One of my interests in skepticism and critical thinking has been the similarity in the fallacious arguments, approach to data, and general behavior of those who are--to put it generously--not so skeptical or scientific in their approach to life. I'm talking about believers in the paranormal, quacks, anti-vaccine activists, conspiracy theory mavens, Holocaust deniers, creationists, anthropogenic global warming denialists, and cranks of all stripes. Indeed, it is this similarity in mindset that led Mark Hoofnagle to coin the term "crank magnetism," a perfect description of how people who believe in one form of crankery often believe in other forms of crankery as well. Examples include Dr. Lorraine Day, who's a believer in cancer quackery (indeed, lots of other forms of quackery, too) and is a rabid Holocaust denier as well; Melanie Phillips, who is anti-vaccine and doesn't believe in AGW or evolution, either; Vox Day, who hits the crank trifecta of anti-vaccinationism, evolution denialism, and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denialism; Nicholas Kollerstrom, who hits the different crank trifecta of Holocaust denial, astrology, and crop circles; and Mike Adams, whose crank magnetism encompasses virtually all forms of pseudoscience except for than AGW denialism.
But crank magnetism is not the only aspect of the believer in pseudoscience, and that's an extreme "us versus them" mentality. True, this is not a characteristic unique to cranks or even defining of cranks, but when you verbiage like this in combination with dubious science, chances are that you are dealing with a grade-A woo-meister, a crank par excellance:
I want to win the "Vaccine-Autism War."It's probably why I spend inordinate amounts of my scarce free time watching History Channel specials on military battles and tactics. The books I read also tend to be about great historical struggles and what eventually happened.
And sometimes I simply can't believe we haven't already won.
These are the words of Kent Heckenlively, whom we've met multiple times before on this blog. He's one of the main bloggers for the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism and, over its history, has written some truly appalling posts, such as when he described borrowing $15,000 from his daughter's grandparents to take her to a clinic in Costa Rica for a quack stem cell treatment for autism that involved injecting "stem cells" right into his daughter's cerebrospinal fluid. Another example was when he enthusiastically embraced a model of autism in which he speculated that bacteria made toxic heavy metals that caused autism. His most recent appalling post came not long before TAM, when Heckenlively quoted a passage from Psalm 94 praying to God for vengeance upon the enemies of Israel. The implication was obvious; Heckenlively was praying for the Lord to bring vengeance upon those who support vaccine science. He also cited Stephen King's novel The Stand, which featured an apocalyptic nuclear explosion in Las Vegas in its climax. Given that the post was written only a couple of days before 1,600 skeptics descended upon Las Vegas, the timing of the post was certainly concerning.
After proclaiming his love for all things military and regurgitating common anti-vaccine canards, such as confusing correlation with causation with regards to vaccines and autism and citing parental testimonials, Kent decides to get down to business trying to analyze The "Mindset" of Our Opponents. First, he cites a book by Carol Dweck entitled Mindset, which to him has special relevance to his study as a brave maverick anti-vaccinationist. Next, he absolutely obliterates yet another of my irony meters (and this was one that I wrapped in flame retardant protective armor, too!):
Sometimes it's not enough to have facts on your side, you have to understand the psychology of the other side and use it to your advantage.
Seriously. If there's a person on this planet with less self-awareness than Kent Heckenlively, I've never seen it. Kent and his fellow travelers in the anti-vaccine movement are the very definition of a group that clings to an idea regardless of evidence, facts, science, or reason. As I've learned over the last several years, while combatting the anti-vaccine movement, it is not enough to have facts on your side, which is why, ove the years, I've tried to understand the psychology of the other side. The problem is, that doesn't seem to work, either. Anti-vaccinationists cling to their beliefs that vaccines are evil and cause autism with a ferocity that a fundamentalist would be hard-pressed to match.
Kent then tries to use the thesis of Dr. Dweck's book to argue that those evil doctors are close-minded, arrogant clods, and that only he and his fellow anti-vaccine believers are open-minded and enlightened. While it's true that there are doctors out there who are close-minded, arrogant clods (and, having had to deal with my fellow doctors on a daily basis for the last 25 years, don't I know it!), it's even more true that if there's anyone off whom facts, logic, and science bounce as harmlessly as stones off a tank, it's anti-vaccine activists like Kent Heckenlively. That's why the meat of Kent's post strikes me as revealing something else very integral to the crank "mindset" (to steal Kent's terminology), namely projection. Time and time again, how often do we see cranks of all stripes projecting their mindset, their attitudes, onto defenders of science?
The relevance of Dr. Dweck's book comes in where she identifies two types of mindsets among people, the "fixed" mindset and the "growth" mindset. The fixed mindset, according to Kent, involves a tendency to avoid challenges, to give up easily when frustrated, and to ignore useful negative feedback. One key aspect of the fixed mindset is a tendency to view criticism of one's work or ideas as criticism of the person, and the reaction is invariably highly defensive. In other words, criticism of a person's ideas, skills, or results of his work is all too often taken as a direct attack or an insult. Personally, again, I have a hard time thinking of another group of people possessing these traits in more abundance than anti-vaccine activists. Another aspect of the fixed mindset that Kent doesn't mention is this:
Usually when others succeed, people with a Fixed Mindset will try to convince themselves and the people around them that the success was due to either luck (after all, almost everything is due to luck in the Fixed Mindset world) or objectionable actions. In some cases, they will even try to tarnish the success of others by bringing up things that are completely unrelated ("Yes, but did you know about his...").
In other words, ad hominems are the rule of the day. Think of how the anti-vaccine movement deals with Paul Offit. Think of how anti-vaccine loons gleefully leapt all over the fraud investigation and indictment of Paul Thorsen.
In contrast, Kent tries to paint the "brave maverick doctors" producing autism pseudoscience and quackery as possessing the opposite of the fixed mindset, namely the growth mindset, while marveling that most doctors don't view autism quackery the way they do:
By contrast, the person with a growth mindset is lead by a desire to learn and will therefore embrace challenges, persist in the face of obstacles, and try to learn from criticism. Those rare doctors you have met with this mindset are probably among your heroes, even if they haven't yet been able to fully resolve the problems of your child.
In other words, it's the DAN! doctors, the Andrew Wakefields, and the Mark Geiers of the world who are to Heckenlively the doctors with the "growth mindset." Meanwhile, he likens doctors to the executives at Enron who drove the company into the ground:
Dweck points to Enron as an example. They believed in the "talent" rather than the effort theory of hiring potential employees. In a movie about the Enron debacle they were termed "the smartest guys in the room." Nobody called them the hardest-working guys. Their brains were supposed to be their secret weapon, even if they didn't use them. They believed in themselves so much they became convinced that if they thought of an idea which could make them money they could put that amount of money in their account books as income. Those of us who live in the real world know that just because we think of a potential money-making idea doesn't mean the bank will put that money in our bank account.
Of course, this is not quite telling the whole story. The guys from Enron might have been the smartest guys in the roo,, but they were also the most deceptive guys in the room. They used highly unethical accounting practices to intentionally misrepresent the company's earnings and debts. Its accounting practices were downright dishonest. In fact, if anything, many autism "entrepreneurs" remind me more of the "guys" of Enron than any legitimate scientist. Part of being the "smartest guys in the room" at Enron was to heap contempt for being "unimaginative" or "close-minded" upon other businesses and accountants who had the temerity to point out that their accounting and business practices were risky, unethical, and even illegal. Sound familiar? Perhaps like the way that autism quacks castigate conventional autism scientists for being close-minded and unimaginative? There's also a profound anti-intellectualism and anti-science mindset embedded in these tirades against doctors and scientists. Note Kent characterizes them as acting far more out of a desire to appear smart than anything else, as viewing themselves as the "smartest guys in the room" (just like Enron executives!), or as arrogant.
The bottom line is that projection frequently is a major characteristic of cranks, every bit as much as crank magnetism and a fast-and-loose approach to scientific data. I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen creationists, quacks, anti-vaccine activists, and other cranks castigate scientists for being "close-minded" and possessing characteristics of the fixed mindset without actually mentioning the fixed mindset. While it's true that doctors are sometimes too dismissive of patient concerns and unwilling to listen, if you want to see rigid, "fixed mindsets" in action, check out the anti-vaccine movement.
And don't even get me started on how Kent accused doctors and scientists of "magical thinking."
ADDENDUM:
Another irony meter is blown by one of the commenters:
I think you are on to something here, Kent. It is the desire to "look smart" that is motivating many in this disaster. And unfortunately, the vaccine pushers know this. That is why the internet is over-run with vaccine-promoting bullies.
Verbal bullies intimidate their targets by name-calling and ridicule. Why do they do this? As I have told my daughter, who has sadly been a victim of bullying, bullies act the way they do because they are insecure about themselves. They call others names because somehow it makes them feel better about themselves to put others down. They are the ones who have mental and emotional problems--not the people they are bullying. Even though the effect of their horrible behavior is often to make those they bully feel bad or stupid or inadequate, the truth is that the bully is really the one who is bad, stupid, inadequate and most seriously in need of help.
Who later says:
So what do those who feel most threatened do? They react by calling their opponents names--ignorant, misled, anti-vaccine, baby-killers, etc. etc. etc. We have all read their bullying tirades on various blogs and comment streams. Rather than admit the limitations of their own knowledge and abilities, or of medical and scientific knowledge, they resort to bullying and threats. If you don't do what we say, then we won't treat you. (Blackmail.) If you don't follow our directions, we'll turn you in to CPS. (Extorsion) If you question vaccines, it must be because you are stupid enough to listen to a crazy Playboy bunny rather than a clearly more educated doctor. (Ridicule.)
You see, when it's J.B. Handley threatening his enemies or calling them names, he's fighting the good fight, and the anti-vaccine minions at AoA praise him for being tough, aggressive, and "giving as good as he gets." When it's a scientist criticizing J.B., that's a close-minded reaction borne out of being threatened with not appearing to be the "smartest guy in the room."
- Log in to post comments
Try turning "caring enough to respond" to seeing how much more outrageously silly stuff he could come up with.
Battling on (holding my nose) for my own amusement more than anything...
Blackheart's "substantial points" are very concise but not particularly clear - here's what I think we have established:
CSF and Lumbar Punctures - according to both the defence and prosecution experts at the GMC hearing CSF is not useful in the investigation of diagnosed autism unless there is evidence of a sudden change in their condition, or evidence suggesting an organic metabolic problem. Only Child 2 had symptoms that made a lumbar puncture clinically indicated. One Swedish doctor says LP should be *considered* in the investigation of autism. CSF was normal in all 5 children who had it taken.
International Clinical Medicine - not really relevant when looking at what is considered to be normal clinical practice in the UK. You can probably find an international "expert" to support almost any clinical practice if you look hard enough (for example it took me seconds to find a case study of ECT being used for the treatment of an autistic 11 year-old boy - see PMID: 21249407). Lumbar puncture in these circumstances is unusual enough to require specific ethics committee approval, and a proper neurological examination, neither of which were obtained.
Wakefield qualifications - he had none in histopathology and was expressly forbidden from having anything to do with the clinical management of patients by the terms of his contract (which is surely unusual for a qualified doctor). He has had his FRCPath revoked.
Colonoscopies - were normal and were not clinically indicated. Trained and qualified clinical histopathologists found that the biopsy samples taken during them were normal, by some means that is not clear this was then changed to diagnoses of "non-specific colitis" and the samples disappeared.
Jack Piper - was not one of the Lancet 12 but was clearly one of more than 100 other children (Wakefield spoke of 174 children in one interview) enrolled in the same program at the Royal Free in an attempt to find a link between gut problems and autism, and whose colonoscopy was done by the same medical team as the Lancet 12's. All I have suggested is that this proves that colonoscopy on children at the Royal Free was not risk free.
Aseptic meningitis - is often caused by viruses, and occasionally by live vaccines. The risk of aseptic meningitis even after Urabe MMR is a fraction of the risk of a lumbar puncture or a colonoscopy.
Legal Aid Board - paid out nearly £16 million (that's about $20 million) for the MR/MMR multi-party action, £439,553 of which went directly to Andrew Wakefield. This action did not result in a single child being compensated for vaccine injury; nearly all that money went to lawyers and doctors.
Journalist credentials - are irrelevant to any of this. As Brian Deer once put it on this blog, "If you like, I was telling them where the bodies were buried, in the hope that they would go and dig them up. Which is pretty much what happened." It seems very foolish to complain, in effect, that there was no murder because the person who found out where the bodies were buried was not a policeman.
Blackheart, you seem to have been wrong about all your substantial points so far.
I have downloaded the light reading you suggested. It points out that there are currently no known useful biomarkers for autism in CSF. One day some may be discovered, and CSF may become useful for investigating autism, and lumbar puncture may become part of normal clinical care of ASD patients, but that is not yet the case. The CSF samples taken by Wakefield's team were sent for standard tests that are useful for looking for organic metabolic disorders (which they did not have the symptoms of), not experimental biomarkers as discussed in that paper.
Krebiozen
Child 1 - No Lumbar *
Child 2 - Lumbar performed "Leaving aside Child 2, and I am leaving him aside because there are concessions as to the clinical indication of lumbar puncture ---
AI am sorry. Your voice is dropping away. " Prosecution / Thomas
Child 3 - "but it would still be my view that lumbar puncture would be an appropriate investigation, given the history" Paeditaric Neurologist Thomas and further " ...but if IÂ consider this patient on his own, without any other features, if he presented in my clinic, IÂ would consider doing a lumbar puncture on him."
Child 4 - No Lumbar *
Child 5 - No Lumbar *
Child 6 - No Lumbar *
Child 7 - No Lumbar *
Child 8 - No Lumbar *
Child 9 - Lumbar - Child 9 was given a Lumbar Puncture by a Paediatric neurologist at Chelsea and Westminster.
Obviously based on clinical investigation and need.
Thomas - "The question of why this child had the problem still remained. He had had a number of investigations in the past, and IÂ think it was appropriate to address that by examination of the cerebrospinal fluid."
Child 10 - . "I think that it is a clinical view that further investigation would be indicated and that that investigation might include a lumbar puncture, an examination of spinal fluid."
Child 11 - No Lumbar
Child 12 - Lumbar - "I cannot comment on that in relation to this child, because the records are not clear enough. As a sort of decision, if you are asking me whether IÂ think it is a reasonable investigation to do in the overall assessment of this child, then my answer would be yes; but IÂ cannot answer for the individuals involved at the time. It is not clear to me exactly why those things happened in that order."
Child 12's records are incomplete referral from the United States.
Summary - It is quite clear that expert evidence by a Paediatric Neurologist on rather limited access to just "medical notes" and without the access to the developmental records of each child and being able to talk directly to parents / caregivers and other specific medical staff is still of the expert opinion that Lumbar Puncture was indeed a necessary part of the clinical investigation of these children.
Further your case is undermined by the facts as set out that children 1 4 5 6 7 8 and 11 did not undergo LP. Thus clearly evidencing that LP was only undertaken when their was a clear clinical judgement to do so.
Further your case is undermined in that not one but several Paeditric neurologists and those specialising in Autism in the United Kingdom do indeed undertake LP as a part of their investigations most notably
Paediatric Neurologist Dr Cavanagh Chelsea Westminster (Westminster Children's Hospital)
Dr Robert Surtees paediatric neurologist at Great Ormond Street (Specialist Children's Hospital)
Autism Assessment Service Southampton Hospital.
Good Clinical Practice ... Good Clinical Judgement
What remains is that you have not given a substantial answer to what the underlying pathology or aetiology of the Lancet 12 is.....
Well one of a number of items you have skipped including Jack Piper.
Krebiozen.
"Unprejudiced my arse! Here's part of Wakefield's costing proposal that he sent to Richard Barr, the lawyer who was paying Wakefield to get evidence that could be used for litigation."
Are you suggesting that Andrew Wakefield performed or indeed ordered the clinical investigations ? Please present some evidence.
Are you suggesting that medical litigation is not a valid part of the medical/justice system ? Please clarify your reasoning.
herr doktor
You seem to have a some faulty underlying assumptions ...
You also seem to be putting out a call for further extra ordinary assistance from the 'minions' that reside on other sites. Obviously you feel it is required...
...and poor old Chris seems to think 'ignorance' is the best solution.
Krebiozen
CSF and Lumbar Punctures / International Clinical Medicine
Krebiozen -
Michael Rutter Renowned Psychiatrist
Blackheart -
Chris Gillberg Renowned Psychiatrist
Paediatric Neurologist Dr Cavanagh Chelsea Westminster
Dr Robert Surtees paediatric neurologist at Great Ormond Street
Autism Assessment Service Southampton Hospital.
Various Health Authorities in Europe and Scandanavia
Institute of Medicine - United States of America
Colonoscopies - Basically as above except even more robust.
Krebiozen
Evidence presented ?
Blackheart
Dr Christopher Williams Paeditaric colonoscopy expert
Dr John Walker-Smith Paeditaric Gastroenterologist expert with Lifetime achievement award
Professor Simon Murch Gastroenterology expert
Wakefield re professional standard either acaden=mic or medical in Histopathology.
Krebiozen
Evidence ?
You have presented no evidence only opinion that Andrew Wakefield had no 'qualifications' in Histopathology.
Blackheart
Senior Lecturer in Medicine and Histopathology
Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine (Teaching Hospital)
Membership Royal College of Pathology given in recognition of the high professional standards of Andrew Wakefield.
Numerous professional research articles, papers, lecturers and other professional related tasks.
Supervision and mentoring of medical/research students.
Senior Author / co author in research with duties including the collation and interpretation / review of histopathological data and evidence.
Director Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group.
Major University / International Standard.
You still haven't explained satisfactorily why he was appointed Senior Lecturer in Histopathology
Jack Piper
Krebiozen
No linked or corroborating evidence of any kind linking Wakefield , Murch or Walker-Smith. No mention in GMC transcripts which directly addressed Colonoscopies.
Aseptic meningitis
Krebiozen
Lame argument that it's less dangerous than colonoscopy / LP.
Blackheart
The medical authorities in
United Kingdom
Canada
New Zealand
Japan .... thought that the risk was "unaccceptable" and withdrew the vaccines. In regards to your vs LP / Colonoscopy I find it unrelated to the matter at hand and quite disingenuous.
Legal Aid Board
Do you have a point ? Or are you just splashing amounts of money around as a casual slur.
Journalist credentials ,/b>
You "wallied" on about Wakefield's credentials in regards to histopathology but when Deer outlines his 'opinion ' on any number of medical issues including a linked article to histopathology you somehow find that credible ? Guess what I don't.
Show me any clear evidence that Deer has any science or medical qualification or any body of evidence that he has met any 'professional standard' to talk about histopathology , autism , immunology etc etc.
I make the score Krebiozen - 0 Blackheart 9
That's a pretty sound 'intellectual thrashing'.
Johns Hopkins Medical - Why CSF is so valuable in understanding Autism.
"the presence of microscopic and immunological findings showing neuroimmune reactions in all of our autistic patients and the cytokine findings in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) support a potential role for neuroglia and neuroinflammation in the CNS effects in a number of individuals with autism."
"Our study has also demonstrated the presence of unique profiles of cytokine expression in the brain and CSF of subjects with autism. Two pro-inflammatory chemokines, MCP-1 and TARC, and an anti-inflammatory and modulatory cytokine, TGF-Ã1, were consistently elevated in the brain regions studied. MCP-1, a chemokine involved in innate immune reactions and an important mediator for monocyte and T-cell activation, and for trafficking into areas of tissue injury, appeared to be one of the most relevant proteins found in cytokine protein array studies. It was significantly elevated in both brain tissues and CSF. The presence of MCP-1 is of particular interest, since it facilitates the infiltration and accumulation of monocytes and macrophages in inflammatory CNS disease. "
"In our immunocytochemical studies, TGF- Ã1 was localized mostly within reactive astrocytes and neurons in the cerebellum. Purkinje cells that exhibited microscopic features of degeneration showed marked reactivity for TGF-Ã1. These findings suggest that the elevation of this cytokine in autism may reflect an attempt to modulate neuroinflammation or remodel and repair injured tissue."
"Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) studies also confirmed a prominent inflammatory cytokine profile in patients with autism. The presence of a marked increase of MCP-1 in CSF supports the hypothesis that pro-inflammatory pathways are activated in the brain of autistic patients."
"It remains unclear how and when microglia and astroglia become activated in the brain of autistic patients.
"Neuroglial responses in autism may be part of primary (intrinsic) reactions that result from disturbances in neuroglial function or neuronal-neuroglial interactions during brain development. They may also be secondary (extrinsic), resulting from unknown factors that disturb prenatal or postnatal CNS development (e.g. infections, toxins, etc). Both astrocytes and microglia are critical for brain development."
If you really think that, you are sadly deluded. I have repeatedly demonstrated you are wrong, but you ignore or evade my points, repeat your incorrect assertions, and then claim victory. It's pathetic.
Thankfully the GMC and the scientific community in general agree with me, not you, and Wakefield is no longer allowed to practice medicine. I look forward to Wakefield's appeal, that should be entertaining, though I very much doubt it will ever happen.
Oh well science rolls on ... (unfortunately slowed by unyeilding skeptiks).
Lancet - 1998
First, this mucosal abnormality has been apparent in 47/50 children within the autistic spectrum, whether or not there is any perceived link with immunisation. Thus the lymphoid hyperplasia/ microscopic colitis changes were found in over 90% of the autistic children studied.
Even if there is no immunodeficiency, the lymphoid hyperplasia in many cases is remarkable, with germinal centres showing higher numbers of proliferating (Ki67 positive) cells than we have detected in any immunodeficient controls with lymphoid hyperplasia.
We are very familiar with the detection of lymphoid hyperplasia in children with minor immunodeficiency, as are Lindley and Milla, and have published several reports on this topic. We were thus ideally placed to detect the exaggerated lesion found in many of these children. The colitis itself is variable, but may feature crypt abscesses, increased macrophage infiltration and unregulated class II major histocompatibility complex expression.
University of California : Davis 2011
"Researchers have for the first time identified two biologically different strains of autism in a breakthrough being compared with the discovery of different forms of cancer in the 1960s..."
Researchers from the University of California Davis's MIND Institute in Sacramento began the Autism Phenome Project in 2006. They have been studying the brain growth, environmental exposure and genetic make-up of 350 children aged between two and 3.5 years, and have so far found two biologically distinct subtypes of autistic brain development.
One group of children -- all boys -- had enlarged brains and most had regressed into autism after 18 months of age; another group appeared to have immune systems that were not functioning properly.
He says in biological terms there are different types of autism, but they all have similar symptoms.
"That's one of the mysteries at this point. We know that there are different biologies but that the behavioural symptoms of children with autism all look basically the same," he said.
"Many, many people now are trying to figure out whether all of these various biological causes are focusing on one final common pathway."
Professor Bruce Tonge, an autism expert from Monash Universityâs School of Psychology and Psychiatry, said Dr Amaralâs work built on previous research in the field.
âThese are important findings but not unexpected. We have known for many years that the number of conditions associated with autism are not one disorder. Thereâs likely to be different types, groups and causes,â he said.
âHe has been able to subtype the two different groups: one have overgrowth in their brains and the other group perhaps have abnormalities in their immune systems which may relate to factors inherited from their mothers.â (Don't mention the dreaded "V" word.)
âThis now generates hypotheses we now need to follow up. Why do these children have abnormalities in their immune system? It may not be the cause [of autism], it may be the consequence of a cause,â said Professor Tonge, who added that Dr Amaralâs work showed how crucial it is to collect detailed biomedical data on children with autism over a long period of time."
Fancy looking at the actual patient ... medical world is full of surprises.
Genetic Heritability and Shared Environmental Factors Among Twin Pairs With Autism.
Susceptibility to ASD has moderate genetic heritability and a substantial shared twin environmental component.
To provide rigorous quantitative estimates of genetic heritability of autism and the effects of shared environment.
A large proportion of the variance in liability can be explained by shared environmental factors (55%; 95% CI, 9%-81% for autism and 58%; 95% CI, 30%-80% for ASD) in addition to moderate genetic heritability (37%; 95% CI, 8%-84% for autism and 38%; 95% CI, 14%-67% for ASD).
ps Thanks to the Herr Doktor for the heads up...
No real citations. It can be assumed you pulled it out of thin air, or cut and pasted from whale.to.
Chris
Ye of little faith...
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/07/genetic-heritability-and-share…
It's where I get my best information from...thanks Herr Doktor
Apparently it is causing some concern ...
I was referring to the previous comment where you just spout off on the children, since the other had not been posted (it looks like it was held in moderation). Plus it does not say what you think it says. The "shared environment" is before birth, and has nothing to do with vaccines (mostly with vitamin level and some pollution issues).
Still waiting to see what verification you have on which MMR vaccine Wakefield was studying. The UK version with the Urabe mumps component, the UK version with the Jeryl Lynn mumps component, and why was there an American child who had had the American version with the Jeryl Lynn component. And if the major difference was the mumps strain, why go on about measles?
And show exactly in the now retracted Lancet paper it mentions the mumps strain, and which vaccine.
And since your comments are commonly in moderation, I could have missed it.
Chris
I was referring to the previous comment where you just spout off on the children,
The Autism Genome Project is also referenced from LeftBrain.
Plus it does not say what you think it says. The "shared environment" is before birth, and has nothing to do with vaccines (mostly with vitamin level and some pollution issues).
That's not how I read Twin studies and environmental factors but I agree there are number of investigative routes one could take. Maternal antibodies for instance.
As there is evidence from the actual physiology of autisitic patients of neuroinflammatory mechanisms and the immune system dysfunction I would imagine that any medication that works specifically on the immune system would be a prime candidate for investigation.
"Because of the reported high heritability
of autism, a major focus of research in autism has been
on finding the underlying genetic causes, with less emphasis on potential environmental triggers or causes. The finding of significant influence of the shared environment, experiences that are common to both twin individuals, may be important for future research paradigms. 23 Increasingly, evidence is accumulating that overt symptoms of autism emerge around the end of the first year of life. Because the prenatal environment and early postnatal environment >/b> are shared between twin individuals, we hypothesize that at least some of the environmental factors impacting susceptibility to autism exert their effect during this critical period of life."
Still waiting to see what verification you have on which MMR vaccine Wakefield was studying.
A variety of MMR was used in the UK and from different manufacturers ... do I think it is important at this stage ? If you have a clear point you are welcome to make it.
"And if the major difference was the mumps strain, why go on about measles?"
Andrew Wakefield had already undertaken work in measles and Crohn's Disease.
From the Lancet paper ...
Asperger first recorded the link between coeliac disease and behavioural psychoses.
4 Walker-Smith and colleagues5 detected low concentrations of alpha-1 antitrypsin in children with typical autism, and D'Eufemia and colleagues6 identified abnormal intestinal permeability, a feature of small intestinal enteropathy, in 43% of a group of autistic children with no gastrointestinal symptoms, but not in matched controls. These studies, together with our own, including evidence of anaemia and IgA deficiency in some children, would support the hypothesis that the consequences of an inflamed or dysfunctional intestine may play a part in behavioural changes in some children.
"In the context of susceptibility to infection, a genetic association with autism, linked to a null allele of the complement (C) 4B gene located in the class III region of the major-histocompatibility complex, has been recorded by Warren and colleagues.24 C4B-gene products are crucial for the activation of the complement pathway and protection against infection: individuals inheriting one or two C4B null alleles may not handle certain viruses appropriately, possibly including attenuated strains."
And show exactly in the now retracted Lancet paper it mentions the mumps strain, and which vaccine.
I'm not aware that it does.
Then why did you say: "That would be Priorix. Manufactured by the same company and in the same premises I believe as Urabe Strain vaccine Pluserix / Trivirix."?
Do you often just make up an answer without thinking about it?
What evidence do you have that the MMR vaccine with the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps carries a greater risk than measles, mumps and rubella?
Or better yet, what evidence do you have that Wakefield is even relevant? Even if he had not committed fraud, it was a tiny case study that found no relationship between autism and any gastrointestinal problems (that were made up) in the children and any of any of at least three MMR vaccines. Wakefield's first lie was saying things in the press release that were no even supported by the paper.
He is now just shilling for conspiracy theorists and supplement sellers. Why is he still worth defending? Why did you lie so much in his defense?
Chris
Do you often just make up an answer without thinking about it?
I made a simplistic answer to a rather simplistic question. If you had wished me to make a detailed answer I may have been able to do so ... but I was being polite as always and trying to answer as many questions as possible.
What evidence do you have that the MMR vaccine with the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps carries a greater risk than measles, mumps and rubella?
I would point out that there is a public expectation that a vaccine is safer than the disease it is supposed to protect against. If your scenario was correct there would not be a health authority , one hopes , that would continue issuing that particular vaccine.
Obviously there is some sort of risk / benefit that governments and public health authorities weigh. As seen in the withdrawal of two earlier measles vaccines.
Or better yet, what evidence do you have that Wakefield is even relevant?
Why is Andrew Wakefield , John Walker-Smith and the Lancet 12 paper relevant. That's quite a good question would you like a simplistic response or a detailed one ?
it was a tiny case study that found no relationship between autism and any gastrointestinal problems
I'd certainly disagree with that.
Why is he still worth defending?
Have you ever considered that you may be wrong on any number of issues ?
Why did you lie so much in his defense?
Chris you should spend more time formulating interesting questions than accussing me of lying.
Actually, you are still lying. The question was not simplistic, it showed that you did not know about the different varieties of MMR vaccine that the dozen children had received. It also showed that you nothing about study designs where if the goal is to show there is an issue with a product, like a vaccine, that the type of vaccines must be minimized.
Now the fact that you cannot answer my "simplistic" questions is quite telling.
Now, answer this "simplistic" question: Why is the now retracted Lancet study more relevant than this attempt to replicated it:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
Many more children, and better science. No replication.
What Wakefield did is dead in the water. He is nothing. Clinging to that past is desperate and very sad.
Chris
The question was not simplistic...
When someone makes the following statement ...
"And to the idiot liar, Blackheart ... that showed Wakefield was wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong."
One assumes it best to build their case from the simple concepts first.
"It also showed that you nothing about study designs where if the goal is to show there is an issue with a product, like a vaccine, that the type of vaccines must be minimized."
Why ... if it is the measles component of the vaccine that is alleged to be the cause.
"Now, answer this "simplistic" question: Why is the now retracted Lancet study more relevant than this attempt to replicated it:"
Because it was a clinical investigation of the actual physiology of children where parents / caregivers associated developmental regression with MMR vaccine.
What varieties of MMR vaccines did those children in the Hornig paper receive ? (note how this relates to your previous argument)
Subject Characteristics Autism Group / Controls
Number 25 / 13
Male 92 / 69 %
Female 8 / 31 %
Ethnicity Caucasian 72 / 92 %
Age at First MMR - 15.3 / 16.0
First episode of GI 12 months / 2 months
MMR before onset 52%
MMR after onset 48%
"MMR before GI onset - ASD Group 48% v 23%
Cases had a high rate of CPEA-defined behavioral regression (loss of language and/or other skills following acquisition), 88%, compared to published rates of 20â40% for the general ASD population [27], [40].
I was also interested in what this means in regards to the work undertaken by the Lancet 12 team particularly John Walker-Smith. It also reinforces once again that parents were honestly reporting a significant "regression".
Autism with GI disturbances is associated with elevated rates of regression in language or other skills and may represent an endophenotype distinct from other ASD.
There's an interesting conclusion that reinforces the work undertaken by John Walker-Smith and now University of California.
Table 4 Number and frequency of AUT/GI subjects receiving MMR before or after GI onset and with index GI episode before or after
MMR before GI
-------------
GI before ASD = 31% GI after ASD = 78%
GI before ASD = 69% GI after ASD = 22%
Cases failing to meet full DSM-IV-TR criteria for AUT (299.00 code) were excluded from further analysis, including subjects with diagnoses of any DSM-IV-TR pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) other than AUT (PDD-Not Otherwise Specified, Asperger's Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Rett's Disorder) or genetic syndromes associated with ASD features (Fragile X, tuberous sclerosis, neurofibromatosis, trisomy 21).
Lancet 12 paper Heading
Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific
colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children
also
"We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder."
"Authors - John J. O'Leary Trinity College Dublin"
O'Leary reports on his own work ?
Competing interests: Authors JOL and OS were compensated for expert witness statements concerning MMR vaccine and autism on behalf of claimants in litigation in the United Kingdom.
That's John O'Leary - apparently according to the BMJ articles
"Unigenetics Ltd, incorporated in February 1999 with a Dublin pathologist, John OâLeary.
Unigenetics was awardedâwithout checksâ£800 000 of taxpayersâ money 28 to perform polymerase chain reaction tests on bowel tissue and blood samples from children passing through Malcolm ward."
Institute of Medicine Vaccine Report 2011
re: Hornig paper - The publication did not contribute to the weight of mechanistic evidence
Not as black and white as you supposed Chris ... this study is actually a convoluted piece of research that has differing interpretations in regards to the Wakefield Lancet 12 paper and the hypotheses drawn around it.
Published criticism
Lack of random selection of subjects, and the small sample size strongly weaken external validity, thereby minimizing the ability to generalize the results of the study to other studies or general conclusions regarding the relationship between autism and measles virus vaccine. (Campbell and Stanley, 1966).
2. The small sample size, unequal size of the comparison groups, use of weak non-parametric statistics, and the lack of a completely blind protocol render the study lacking in internal validity (Campbell and Stanley, 1966).The use of non-parametric statistics is particularly puzzling as the data are parametric (Cohen, 1965; Stevens, 1957).
blackheart:
There are differences in the measles strain. And it should be noted he was hired by the lawyer initially for the problems with the Urabe mumps strain.
The "published criticism" is the same as for the Lancet paper. It is laughable that you can say "The small sample size, unequal size of the comparison groups, use of weak non-parametric statistics," when it had a larger set size than twelve, and Wakefield even weeded out kids who did not fit.
Your comments in no way show it is less relevant than the now fully retracted Lancet paper. Big fail.
Now explain why the following papers are less relevant to the now retracted Lancet paper. Note they all contain a common author who was also from the Royal Free Hospital:
Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.
Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I, Li J, Waight PA.
Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9.
MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association.
Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B.
Vaccine. 2001 Jun 14;19(27):3632-5.
Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.
Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J.
BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6.
Chris
There are differences in the measles strain.
Cases had a high rate of CPEA-defined behavioral regression (loss of language and/or other skills following acquisition), 88%, compared to published rates of 20â40% for the general ASD population.
The "published criticism" is the same as for the Lancet paper.
Well no it isn't ... but of course anyone can see the limitations of this Early Report. Did you note this ...
Addendum:
Up to Jan 28, a further 40 patients have been assessed; 39 with the syndrome.
"Your comments in no way show it is less relevant than the now fully retracted Lancet paper. Big fail."
The one thing that paper does is actually reinforce the high rate of regression 88%.
Note they all contain a common author who was also from the Royal Free Hospital
Yes I did notice that ... I like skittles.
Institute of Medicine Report Vaccine Safety 2011
Five controlled studies (DeStefano et al., 2004; Richler et al., 2006; Schultz et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2002; Uchiyama et al., 2007) had very serious methodological limitations that precluded their inclusion in this assessment.
Taylor et al. (2002) inadequately described the data analysis used to compare autism compounded by serious bowel problems or regression (cases) with autism free of such problems (controls).
One down....
--------------------------------------------------------
Taylor 1999 and 2001
I couldn't find one ?
We undertook an epidemiological study to investigate whether measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may be causally associated with autism.
We do not think that epidemiological studies have the necessary robustness to identify cases involving different Autism Genomes. see University of California research 2011.
Children with autism born since 1979 were identified from special needs/disability registers and special schools in eight North Thames health districts
a) The use of special needs registers and special schools information could be problematic
b) The geographical location North Thames is not a representative sampling of children in the UK and thus is problematic.
c) "were identified" I could locate the assessment manual used ICD10. But I could not see which researcher had the necessary qualifications to do so.
"Brent Taylor, Christina Petropoulos, and Isabelle Favot-Mayaud were responsible for case identification and ascertainment."
We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome).
a) I was unable to see how many records were searched and thus have an understanding of the incidence of Autism in the Northern Thames Health District as compared to other studies. This may be problematic.
b) I was surprised that Core Autism 261 'outnumbered' the cases of PDD and Asperger's 237
"Most recent reviews of epidemiology estimate a prevalence of one to two cases per 1,000 people for autism, and about six per 1,000 for ASD;[1]"
Newschaffer CJ, Croen LA, Daniels J et al. The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders
A 2006 study of nearly 57,000 British nine- and ten-year-olds reported a prevalence of 3.89 per 1,000 for autism and 11.61 per 1,000 for ASD; these higher figures could be associated with broadening diagnostic criteria
Baird G, Simonoff E, Pickles A et al. Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP). Lancet. 2006;368(9531):210â5.
---------------------------------------
I would imagine that should suffice for now.... perhaps you could clear up some of those "problematic matters"
... or is that a strike ?
Blackheart,
In your comments I find it extremely difficult to follow what you have written, what is a quote from another commenter, and what is a direct quote from a source you cite. It would be helpful if you made this a bit clearer.
You quoted the IOM report, which also stated:
And:
And:
This is clearly a dead hypothesis.
Krebiozen
"It would be helpful if you made this a bit clearer."
Institute of Medicine Report Vaccine Safety 2011
Five controlled studies (DeStefano et al., 2004; Richler et al., 2006; Schultz et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2002; Uchiyama et al., 2007) had very serious methodological limitations that precluded their inclusion in this assessment.
Taylor et al. (2002) inadequately described the data analysis used to compare autism compounded by serious bowel problems or regression (cases) with autism free of such problems (controls).
One down
---------------------------------------------------------
IOM
"The committee has a high degree of confidence in the epidemiologic evidence based on four studies with validity and precision to assess an association between MMR vaccine and autism; these studies consistently report a null association."
How many studies were originally presented as evidence ?
What were the studies rejected for ?
How many studies are left ?
What does this say about the nature of the research surrounding this issue ?
What is the hypothesis they are investigating ?
Is this the correct hypothesis ?
Are there other hypotheses that can be generated by the Wakefield / Walker-Smith work ?
Are there any problems in regards to the remaining studies ?
Is epidemiology the correct'scientific tool' to investigate neurodevelopmental disorders that are difficult to assess ?
So many questions yet to be answered.
--------------------------------------------------------
IOM
"The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism."
Does it ? You should know that the data is more important than the conclusion.
Do they match the rather high expectations.
-------------------------------------------------------
This is clearly a dead hypothesis.
What hypothesis is that ?
Krebiozen:
That is because he is flailing around. He has no argument, and is purposely obscuring everything tiny insignificant details.
Last I saw Dr. Brent Taylor and Dr. Mady Hornig are still gainfully employed in science, and continue to get published in real journals. While Wakefield is making videos for conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.
The science has been done, the link between vaccines and autism does not exist. It is a dead link⦠âItâs not pininâ! âItâs passed on! This link is no more! It has ceased to be! Itâs expired and gone to meet its maker! Itâs a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadnât nailed it to the perch itâd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now âistory! Itâs off the twig! Itâs kicked the bucket, itâs shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedinâ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-LINK!! â (hat-tip to Monty Python and the dead parrot sketch)
Chris
Run out of epidemiological studies already ... ?
Thanks for your participation that seems to conclude the many and varied "argumentative statements" from skeptiks.
Skeptiks 0 - Blackheart 10
That must be very ...
Actually, I got bored with your lying obtuseness (and lack of spelling). Do you really want more epidemiological studies? You didn't even understand the ones you were given. Your "opinion" is absolutely worthless.
Seriously, what is Wakefield doing these days? Going to conferences where they talk about the Illuminati and black helicopters. Seriously, the guy is a joke. And so are you.
Chris
There's no need to start making up conspiracy theories like other commentators in this matter.
If you have a scientific argument to make you should make it. Otherwise each time you resort to this line of 'attack' all it does is belittle any 'intellectual' credibility you may have had.
It seems to be a common theme on these forums and I can't see any justification for why anyone here deludes themselves into thinking they are anything but either 'minions' or as rightly pointed out in my first comment 'sheep'.
At least for periods of time Krebiozen and yourself made some attempt at posting evidence and you are to be congratulated on that fine effort.
Look well done .... next time I'll shout you a beer and next time you talk to Orac tell him he owes me one to.
I'm off to do something more constuctive ... so should you.
regards to all
Wow, you are an idiot.
By the way, explaining that Wakefield's last gigs were with conspiracy mongers is not "making up conspiracy theories" when it is true: Itâs official: Wakefield joins the ranks of Truthers, New World Order conspiracists.
He has also been featured on several InfoWar videos with the likes of Alex Jones, Richard Gage (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth), and Mike Adams (NaturalNews).
He is a joke. And you have become very boring.
Blackheart:
So you don't like conspiracy theories, you just think that all the commenters here are part of a conspiracy. Hilarious.
"I'm off to do something more constuctive"
I agree that you should certainly start doing something constructive.
Blackheart, one of your first lines of attack consisted of guilt by association. Don't be surprised that nobody here takes you seriously.
Gray Falcon
C'mon it took you 531 posts to figure that out.
ummmm.....what do you think Chris and all the other skeptiks do all day.
Look at Chris as soon as the science ends he goes for the man ...
One poster comes along and uses the actual evidence and they fall down like some kiddies clown game.
Play the science not the man. You guys can't beat me on the science or the evidence.
You have shown you do not understand the science. You demonstrated that by citing the IOM report as evidence the MMR vaccine had greater risk than measles, mumps and rubella.
As it stands, Wakefield had no evidence to support his statements in the 1998 press release for parents to ask for single vaccines. And has Ruth noted, there were several MMR vaccines being used in the UK between 1988 and 1992, something Wakefield did not know.
No, I needed to point it out to you.
Presented evidence. You know, science. You suggested that science reject ideas because you thought they were absurd.
Unfortunately their evidence failed the most mundane of questioning... so they rely on a bag of dirty tricks.
Oh well so much for science rationalism....you live or die by the evidence (so to speak)...
An article about blackheart.
Thanks Chris ... Just insert the word skeptik for troll.
I see you are still unable to provide evidence for your position. I think that would apply to numbers ...
1 2 3 4.
When you've read and understood the evidence Chris I'll be happy to debate you on any point.
The issue is, troll, I have read and do understand the evidence, but you do not. And you cannot communicate without lying. And you are really boring.
When you have finished 'rending your garments and gnashing your teeth" perhaps you'd like to produce some evidenced based counter arguments to points previously raised.
This is the song that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some trolls started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they just kept on singing it and this is what it was.
Blackheart's given up on everything else and has been reduced to declaring his victory repeatedly on an old thread. Pathetic.
Thanks boys ...I was being magnanimous.
MAGNANIMITY, n. [L. magnanimitas; magnus, great, and animus, mind.] Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects
It's not missile telemetry ...
You as a "skeptik" have to show ...
1. Vaccine clinical trial data that shows the efficacy and safety of the vaccines in this issue.
2. You have to produce evidence preferrably from independent sources (not drug companies and government departments that were going to be legally liable) that shows no association with developmental disorders or other negative health outcomes.
3. You have to show by evidence that medical science has undertaken a thorough physiological and genetic 'work up' of autistic patients that rules out developmental disorders or other negative health outcomes.
4. You have to show and evidence a clear pathology for those developmental disorders or other negative health outcomes.
This is the song that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some trolls started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they just kept on singing it and this is what it was.
Blackheart, do you understand the concept of "burden of proof"? You made several accusations, so you had better have some evidence to back them up! Of course, if you're "just asking questions", I can ask questions. Blackheart, is it true you regularly eat puppies?
Gray Falcon
"Blackheart, do you understand the concept of "burden of proof"?"
Yes ... that's why I'm asking for proof.
"You made several accusations, so you had better have some evidence to back them up!"
I have ? What "accussations" are they ?
Of course, if you're "just asking questions", I can ask questions.
Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.
Ronald Reagan
This is the song that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some trolls started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they just kept on singing it and this is what it was.
Blackheart,
I thought you had gone, back at #527 you bade us all farewell.
You ask for:
The IoM report takes a very fair and comprehensive look at the evidence and, as I have previously mentioned, concludes:
That seems pretty good to me.
As previously discussed, the IoM concluded that even large clinical trials do not have the statistical power to rule out extremely rare negative health outcomes. Scientifically speaking all you can say is that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that vaccines cause such outcomes. I know that various antivaccine organizations have seized upon this as evidence that vaccines DO cause these extremely rare outcomes, but that is simply ignorance on their part. Since we know that the negative health outcomes of measles, mumps and rubella are very much more common than the rarest negative health outcomes clinical studies could possibly detect, it makes sense to vaccinate.
The US has a very fair system that compensates for any conditions that could possibly have been caused by vaccines. The UK (I assume you are in the UK) is less fair, and I think that needs to change. I think anyone with a child who has developmental problems for whatever reason should be properly looked after financially by their government, but that's another matter.
What does this even mean? Autistic patients have been very thoroughly investigated many times. For example we know that they can have elevated cytokine levels in their CSF. This doesn't help with diagnosis, or lead to any new treatment, so doing yet more lumbar punctures and cytokine levels is a waste of time and is unpleasant and potentially dangerous for patients.
Anyway, autism IS a developmental disorder, so how can you rule this out? Are you suggesting that some children are particularly vulnerable to vaccine damage because of underlying disorders? If so, they will very likely be even more susceptible to damage by infection by the diseases that vaccines are intended to prevent. Some mitochondrial disorders, for example, make children vulnerable to encephalopathy when they suffer a fever from any cause.
You mean vaccines should be considered guilty until some other cause has been elucidated? Why not blame TV and video, or indoor molds, or some other unlikely environmental factor that has more plausibility and more epidemiological evidence behind it than vaccines?
It is a terrible shame that such a huge amount time and money has been squandered on investigating an implausible and unsupported hypothesis as vaccines causing autism. It has probably set back our understanding of this disorder decades and caused incalculable suffering. Yet some people still insist on pursuing this dead hypothesis, for reasons that I simply do not understand.
Krebiozen:
See lyrics to the song I posted.
Krebiozen
The IoM report takes a very fair and comprehensive look at the evidence and, as I have previously mentioned, concludes
You obviously do not understand what clinical trial information is or you are attempting to dodge the production of that information.
IoM concluded that even large clinical trials do not have the statistical power to rule out extremely rare negative health outcomes.
I see no evidence that the IoM had access or used clinical trial information in it's conclusions.
Since we know that the negative health outcomes of measles, mumps and rubella are very much more common than the rarest negative health outcomes clinical studies could possibly detect, it makes sense to vaccinate.
What active surveillance system did you use to come to that conclusion ?
What does this even mean? Autistic patients have been very thoroughly investigated many times. For example we know that they can have elevated cytokine levels in their CSF. This doesn't help with diagnosis, or lead to any new treatment, so doing yet more lumbar punctures and cytokine levels is a waste of time and is unpleasant and potentially dangerous for patients.
That's a surprising answer ... for instance cytokine profiles offer a range of diagnosis hypotheses that can be explored most notably immune system dysfunction.
Johns Hopkins Medical
"the presence of microscopic and immunological findings showing neuroimmune reactions in all of our autistic patients and the cytokine findings in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) support a potential role for neuroglia and neuroinflammation in the CNS effects in a number of individuals with autism."
"Our study has also demonstrated the presence of unique profiles of cytokine expression in the brain and CSF of subjects with autism."
This doesn't help with diagnosis, or lead to any new treatment, so doing yet more lumbar punctures and cytokine levels is a waste of time and is unpleasant and potentially dangerous for patients.
See above. If the cytokine expression could be matched to a known pathology ...well.
"Anyway, autism IS a developmental disorder, so how can you rule this out?"
That point is now very much in doubt. University of California researchers have identified two differing Autism phenotypes.
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/research/app/
or alternatively miltant skeptik friendly link at ...
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/09/autism-phenome-project-announc…
You mean vaccines should be considered guilty until some other cause has been elucidated?
Vaccine interaction on a developing immune system would be a very good, biologically plausible, candidate for a 'disease / condition' that had at its heart immune system dysfunction. Whether its role or primary / secondary or even non existent would be worthy of investigation ....that's what science does....
"It has probably set back our understanding of this disorder decades and caused incalculable suffering. Yet some people still insist on pursuing this dead hypothesis, for reasons that I simply do not understand.
Probably because you don't see or ignore the wider picture of what science is informing us of autism. Especially the physiology of autism children.
The investigation has been done, the verdict is "not guilty."
blackheart:
Everything offers a range of hypotheses, but I'm not going to let someone puncture my child's lumbar meninges for the sake of a hypothesis. I've had four lumbar punctures myself, and I'm not going to ask that of my child without a damn good reason. Not a hunch, not a speculation, and certainly not a damn fishing expedition, which is, quite bluntly, what you are proposing.
Gray Falcon
The investigation has been done, the verdict is "not guilty."
Not guilty of what ? At least two MMR vaccines were withdrawn over severe adverse reactions in the UK, Vaccines were also withdrawn in Canada , Japan, the Philippines ...
In Japan
"An analysis of vaccinations over a three-month period showed one in every 900 children was experiencing problems. This was over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate of one child in every 100,000 to 200,000."
Another measles vaccine was withdrawn as it was associated with a increased child mortality. It could have cost at least 500,000 additional female deaths per year in Africa alone.
You should do some real research some time...
Calli Arcale
I'm not going to let someone puncture my child's lumbar meninges for the sake of a hypothesis
I'm surprised you find medical research so abominable it's what has led to vast improvements in our health and well being.
As far as being a hypothesis I think the evidence is pretty well confirmed that there is a set of children where immune system dysfunction is directly related to their 'autism".
For skeptiks you guys and girls are particularly backward looking when it comes to science.
This is the song that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some trolls started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they just kept on singing it and this is what it was.
Chris
Sorry but science is moving forward ... leaving the last of the skeptik neanderthals behind.
That's nice. Why don't you go away and discuss it with those nice folks who think the evidence is pretty well confirmed that Obama was born in Kenya? You can have a look at the latest Kenyan birth certificate which is of unquestionable validity, having been turned up by ... some guy on the Internet. It's even better than their last unquestionably confirmed evidence, as this one doesn't get the name of the country wrong.
That's what got Wakefield in trouble, you know: thinking that medical research alone is sufficient justification for invasive procedures, not clinically indicated, on children. The general consensus is that medical research can progress adequately while at the same time human subjects are protected from abuse or unnecessary procedures.
Said the person quoting the Daily Mail, which doesn't seem to be on my list of journals for Continuing Professional Development in immunology.
Even if that is true, why would the antigens on vaccines have such a different effect to the thousands of antigens a child is exposed to every day? To quote Paul Offit:
How does a child with immune system dysfunction respond perfectly well to these thousands of potentially pathogenic insults to their immune system, yet respond with a developmental disorder when exposed to a relatively tiny amount of antigen in a vaccine? How does it tell one antigen from another? It makes no sense.
That always seems to be the last cry of the person whose implausible ideas have been tested, found to be false and been consigned to the dustbin of history. That is the cry of the homeopath, the acupuncturist and the therapeutic touch therapist. No one of any influence or importance, or who has any say over public health policy takes any of this seriously, thankfully.
Blackheart, you crow like someone who has won some great victory, but you have actually suffered a humiliating defeat, and won't even recognize it. It's just sad.
troll:
Pot, meet kettle.
Funny stuff from a guy who does not understand that the science has advance past a retracted 1998 paper where children were forced to undergo painful invasive procedures for no good reason. And who refuses to acknowledge or understand the several studies posted that showed Wakefield was wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong.
But you've been told this before. Several times, over and over and over again, and yet: you keep repeating the same nonsense.
To repeat:
This is the song that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some trolls started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they just kept on singing it and this is what it was.
When I saw blackheart's comment this morning about
I was reminded of this headline article from CNN this morning about "skeptics" being left behind by science:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-…
Of course, the real skeptics are looking carefully at the evidence and analysis and coming to a conclusion based on it, not just refusing to accept it because they don't like the conclusion or its implications.
Antaeus Feldspar
"That's nice"
Yes it is. The discovery of an underlying pathology for autism would be one of the great medical events of this century.
As far as the rest of your post ...meh.
LW
"That's what got Wakefield in trouble, you know"
I think this has been adequately covered previously . Post 503 etc
Krebiozen
"Said the person quoting the Daily Mail..."
So your disputing the figures then given by Japanese Health Officials ? Perhaps you have an alternative source on the Japanese experience ?
"How does a child with immune system dysfunction respond perfectly well to these thousands of potentially pathogenic insults to their immune system, yet respond with a developmental disorder when exposed to a relatively tiny amount of antigen in a vaccine? How does it tell one antigen from another? It makes no sense."
Probably because we are not all genetically the same.
Nor are "pathogenic insults" the same.
There may be other factors such as windows of 'opportunity' when a child's developing immune system is at particular risk. It could relate to timing and schedule or order of insults.
It could be interactions between viruses or all those elements in gut pathology.
Perhaps you could outline the validity of clinical trials where childhood vaccines are 'tested' on adults rather than children ?
That always seems to be the last cry of the person whose implausible ideas have been tested
Huh ... Immune system dysfunction in autism has been established by researchers from University of California Medical , Johns Hopkins , Harvard and many others.
It seems you and your fellow skeptiks are ones with a rather closed mind set.
Perhaps you'd like to outline on behalf of your fellow skeptikal minions a theory of autism pathology or perhaps you don't even think there is one ?
Chris
"Wakefield was wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong."
That team of researchers Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith inclusive have pioneered research that has led to new understandings on.
Autism phenotypes
Autism and gut pathology including microscopic colitis.
Autism behaviours and gut pathology.
Autism and Immune system dysfunction.
The use of CSF investigation in autistic patients.
The role of inflammation in autism.
Gene expression in autism.
Fancy looking at the actual physiology of autistic children ... I'm surprised you've actually moved on from 'refrigerator mom's" and phrenology.
Or is autism all in the mind ? Really quite interested in your explanation of autism aetiology.
squirrelelite
"Of course, the real skeptics are looking carefully at the evidence and analysis and coming to a conclusion based on it, not just refusing to accept it because they don't like the conclusion or its implications.
I am blushing at the high praise for my skeptical (as oppossed to skeptikal) position.
It is interesting as you say that fellow posters on these forums can not accept the clear evidence of immune system dysfunction or the equally clear evidence of a rise in Autism Spectrum diagnosis from varied sources and data sets.
Equally surprising is the robust evidence of increases in child mortality associated with some vaccines.
Perhaps the lives of third world children notably girls doesn't register on the 'skeptikal' radar ?
I suppose what follows is some attacks on 'moi' and insincere apologist polemics.
Blackheart,
Those were figures reported by the Daily Mail, but newspapers often get it wrong, so please forgive me for not taking that quote too seriously. You claim that quote is evidence for MMR causing autism, yet it refers to the Urabe mumps component, which we know has side effects and which has been withdrawn in most countries. Even so, do you have some evidence that any of the "problems" referred to in the article included autism? Can you give a reference to a peer-reviewed journal that confirms these figures?
As I understand it since abandoning MMR Japan has had outbreaks of measles, mumps and rubella that have caused far more problems than the vaccine did. "According to an infectious disease surveillance (2000), total measles cases were estimated to be from 180,000 to 210,000, and total deaths were estimated to be 88." Three deaths that might have been caused by the vaccine, against 88 deaths definitely caused by measles seems to be the Japanese experience. Also, there has been no fall in autism diagnoses since they stopped using MMR.
What window of opportunity is there in which a child is not exposed to thousands of natural antigens and potential pathogens? Only a few decades ago they were exposed to even more pathogens than today, what with vaccine-preventable diseases being so common. Sorry, but this just isn't a plausible hypothesis, especially in the absence of any evidence at all to support it.
There may be a connection with immune system dysfunction in some cases of autism, but this does not mean there is any connection with vaccines. You seem to think any evidence of immune dysfunction in autism means that vaccines cause autism. That just doesn't follow at all. As far as the immune system is concerned there is no real difference between a natural antigen and a vaccine antigen. If a child is particularly vulnerable to a fever caused by a vaccine, they will be even more vulnerable to one caused by measles, for example. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
Because we refuse to believe a hypothesis that has been tested (and tested and tested) and has failed? Perhaps you have an unusual idea of what "a rather closed mind set" means.
I don't think there is a plausible hypothesis that explains the majority of cases of autism. I think it's better to admit ignorance than to blindly adhere to a hypothesis that has no plausible evidence to support it.
Is there any particular reason we should care what blackheart thinks? He has shown himself resistant to any new information, especially when he morphs it into something that is completely contrary to reality. He is using the classic troll behavior of repeating erroneous statements like:
Autism phenotypes
Autism and gut pathology including microscopic colitis.
Autism behaviours and gut pathology.
Autism and Immune system dysfunction.
The use of CSF investigation in autistic patients.
The role of inflammation in autism.
Gene expression in autism.
Which is interesting in that many of them are wrong, and the one that is correct cannot be attributed to Wakefield. Wakefield is a fraud, and worshiping him like some kind of "autism idol" is just sad.
Krebiozen
"Those were figures reported by the Daily Mail, but newspapers often get it wrong..."
You were asked for evidence to support your viewpoint. Perhaps you need some more time to provide it.
I'm also interested that you feel that we should set aside commentary from journalists ...
You claim that quote is evidence for MMR causing autism
I do ? Nice hyperbole but what I said was somewhat different. I said science needs to investigate whether there is a role for vaccines in diseases / conditions that have an immune system component.
I'm also pointing out that vaccines have severe adverse effects...some are even non specific effects.
... and that the UK government ignored clear health and safety warnings about the vaccine to the detriment of the general public...
The issues surrounding vaccine health and safety are far more complex than what you obviously understand.
As I understand it since abandoning MMR Japan has had outbreaks of measles, mumps and rubella that have caused far more problems than the vaccine did.
Then perhaps you should frame your questions to Japanese Public Health authorities. Obviously they have far more explicit data and have made a conscientious public health decision not to use MMR.
Why ?
According to an infectious disease surveillance (2000), total measles cases were estimated to be from 180,000 to 210,000
I couldn't gain access to the report you were referencing and thus the time period this was over or whether the situation had significantly changed from the year 2000.
Once again though you'll have to write to the Ministry concerned and ask them why they have made this decision.
What window of opportunity is there in which a child is not exposed to thousands of natural antigens and potential pathogens?
Well then one may surmise one window might be the waning of maternal antibodies.
http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1626.abstract
Remember Krebiozen not all infants are gentically the same and not all pathogens operate in the same way.
Differing antigens and potential pathogens have differing effects on gene expression.
You seem to think any evidence of immune dysfunction in autism means that vaccines cause autism.
Once again nice hyperbole ... unlike yourself I haven't assumed that the science around vaccinations has been satisfactorily answered.
There is quite clearly evidenced immune system dysfunction in autism which is shown by the actual physiology of autistic patients. Any direct insult on the developing immune system during this critical time of development would be an obvious candidate for scientific investigation.
If a child is particularly vulnerable to a fever caused by a vaccine, they will be even more vulnerable to one caused by measles, for example. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
Some children may well have a genetic risk for such an insult and this could well be related to gene expression inclusive of fever and inflammation 'control'. There's more than enough literature on this particular topic.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/environmental-influences-on-ge…
Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
Well perhaps you could explain this ...
"One of the most important findings was that a new measles vaccine used in low-income countries was associated with a two-fold increase in mortality among girls. This discovery led to the withdrawal of the vaccine. Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone.
Because we refuse to believe a hypothesis that has been tested (and tested and tested) and has failed?
Tested how ? I've asked for some robust evidence but all I'm getting is very flawed epidemiological evidence.
In fact the Institute of medicine rejected 18 / 22 epidemiological studies investigating MMR and Autism.
That's a whopping 82% and question marks arise over the remaining.
Of the remaining 4 (two shared the same data), one found
âThe study did find a positive association between MMR vaccination and first parental concerns in the first six months following vaccination.â
...and guess what the Honda / Rutter paper you cited above was rejected also...
"because they provided data from a passive surveillance system lacking an unvaccinated comparison population or an ecological comparison study lacking individual level data.â
I think it's better to admit ignorance than to blindly adhere to a hypothesis that has no plausible evidence to support it.
Good then we'll let real scientists go about their business without prejudiced interference from 'skeptiks'.
Chris
"Which is interesting in that many of them are wrong..."
In what way ... pioneering research is often about opening up science ... not closing doors like you and your fellow 'skeptiks".
Are you closing the door on ...
>b>
Autism phenotypes
Autism and gut pathology including microscopic colitis.
Autism behaviours and gut pathology.
Autism and Immune system dysfunction.
The use of CSF investigation in autistic patients.
The role of inflammation in autism.
Gene expression in autism.
What a strange position that would be .
What is it with trolls overusing ellipses, and not using full sentences? Is it a sign of some kind of brain dysfunction?
Here is the deal troll, other than genes that have been consistently found in a subset of autistic children, just list the journal, title and authors of the papers that support that rather cryptic list, with the Wakefield paper (withdrawn or not) next to it. But here is the catch: they must be independent, so nothing by Wakefield, and none of his colleagues. So nothing by Krigsman, Singh, Walker-Smith or anyone who has co-authored with Wakefield.
Do you understand?
Chris ...
I use ellipses so you can have take up time...
-------------------------------------------------------
The immune response in autism: a new frontier for autism research. Journal of Leukocyte Biology
Paul Ashwood , Sharifia Wills and Judy Van de Water
University of California
----------------------------------------------------
Autism and Abnormal Development of Brain Connectivity Journal of Neuroscience
Matthew K. Belmonte,1 Greg Allen,2 Andrea Beckel-Mitchener,3 Lisa M. Boulanger,4 Ruth A. Carper,5 and Sara J. Webb
Autism Research Centre, Departments of Psychiatry and Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge et al
------------------------------------------------
The Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders*
Annual Review of Public Health
Craig J. Newschafferet al
1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia et al
--------------------------------------------------
Is autism an autoimmune disease?
Autoimmunity Reviews
Paul Ashwood, Judy Van de Water
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, and UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute, University of California, Davis
--------------------------------------------------
Immunity, neuroglia and neuroinflammation in autism
International Review of Psychiatry
Carlos A. Pardo et al
Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine et al
---------------------------------------------------
Identifying environmental contributions to autism: Provocative clues and false leads
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews
Cindy P. Lawler et al
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina et al
-------------------------------------------------
Immune transcriptome alterations in the temporal cortex of subjects with autism
Neurobiology of Disease
Krassimira Garbetta et al
Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
----------------------------------------------------
The CHARGE study: an epidemiologic investigation of genetic and environmental factors contributing to autism.
Environ Health Perspect
Hertz-Picciotto Iet al
Division of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, and Medical Investigations of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (MIND) Institute University of California-Davis, Davis, California.
--------------------------------------------------
The role of immune dysfunction in the pathophysiology of autism
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
Charity Onore et al
Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA et al
--------------------------------------------------
Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who exhibit chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and marked fluctuation of behavioral symptoms exhibit distinct innate immune abnormalities and transcriptional profiles of peripheral blood (PB) monocytes
Journal of Neuroimmunology
Harumi Jyonouchia
Division of Allergy/Immunology and Infection Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ)-New Jersey Medical School (NJMS)
------------------------------------------------------
Genetics of autism spectrum disorders
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Daniel H. Geschwind et al
Program in Neurogenetics, Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California
-------------------------------------------------
Schizophrenia and Autism: Both Shared and Disorder-Specific Pathogenesis Via Perinatal Inflammation?
Pediatric Research
MEYER, URS
Laboratory of Behavioural Neurobiology [U.M., J.F.], Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, 8603 Schwerzenbach, Switzerland
-------------------------------------------------------
Prenatal exposure of mice to a maternal immune challenge leads to brain MRI and behavioural changes in the offspring relevant to schizophrenia
International Clinical Psychopharmacology
Qi, Li et al No institution indicated
-----------------------------------------------------
Networking in Autism: Leveraging Genetic, Biomarker and Model System Findings in the Search for New Treatments
Neuropsychopharmacology Reviews
Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele et al
Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA [2] Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
-----------------------------------------------------
Childhood autism and eosinophilic colitis.
Digestion
Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W.
Source
Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, Alta, Canada.
-----------------------------------------------
Abnormal Gastrointestinal Histopathology in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
Chen B
Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Canada â Department of Pathology, University Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Brief report: "allergic symptoms" in children with autism spectrum disorders. More than meets the eye?
J Autism Dev Disord.
Angelidou A
Molecular Immunopharmacology and Drug Discovery Laboratory, Department of Molecular Physiology and Pharmacology, Tufts University School of Medicine
----------------------------------------------------
Mast cell activation and autism.
Biochim Biophys Acta.
Theoharides TC
Molecular Immunopharmacology and Drug Discovery Laboratory, Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston
------------------------------------------
Alterations of the intestinal barrier in patients with autism spectrum disorders and in their first-degree relatives.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr.
de Magistris L et al
Department Magrassi-Lanzara, Gastroenterology, Second University of Naples, Italy. laura.demagistris@unina2.it
-----------------------------------------------
Autism spectrum disorders and mastocytosis.
Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol.
Theoharides TC.
Molecular Immunopharmacology and Drug Discovery Laboratory, Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston
--------------------------------------------------
Brain effects of chronic IBD in areas abnormal in autism and treatment by single neuropeptides secretin and oxytocin.
J Mol Neurosci.
Welch MG et al
Department of Psychiatry, Division of Neuroscience, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York
--------------------------------------------
Dysregulated innate immune responses in young children with autism spectrum disorders: their relationship to gastrointestinal symptoms and dietary intervention.
Neuropsychobiology. 2005;51(2):77-85.
Jyonouchi H
Department of Pediatrics, New Jersey Medical School, UMDNJ, Newark, NJ
....and on and on and on....
Immune involvement in schizophrenia and autism: etiology, pathology and animal models.
Behav Brain Res.
Patterson PH.
Biology Division, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
--------------------------------------------------
Elevated immune response in the brain of autistic patients.
J Neuroimmunol
Li X et al
Department of Neurochemistry, NY State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities, NY
-----------------------------------------------
Cerebrospinal fluid insulin-like growth factors IGF-1 and IGF-2 in infantile autism.
Dev Med Child Neurol.
Riikonen R
Department of Child Neurology, Kuopio University Central Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
--------------------------------------------
Levels of cerebrospinal fluid nerve-growth factor differ in infantile autism and Rett syndrome.
Dev Med Child Neurol.
Riikonen R, Vanhala R.
Department of Child Neurology, Children's Hospital, University of Kuopio, Finland
-------------------------------------------------
Amniotic fluid chemokines and autism spectrum disorders: An exploratory study utilizing a Danish Historic Birth Cohort.
Brain Behav Immun.
Abdallah MW
Department of Epidemiology, Aarhus University School of Public Health, Aarhus, Denmark
-----------------------------------------------------
Plasma cytokine profiles in subjects with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders.
PLoS One
Suzuki K
Research Center for Child Mental Development, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Japan. k-suzuki@hama-med.ac.jp
---------------------------------------------------
Metabolite alterations in the hippocampus of high-functioning adult subjects with autism.
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol
Suzuki K
Osaka-Hamamatsu Joint Research Center for Child Mental Development, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Japan. k-suzuki@hama-med.ac.jp
---------------------------------------------------
Genetics and epigenetics in autism
Nihon Shinkei Seishin Yakurigaku Zasshi.
Nakayama A, Masaki S, Aoki E.
Department of Embryology, Institute for Developmental Research, Aichi Human Service Center, 713-8 Kagiya-cho, Kasugai, 480-0392 Japan. atsuon@inst-hsc.jp
------------------------------------------------
Cerebrospinal Fluid and Serum Markers of Inflammation in Autism
Pediatric Neurology
Andrew W. Zimmerman et al
Department of Neurology and Developmental Medicine, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore Maryland
-------------------------------------------------
Immunological findings in autism.
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2005;71:317-41
Cohly HH, Panja A.
Department of Biology, Jackson State University, Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------
Large Brains in Autism: The Challenge of Pervasive Abnormality
The Neuroscientist
Martha R. Herbert
Pediatric Neurology, Center for Morphometric Analysis, Massachusetts General Hospital
----------------------------------------------------
Bridging from Cells to Cognition in Autism Pathophysiology: Biological Pathways to Defective Brain Function and Plasticity (2008)
American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology
Matthew P. Anderson,
Brian S. Hooker,
Martha R. Herbert
------------------------------------------------------
Intestinal Pathophysiology in Autism
Experimental Biology and Medicine
John F. White
Department of Physiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322
-------------------------------------------------------
Decreased transforming growth factor beta1 in autism: A potential link between immune dysregulation and impairment in clinical behavioral outcomes
Journal of Neuroimmunology
Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California at Davis, United States
The M.I.N.D. Institute, University of California at Davis, United States
Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Epidemiology, University of California, at Davis
Paul Ashwood et al
-----------------------------------------------------
Familial Clustering of Autoimmune Disorders and Evaluation of Medical Risk Factors in Autism
Journal of Child Neurology
Anne M. Comi, MD
Johns Hopkins Hospital, Division of Pediatric Neurology, and Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD
-------------------------------------------------------
You could also listen to Sir Professor Michael Rutter explain in his 2010 lecture to Autism Europe the success of genetics in finding the following
Copy Number Variations (CNV's)
5 - 10 % of Autism
Rare Pathogenic Gene Mutations
1% of Autism.
___________________________________________________
There is more ... but hey even I have a tolerance level for educating Chris you really should spend more time expanding your cognitive framework.
One thing is missing: the equivalent Wakefield paper making the same claim. I also told you to ignore the gene claim. You see I said:
Do you have some kind of reading disability?
Also, please include the dates of both the Wakefield and independent replications so that we can tell which came first.
By the way the following needs to rejected because Hooker is a colleague of Wakefield, and it is not indexed in PubMed:
Bridging from Cells to Cognition in Autism Pathophysiology: Biological Pathways to Defective Brain Function and Plasticity (2008)
American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology
Matthew P. Anderson,
Brian S. Hooker,
Martha R. Herbert
Martha Herbert is also rejected as she is a colleague of Wakefield, and has been a speaker with him at dubious events:
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/press090109.php
Because there are papers about associating autism with genetics long before 1990, if you wish to make the claim that Wakefield contributed to autism and genetics studies, provide a paper by him that predates these: Candidate genes and favoured loci: strategies for molecular genetic research into schizophrenia, manic depression, autism, alcoholism and Alzheimer's disease.
and Autism and genetics. A decade of research.
Interestingly, many of the articles before that with the search words "autism genetics" are about Fragile X and Rett syndromes.
Chris
One thing is missing: the equivalent Wakefield paper making the same claim.
I thought that was fairly obvious ...
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be taking a very defensive posture ... is everything OK ?
-------------------------------------------------------
The intestinal lesion of autistic spectrum disorder
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Jass, Jeremy R.
Department of Pathology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders and Association with Family History of Autoimmune Disease
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
VALICENTI-McDERMOTT,et al
Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center, Bronx, New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Children with an Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Regression
Maria D. Valicenti-McDermott MD, MS et al
Department of Pediatrics, Children's Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center, Rose F. Kennedy Center of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York et al
-------------------------------------------------------
Th1- and Th2-like cytokines in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in autism
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
Sudhir Gupta et al
Division of Basic and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, University of California
------------------------------------------------------
Cytokines and etiopathogenesis of pervasive developmental disorders
Medical Hypotheses
P. Malek-Ahmadi
Department of Neuropsychiatry, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas, USA
-------------------------------------------------------
Activation of the Inflammatory Response System in Autism
Neuropsychobiology
Jan Croonenberghsa et al
University Center of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Antwerp
-------------------------------------------------------
Proinflammatory and regulatory cytokine production associated with innate and adaptive immune responses in children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental regression
Journal of Neuroimmunology
Harumi Jyonouchi et al
Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
Elevated cytokine levels in children with autism spectrum disorder
Journal of Neuroimmunology
Cynthia A. Molloy
Center for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
-------------------------------------------------------
Innate Immunity Associated with Inflammatory Responses and Cytokine Production against Common Dietary Proteins in Patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Neuropsychobiology
Harumi Jyonouchi
Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
Maternal autoimmune diseases, asthma and allergies, and childhood autism spectrum disorders: a case-control study.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.
Croen LA
Division of Research, Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
The neurodevelopmental impact of prenatal infections at different times of pregnancy: the earlier the worse?
Neuroscientist
Meyer U
Laboratory of Behavioral Neurobiology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
-------------------------------------------------------
Serum autoantibodies to brain in Landau-Kleffner variant, autism, and other neurologic disorders.
J Pediatr
Connolly AM
Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, Washington University, St. Louis Children's Hospital, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
-------------------------------------------------------
Cytokines and the brain: implications for clinical psychiatry.
Am J Psychiatry
Kronfol Z
Departments of Psychiatry and Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI
-------------------------------------------------------
Immune system to brain signaling: neuropsychopharmacological implications.
Pharmacol Ther
Capuron L, Miller AH.
Laboratory of Nutrition and Integrative Neurobiology, NutriNeuro, INRA UMR 1286, University Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2, Bordeaux, France.
--------------------------------------------------------
Brain-immune interactions and implications in psychiatric disorders
Rev Bras Psiquiatr
Marques AH
Section on Neuroendocrine Immunology, National Institute of Mental Health, Integrative Neural Immune Program, Bethesda-Rockville, Maryland 20852, USA
--------------------------------------------------------
Brief report: immune factors in autism: a critical review.
J Autism Dev Disord
Krause I
Research Unit of Autoimmune Diseases, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
------------------------------------------------------
Cytokine levels during pregnancy influence immunological profiles and neurobehavioral patterns of the offspring.
Ann N Y Acad Sci.
Ponzio NM et al
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, UMDNJ, New Jersey Medical School
-------------------------------------------------------
Prenatal viral infection in mouse causes differential expression of genes in brains of mouse progeny: a potential animal model for schizophrenia and autism.
Synapse
Fatemi SH et al
University of Minnesota, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Neuroscience Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
Autism and the immune system.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry
van Gent T
University of Leijden, The Netherlands.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cytokines and CNS development.
Neuron
Deverman BE et al
Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology
-------------------------------------------------------
Is fever suppression involved in the etiology of autism and neurodevelopmental disorders?
BMC Pediatr.
Torres
Centers for Persons with Disabilities, Utah State University
--------------------------------------------------------
Atopic features in early childhood autism.
Eur J Paediatr Neurol.
Bakkaloglu B
Department of Child Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Pediatric Neurology, Ankara 06100, Turkey.
-----------------------------------------------------
Differential monocyte responses to TLR ligands in children with autism spectrum disorders
Brain Behav Immun
Amanda M Enstrom
Departments of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California at Davis
--------------------------------------------------------
Maternal infection: window on neuroimmune interactions in fetal brain development and mental illness.
Curr Opin Neurobiol
Patterson PH.
Biology Division, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
------------------------------------------------------
Reduced levels of immunoglobulin in children with autism correlates with behavioral symptoms
Autism Research
Luke Heuer et al
Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of California at Davis, Davis, California
--------------------------------------------------------
Altered Gene Expression and Function of Peripheral Blood Natural Killer Cells in Children with Autism
Brain Behav Immun
A M Enstrom et al
Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California Medical Center, Sacramento
-------------------------------------------------------
IL-6 is increased in the cerebellum of autistic brain and alters neural cell adhesion, migration and synaptic formation
J Neuroinflammation
Hongen Wei
Department of Neurochemistry, NY State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities, New York, USA
-----------------------------------------------------
Pathways underlying the gut-to-brain connection in autism spectrum disorders as future targets for disease management
European Journal of Pharmacology
Caroline G.M. de Theije et al
Division of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
------------------------------------------------------
Amniotic fluid chemokines and autism spectrum disorders: An exploratory study utilizing a Danish Historic Birth Cohort
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
Morsi W. Abdallah
Department of Epidemiology, Aarhus University School of Public Health, Aarhus, Denmark
------------------------------------------------------
The serum level of interleukin-6 in patients with intellectual disability and refractory epilepsy.
Epilepsy Res.
Lehtimäki KA
Department of Neurosurgery, Tampere University Hospital, Teiskontie 35, Tampere, Finland
-----------------------------------------------------
Science moves forward ... despite inherent prejudice.
Blackheart,
I don't really understand what you are trying to prove here, as you seem to be jumping from one thing to another randomly. I thought you were arguing that Wakefield was right and the measles component of the MMR causes a previously unknown form of colitis linked to autism, but now you seem to be arguing that somehow all vaccines are bad.
You keep going back to the Urabe component of MMR which no one disputes causes, rarely, a form of meningitis but not autism. You bring up other instances where vaccines have caused problems in the past, that have been detected and corrected as if this is somehow evidence that MMR causes autism, despite good evidence that it does not. You bring up evidence of a genetic component in autism, which no one has denied, and you interpret our rejection of the vaccine-autism hypothesis as meaning that we don't want to see any research into the causes of autism, which is ridiculous. Then you link to an article on environmental influences on gene expression, which appears to have little to do with any of this.
You seem to be very confused, and to lack a clear idea of exactly what you are arguing, and what constitutes evidence for a specific hypothesis.
It would help if you stated what it is you are quoting instead of forcing me to Google it. In this case it seems to be Wikipedia, which I suppose is a step up from the Daily Mail. It is referring to this study which found that high titer measles vaccine increased mortality as compared to the regular measles vaccine. This increase in mortality was found by a scientific study, and the vaccine was withdrawn. Are you suggesting that vaccines should not be used at all, or that they should not be improved as more is known? Where the reference to "at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone" comes from is not clear. It does not say that in the papers referred to in Wikipedia. We were discussing, at least I thought we were discussing, children with immune dysfunction, and I asked for evidence that these children would respond to natural infection differently to vaccination. This paper has no relevance to that at all.
This same group, the Bandim Health Project, reported this year that, "measles vaccine has a profound impact on survival, reducing mortality by approximately 50% - far more than can be explained by prevention of measles deaths. Hence, measles vaccine seems to have non-specific beneficial effects on survival, and the current policy may have important consequences for overall child mortality." How does this in any way support your arguments?
It seems you want to deprive "third world children" of a 50% reduction in mortality - who is it who doesn't care?
Krebiozen, I googled the quote and read the report and some others commenting on it too. I found it interesting that mortality in the high-titre-vaccine group was the same as the control (unvaccinated) group. So the higher mortality for which blackheart condemns skeptics is the same as the mortality that s/he thinks *should* be inflicted by withdrawal of the measles vaccine. The difference being that skeptics support withdrawal of the high-titre vaccine, leaving the lower titre vaccine to save lives as you describe.
blackheart:
Not really. If you think all of those things are in that one Lancet paper, you are very much mistaken. In no way did Wakefield prove those contentions in that paper.
I have glanced at the most recent Gish Gallop, and it includes stuff from Medical Hypothesis and other questionable sources. I am going to insist you figure out what you are trying to prove and how to show it. I would suggest if you are actually serious that you list your proof in the following form:
1. What you claim Wakefield proved, ie: "Autism and Immune system dysfunction."
2. The paper he proved it in, and a quote of where the statement of proof taken from that paper.
3. The journal, title, date and author of the independent peer reviewed study that validated that claim.
Make sure that it is independent, that none of the authors have been co-authors of Wakefield, nor worked with him elsewhere like Thoughtful House or the transfer factor supplement business or talked at any anti-vaccine function.
I am not trying to move goal posts, but your responses are incomprehensible. Which perhaps matches your worship of a fraud.
Krebiozen
I don't really understand what you are trying to prove here ...
I'm not trying to prove anything. Other than the fixed mind set of 'skeptiks'.
I thought you were arguing.... all vaccines are bad.
You and others tend to make a lot of unfounded assumptions. You need to attend to the clear flaws in your own arguments...
One of the clear postions made by 'skeptiks' is that vaccines are extremely safe and only have very rare adverse events of little consequence.
Guess what ... that assumption just proved false.
You seem to be very confused, and to lack a clear idea of exactly what you are arguing, and what constitutes evidence for a specific hypothesis.
The confusion if any lies with you ... not me. I have a very good grasp of what I am arguing.
Are you suggesting that vaccines should not be used at all, or that they should not be improved as more is known?
No ... I've never taken that position. Why would you make that assumption ? You often speak before you think.
This same group, the Bandim Health Project, reported this year that, "measles vaccine has a profound impact on survival, reducing mortality by approximately 50% - far more than can be explained by prevention of measles deaths. Hence, measles vaccine seems to have non-specific beneficial effects on survival, and the current policy may have important consequences for overall child mortality." How does this in any way support your arguments?
It is at the very core of my argument ... science moves forward. Whilst 'skeptiks' are "dogged by their own dogma". I don't think you even understand what these type of positive and negative outcomes mean in regards to your simplistic veiws on vaccines.
It seems you want to deprive "third world children" of a 50% reduction in mortality - who is it who doesn't care?
As I'm the one arguing for continuing scientific investigation and furthering our understanding on vaccines and the infant immune system, then your statement is absurd.
I'm sure you and other 'skeptiks' will try to reinvent yourselves as 'vaccine safety advocates' ... and I'm sure I'll find that position both highly ironic and implausible.
You should be reflecting on how you ended up up in this very compromised position.
Chris
If you think all of those things are in that one Lancet paper, you are very much mistaken.
You don't seem to understand what is contained within that paper, perhaps you should read it a bit more closely next time.
In no way did Wakefield prove those contentions in that paper.
I didn't make that statement. This is what I posted...
"That team of researchers Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith inclusive have pioneered research that has led to new understandings on."
See the difference ?
it includes stuff from Medical Hypothesis and other questionable sources.
If you have an actual question mark then I'm always happy to explain where you went wrong.
I am going to insist you figure out what you are trying to prove and how to show it.
Thanks I've already figured it out.
I would suggest if you are actually serious that you list your proof in the following form
It's not rocket science Chris.
I am not trying to move goal posts, but your responses are incomprehensible.
You should look up some theories of intelligence ... here's a start.
"Don't be trapped by dogma â which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition."
~ Steve Jobs, Apple CEO, in 2005 commencement address at Stanford University
Fluid Intelligence
In exploring personal and global transformation, it is important to talk about the concept of fluid intelligence in relation to the ability to grow and expand our awareness. Fluid intelligence has little to do with IQ or "book" intelligence. It is rather the ability to step outside of our beliefs and consider information which does not fit into our previously accepted view of reality.
Our deepest beliefs and conceptions about life and the world are to some degree conditioned by our childhood experiences, our education, the mass media, and various other external influences. An individual's level of fluid intelligence can be determined based on the degree to which he or she is able to let go of previously held conceptions on encountering reliable information or experiences which show these conceptions to be mistaken or overly simplistic.
At the other end of the spectrum from fluid intelligence is static intelligence. If an individual is rarely willing to reconsider or challenge their established beliefs, they are said to have a high degree of static intelligence. They aren't much interested in thinking outside of the box.
Guess which end of the spectrum you and your fellow 'skeptiks' are on ?
blackheart:
Prove it.
Blackheart,
What specifically do you think 'skeptiks' have a fixed mindset about? That we should follow the evidence? That post-marketing surveillance of vaccines is a good idea? That we should withdraw vaccines if a safer effective version is available? That Wakefield was a fraud and his work on autistic enterocolitis and measles viruses in the guts of autistic children was worthless? I think it is ironic that in your attempts to refute Orac's original post you have shown yourself to be a textbook example of someone who is utterly fixed in their mindset and refuses to budge, no matter what evidence is presented.
Please don't distort my words, you have done this before. I wrote, "I thought you were arguing that Wakefield was right and the measles component of the MMR causes a previously unknown form of colitis linked to autism, but now you seem to be arguing that somehow all vaccines are bad." I think that is a reasonable interpretation of what you have written. It's hard to see what other position you have. If not, please clarify what you mean. You keep saying, essentially, "look, vaccines have caused problems in the past!", with the clear implication that current vaccines must also be causing problems. What else are you suggesting?
Please give some examples of these assumptions and evidence they are unfounded.
Please be specific about which arguments are flawed and provide evidence that this is the case. If the flaws are clear you should be able to explain this in clear language without your habitual obfuscation.
I don't think any skeptic would argue that vaccines never have any serious adverse effects. I think it's clear that serious adverse events are very rare, and that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh any possible negative effects. I also think that the current system of clinical trials of vaccines and then post-marketing surveillance is not perfect, but I have not seen any practical alternatives suggested. It's easy to criticize, but not as easy to come up with viable alternatives.
You mean the Bandim Health Project that found the high titer measles vaccine in children led to the same mortality rate as no measles vaccine at all? How is this evidence of frequent adverse events? Even the Urabe mumps component that you keep coming back to doesn't cause adverse events at anywhere near the same frequency as mumps (or measles, or rubella) does. As this review study says:
If that is true you are remarkably bad at communicating your arguments. I don't think I am the only person struggling to figure out quite what you are arguing.
Are you unable to distinguish a question from an assumption? I am asking questions trying to figure out what exactly you are arguing because it still isn't clear after umpteen comments.
So your lack of communication skills is my fault now? I never write here without reading carefully and thinking about what I am writing. You on the other hand seem to think that distraction with irrelevancies and gish-gallops are a substitute for a reasoned argument.
Except when you don't agree with its conclusions, like the 20 studies that found no evidence of a link between MMR and autism? Of course science moves forward, as more evidence becomes available. That doesn't mean losing your critical faculties, hanging on to disproven hypotheses, speculating beyond the data or making up whatever suits your prejudices.
You mean that dogmatic insistence on evidence? Show me convincing evidence and I'll change my mind about anything, which is more than can be said for you it seems.
Which positive and negative outcomes are you referring to? The high titer vaccine that failed to reduce mortality, but didn't increase it, and was withdrawn? Or the regular measles vaccine that reduces overall mortality by 50% and is still in use? What precisely have I failed to understand here with my simplistic views?
When have I or anyone else here argued against continuing scientific investigation? As far as I can determine, you still insist that MMR causes autism despite a large amount of evidence that it doesn't.
What do you mean, "reinvent"? As I said, RCTs and post-marketing surveillance are not perfect, but it's the best system we have of ensuring vaccines are as safe as practically possible. If you have a better way of testing and monitoring vaccine safety, please share it.
I suspect you are just criticizing for the sake of it when you have no alternatives and no suggestions for improving things at all. I suspect you are another of those who claim to be in favor of safe vaccines but have impossibly high standards such that no vaccine could ever be proven safe to your satisfaction.
I must admit that gave me a good laugh. How can you possibly claim that after you have utterly failed to support any of your arguments?
Chris
Prove it.
I just presented you with 67 studies ... you have not responded in any intellectual fashion at all ...
Thanks Chris it's duly noted.
Read what I wrote... Prove that "researchers Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith inclusive have pioneered research that has led to new understandings on."
Indicate what studies that are not fraudulent and retracted show they did that pioneering research by Wakefield and Walker-Smith.
And here is a simple thing for you to answer: What evidence did Wakefield use to suggest on the video press release on the now retracted paper that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines be given separately? There was nothing in the paper. What evidence did he base that "advice" on?
Just list the journal, title, date and authors of the papers that Wakefield used for the statements he made in 1998.
Krebiozen
What specifically do you think 'skeptiks' have a fixed mindset about?
You answered your own question again...
"I think it's clear that serious adverse events are very rare, and that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh any possible negative effects." Krebiozen
Perhaps your pocket calculator needs readjusting but in the real world when a new measles vaccines (HTMV) is introduced and it ...well you can read.
"One of the most important findings was that a new measles vaccine used in low-income countries was associated with a two-fold increase in mortality among girls. This discovery led to the withdrawal of the vaccine.
Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone."
Peter Aaby Bandim Health Project
I highlighted some parts of the statement to emphasise the parts you keep 'overlooking'.
Obviously most people don't overlook the figure 500,000 so I didn't highlight that part.
I think you should address that issue before you continue ... it seems to be a rather large hole in the 'skeptik' argument.
Chris
Indicate what studies that are not fraudulent and retracted show they did that pioneering research by Wakefield and Walker-Smith.
Anything wrong Chris ? You seem to be getting more and more frustrated at your own inability to put forth a coherent intellectual response to any of the matters I have raised.
I must admit though it seems you may have actually looked at that Lancet 12 paper a bit more closely, a bit disturbing for your arguments was it ? So now you wish to remove it from the debate.....oh well.
And here is a simple thing for you to answer
That would be the 250 page report he compiled in regards to vaccine safety.
If memory serves me correctly this was also supported by Peter Fletcher who served as
Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health
Medical Assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines,
Thanks once again for your input. As your mentor I am must admit I am dissappointed in your progress...you need to think before you speak and you need to think before you do what you call "thinking".
blackheart, please answer the question in the form I posted earlier October 25th. Give the claim, the Wakefield/Walker-Smith paper and quote where the claim is made, and then post the supporting replication. You have failed to do that.
Ah, the mysterious report that no one has ever seen! Post a link to it, or we will assume it just does not exist.
Can if be found here?
And you are not a mentor to me. I was once a rocket scientist (aerospace engineer). I know the science, how to read a paper (which you don't), and when someone is full of regurgitated bovine excrement. And you are so full of it, and it for so long that you have composted into pure fertilizer.
Until you answer my questions to my satisfaction, you will be considered a clueless idiotic hero worshiper of a known fraud.
I did some additional searching about this "250 page report" and found this comment:
So Wakefield includes such simple errors in a 2000 paper, I am pretty sure there are even more in the 250 page "report" (which may or may not exist).
blackheart, you are just a pathetic fanboy. Get a clue.
Chris
please answer the question in the form I posted earlier
I did but you refuse to accept the Lancet 12 paper. I have posted 67 studies that clearly evidence immune system dysfunction etc.
Is there any reason you don't feel like addressing that rather large body of evidence ?
Ah, the mysterious report that no one has ever seen!
Mysterious ? The one taken to the press conference , offered to the Dean of Royal Free Arie Zuckermann....and parts subsequently republished Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Reviews.....etc etc etc
Do you think you can offer anything more than some 'mysterious' conspiracy theory Chris ?
I was once a rocket scientist (aerospace engineer).
Yeah that's not quite showing in the quality of your arguments.
I know the science
Then perhaps you'd like to address the science instead of trying to create 'mysterious' conspiracy theories where none exist. There's 67 studies and some 500,000 deaths (hypothetical - real number unknown) you've failed to address.
how to read a paper (which you don't)
Science isn't about reading an abstract Chris you need to comprehend more widely the implications and interconnections of that paper. You need to both analyse and synthesise that into a broader framework and knowledge base.
Here's some more on the concept of fluid intelligence that separates the intellectuals and the ...well sheep.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6791.full
So Wakefield includes such simple errors in a 2000 paper
Criticism from Public Health officials ... I'm underwhelmed.
That paper was peer reviewed by
Professor D W Vere Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics The London Hospital Medical College.
Professor Dame Rosalinde Hurley Dame of the British Empire
Dame Rosalinde Hurley, Mrs. Gortvai, DBE, FRC, FRCPath, FRCOG (30 December 1929 - 30 June 2004) was knighted by the British government for her services to medicine, science and law.[1]
She was
Professor/Professor Emerita of Medical Microbiology at the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Imperial College School of Medicine, London
Honorary Consultant Microbiologist, Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital
Member of the Board of the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS)
Chairman, The Medicines Commission
She was both a professor and consultant medical microbiologist, researcher, and ethicist, as well as being a barrister; she applied her legal training and expertise for the benefit of her medical, and especially her microbiological, practice.
Peter Fletcher
Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health.
Medical Assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
Part of a wider conspiracy theory were they ?
You are a sad delusional fanboy. You make no sense.
You had a chance to include the retracted Lancet paper, but you refused to list where in the paper the specific claims were made, so you failed. You have also refused to use the form I suggested, instead you continue to be incomprehensible.
To review, all form of evidence from you should be the following:
1. What you claim Wakefield proved, ie: "Autism and Immune system dysfunction."
2. The paper he proved it in, and a quote of the statement of proof taken from that paper.
3. The journal, title, date and author of the independent peer reviewed study that validated that claim.
Chris
You had a chance to include the retracted Lancet paper
I did Chris remember at post 578 I even provided the link. http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm
but you refused to list where in the paper the specific claims were made
Changing the parameters of the discussion. There's a surprise. Each time I answer you add another "blocker' quite the fortress you are constructing. I remember I asked you to read the actual paper. Obviously you have failed to do so ... anyone who has even the most modicum of knowledge of medicine or biology would understand what areas those researchers were investigating.
fixed mind set
You have also refused to use the form I suggested
I think from memory you have used the words "told you" "insist" "demand " as well "suggest". My response ...meh.
Of course your refusal to accept any other form of presentation also indicates ... fixed mind set
instead you continue to be incomprehensible.
How so ? I have set out my points quite clearly , used corrobarative evidence and always stated my aims.
The fault probably lies in my assumption that you actually did the requisite background readings and research. That you understood the complexities of the human body particularly such areas as the developing immune system , gene expression and what may be termed as the complex ecological interactions between various systems.
Obviously from the posts I have encountered it seems 'skeptiks' as a whole have a very superficial and shallow knowledge of the topics they are arguing.
No surprise there ...
--------------------------------------------------------
To review, all form of evidence from you should be the following: .....blah blah blah."
I would if I was entrenched in a sort of a + b = c cognitive lineality. Which may work in the rather simple number crunching of 'rocket telemetry' but the world of biology , ecology and medicine is a great deal more complex than that.
But as your mentor it is my duty to show you how to 'think' not calculate.
This is what I said previously ... see the difference already I do not assume knowledge (proof) I open doors ...
"Vaccine interaction on a developing immune system would be a very good, biologically plausible, candidate for a 'disease / condition' that had at its heart immune system dysfunction. Whether its role or primary / secondary or even non existent would be worthy of investigation ....that's what science does....
Just the same as the great researchers like Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and the others before and after them.
blackheart:
But failed satisfying this criteria: "...and a quote of the statement of proof taken from that paper."
The quote was never provided. You are repeating yourself, and have failed to prove Wakefield has any relevance. Hence this sign will be heeded. Good bye, troll.
Chris
" But failed satisfying this criteria: "...and a quote of the statement of proof taken from that paper."
Which might have been a bit difficult, unless you have a belief in precognition or mental telepathy (oops I forgot you guys do).
That particular criteria was posted (goal shifted) in post 594 which according to my simple maths compared to your more illustrious 'rocket science' maths is after 578.
Here it is ...criteria 2
"2. The paper he proved it in, and a quote of the statement of proof taken from that paper."
********************
Nice flouncing which reflects a "fight or flight " reaction on your behalf.
But if it to be ... so be it.
Au Revoir.
(I wouldn't be surprised if you made another comment) I certainly will.
Blackheart,
I wrote:
You replied:
I can read, can you? Both LW and I have already pointed out that if you read the actual study you will find that this increase in mortality was compared to the standard measles vaccine. The vaccine did not cause any increase in mortality as compared to those who did not receive a measles vaccine at all. There is no mention of adverse events in the study, and it seems likely these results were due to a lack of efficacy of the vaccine. In fact later studies by the same group suggested that it was giving the inactivated vaccines after the high titer measles vaccine that caused the problem, not the high titer vaccine per se.
Read it for yourself in the original study which was co-authored by Aaby here, the full text is free. Here's a relevant quote from their conclusions:
It's worth noting that it took a subgroup analysis, which is often misleading, to shake out anything of statistical significance in this study.
I disagree. Showing that one vaccine that was withdrawn 15 years ago because female recipients had the same mortality as those who did not receive it is a far cry from proving that the adverse effects of vaccines outweigh their benefits.
I'm with Chris here, it seems pointless explaining something to you if you simply ignore it and repeat the same inaccurate claim.
Krebiozen
"I can read, can you?
Yes ... I can also comprehend what I read...apparently that's where we differ
. More importantly I also read widely and read the surrounding studies and commentary in regards to not only HTMV but other vaccines and their Non Specific Effects.
"I have already pointed out that if you read the actual study you will find that this increase in mortality was compared to the standard measles vaccine."
Yes and how does that validate your argument as stated.
"The vaccine did not cause any increase in mortality as compared to those who did not receive a measles vaccine at all."
You seem to have lost track of what you were arguing here it is again.
"I think it's clear that serious adverse events are very rare, and that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh any possible negative effects."
"There is no mention of adverse events in the study"
Death is not an adverse event ...how quaint.
"and it seems likely these results were due to a lack of efficacy of the vaccine"
You have some compelling evidence of this theory ? You don't think that was the first thing they checked ?
"In fact later studies by the same group suggested that it was giving the inactivated vaccines after the high titer measles vaccine that caused the problem, not the high titer vaccine per se.
The first sensible comment you have made for some time.
You do realise you just shot down your argument surrounding efficacy as posted above.
So how does that validate your argument ... ?
"I think it's clear that serious adverse events are very rare, and that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh any possible negative effects."
"It's worth noting that it took a subgroup analysis, which is often misleading, to shake out anything of statistical significance in this study.
What... a subgroup of females ?
You do know it was replicated in a number of other studies and population cohorts ?
"I disagree."
How unsurprising ... even when solid scientific evidence of harm some 500,000 female children at risk of death, you can't bring yourself to say simply 'vaccines can cause harm'. Even in numbers that cannot be in any way described as rare.
"I'm with Chris here, it seems pointless explaining something to you if you simply ignore it and repeat the same inaccurate claim.
Last of the profound thinkers in symphony ...
Wonder if the Bandim Health Project has found any other interesting research in regards to vaccines ?
When other vaccines are looked at like DTP in similar populations sometimes we get the unexpected ...again.
"During 1984â1987, children receiving DTP at 2â8 months of age had higher mortality over the next 6 months, the mortality rate ratio (MR) being 1.92 (95% CI: 1.04, 3.52) compared with DTP-unvaccinated children, adjusting for age, sex, season, period, BCG, and region. The MR was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.95, 3.45) for the first dose of DTP and 4.36 (95% CI: 1.28, 14.9) for the second and third dose.
"I think it's clear that serious adverse events are very rare, and that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh any possible negative effects."
What is it about vaccines and skeptiks ?
Solid scientific investigation of the many aspects of the work undertaken in this type of vaccine safety could bring positive benefits that might save several million additional lives per year than what is currently being achieved.
Fixed Mind Set
Heed this sign!
Blackheart,
Astonishingly you still persist in completely misunderstanding that HTMV study despite my explanation and quotes from it. You also failed to check if that DTP study had been followed up and if these results were valid. I suggest you actually read these studies:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/665.long
"there is no conclusive evidence that high titre vaccines are deleterious".
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01774.x/full
"Eight of nine survival analyses with retrospective updating of vaccination status reported a beneficial effect. This beneficial effect of DTP increased with the length of the interval between data collection visits. Studies with long interval between visits had very high mortality rates among unvaccinated children, low mortality rate ratios for vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children, and strongly beneficial estimates of DTP."
Maybe once you have read them you will understand how wrong you are. Or more probably not.
Krebiozen
Astonishingly you still persist in completely misunderstanding that HTMV study.
No problem here.
This was your explanation ...
"it seems likely these results were due to a lack of efficacy of the vaccine"
Would you like to clarify that position again ? It's a bit more complex than that , which is your persistent and acute error.
As I reminded Chris I don't live in a linear world where A + B = C
------------------------------------------------
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/665.long
"there is no conclusive evidence that high titre vaccines are deleterious".
Here's another previous quote ... 2011 not 1998 science moves forward Krebiozen.
"One of the most important findings was that a new measles vaccine used in low-income countries was associated with a two-fold increase in mortality among girls. This discovery led to the withdrawal of the vaccine.
Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone." Peter Aaby Bandim Health Project.
---------------------------------------------------
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01774.x/full
"Eight of nine survival analyses with retrospective updating of vaccination status reported a beneficial effect. This beneficial effect of DTP increased with the length of the interval between data collection visits. Studies with long interval between visits had very high mortality rates among unvaccinated children, low mortality rate ratios for vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children, and strongly beneficial estimates of DTP."
Full Quote
Resultsâ Seven studies using a caseâcontrol design or a landmark approach found a negative effect of DTP on child survival. Eight of nine survival analyses with retrospective updating of vaccination status reported a beneficial effect. This beneficial effect of DTP increased with the length of the interval between data collection visits. Studies with long interval between visits had very high mortality rates among unvaccinated children, low mortality rate ratios for vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children, and strongly beneficial estimates of DTP.
------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe once you have read them you will understand how wrong you are. Or more probably not."
Fortunately I have undertaken a lot more readings than your simple cherry picking from a 1998 report.
------------------------------------------------------
What is it about vaccines and skeptiks ?
Solid scientific investigation of the many aspects of the work undertaken in this type of vaccine safety could bring positive benefits that might save several million additional lives per year than what is currently being achieved.
Fixed Mind Set
That was a single specific vaccine. Using that quote against vaccines in general is like using the Pinto as proof that all cars are dangerous.
Three more notes for blackheart:
1) For the measles vaccine: The new vaccine's safety was in comparison to the existing vaccine.
2) For DTP: Here's the conclusion for the study: "The divergent results in observational studies of the impact of DTP on child survival are partly because of methodological differences. To assess the impact on mortality of routine vaccinations, observational study designs which minimize the effect of bias are warranted. Randomized trials should be considered." So in other words, inconclusive.
3) In general: Nobody said vaccines were completely harmless or that safety issues didn't exist. What we did say was that the benefits vastly outweighed the risks, something you have yet to disprove.
Plus the Aaby study was on the timing of the vaccines, and in a very very poor country where child mortality was very high.
Using that older study is really a stretch.
Blackheart must be the second most idiotic resident on Htrae (the first being Thingy). Heed the sign!
Is "Blackheart" seriously yammering on about the dangers of the HTMV (high-titre measles vaccine) "prove" that vaccines aren't safe? It's been known for - I believe - about 20 years that HTMV is more dangerous than the standard (US/UK/EU) measles vaccine; the latest results are a significant improvement over the HTMV of decades past (again, if I remember correctly).
Here's a news flash - every medical intervention has risks! The real question is whether the risk of the intervention is less than the risk from the disease. "Blackheart" seems to be suggesting that a non-zero risk means that vaccines should be abandoned until they can be made "safer" (how safe? we may never know).
The reason there is still work being done on HTMV is that the "standard" measles vaccine doesn't work well enough on very young children, so - in places without widespread population immunity (i.e. "herd immunity"), such as Africa - they are dying by the thousands in the "gap months" between when maternally-derived passive immunity wanes (and these are generally mothers who had wild-type measles) and when the "standard" vaccine is effective.
I assume that you've explained this to "Blackheart" - probably in triplicate.
The way - so far - that researchers have found to cover the "gap months" is to use a high-titre solution of the usual vaccine strain (there was an attempt to use a more virulent vaccine strain, but it was more dangerous than the HTMV). The problem was and is that the high-titre vaccines lead to an immune response more like the wild-type and one of those effects is a transient immune suppression.
In the "Westernised" world, this isn't such a problem, but in countries where the water supply is more "natural", high-titre measles vaccines led to an increase in illness and deaths from diarrheal diseases (the #1 killer of small children in Africa) over that seen following the "standard" measles vaccine.
Keep in mind that not only are young infants in the "gap months" less able to develop effective immunity after the "standard" measles vaccines, they are also far more likely to die from diarrheal illness.
Of course, getting the wild-type measles virus in the "gap months" leads to even more immune suppression than even the high-titre vaccine, which is why - even though the high-titre vaccine has higher morbidity/mortality than the "standard" vaccine - the overall effect is generally less serious illness and death.
A serious "confounder" in many studies of high-titre vaccines is that the test (and control) population is often close to medical centres (such as they are) and thus more likely to survive the post-wild-type-measles diarrheal illness than the "general" population.
All of these subtleties are, of course, lost on people with an anti-vaccination agenda, since - to them - any harm attributable to vaccines is sufficient justification to condemn them, even if the overall effect is a reduction in morbidity and mortality.
In other words, to the "antivaccinationistas", ten thousand deaths from measles are acceptable in order to prevent a single death from the vaccine.
Prometheus
Chris,
Sorry, but I find a certain amusing irony in someone who is so utterly inflexibly fixed in their mind set and resistant to overwhelming evidence accusing skeptics (first time I've been called that!) of having fixed mind sets. I'm starting to get bored with this, so I probably won't persist for too long.
I do kind of understand. There is a weird kind of amusement at what kind of delusional thinking that blackheart and Thingy exhibit. Especially equating what happens in one of the poorest countries in Africa to the UK and USA.
I just finished reading Pox: An American History. There was a very interesting character who was a "eclectic" doctor, Immanuel Pfeiffer. There is a description of him attending a lecture by an instructor of infectious diseases at Harvard. Pfeiffer got up after the lecture and did a Gish Gallop of questions that made the lecturer and audience quickly tired.
Pfeiffer claimed that his clean living, diet, etc would protect him from smallpox. So he took up the offer by the chairman of the Boston Board of Health to get smallpox, and toured a smallpox hospital. Within two weeks he had smallpox, but attempted to hide it from the real doctors. It is touched upon in this article.
(next in the queue is Dr. William Foege's House on Fire)
Blackheart,
And still you persist in demonstrating your lack of education in this area.
How else would you describe a vaccine that appeared to have no effect on mortality when compared with the unvaccinated? It was effective in that it prevented measles, but ineffective in that it didn't reduce (but certainly didn't increase) mortality as much as the regular measles vaccine. The regular measles vaccine used in West Africa reduced mortality by 50% compared to placebo not just by preventing measles, but in other non-specific ways as well. HTMV (combined with other vaccines) did in boys but not in girls. Is that complex enough for you? This is your example of a vaccine in which adverse effects exceeded the benefits, but that clearly isn't true, even if a vaccine that was withdrawn 15 years ago was relevant to vaccines in current use, which it isn't.
No, you appear to live in a world where A + B = whatever you want to believe regardless of the evidence. I shudder to think what you might do if let loose in a real scientific laboratory.
The first quote is from the 1996 study, the second is the quote you originally found, I suspect, on Wikipedia. It came originally from the Bandim Health Project website and refers to the 1996 study that I linked to, and which we have been discussing, not a 2011 study which would represent science moving forward. Unless, of course, you are aware of a later study by Peter Aaby that found a two-fold increase in mortality among girls. If so, do share.
You still seem to believe that this vaccine was killing children. When given before DTP it failed to protect children to the same extent as the regular measles vaccine. How many times do I have to repeat this before you finally get it? Here's more on this from the Bandim Health Project, from the same passage that quote you keep repeating originated:
That is clearly referring to the review study co-authored by Aaby and published in 2003 that concluded:
So it didn't increase mortality compared to placebo, and it was probably subsequent vaccinations, not HTMV, that led to the increase in mortality relative to regular measles vaccine. It's not a great example of a vaccine which led to adverse events that exceeded its benefits is it?
Because it didn't reduce mortality like the regular measles vaccine did. If it had been given instead of the regular measles vaccine more deaths in females would have occurred, assuming these results were correct. You can't claim that the risks of vaccines exceed their benefits by referring to a paper that showed that one vaccine was more effective than another, that's just ridiculous. It's like claiming that seat belts kill people because they save fewer lives than air bags.
It's a 2006 report, and I didn't intend to cherry-pick, I was highlighting the relevant part of the conclusion that points out that other methodologies found that DTP reduced mortality. The study you quoted was an observational study from 2003, this was a later review of 7 studies, including the rather poorly designed study you quoted, that pointed out their shortcomings. Cherry-picking would be quoting from an old study that found increased mortality from DTP without checking to see if this had been followed up with more recent studies that challenged those results, a bit like you did.
What is it about vaccines that brings out the Dunning-Kruger effect in people? I spent years studying immunology (and statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, cell biology and several other less closely related subjects), had to write essays about it, and pass exams on the subject, so I have some idea how little I understand it. You seem to have studied at Google University and think you understand the science better than the experts. You keep demonstrating that you don't.
Who is arguing against more research? There is always more work being done in this area, but not by idiotic anti-vaccine advocates who don't understand basic science and think they know better than people who have spent decades studying this stuff.
Yes, I think you have demonstrated that already. A fixed mind set is when someone has made their mind up, and refuses to change it in the face of contradictory evidence. There is only one person here who fits that description.
Krebiozen:
That is an apt description of blackheart, especially after he used the IOM report as proof the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles. Or something to that effect, I don't even read his comments anymore.
Gray Falcon
That was a single specific vaccine. Using that quote against vaccines in general is like using the Pinto as proof that all cars are dangerous.
The Bandim Health Project has found similar effects on morality both positive and negative that should alter the course of vaccine implementation.
This could result in the saving of millions of additional lives.
I would have thought any person with an interest in cutting edge scientific investigation would welcome this ...sadly I am mistaken.
Gray Falcon
1) For the measles vaccine: The new vaccine's safety was in comparison to the existing vaccine.
Yes it wasn't compared against - no vaccination. Thus an additional 500,000 deaths. Why would you compare it against NO vaccine unless you were seeking to mislead ?
2) For DTP: Here's the conclusion for the study: "The divergent results in observational studies of the impact of DTP on child survival are partly because of methodological differences. To assess the impact on mortality of routine vaccinations, observational study designs which minimize the effect of bias are warranted. Randomized trials should be considered." So in other words, inconclusive.
What they were trying to ascertain was the best methodology. No because there best methodology as reported in 2010 still states -
"DTP will therefore increase total mortality if it causes even a small increase in mortality from pneumonia and sepsis, even though it reduces mortality from DTP. Compared to BCG and measles vaccines, there is less evidence that DTP has non-specific effectsâbut, by the same token, there are no randomised trials of the effect of DTP on total mortality, so we do not have adequate evidence that DTP is safe in high-mortality areas. When DTP was first introduced into Guinea-Bissau (a community with âhighâ pertussis risk), mortality was 11.3 per 100 person-years among children given DTP, and 5.1 per 100 person-years among children who did not receive DTP (risk ratio 2.03, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.52).4 I know of no other study of the introduction of DTP in a high-mortality area that has sufficient power to test the effect on total mortality."
BMJ November 2010
3) In general: Nobody said vaccines were completely harmless or that safety issues didn't exist.
Thank goodness for that .... but a safety issue that shows a vaccine was associated with 500,000 deaths mainly infant females seems to be a bit on the ... gee whiz sides of safety.
What we did say was that the benefits vastly outweighed the risks, something you have yet to disprove.
So your logic dictates that if a new vaccine causes 500,000 deaths but measles deaths are 501,000 then that is a sufficient death benefit ratio.Perhaps you should quantify and clarify your death benefit ratio.
Krebiozen
And still you persist in demonstrating your lack of education in this area.
This is what you said ... later in your post 609
"I spent years studying immunology (and statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, cell biology and several other less closely related subjects), had to write essays about it, and pass exams on the subject, so I have some idea how little I understand it."
Perhaps when you hit the books next time you'll do a little better.
-----------------------------------------------------
How else would you describe a vaccine that appeared to have no effect on mortality when compared with the unvaccinated?
Interesting... because initially studies showed
"Several studies evaluating Edmonston- Zagreb (EZ) medium or high titre measles vaccine in infants as young as 4-6 months showed good seroconversion rates"
From Child Mortality Following Medium or High Titre Measles Immunization in West Africa Knudsen , Aaby et al 1996 (my error previously).
It was effective in that it prevented measles, but ineffective in that it didn't reduce (but certainly didn't increase) mortality as much as the regular measles vaccine.
Vaccines are supposed to protect against other causes of mortality ? What was the biological mechanism behind that ? Or are there differing biological mechanism or factors in play ?
"According to the current understanding, the immune system is characterised by specificity, i.e. the ability to recognise and respond to a specific infection with a very specific reaction. This means that a vaccine against a disease will establish immunity against just that disease - and nothing else."
Statens Institute
It came originally from the Bandim Health Project website and refers to the 1996 study that I linked to, and which we have been discussing, not a 2011 study which would represent science moving forward.
Obviously you have an overwhelming self belief (contrary to evidence - Dunning -Krueger moment) that your position in this matter outweighs the direct quote of the scientists and researchers involved who in 2011 are still presenting that quote on their website.
Let them know ... email , ring , fax ....tell them you are right and they are wrong.
Because it didn't reduce mortality like the regular measles vaccine did.
Sort of a glass half empty argument is it ? Bandim Health should have said ...
One of the most important findings was that a new measles vaccine used in low-income countries was not associated with a two-fold reduction in mortality among girls. Thus we have nothing to say about 500,000 female deaths.
This discovery led to ... meh. Well nothing really.
Wonder why they didn't state it that way ? Perhaps they disagree with you and your science training.
------------------------------------------------------
You can't claim that the risks of vaccines exceed their benefits by referring to a paper that showed that one vaccine was more effective than another, that's just ridiculous.
You can show me where I have made that claim ? What is has done is moved science forward from your shared simplistic viewpoint on vaccines.
It's a 2006 report, and I didn't intend to cherry-pick, I was highlighting the relevant part of the conclusion that points out that other methodologies found that DTP reduced mortality.
The 2006 research article, not report, is trying to discern the best methodologies to bring to these and other questions in regards to vaccines and other health initiatives.
Cherry-picking would be quoting from an old study that found increased mortality from DTP without checking to see if this had been followed up with more recent studies that challenged those results, a bit like you did.
I did ? That's a direct quote from a November 2010 article written by one of the world's leading experts in this area.
Who is arguing against more research?
"In their commentary on my article about the non-specific effects of vaccines, Paul Fine and David Elliman state that we are dealing with âunproven non-specific effectsâ and imply that these effects may not be of widespread importance because âmuch of the evidenceâ comes from Guinea-Bissau."
"There is always more work being done in this area, but not by idiotic anti-vaccine advocates who don't understand basic science and think they know better than people who have spent decades studying this stuff.
Now it seems there are idiotic vaccine apologists (present company excluded I suppose) who don't understand basic science and think they know better than people who have spent decades studying this stuff.Like the Bandim Health Project ... or do you still disagree with their direct quote.
"Had it not been withdrawn, it could have cost at least ½ million additional female deaths per year in Africa alone."
Peter Aaby Bandim Health Project.
New science ...new understandings ... new ways forward.
Prometheus
"The way - so far - that researchers have found to cover the "gap months" is to use a high-titre solution of the usual vaccine strain (there was an attempt to use a more virulent vaccine strain, but it was more dangerous than the HTMV). The problem was and is that the high-titre vaccines lead to an immune response more like the wild-type and one of those effects is a transient immune suppression."
Wrong - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11228365
"In the "Westernised" world, this isn't such a problem, but in countries where the water supply is more "natural", high-titre measles vaccines led to an increase in illness and deaths from diarrheal diseases (the #1 killer of small children in Africa) over that seen following the "standard" measles vaccine."
Wrong - The core of the project is a demographical surveillance system (DSS) which registers more than 90,000 people in 6 suburbs of the capital Bissau.
Keep in mind that not only are young infants in the "gap months" less able to develop effective immunity after the "standard" measles vaccines, they are also far more likely to die from diarrheal illness.
Wrong - This does not explain the sex differentials in mortality.
Of course, getting the wild-type measles virus in the "gap months" leads to even more immune suppression than even the high-titre vaccine, which is why - even though the high-titre vaccine has higher morbidity/mortality than the "standard" vaccine - the overall effect is generally less serious illness and death.
Wrong - This does not explain the sex differentials in mortality.
A serious "confounder" in many studies of high-titre vaccines is that the test (and control) population is often close to medical centres (such as they are) and thus more likely to survive the post-wild-type-measles diarrheal illness than the "general" population.
Wrong - This does not explain the sex differentials in mortality.
All of these subtleties are, of course, lost on people with an anti-vaccination agenda, since - to them - any harm attributable to vaccines is sufficient justification to condemn them, even if the overall effect is a reduction in morbidity and mortality.
Wrong - Nice hyperbole. This does not explain the clear evidence and continuing research undertaken by the very people that proposed using a high titre measles vaccine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2491276/
------------------------------------------------
In other words, to the "antivaccinationistas", ten thousand deaths from measles are acceptable in order to prevent a single death from the vaccine.
Hmmm...Having a Danny DeVito moment are we ?
Fortunately some of the worlds leading experts and I would like to uncover both the positive and negative benefits of vaccine and other health implementations.
Such research could potentially save millions of lives and benefit countless other children.
Blackheart,
You are either deliberately being obtuse, and arguing for the sake of it, or you are an idiot. I don't know which it is, and frankly I don't care. Arguing with an intelligent opponent who makes clear statements and backs them up with evidence is enjoyable. Arguing with someone who avoids making any clear statements, twists my words, sets up countless straw men, ignores evidence and constantly moves goalposts, misinterprets the science and displays, but won't admit, his ignorance at every turn is just irritating and frustrating.
By the way, almost everything you wrote in your last three comments is either simply wrong, or you have completely misinterpreted what you have read. I can't be bothered to keep pointing out where you have got it wrong as you never accept you have made a mistake, and either keep insisting you are right, or change the subject.
I won't be continuing this pointless discussion.
Blackheart, do you have a point to your ranting?
That is easy, Gray Falcon, he thinks it is entertaining to lie.
Good point, Chris. His last two comments to me seems to be addressing somebody that only exists in his mind. I should probably just let the two of them sort this out.
Krebiozen
"The non-specific effects of measles vaccine have been a main focus of research at the BHP since the very beginning even though it took 15 years to formulate the idea that vaccines may have other than the targeted
effects, presumably due to some form of immune stimulation.
The high-titre measles vaccine (HTMV) was protective against measles but associated with two fold increased mortality for girls.
Hence, such non-specific immune stimulatory effects can be very important for child survival. However, the research community did not pursue these observations, but instead searched for a new and better measles vaccines. However, if a licensed vaccine could have such dramatic effect it can probably happen again unless we understand the specific immunological mechanisms. We have therefore aimed to document the importance of non-specific effects not only for measles vaccine but for all of the routine vaccines."
Peter Aaby 2010 Bandim Health Project
"Second, the HTMV incident suggested a marked sex-differential effect of this vaccine.
In the pre-vaccination era in West Africa, there was no important sex-difference in post-neonatal child mortality .
Hence, if vaccines have strong sex-differential effects on mortality it suggests that non-specific immune stimulatory effects are important for child survival. As it turns out, all routine vaccines have sex-differential effects suggesting that boys and girls might in fact benefit from different vaccines or different vaccination schedules.
Conducting randomised trials, we have found major nonspecific effects.
However, they have not always been the ones we had expected. The immunological interactions have been more important than initially envisioned. Testing, for example, early measles vaccine, we changed the sequence of vaccinations and that has fundamentally changed the impact on survival because more children received DTP after measles vaccine.
We have also experienced several times that supplementation with micronutrients amplified the immunological effects.
Randomised trials will be continued but it is becoming clear that it will be increasingly difficult to test the impact on survival because once we intervene and provide services to the community we are also reducing mortality. We need to measure the impact on indicator infections and immunological parameters which are associated with survival and which will indicate whether the immunological profile induced by a vaccine is beneficial or not.
This is becoming urgent as more and more new vaccines are being introduced.
Non-specific effects are very important for child survival in low-income countries. From what we know now, live vaccines are beneficial â at least in individuals without immunodeficiency â whereas inactivated vaccines may have negative effects on other than the targeted diseases. Both beneficial and negative effects are strongest for girls. Effects may change fundamentally when vaccines are combined or the sequence inverted.
Furthermore, vaccines interact with other forms of immunomodulators like micronutrients and season.
____________________________________________________
"You are either deliberately being obtuse, and arguing for the sake of it, or you are an idiot."
Apparently there are lot of "idiots" like myself, promoting the safe and efficacious use of vaccines.Making sure that we continue to develop our depth of knowledge about the importance of such factors as immune system stimulation.
Thank goodness for us "idiots" that can put aside our prejudices and look at vaccines objectively. Who push forward the science ...
Several million lives per annum could be at stake.
Sorry.
Sex differences in the vaccine-specific and non-targeted effects of vaccines
Vaccine
Volume 29, Issue 13, 16 March 2011
Vaccines have non-specific effects (NSE) on subsequent morbidity and mortality from non-vaccine related infectious diseases.
Thus NSE refers to any effect that cannot be accounted for by the induction of immunity against the vaccine-targeted disease.
These effects are sex-differential, generally being more pronounced in females than males.
Furthermore, the NSE are substantial causing greater than fifty percent changes in all cause mortality in certain settings , yet have never been systematically tested despite the fact that millions of children receive vaccines each year.
the relative impact of NSE of vaccines on mortality is likely to increase , raising important questions regarding the future of certain vaccine schedules.
A diverse group of scientists met in Copenhagen to discuss non-specific and sex-differential effects of vaccination, and explore plausible biological explanations."
Representatives from the following organisations -
MRC Laboratories, PO Box 273, Fajara, Gambia
Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
Department of Growth and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
Institute for Medical Immunology, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
University of Massachussets Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
University Health Network & Department of Immunology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
MRC International Nutrition Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
MRC International Nutrition Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keneba, Gambia
Bandim Health Project, Statens Serum Institut, Artillerivej 5, 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark
Bandim Health Project, Indepth Network, Apartado 861, 1004 Bissau Codex, Guinea-Bissau
---------------------------------------------------
It's just embarrassing how much 'skeptiks' know about their chosen subject. Better hit the books a bit harder next time ...
I hope you're enjoying your big bonfire of strawmen Blackheart.
Krebiozen and Chris
It's not easy to accept change to the schema one has built up over the years. Especially if that schema is only supported by one's own intellectual prejudices forged by those like minded.
Nor is it easy to overcome one's ignorance if one does not take time to understand , research and study the world around him.
It is easier to deny, obsfuscate, fight or flight.
When one's last intellectual debate is to name call then the debate has been lost.
The man who promises everything is sure to fulfill nothing, and everyone who promises too much is in danger of using evil means in order to carry out his promises, and is already on the road to perdition.
Carl Jung
It is the end of the line.
There is no coming to consciousness without pain.
Carl Jung
Heed the sign.
Chris,
I don't wish to encourage Blackheart, but I do find it hilarious that he has somehow mutated from a Wakefield apologist into a supporter of real scientific research into autism and safer vaccines, the sort of real scientific research this blog has been promoting for years. I'm glad we have succeeded in prompting this miraculous conversion through the medium of reason and evidence.
Sorry, I didn't notice, since I stopped reading his blatherings ages ago.
Blackheart (#614):
Curiously, neither of the measles vaccines used in that study were "high-titre". Did you have a point?
And this pertains to the issue of contaminated water and access to medical care because...? You are aware that the suburbs of Bissau are not like the suburbs of Chicago or Zurich in that respect, aren't you?
I don't believe I was trying to explain the sex differentials in mortality. As I recall, I was trying to explain why the high-titre vaccines were being tried and why they are inherently more dangerous, especially in areas with potentially contaminated water supplies.
Do you have an explanation for the sex differentials in mortality? Severeral come to my mind, but I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Prometheus
Prometheus
Some 6 days for uptake and reply is there some explanation for your tardiness ?
Curiously, neither of the measles vaccines used in that study were "high-titre".
That would be because they were using another strategy 'two dose' standard titre.
Did you have a point ?
Yes indeed I did ... you were and remain substantially wrong.
And this pertains to the issue of contaminated water and access to medical care because...?
You said ... but in countries where the water supply is more "natural". Perhaps you'd like to redefine, urban centre and municipal water supply so that it can be incorporated into 'natural' rather than "man made"
You are aware that the suburbs of Bissau are not like the suburbs of Chicago or Zurich in that respect, aren't you?
... you are aware a waterfall is not a tap connected to a water filtration plant. 83% of the urban population has access to clean drinking water.
I don't believe I was trying to explain the sex differentials in mortality.
You weren't ? Well you should have been, because that's a major finding, which you disregard in your theory.
As I recall, I was trying to explain why the high-titre vaccines were being tried and why they are inherently more dangerous, especially in areas with potentially contaminated water supplies.
That's not working out to well is it.
Do you have an explanation for the sex differentials in mortality?
Have I investigated and researched this area ? Yes
Have I come to a conclusion ? No
Severeral come to my mind
Of course they do, perhaps you should phone fax or telephone someone who cares.
Here I started a letter for you ...
To Whom it may concern
I have uncovered the explanation for sex differentials in vaccines.
your faithful servant
Prometheus Dunning-Kruger
-----------------------------------------------------
By the way do any of your explanations mention ...
"In the context of susceptibility to infection, a genetic association with autism, linked to a null allele of the complement (C) 4B gene located in the class III region of the major-histocompatibility complex, has been recorded by Warren and colleagues.24 C4B-gene products are crucial for the activation of the complement pathway and protection against infection: individuals inheriting one or two C4B null alleles may not handle certain viruses appropriately, possibly including attenuated strains."
It's interesting that the score sheets used to assess the children in Wakefield's Lancet study for enterocolitis I mentioned above #435 have turned up. They confirm that autistic enterocolitis was invented by "a non-expert pathologist such as Wakefield", for that study.
For all but one child blood markers of inflammation were negative, colonoscopies were negative and biopsies were negative, which was inconsistent with the autistic enterocolitis hypothesis. In what looks like an act of desperation Dr. Dhillon had to go back and re-examine the normal biopsy results, scoring them on a non-standard score sheet of his own invention. The mild inflammation recorded, which was consistent with the chronic constipation seen in several children, led to scores that were then misinterpreted by Wakefield to show that the children had enterocolitis.
There's a good summary of this on LBRB.
Krebiozen
Finally your chance to shine tell us exactly the causation and clinical findings that underpin your diagnosis for each and every child.
You are a pathologist are you not ?
ps Don't forget
"First, a highly selected group of children with developmental disorder (many with regressive autism) exists, who have an unusual gastrointestinal abnormality characterised by ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia and non-specific enterocolitis that is not classical inflammatory bowel disease."
"this mucosal abnormality has been apparent in 47/50 children within the autistic spectrum, whether or not there is any perceived link with immunisation. Thus the lymphoid hyperplasia/ microscopic colitis changes were found in over 90% of the autistic children studied. Even if there is no immunodeficiency, the lymphoid hyperplasia in many cases is remarkable, with germinal centres showing higher numbers of proliferating (Ki67 positive) cells than we have detected in any immunodeficient controls with lymphoid hyperplasia. We are very familiar with the detection of lymphoid hyperplasia in children with minor immunodeficiency, as are Lindley and Milla, and have published several reports on this topic. We were thus ideally placed to detect the exaggerated lesion found in many of these children. The colitis itself is variable, but may feature crypt abscesses, increased macrophage infiltration and unregulated class II major histocompatibility complex expression.
Second, we have noted important behavioural responses in several of the children when their intestinal pathology is treated. Plain radiography confirms severe constipation with acquired megarectum in almost all affected children, despite many receiving treatment for constipation. Most parents note a honeymoon period of behavioural improvement after the bowel preparation for colonoscopy and this is maintained if recurrent constipation can be prevented. Further cognitive improvement has occurred in response to aminosalicylates, provided that constipation is prevented."
Krebiozen
I don't wish to encourage Blackheart, but I do find it hilarious that he has somehow mutated from a Wakefield apologist into a supporter of real scientific research into autism and safer vaccines, the sort of real scientific research this blog has been promoting for years. I'm glad we have succeeded in prompting this miraculous conversion through the medium of reason and evidence.
Posted by: Krebiozen | November 9, 2011 1:41 PM
I'm sure you and other 'skeptiks' will try to reinvent yourselves as 'vaccine safety advocates' ... and I'm sure I'll find that position both highly ironic and implausible.
You should be reflecting on how you ended up up in this very compromised position.
Posted by: blackheart | October 26, 2011 1:02 AM
----------------------------------------------------
I'd like to admit to some of the 'psychic' powers so loved by my scientific rational friends ... but simple elementary deduction on the aberrant psychology and behaviour of 'skeptiks'sufficed.
Blackheart,
I don't have anything to add to what I have said already. The evidence that autistic enterocolitis was invented by Wakefield and others regardless of normal blood, endoscopy and biopsy results is persuasive. "The existence of a gastrointestinal disturbance specific to persons with ASDs (eg, âautistic enterocolitisâ) has not been established."
Clearly if autistic individuals have gastrointestinal disorders they should be investigated, diagnosed and treated as they are in anyone else.
No one in their right mind would advocate anything other than safe vaccines, but you have to consider risk versus benefit. If we refused to use any vaccine that has not been proven to be 100% safe, no vaccine would ever be used and infectious diseases would return with their attendant morbidity and mortality. No one in their right mind wants to see that either. I think that research that is published in peer-reviewed journals, RCTs and post-marketing surveillance are the best way we have of assuring and improving vaccine safety and effectiveness, and that most of the time this works very well.
I have not seen any suggestions from you or anyone else for a better system, or even ways in which this system could be improved. I don't see that "safe vaccine proponents" (who in reality appear to be anti-vaccine zealots) have made any contribution to vaccine safety, apart from spreading irrational fears and implausible unsupported hypotheses that have led to the waste of enormous amounts of time, money and resources to the detriment of all involved.
It's particularly relevant to note that resources devoted to dealing with unfounded scare stories are correspondingly NOT devoted to dealing with real issues. Which means that the supposed "safe vaccine proponents" are actually making vaccines LESS safe and effective by diverting funds away from improving them.
Krebiozen
I don't have anything to add to what I have said already.
I'm disappointed this was the time when you could have used your professional understandings to assist the wider autism community. Parents, caregivers and of course children themselves.
Clearly if autistic individuals have gastrointestinal disorders they should be investigated, diagnosed and treated as they are in anyone else.
Particularly if those gastrointestinal disorders may be central to severe autistic behaviours that effect the quality of life of Parents , caregivers and vulnerable children. I would imagine that simple safe procedures such as colonoscopies to investigate these severe diseases and symptoms would be an obvious clinical tool.
No one in their right mind would advocate anything other than safe vaccines...
Did not medical professionals from the UK Department of Health and government approve a vaccine that they were clearly warned had serious adverse effects.
Was not a high titre vaccine approved for use in the developing world that increased mortality by a factor of two potentially putting at risk 500,000 female lives per annum.
Is there not substantial evidence that the DTaP family of vaccines can effect overall mortality in the developing world ?
Is there not substantial evidence of severe adverse events in the combination of micronutrients such as Vitamin A and vaccines ?
Is it not true that the government of Japan has still not reintroduced the MMR vaccine ?
but you have to consider risk versus benefit.
What is the number crunching for this exactly ? Is there a figure on collateral damage obviously 500,000 made the WHO a bit uncomfortable.
What number is WHO placing on VAS intervention with neonates knowing the following ressearch...
"Having received VAS tended to be beneficial as long as
BCG was the last vaccine to be received.
However, once children received DTP vaccine,
mortality in girls who had received VAS at birth
was significantly 2-fold higher compared with
girls who had received placebo at birth."
Of course there is the flip side. If we investigate and find a safer vaccine schedule, which seems to be at the heart of the Bandim Health Projects' research, although the exact mechanism of why this is so remains out of our reach, we could potentially save millions more lives per annum.
I think that research that is published in peer-reviewed journals, RCTs and post-marketing surveillance are the best way we have of assuring and improving vaccine safety and effectiveness, and that most of the time this works very well.
One would think so, but the UK Government and public health officials ignored that advise and research. Just as the WHO has controversially done.
It is also clear that surveillance systems did not pick up a two fold increase in mortality or that it has shown the more complex interactions of vaccine administration. Including the clear indications that males and females react differently to vaccines.
I have not seen any suggestions from you or anyone else for a better system, or even ways in which this system could be improved.
You haven't because you prefer to ignore the matters I have raised. It would be obvious to anyone that there are real large gaps of knowledge in the way vaccines work.
There's a number of multilayered strategies that could be implemented. One would hope that there is a clear health and research strategy that sets out to investigate the very clear evidence of non specific effcets and sex differentials in vaccine administration.
But of course you would have to clear yourself of prejudice.
apart from spreading irrational fears and implausible unsupported hypotheses that have led to the waste of enormous amounts of time, money and resources to the detriment of all involved.
Obviously the lives and disease burden of several million developing world children has been criticised as an enormous waste of time and money.
But I am more of the humanitarian.
I know you are to Krebiozen you need to find some common ground, the grey areas if you like to move this science forward.
Set aside your beliefs and look objectively.
I totally disagree with you about anti vaccine people. A lot of what they say makes a great deal of sense actually.