffered an adverse reaction.
Should we discontinue vaccinating until vaccines can be safer? Oh hell no!
Should we sit around and do nothing? HELL NO!
Why aren't children who suffer adverse reactions being studied? If they are, PLEASE point me in the direction of those studies.
As for the "chemicals" in the vaccines, I find that only mildly disconcerting, compared to what the bacterias and viruses can do to infants who cannot create an adequate response. The amount of chemicals in vaccines is actually quite minimal compared to our food and environment.
This is not simply about vaccine ingredients.
Why doesn't anyone care to find out why kids are suffering adverse reactions? Why are they simply written off, and not reported and studied?
Posted by: Mad Mom | June 3, 2008 10:52 AM
"would you be in favor of infants being tested for contraindications before vaccinating?"
Would you mind telling us what these contraindications are?
Posted by: ozzy | June 3, 2008 10:53 AM
You got that right. It's a "manufactroversy," in other words a manufactured controversy. There really isn't much in the way of a scientific controversy, but there is an ideological one between antivaccinationists and science. Your comment about the "viruses" and "bacteria" tell me that I'm right on in my post; that's exactly what I've said about how it is the ingredients that make a vaccine a vaccine that antivaccinationists don't like?
As for your question: Do you think scientists aren't studying adverse events? Really? Do a pubmed search on vaccines sometime.
Posted by: Orac | June 3, 2008 10:58 AM
Taken from referenced press release;
"While they do support immunization, like many parents and experts in the medical community, McCarthy, Carrey and their many allies feel that children are receiving too many vaccines, too soon, many of which are toxic."
Like many experts in the medical community?
Talk about taking a some creative license with a statement.
Granted it is an un quantifiable reference using the word "many", however it is a safe bet that if you take all the doctors and researchers there are in the field divided by the amount within the same catagory the beleive there is a problem with "toxic" vaccines, it is likely that the word very few would be far more accurate.
Posted by: Uncle Dave | June 3, 2008 10:59 AM
Speaking as a scientist, we have limited time, money, and labour. Given these three constraints, we tend not to let the insane and the inane set our research priorities.
Chemicals in the enviroment. Feh. I'm quite sure the word `chemicals` doesn't mean what you think it does. And even accepting your definition and usage, you're quite welcome to, if you're so concerned beyond the normal ken, live in a manufactured-good free environment.
Posted by: KC | June 3, 2008 11:12 AM
Contraindications such as Primary Immunodeficiency.
Many of these CAN be tested for, yet we don't. This would have spared my daughter the encephalitis she suffered from live virus vaccines.
If her doctor paid closer attention to her family history of idiopathic leukocytosis, she may have been spared. But we live in a fast food healthcare society, and doctors really can't grasp every little detail about their patients. Kudos to those that do, as it is becoming increasingly difficult the more we understand the human body.
As for your other comment, Orac, about would I vaccinate my child even if the "chemicals" were removed. Truth is, she can't be further vaccinated, as she has a permanent medical exemption. SAhe also doesn't have antibodies to VPDs, so it is quite a double edgeed sword.
It was the insolent egostistical attitude of her doctor (which I find strikingly similar to yours) that took 5 specialists, and 2 yrs to convince him that she in fact had a reaction. It was too much for his pretty head to bear that he actually caused more harm than good in a child.
Guess some of you doctors have a hard time eating crow. (as is very evident in your posts)
And even still, his office filled the VAERS out wrong. Stating that she received the MMR at 5 months, and stopped communicating at 6.
It is a sickening f-ing battle I have had to endure to get to the bottom of my daughter's condition. Thankfully we found a world class pediatric immunologist, and geneticist who have helped to uncover the truth. It's even led to my dx of immunodeficiency. Too bad I have no health insurance for myself to treat it, as I had to quit my job to care for my daughter.
Now we must languish for yrs awaiting compensation in the NVICP.
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 11:15 AM
Mad Mom:
Why aren't children who suffer adverse reactions being studied? If they are, PLEASE point me in the direction of those studies.
Two minutes on PubMed returned 1685 articles for "adverse vaccine reactions" alone, many of them recent.
You don't seem stupid enough to not know that or be able to find out for yourself, which leaves only one option: you are a deluded lying antivax troll.
Which I've already fed too much. Feh.
Posted by: StuV | June 3, 2008 11:15 AM
Interesting article.
I am wondering if you have written about or have any opinion on the notion that the safety systems in manufacture/ distribution of vaccinations havent kept up with the volume of vaccinations being created and distributed. I.E. the whole Chiron Flu Vaccine thing in 2003-2005.
I ask because I am interested in supply chain safety issues.
THANKS
Posted by: SnowMama | June 3, 2008 11:22 AM
" I find that only mildly disconcerting, compared to what the bacterias and viruses can do to infants who cannot create an adequate response."
Show me the data that demonstrate that infants cannot mount an adequate response to bacteria and viruses. Babies are born into a world full of bacteria and viruses and usually do pretty well. There are however, some bacteria and viruses that are particularly nasty and we need to give our immune systems a little help to get ahead of the game via vaccination. In fact, it is the natural body's response to infection, ie fever, that has been linked to the Poling case. It doesn't matter if the fever was due to the flu caught from a neighbor or a fever following vaccination. In that case, the immune system responds normally but the body can't handle the response. So it is just as likely that the Poling child would have had an adverse neurological outcome following a fever due to infection with a bug caught from a friend than following a vaccination.
Posted by: ozzy | June 3, 2008 11:24 AM
You know, it's this kind of thing that annoys the crap out of me.
Why can't we just own up and accept the fact that, for some reason, unknown or otherwise, our nieces (in my case), nephews, daughters and sons have a, likely genetic from what I understand, issue; and learn to just love them and quit blaming everyone for the unfortunate effects of a currently unforsee-able problem? I mean, my niece is severely autistic, she's 16 years old and has the mind of a 5 year old, it's a miracle that she's even at that level. She and I are best friends, I don't blame her "disease" on the doctors, or vaccinations, or water supply, or anything else. I think the real issue here, is that antivaccinationists need to stop playing the blame game and spend that considerable amount of time and energy with their child(ren). I know that they love their kids, but it seems to me that you're wasting your time tilting at windmills.
Posted by: Joe Fredette | June 3, 2008 11:24 AM
StuV, I am interested in those studies as well. Do you know which ones look at the genetics, or underlying conditions of those who suffer the most reactions?
I would be very interested in seeing those, because I have not been able to find them.
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 11:25 AM
OMG, vaccines contain SUCROSE!!!oneone!!
I bet this means they're responsible for the rise in diabetes too.
Posted by: Bob O'H | June 3, 2008 11:26 AM
Never mind building materials. Beetroot and pears (to name only two) both have enough formaldehyde that, as one grocer put it, "if they were building materials they'd be illegal."
I'm sure, however, that the formaldehyde in foods is harmless because it's "all natural."
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 3, 2008 11:29 AM
Ozzy, kids with Primary Immunodeficiency can't mount an adequate response to bacteria and viruses, yet are vaccinated anyway.
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 11:29 AM
Posted by: wintermute | June 3, 2008 11:30 AM
Oh, two can do this! Let me play! Ahem:
I'm interested in your interest in supply chain safety issues. You seem to have an unnatural interest in them (c.f. the illegal Zyprexa tampering that occurred in the early 2002s).
There. I've gone and created unreasonable suspicion too.
Posted by: KC | June 3, 2008 11:32 AM
All the scary chemicals of an orange -- by Monsanto.
Posted by: Petter Häggholm | June 3, 2008 11:33 AM
Monica:
Just curious, obviously Primary Immunodeficiency (let's call it PID), implies that they can't respond to full-strength bacteria/viruses. But does that necessarily mean that they can't fight off a weakened or dead virus, such as is present in vaccines?
I certainly think that a dead virus, at worst, would sit in there system till it got flushed out, and I should think -- based on what I read in wikipedia that while some of the immune system is broken, since not _all_ of the system is broken, it would be able to stave off a sufficiently weakened exception.
Then again, I'm not a doctor- but it just seems logical to me.
Posted by: Joe Fredette | June 3, 2008 11:34 AM
SnowMama,
The FDA.Gov site is searchable, and will give you any info regarding supply-chain issues. Merck recently had issues at it's west point facility. Here is some more info-
http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/merckqa.htm
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 11:35 AM
Ehm, Monica:
Contraindications such as Primary Immunodeficiency.
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/Primary_Immunodeficiency.cfm
"The World Health Organization has identified more than 80 kinds of primary immunodeficiency diseases. But, the general category includes more than 100 diseases caused by an immune system that doesn't function properly."
Thankfully we found a world class pediatric immunologist, and geneticist who have helped to uncover the truth.
In a perfect world, there'd be enough "world class" pediatric immunologists and geneticists to go around. In a perfect world, your doctor wouldn't be a jerk. In a perfect world, your child wouldn't have been afflicted with immunodeficiency.
yet we also need to ensure that the number of children adversely affected by vaccines remains minimal.
It already is. Could it be less, theoretically? Yes. Could it be less, practically? Hardly.
Posted by: StuV | June 3, 2008 11:37 AM
StuV,
yes, children with PID should be contraindicated, but they are not.
We now give rotateq (a live virus) at 3 mos. How the hell can we know if an infant has PID (unless they present with the most severe form) at 3 months?
We can't!
Most PIDS are undiagnosed until after age 9!
Yet we vaccinate all children according to schedule. We test at birth for PKU, we need to start screening for PID, as well!
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 11:42 AM
Kev wrote about this some time back as well. There's plenty of evidence that, privately, these people are truly anti-vaccine, and are using the "green our vaccines" slogan as a sort of Trojan horse.
Posted by: Joseph | June 3, 2008 11:43 AM
Monica:
Go to PubMed and tinker with search phrases like "genetic vaccine adverse reactions". Spending two more minutes, I've already found a few (e.g. PMID 16816003).
Posted by: StuV | June 3, 2008 11:47 AM
Posted by: KC | June 3, 2008 11:48 AM
Vaccine ingredients: Mercury, aluminum, antifreeze, formaldehyde, aborted human fetus cells, chick embryos, monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, etc.
Whole chick embryos? How do they fit down the needle?
Posted by: Confused | June 3, 2008 11:49 AM
What is the prevalence of primary immunodeficiency in children? I'm assuming it's pretty small. "Primary immunodeficiency" includes a number of different diseases all with different complex genetic causes thereby, making it highly difficult to screen.
"Now we must languish for yrs awaiting compensation in the NVICP."
Isn't it just as likely that your daughter could have had a similar reaction to a bacteria/virus caught from a neighbor's child?
Posted by: ozzy | June 3, 2008 11:51 AM
Obviously, the mercury, aluminum and the aborted human fetii lubricate the needle so the whole, multiple chick embryos fit down it.
Posted by: KC | June 3, 2008 11:52 AM
Joe,
I am not a doctor, either, but the WHO, CDC and NIH all state kids with PID shouldn't receive live virus vaccines, as the viruses can replicate, and infect the host, even kill them.
We are lucky that our daughter is still alive!
As for people accepting "autism". First, you have to understand that there are many subtypes of "autism". It is a dx made by observation only, observation of a set of behaviors.
With that said, autism is much like CP, there can be many causes. Some we know about, some we don't.
With some autism, it is completely clear that there is a genetic base. With others, and especially many "regressive" types, there is no genetic base.
And perhaps it can be a combination. Perhaps a genetic condition that is worsened, or aggrevated by such conditions as viral encephalitis.
I think it is wonderful that your family has accepted your neice, and loves her for who she is. That is important.
I love my daughter for who she is, and have accepted every little bit about her. I think it's amazing that she read before she talked. She is my inspiration. She truly is the center of our family.
But I also know that something happenned to her brain when she had encephalitis. She changed drastically after that episode. Her eyes did not focus for months, and she just sat, staring at her hands. I try to never think "what if", because that is too painful. I love her for who she is now.
I also know that she has Primary Immunodeficiency, as I do. This condition would have likely gone undiagnosed for years, perhaps a lifetime, had we not discovered why she had an adverse reaction.
I don't want to see any other children with Primary Immunodeficiency suffer and adverse reaction that could potentially kill them.
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 11:54 AM
KC, I never once stated we should discontinue vaccinating. We just need better resources to identify children with the condition, and ensure they not be injured.
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 11:57 AM
Monica. Read back what you write.
yes, children with PID should be contraindicated, but they are not.
So, you want us to test for 80 distinct and hard-to-detect genetic defects? That is what you are saying?
[...] How the hell can we know if an infant has PID (unless they present with the most severe form) at 3 months?
We can't!
Most PIDS are undiagnosed until after age 9!
So we should, but we can't?
Yet we vaccinate all children according to schedule.
Yes, because for every sad, regrettable adverse reaction due to PID, we save hundreds if not thousands of children from awful, damaging, preventable diseases.
We test at birth for PKU, we need to start screening for PID, as well!
At birth. Uh-huh. So we do the bone marrow biopsies right away, or should those wait a few weeks?
As others have tried to explain, there is no simple one-stop PID test. PKU is a simple test for a single enzyme in blood or urine. Full PID testing would require biopsies and a few weeks of DNA workups. It would be traumatic, painful, prohibitively expensive and oh, where the heck are you going to find that many geneticists?
Don't you think that if these tests were viable, they'd be standard procedure by now?
Posted by: StuV | June 3, 2008 12:05 PM
Perhaps if there were more questions such as this one, instead of immediate ad hominem attacks, you'd see better results.
More bluntly: When you start out by accusing others of idiocy, you have no right to complain later on that your concerns aren't being paid attention to.
Posted by: Warren | June 3, 2008 12:11 PM
Ozzy,
If I knew a neighbor's child had Measles, mumps, ruebella, AND varicella, I would never allow my child around them!
The incidence of PID is higher than we think. I wish I could find the doc I created about it (I summarized info from the second nationa survey) from the Immune Deficiency foundation
http://primaryimmune.org/pubs/second_national_survey_of_patients.pdf
Page 6-
"Only 36% of patients were initially diagnosed with a primary immune deficiency disease before age six. And, a majority (50%) was diagnosed before they were eighteen. Nonetheless, 40% of persons with primary immune deficiency diseases were not diagnosed until they were aged 30 or older"
Page 7
"About one in four patients (25%) either had no symptoms prior to diagnosis or were diagnosed within a year of onset of repeated, serious or unusual infections. Another 20% were diagnosed within one to two years of symptom onset. Nonetheless, the time between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis was 3-5 years for 16% of patients; 6-9 years for 10% of patients; 10-14 years for 8% of patients; and 15-19 years for 5% of patients. One in seven patients with primary immune deficiency diseases (17%) in this sample report 20 years or more between the onset of repeated, serious or unusual infections and their initial diagnosis as immune deficient. The average time between symptom onset and initial diagnosis was 9.2 years"
I am trying to find the actual numbers on occurence, but if I remember correcly, about 1:400 donations of blood must be rejected due to the most common form of PID, and I think I remember one in every 1,200 Americans are dx'd with PID.
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 12:14 PM
Perhaps if there were more questions such as this one, instead of immediate ad hominem attacks, you'd see better results.
It'd work even better when it wasn't such a blatantly dishonest "when did you stop beating your wife" gambit, don't you think?
People do care. These cases are being reported. They are being studied. This blatant presupposition is just so weak, tired and trollish it takes me minutes to stop my eyes from rolling.
Posted by: StuV | June 3, 2008 12:17 PM
StuV, what is ridiculous is giving live virus vaccines, such as rotateq in the US to 3 month old children.
Rotavirus kills hundreds in developing countries, not here. Same with Varicella. We vaccinate against these, as it is good for the economy. Less mommies missing work.
Please do some reading from the FDA if you do not believe me.
I am not saying to stop vaccinating. I would hate to see a return of VPDs. But do we REALLY and TRULY NEED rotateq, to keep mommies working? WE NEED vaccines against Polio, we NEED vaccines against Diptheria, and Pertussis.
But do we truly NEED varicella, so mommy doesn't miss a week?
I would have rather stayed home a week, than a lifetime...
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 12:24 PM
StuV,
What I would like to see, is a large scale study of children who regressed into autism shortly after suffering an adverse reaction to vaccination.
I know of many who had ER visits within 3 wks of vaccination, and then regressed.
Why don't we study these kids?
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 12:48 PM
Rotavirus kills hundreds in developing countries, not here.
Liar. From WikiPedia:
"In developing countries, around 611,000 children under five years of age die from rotavirus infection each year,[8] and almost two million more become severely ill.[6] In the United States, rotavirus causes about 2.7 million cases of severe gastroenteritis in children, almost 60,000 hospitalisations, and around 37 deaths each year.[9]"
But do we truly NEED varicella, so mommy doesn't miss a week?
Liar. From WikiPedia:
"Varicella infection in pregnant women can lead to viral transmission via the placenta and infection of the foetus. If infection occurs during the first 28 weeks of gestation, this can lead to foetal varicella syndrome (also known as congenital varicella syndrome). Effects on the foetus can range in severity from underdeveloped toes and fingers to severe anal and bladder malformation. Possible problems include:
Damage to brain: encephalitis, microcephaly, hydrocephaly, aplasia of brain
Damage to the eye (optic stalk, optic cap, and lens vesicles), microphthalmia, cataracts, chorioretinitis, optic atrophy
Other neurological disorder: damage to cervical and lumbosacral spinal cord, motor/sensory deficits, absent deep tendon reflexes, anisocoria/Horner's syndrome
Damage to body: hypoplasia of upper/lower extremities, anal and bladder sphincter dysfunction
Skin disorders: (cicatricial) skin lesions, hypopigmentation"
Mommies missing work my foot.
Posted by: StuV | June 3, 2008 12:49 PM
I know of many who had ER visits within 3 wks of vaccination, and then regressed.
Sure you do.
- How do you know of them? I can guess, but please, humor me.
- The plural of anecdotes is not data.
Why don't we study these kids?
Okay, let's. Let's study them. What, exactly, pray tell, would we be studying in these kids? How many are there to begin with? You do realize that you'd have to prove that the reaction is caused by the vaccination first, right?
Posted by: StuV | June 3, 2008 1:01 PM
wow, are we this childish around here? next I will hear "Liar Liar pants on fire!" and have someone quoting from whaletovaccines. humph
Luckily, This is my daughter's 2nd to last day of school, and I haven't any clients needing research today.
I suppose I shall search for the documents supporting my statements. Because I know I didn't find them on wikipedia. I think it was fda.gov, or something like that
Wikipedia? Really? I would have thought better of you StuV...
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 1:05 PM
StuV,
no need for name calling
Monica,
varicella may cause less complications than measles, but I know several mothers who missed 4 weeks of work, because of how sick their children were with varicella, plus one girl who had osteomyelitis (bone marrow inflammation) due to varicella (4 weeks of IV antibiotics in the hospital saved her leg) and another girl who had a stroke due to varicella. These moms feel just as bad as you do when you hear MMR reactions trivialized when they hear varicella infection belittled.
Posted by: Catherina | June 3, 2008 1:05 PM
That's right. If you KNEW.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | June 3, 2008 1:09 PM
Petter,
Thanks! It is almost exactly as I remembered it. That made my day.
Posted by: Mark | June 3, 2008 1:09 PM
vaccine regression autism
I typed that, on hunch, into pubmed. Whaddya know, people looked at that. Whatddya know, results are generally (prepare to gasp) negative *gasp!*.
StuV already covered the anecdote->data thing, so I won't rehash
But I'll humour you for a moment. Yes, if we whittle down our data set to only datapoints that match your hypothesis, yes, it'll be well supported right up to the point where you have to suggest a mechanism. Which is precisely why a) scientists don't do it and b) scientists who do get in trouble.
Posted by: KC | June 3, 2008 1:10 PM
"But do we truly NEED varicella, so mommy doesn't miss a week?"
No, we need varicella vaccine to prevent shingles in later life. The public health benefit from vaccinating against chicken pox is primarily in preventing shingles. Shingles is caused by the same virus as chicken pox and is a reocurrence of the virus later in life. The CDC says that shingles affects around 1 in 3 Americans, and from family experience, it can lay even a healthy, relatively young person flat on their back in exquisite pain for over a week, to say nothing of the neuralgic pain that often remains close to unbearable for 6 months or more. In the unlucky, it can cause pneumonia, encephalitis, blindness, deafness, or death.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Shingles/
Posted by: flittingbug | June 3, 2008 1:23 PM
StuV, here is one for you
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/271/5/375
while I feel terrible for children who suffer complications of chickenpox, I don't think vaccinating ALL children during infancy is the answer.
I also don't feel one bit of remorse for mommies having to miss work to take care of sick children. Call me crazy, but I have had to do it for 3 yrs now.
They already know the immunity to the varicella vaccine is waning, and are considering a 3rd dose to be given during teenage years.
(also, immunity to measles is waning, due to a weaker immune response to the vaccine than the actual virus- but still should be enough immunity for herd protection)
http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/ig042607t.pdf
Are we going to keep vaccinating every 10 yrs, then re-vaccinating with a shingles vaccine into adulthood?
(the varicella vaccine can and WILL cause shingles, fwiw)
I feel we are becoming over-zealous with vaccination. When will we draw the line? At the advent of a vaccine to protect us from restless leg syndrome?
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 1:23 PM
flittingbug, the varicella vaccine acts in the same way as the virus. It is a live virus vaccine. It will target the CNS and lay dormant, just as a natural infection will, and cause shingles later in life, or earlier for those who are immune deficienct, or immune supressed.
Hence the new shingles vaccine.
Pretty nifty idea Merck had, huh?
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 1:29 PM
KC:
vaccine regression autism
I typed that, on hunch, into pubmed. Whaddya know, people looked at that. Whatddya know, results are generally (prepare to gasp) negative *gasp!*.
It's like... magic...
Posted by: StuV | June 3, 2008 1:33 PM
From the FDA-
"Death from rotavirus is rare in the United States. However, in developing countries, rotavirus gastroenteritis has been estimated to cause up to several hundred thousand deaths annually in infants and young children."
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2006/NEW01307.html
Yet 70-80% (I think, will have to find source to verify) of this vaccine is being distributed in the US, not in developing countries. I do know we consume the lion's share of this vaccine.
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 1:40 PM
KC, and StuV,
Show me the studies that looked at the children who regressed after vaccination. Not studies trying to LINK TO vaccination.
Big difference.
I would like to see immune and metabolic profiles of the kids who regressed. Is that so hard to do?
Posted by: Monica | June 3, 2008 1:44 PM
Monica,
11,000 hospitalizations and 100 deaths/year due to varicella infections.
Galil K, Lin F, Seward J. Hospitalizations for varicella
in the United States, 1988-1995. Presented at:
Joint meeting between the Pediatric Academic Societies
and the American Academy of Pediatrics; May
2000; Boston, Mass. Abstract 1542.
5. Meyer PA, Seward JF, Jumaan AO, Wharton M.
Varicella mortality: trends before vaccine licensure in
the United States, 1970-1994. J Infect Dis. 2000;182:
383-390.
Posted by: ozzy | June 3, 2008 1:56 PM
Sucrose? They're worried about sucrose in the vaccines? Has anyone warned them that the potentially toxic chemical dihydromonoxide is also contained in all vaccines?
Posted by: Dianne | June 3, 2008 2:10 PM
Nice appeal to consequences.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | June 3, 2008 2:11 PM
Wikipedia? Really? I would have thought better of you StuV
Call me Stu -- the V is just for differentiation.
WikiPedia has this new-fangled "References" section, from whence the article "Quotes". But fine, I'll do your leg-work again:
Fischer TK, Viboud C, Parashar U, et al (2007). "Hospitalizations and deaths from diarrhea and rotavirus among children
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (September 2007). Chickenpox in Pregnancy.
http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/greentop13_chickenpox0907.pdf
Centers for Disease Cont