Lots of people have it, and since it can be detected well before birth ... several are ... not born shall we say.

But I'm not sure where you're going with your statement?

Down syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome in the mother's egg.

The epidemic of down syndrome is in conceptions, but not in births. Down Syndrome is prevented via prenatal testing and abortion. This is a topic which bothers autistic adults (and many others) a great deal.

Down Syndrome is an example of what many claim can't happen: a genetic epidemic. Down Syndrome prevalence increased 31% over a few decades:

And that's births, not conceptions.

--Matt Carey

Sorry, this article is BS. This is MSN, so that's to be expected.

My son is a high functioning autistic, his two best friends are, as well. Guess what they all have in common? Moms who are five years OLDER than their Dads and all of our kids were conceived and born before our 30th. birthdays.

Here's a hint....AUTISM IS GENETIC AND RUNS IN FAMILIES....

for the record:.....Most of the time, Down syndrome isn't inherited. It's caused by a mistake in cell division during the development of the egg, sperm or embryo.

It's not 'the women's' fault.

www.mayoclinic.com/health/down-syndrome/DS00182/DSECTION=causes

Angela, the article is A) not saying that only older dads have autistic children or B) indicating that it's not genetic. It's saying that your risk for having autistic children increases with the age of the father, which is fact. It's actually backing up your point that it's genetic, since the more mutations in older sperm can lead to disruptions in the genetic code when a child is conceived.

Your son is autistic, and it's no coincidence that his two best friends are as well, nor that their parents are of similar age to you and your husband. You're all bonded by autism, and you're much more likely to associate and bond with people that are in a similar situation like yourselves.

My wife's parents had their autistic son when they were both 24 -- this study isn't BS because there are examples of young parents with autistic children. It's spot on because there are more autistic children (percentage-wise) born to families with older dads, supporting the idea that mutations in sperm DNA increase the likelihood for autism and many other diseases.

Down syndrome risk increases over time for much the same way...mutations in DNA don't allow the chromosomes to separate correctly during zygote/fetal development. The older you are, the more risk there is that cells don't divide correctly.

For the record, I believe that autism is caused by genetic anomalies in DNA (mutations, deletions, additions, & replications known as copy number variants) which cause 'loose wires' when the child develops. These anomalies can either be inherited (thus the "running in families" trend) or spontaneously-occurring, in which the DNA gets mutations during fetal development (what this study showed). You and the study are both right -- it's genetics, but those genetic anomalies can occur in multiple pathways.

Yes, autism can occur for young parents and older parents...this study just showed why older parents are more susceptible...genetic mutations are much more common as we age. That's a fact.

I disagree with the Penguin. When I was growing up, families were greater in the number of members. Not uncommon to have five or more children. Common senses dictates that the fathers of these families had children when they were older. Regressive autism was virtually non existant back then. Genetics can not cause epidemics. That's a fact. But I guess anything that takes the focuss off vaccination injury is more likely to make the news.

Penguin, please list the genes found in older father's sperm that are know to predispose a child to autism. Please list all gene defects directly responsible to cause autism. Please list any gene defect that has been found to definately be causative of autism. Not in a few cases. What defective genes cause autism.

Good luck with that. Don't post genes suspected or genes associated. Pretend I was going to conduct a DNA screening for a predisposition. What would I be looking for?

For Biff. You don't need to specify which exact genes are definitely known to cause autism to demonstrate a genetic root. You can demonstrate a genetic link through such things as twin studies and sibling studies without knowing anything about the specific genes involved. These studies in autism often show a far higher concordance when compared to controls.

Many genetic disorders are not caused directly by one or even a few genes. They are often caused by many many different genes. This is what creates problems when trying to identify specific genes. The genetic risk contributed by one or a few genes is far to low to be able to identify in genetic studies. This is known as low power. You simply don't have enough autistic people in a study to definitively pick a gene as contributing X% of the risk. This is why you often run into suspected or associated genes. However, this doesn't throw doubt on the genetic link, but rather makes is very difficult to ID the genes involved. This is a common problem with the study of many genetic disorders. This becomes especially difficult if the disorder is mainly caused by a copy number variant or a change in the expression level of the gene.

Secondly. The diagnosis of autism has changed quite significantly from prior generations. This has caused many cases of mild autism to be reported whereas before they would have gone unnoticed. Also, anecdotal accounts are meaningless. Do you have a study dating from that time demonstrating the number of autistic people using the same current definition of autism? If not, you can't really claim it was non-existent. It's quite possible you simply didn't read about it on the internet because the net didn't really exist back then. The net often makes things seem like an epidemic because it brings information to you from all over the world when previously you only had access to your local or national newspaper.

Thirdly. You're associating more children with older males when it could very well be that males simply had children at a younger age. For example, the average age of people that have children has gotten older when compared to prior generations and you will often see many people not start having children until well into their 30s. Trying to use "common sense" to figure out these things often misses subtle details that a true scientific study would account for.

Finally, the supposed link between vaccines and autism came from one article many years ago and has never been able to be duplicated in further studies. For many years other researchers attempted to reproduce the results. None were successful. The original paper was even retracted by the journal due to fraudulent data. So, attempting to link it without a detailed description of how it would actually cause autism or several studies demonstrating a clear link is rather foolish. You can't really ask another poster to provide such impossibly exact details such as listing all gene defects directly responsible for autism but then turn around and do such a shoddy job of demonstrating your own point.

It's an excellent article. The lesson here is that people need to be a lot more careful about dismissing the word of experts. Speaking loudly from a position of total ignorance seems to be practically a national pasttime these days and it does uncaluculable amounts of damage to the lives of a great many people.

"For Biff. You don't need to specify which exact genes are definitely known to cause autism to demonstrate a genetic root. You can demonstrate a genetic link through such things as twin studies and sibling studies without knowing anything about the specific genes involved. These studies in autism often show a far higher concordance when compared to controls."

Yeah, when would you actually need proof of a genetic defect to know how it causes a disease. You can simply conduct population studies. That's how research is conducted.

"Trying to use "common sense" to figure out these things often misses subtle details that a true scientific study would account for."

Oh, you mean like population studies rather than bio-medical studies? Uh huh.

"You can't really ask another poster to provide such impossibly exact details such as listing all gene defects directly responsible for autism but then turn around and do such a shoddy job of demonstrating your own point."

Exact details? I asked for one known defect in a gene that has been confirmed in autism causation. How is that asking for something impossible?

Shoddy job of demonstrating my point?

My point is that some individuals with underlying metabolic issues, such as mitochondrial disorders, will sustain neurological injury after vaccinations. Really nothing shoddy about that. It is an injury that occurs as a known adverse reaction to vaccinations.

"It's an excellent article. The lesson here is that people need to be a lot more careful about dismissing the word of experts. Speaking loudly from a position of total ignorance seems to be practically a national pasttime these days and it does uncaluculable amounts of damage to the lives of a great many people."

What article are you talking about? The article that gives no mention to any genetic defect found in old father's sperm contributing to autism? The one that reports some sort of genetic find that contributes to autism in a complex environmental interaction that is virtually impossible to identify?

You're right. That's an excellent article. We need more like it. Maybe parents will be dumb enough to listen to multiple biased articles that are aimed at diverting focus on vaccination injury. Make sure they resonate that autism is a disorder that has little hope of being understood or prevented. Afterall, it's probably all due to older fathers having children these days.

Biff, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about genetics. I can't fully fault you for that, it happens often. When you were growing up, genetics was in its infancy. They didn't even elucidate the structure of DNA until the 1950's, much less understand gene regulation, cascade events, etc. In the grand scheme of things, we know more about the surface of the moon than about our own genetics.

You say "tell me exactly what gene causes X" when in reality you may need to look for hundreds if not thousands of genes being expressed or repressed at different levels, across numerous pathways. You may be looking for fully functional genes with abhorant regulation in combination with silent and/or mutated genes. With a better grasp of genetics, you may start to realize this is very much like hunting for cancers, there are many factors (genetic and environmental) which contribute, there is no silver bullet or magic cure-all that will apply in each and every situation.

What is well known, and well documented in genetic studies, is telomere degradation with age (the caps at the ends of each chromosome). The loss of genetic integrity has been linked with increased incidence of caner in older-aged demographic, and recent studies show this same mechanism in place degrading genetic information in the sperm of older males.

Your assertion that families were bigger, and therefore involve older dads, is simply anecdotal Here's another anecdote: my father's family had 7 children, and all born before my grandparents turned 25. My mother was born when her mother was 18.

And, the icing on the cake, as some posters above point out earlier - your assertion that autism was not prevalent "when you are growing up" has everything to do with diagnosis and the social acceptance of mental health care, and nothing to do with the actual incidence of autism.

So please, instead of reading MSNBC, read a textbook.

I really wish we could get past all this vaccine-autism nonsense and get to working on real answers. I do not believe there could be much left to beat on that horse.

On of the very sad outcomes of all this wailing about vaccines and autism is that adult autistics are completely neglected because antivax people spent so much time denying they exist. Although, that is not all the antivax people's fault. The establishment should not have spent so much time trying to appease them and should take a decent share in the blame.

As far as mitochondrial diseases go, that could not possibly be an explanation for autism because they are incredibly rare and autism is not.

MmmMmmBeer

"Biff, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about genetics. I can't fully fault you for that, it happens often. When you were growing up, genetics was in its infancy. They didn't even elucidate the structure of DNA until the 1950's, much less understand gene regulation, cascade events, etc. In the grand scheme of things, we know more about the surface of the moon than about our own genetics."

Fascinating...please go on

"You say "tell me exactly what gene causes X" when in reality you may need to look for hundreds if not thousands of genes being expressed or repressed at different levels, across numerous pathways. You may be looking for fully functional genes with abhorant regulation in combination with silent and/or mutated genes. With a better grasp of genetics, you may start to realize this is very much like hunting for cancers, there are many factors (genetic and environmental) which contribute, there is no silver bullet or magic cure-all that will apply in each and every situation."

Possibly hundreds of thousands of genes, I agree. Please go on....

"What is well known, and well documented in genetic studies, is telomere degradation with age (the caps at the ends of each chromosome). The loss of genetic integrity has been linked with increased incidence of caner in older-aged demographic, and recent studies show this same mechanism in place degrading genetic information in the sperm of older males."

Hey thanks MMMBEER. You just inadvertantly have given the right answer. Let me explain and then you can think about it and realize that you said too much.

With the dizzying amount of genes, some identified and some that haven't been yet, those in the area of genetic research have determined that vaccination components do not adversely affect gene expression involved with neurodevelopment?

That's amazing!!! There are unidentified genes that haven't been discovered yet. There are pathways that are affected by these genes. Despite this, we can accurately state that vaccination components do not adversely affect their expression.

You do realize just how absurd that sounds? You just went on a rant about how many genes and pathways could be involved. How can you say with any certainty at all, that all vaccination components will not affect genes known to be involved with neurodevelopment and those undiscovered yet?

The only correct answer is that it is impossible. But I could be wrong. So simply show data examining several vaccination components and their effects on the expression of the genes known to be involved with neurodevelopment.

"As far as mitochondrial diseases go, that could not possibly be an explanation for autism because they are incredibly rare and autism is not."

Define incredibly rare. You do not that there are numerous mitochondrial disorders. You could live your whole life without knowing you had a mito-disorder. BTW, recent science predicts that these disorders are far more prevelant those once believed.

Same old story. Mito-disorders are rare. Vacconation injury is rare. Autism is still rare, just better diagnosed. I got a newsflash for you-Autism is an epidemic.

Biff, autism spectrum disorder is a HIGHLY complex disorder involving genetic mutations in neurological development genes. If you have mutations, deletions, and most of all copy number variants (increased numbers of repetitive sequences), these genes won't fully work, and hence, misfiring and "short circuiting" that presents as autism. To think that there are one or two "autism genes" that you want me to show you is a complete error on your part.

Look up "copy number variants and autism" in Google. Read the studies. Without it, you're talking out of your @ss.

You claim that vaccines cause autism. NO study has shown that. It's not up to us to prove you wrong (although there are now hundreds of studies to prove you incorrect), it is up to you to bolster your argument with proof. The fact that you can't name ONE study showing that what you say is true is proof enough that you're wrong.

Vaccines cause autism? Then why are unvaccinated kids autistic, in the same percentages as vaccinated kids?

The real cause is genetic mutations and extra repetitive DNA sequences that cause the normal genes to become corrupt. It's been proven. Good night.

i really have nothing to add except for the fact that penquin and beer are some of the best posters of all on the vine

All of their posts are spot on and informative

doggy also had a fantastic post

Just a pleasure to read guys. Good to know there are some scientific minded people here

"Biff, autism spectrum disorder is a HIGHLY complex disorder involving genetic mutations in neurological development genes. If you have mutations, deletions, and most of all copy number variants (increased numbers of repetitive sequences), these genes won't fully work, and hence, misfiring and "short circuiting" that presents as autism. To think that there are one or two "autism genes" that you want me to show you is a complete error on your part."

Never said there were only one or two, just asked for one or two that have been definatively associated with autsim causation.

Isn't it true that there are thousands of genes that have been discovered?

Is it true that there are possibly thousands more awaiting to be discovered?

I would say that's fairly accurate. If so, and I'm not the self proclaimed genetic expert like you, wouldn't it be impossible to say that vacciantions do not cause neurological damage that manifests with symptoms of autism?

Have we examined every vaccination component's effect on every known gene involved with neurodevelopment? How it may affect adversely affect its expression? What about genes and pathways undiscovered yet?

So how can you sit on your soapbox and lecture about what will not cause autism?

So at best, the only thing you can say,genetically speaking, is we are far from drawing any accurate conclusion regarding whether or not vaccinations can cause autism. In scientific terms, we just aren't there yet.

"The real cause is genetic mutations and extra repetitive DNA sequences that cause the normal genes to become corrupt. It's been proven. Good night."

If you say so Penguin. Wait... can't enviromental factors adversely affect normal gene expression. Epigenetics? Couldn't vaccination components cause gentic mutations and extra repetitve DNA sequences that cause normal genes to become corrupt?

Can neuronal signaling proteins be translationally modified via exogenous insults and result in perturbations in proper signaling and brain development?

Um yeah. Give it a rest Penguin.

"i really have nothing to add except for the fact that penquin and beer are some of the best posters of all on the vine

All of their posts are spot on and informative

doggy also had a fantastic post

Just a pleasure to read guys. Good to know there are some scientific minded people here"

Rallying the troops Dr. Eric?

You're right. I probably won't have a lot of friends on this discussion because of my position. But you don't see me butt kissing to gain support for my comments.

Don't you have some statins to prescribe to patients whom don't need them?

"i really have nothing to add except for the fact that penquin and beer are some of the best posters of all on the vine"

"i really have nothing to add except for the fact that penquin and beer are some of the best posters of all on the vine"

That's not a mistake, it Dr. Eric's echo. Apparently his head must have got caught up Penguin's @ss.

really biff? grow up

can't enviromental factors adversely affect normal gene expression. Epigenetics?

If you point to one example of this associated with autism, you'll win a gold star.

Here are the links to genes found to have links with autism when their sequencing is altered by copy number variants, etc. For each such example, there are relatively few numbers. But if you take them in as a whole, you'll see a striking familiarity -- screw up the sequencing in neurological development genes, and a whole host of neurological disorders, including autism, can result:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7304/full/nature09146.html

http://www.med.upenn.edu/timm/documents/Levyetal.DNCNVAutNeuron2011.pdf

These are just a FEW of the hundreds of genetic linkages shown to be associated with autism. If you're counting at home, that's genetics and autism: 100+, vaccines and autism: 0.

Oh, so I missed you answer to my question.

Have we examined every vaccination component's effect on every known gene involved with neurodevelopment? How it may affect adversely affect its expression? What about genes and pathways undiscovered yet?

So,again, How have you ruled out vaccinations and autism?

penquin

it is obvioius we are talking to a guy who clearly never heard of mendel or his pea garden before

Biff, a simple question: how many african americans parents do you see popping out lily white babies? Do you need to know every gene involved in human pigmentation before you conclude there's a link between genes and skin color??

Same thing here.

Phenotype, whether it be skin color or autism, can be linked to genes, or the genotype, without necessarily knowing every gene involved.

Have we examined every vaccination component's effect on every known gene involved with neurodevelopment? How it may affect adversely affect its expression? What about genes and pathways undiscovered yet?

So,again, How have you ruled out vaccinations and autism?

You didn't rule anything out.

"Biff, a simple question: how many african americans parents do you see popping out lily white babies? Do you need to know every gene involved in human pigmentation before you conclude there's a link between genes and skin color??"

What does that even remotely have to do with understanding what vaccination components can adversely affect genes involved with neurodevelopment?

What now? Oh I get it. We don't need to understand adverse effects on genes intimately involved with neurodevelopment due to vaccination components. We can simply conclude they these genes will not provide any link towards a causative mechanism. Very scientific...for someone with their head in the sand.

my post sailed way over your head. Its like trying to teach geometry to an elementary school student

Penguin are you still around with your nonsense. Have you ever heard of the phrase correlation does not equal causation? Of course you have. Well that applies to the gene theory of autism causation. The answers are not there.

the whole vaccine injury argument is built around correlation over causation

you can't tell me one biologically plausible mechanism for vaccine injury aside from allergic reaction that has been demonstrated either in vitro or in vivo

in addition, robert, tell me how you would go about proving causation for the gene theory of autism. Tell me how this could be proven with regards to causation to your satisfaction

you can't tell me one biologically plausible mechanism for vaccine injury aside from allergic reaction that has been demonstrated either in vitro or in vivo

Mechanism of action is not known for many medications but it doesn't stop the medical experimentation on the public anyways.

congratulations on completely dodging the question. Don't think you fooled anyone with that obvious manuever

"my post sailed way over your head. Its like trying to teach geometry to an elementary school student"

That's what Dr. Eric does when you ask him a question. He'll post something irrelevant to it and then claim that his post answering the question was too complex for you to understand. Here's a perfect example-

my question-

Have we examined every vaccination component's effect on every known gene involved with neurodevelopment? How it may affect adversely affect its expression? What about genes and pathways undiscovered yet?

So,again, How have you ruled out vaccinations and autism?

Dr.Eric's answer-

"Biff, a simple question: how many african americans parents do you see popping out lily white babies? Do you need to know every gene involved in human pigmentation before you conclude there's a link between genes and skin color??"

"Same thing here."

"Phenotype, whether it be skin color or autism, can be linked to genes, or the genotype, without necessarily knowing every gene involved."

He never answers the specific questions. He derails these questions in an effort to dodge them. So I call him on it-

What does that even remotely have to do with understanding what vaccination components can adversely affect genes involved with neurodevelopment?

At which point he realizes the question he is avoiding basically proves that we have no idea how many genes are involved with neurodevelopment, or how their expressions may be adversely affected by vaccination components. So he has to play his only card left-

"my post sailed way over your head. Its like trying to teach geometry to an elementary school student"

you simply just did not understand the explanation

Another poster said that a few genes have been found that seem to link with autism. In addition, the older father thing makes a genetic basis a valid theory

However, your rebuttal was along the lines that every gene needs to be sequenced and analyzed before a genetic link to a certain phenotype, in this case autism, can be made

I then tried to illustrate the fallacy of that thinking by showing you that certain phenotypes, like skin color, are obviously genetic even though all the genes have not been identified

Its the same thing with type 2 diabetes. The concordance rate for twins and type 2 dm is at least 90%--holds true even if the twins were not raised together. This strongly suggests a genetic component although the genes haven't been identified yet

This is neither complicated nor irrelevant. Im sorry you don't understand it. Please let me know what I can do to help you figure it out

Then we get the Penguin theory. Somehow has has determined how autism is genetically acquired-

"The real cause is genetic mutations and extra repetitive DNA sequences that cause the normal genes to become corrupt. It's been proven. Good night."

It's been proven? OK. In cases of regressive autism, show me the genetic mutations and extra DNA sequences that cause this form of autism. You claim it has been proven.

Additionally, maybe you will answer the following questions. You seem to be the leading expert in genetic disease and autism causation-

Have we examined every vaccination component's effect on every known gene involved with neurodevelopment? How it may affect adversely affect its expression? What about genes and pathways undiscovered yet?

So,again, How have you ruled out vaccinations and autism?

I don't want to hear about population based studies that don't examine individuals. I want to see what genetic testing has been conducted evaluating vaccination components and their effects in vitro or in vivo on genes and pathways involved with neurodevelopment. The testing that rules out any adverse effects on these genes.

This should be fairly easy for you Penguin. You already know what genes have been determined to cause autism. How do vaccination components affect them?

"The real cause is genetic mutations and extra repetitive DNA sequences that cause the normal genes to become corrupt. It's been proven. Good night."

Back up your ridiculous claims. Again, show how vaccination components affect the genes you mention above.

not to be mean, but to be honest, here it is but i doubt you'll understand it

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22917206

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121991

you'll probably try to focus on this phrase in the abstract:

The identity and number of genes involved remain unknown.

which is certainly true. Not all genes are known. But I direct your attention to this phrase:

a putative speech and language region at 7q31-q33 seems most strongly linked to autism, with linkages to multiple other loci under investigation. Cytogenetic abnormalities at the 15q11-q13 locus are fairly frequent in people with autism, and a "chromosome 15 phenotype" was described in individuals with chromosome 15 duplications. Among other candidate genes are the FOXP2, RAY1/ST7, IMMP2L, and RELN genes at 7q22-q33 and the GABA(A) receptor subunit and UBE3A genes on chromosome 15q11-q13. Variant alleles of the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTT) on 17q11-q12 are more frequent in individuals with autism than in nonautistic populations. In addition, animal models and linkage data from genome screens implicate the oxytocin receptor at 3p25-p26.

Have we examined every vaccination component's effect on every known gene involved with neurodevelopment?

this thinking is backwards. You need to show that vaccines have a clinical effect before looking for a basic science mechanism. Once you prove vaccines actually cause autism, then you can go looking to see if the mechanism is epigenetic modification, post translational, protein modification, etc

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15090072

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21384559

"However, your rebuttal was along the lines that every gene needs to be sequenced and analyzed before a genetic link to a certain phenotype, in this case autism, can be made"

No, my rebuttal is not that at all. You are claiming that vaccinations can not cause autism. A claim that can not be validated due to the lack of analysis of effects of vaccination components and neurodevelopmental gene expressions. Huge difference.

There may be hundreds or thousands of genes yet to be identified in neurodevelopment. Of the genes identified thus far, how do several vaccination components affect their expression? Show me a few studies that evaluate these genes and vaccination components.

Given that everything I have just stated is correct, show me evidence that,

A) studies like this have been conducted

B) these studies show no adverse effects on these genes

C) we can conclude that neurodevelopment genes are not exogenously affected adversely by vaccination components.

Should be easy to pull up a few of these studies. Ask Penguin, he already knows the genes involved with autism causation.

"The inheritance of idiopathic autism is presumed to be complex, with many genes involved; environmental factors are also possibly contributory"

Yes, and vaccinations qualify as environmental factors that may contribute.

You did read the publication right?

Still not giving me what I had asked for. You and Penguin conclude that vaccinations do not cause autism. If environmental factors may contribute, as the authors stated, show where vaccination components are evaluated in causing these genetic defects.

Show a few studies examining adjuvants on the genes identified in your publications.

You ruled out exogenous influence on gene expressions via vaccination components. Show me some evidence. Isn't that what you pro-vaccine hacks do? You scream for evidence. Then make unsupported claims. You can post genetic studies all day long. Until you show where vaccination components are examined in respect to their influence on these gene expressions, your publications do nothing to support your claims.

You and Penguin are not dodging this bullet. Show a study, show something I have asked for.

Since you have determined thimerosal doesn't contribute to autism, how about a study on that?

I got one from an aquaintance of mine. We discussed it in his office. He's a professor of pharmacology. Care to critque his work?

You are claiming that vaccinations can not cause autism

Not true. I said there is no evidence of this. This distinction is important, as will become clear.

ow do several vaccination components affect their expression? Show me a few studies that evaluate these genes and vaccination components.

Biff, thats not the way things work.

I can sum up your position thusly--unless a study has been done to eliminate every possibility then all those possibilities still remain viable. There is some truth to that to be sure, but i believe you taking it to the extreme

For example, using your logic, I could ask if we know for sure solar rays don't cause autism? How about exposure to cattle? Has anyone studied this with a large randomized study in the past 5 years (because studies older than that are useless apparently)

You see where that would lead us? We would be spending huge amounts of money, effort, and time into ruling out every possibility and never get anywhere

Thats the reason we have the scientific method. Develop a hypothesis, test it, and confirm or refute the hypothesis

Your hypothesis is that vaccines injure children, perhaps through a genetic mechanism. Well, no study has ever shown a link between vaccines and any permanent injury. Thus, looking for a genetic mechanism is moot

Since you have determined thimerosal doesn't contribute to autism, how about a study on that?

I got one from an aquaintance of mine. We discussed it in his office. He's a professor of pharmacology. Care to critque his work?

There are plenty. If you show me yours, I'll show you mine

Yes, and vaccinations qualify as environmental factors that may contribute.

You did read the publication right?

Sure. Please reference the portion that discussed vaccines as an example of an environmental factor. That would be just fantastic.

If you just want to insert anything to count as an environmental factor, why not solar rays or cattle? Maybe it was a lunar eclipse? Where's the RCT disproving that? It must be true then....

Show a study, show something I have asked for.

Show me a study that proves solar rays don't cause autism. Now i have as much evidence as you

There may be hundreds or thousands of genes yet to be identified in neurodevelopment. Of the genes identified thus far, how do several vaccination components affect their expression? Show me a few studies that evaluate these genes and vaccination components.

"Biff, thats not the way things work."

Huh? You have ten of thousands of parents claiming there is a connection between vaccinations and regressive autism. Parents have witness this regression first hand. So there should be an honest attempt to evaluate vaccine components and how they may affect genes that are known to be involved with neurodevelopment.

You know.... at least make an attempt to provide biomedical evidence that rules out adverse gene expressions via vaccine components.

But you're right. That's not how it works.

"Sure. Please reference the portion that discussed vaccines as an example of an environmental factor. That would be just fantastic."

Here comes the dishonesty. Now you are stating that vaccinations need to be confirmed as environmental factors that may exogenously affect gene expression. Dishonesty doesn't support you're argument. But again, it's your trump card.

"Show me a study that proves solar rays don't cause autism. Now i have as much evidence as you"

Diversion by analogy. Have thousands of parents reported autism regression due to solar rays or cattle? Are these on trial as safety concerns that are believed to cause autism?

"I can sum up your position thusly--unless a study has been done to eliminate every possibility then all those possibilities still remain viable. There is some truth to that to be sure, but i believe you taking it to the extreme"

We have known vaccination components that our children are exposed to. We have known genes involved with neurodevelopment. How is asking for studies related towards understanding how these vaccination components may affect these genes considered extreme? It isn't. It's a reasonable request. Especially when you are taking a position that defends the safety of these interactions. Denialist approach.

"If you just want to insert anything to count as an environmental factor, why not solar rays or cattle? Maybe it was a lunar eclipse? Where's the RCT disproving that? It must be true then...."

I inserted vaccination components as an environmental factor. You asked for proof that they are environmental factors. Just as you asked for proof that DHA and AA are LCPUFAs that oxidize in vivo.

Like I said on numerous occasions. You're dishonest, arrogant and a downright liar. It makes sense though. When you base your argument on lies, that's all you have to work with.

I could say that the earth revolves around the sun. Doesn't matter, you'll twist that fact to support your argument. You're dishonest.

"Sure. Please reference the portion that discussed vaccines as an example of an environmental factor. That would be just fantastic."

"Your hypothesis is that vaccines injure children, perhaps through a genetic mechanism. Well, no study has ever shown a link between vaccines and any permanent injury. Thus, looking for a genetic mechanism is moot"

Give it a rest liar.

Have thousands of parents reported autism regression due to solar rays or cattle? Are these on trial as safety concerns that are believed to cause autism?

I see how it works. If I want to prove a point, like the fact that vaccines don't affect genes, I need a study. All you need as proof to prove your points is accusations

Isn't that hypocritical?

How is asking for studies related towards understanding how these vaccination components may affect these genes considered extreme? It isn't. It's a reasonable request. Especially when you are taking a position that defends the safety of these interactions. Denialist approach.

I think solar rays cause autism. Now where is the study proving they don't? See how insane your argument is?

biff,

on another note, please refrain from callng me a liar or anything of the sort. Not that it bothers me, but it seems your posts are now 85% personal attacks and 15% arguing your point.

In addition, I have challenged you numerous times to point out ANY of my "lies". It should be easy, everything is posted here in perpetuity. But you have failed.

I hope you can at least reverse that ratio. Its not the name calling that bothers me, its just difficult to wade through all the crap to see what you are actually trying to say. Its becoming more trouble than its worth

Its also not a very persuasive strategy. You have a lot of bark, but no real bite to back it up.

Your posts have become too long. Try to be more concise

and learn how to use the quote function

just copy and paste my words into your post, highlight them, and hit the quote button on the text box. Its really very easy

And again, please tell me your mechanism for how mito patients are sensitive to vaccines. Im very curious

"In addition, I have challenged you numerous times to point out ANY of my "lies". It should be easy, everything is posted here in perpetuity. But you have failed"

"Your hypothesis is that vaccines injure children, perhaps through a genetic mechanism. Well, no study has ever shown a link between vaccines and any permanent injury. Thus, looking for a genetic mechanism is moot"

You lie about everything. Please explain the comment above.

You are stating that vaccinations never resulted in any permanent injury. You lie.

I'll post your lie and see what others think.

I've repeatedly asked for mechanisms of action, eric, with no response from either Robert or Biff. You're right, it seems that all they need for proof of their accusations is their own words, yet they require from us to have explored every single gene in the human genome and the effects of every single chemical to prove that they don't cause autism.

Biff & Robert, if autism is caused by vaccines, show us ONE person that has gotten autism from vaccines, without having an underlying condition (like Poling's mitochondrial dysfunction). Can't use Bailey Banks either, since the child was not determined to have autism (only certain symptoms of the disorder, but not fitting the DSM-IV definition). I.e. show me one person who has been proven to have gotten autism from vaccines. Surely if there was proof that vaccines cause autism, ONE person would have been found that fits this model, right?

biff,

I think you are confused about the definition of lying. We disagree, but that doesn't necessarily mean either of us is lying. If your definition were correct, then everyone on here would also be liars since someone disagrees with them. You would also be a liar since I disagree with you

Please explain the comment above.

Its self explanatory biff

You are stating that vaccinations never resulted in any permanent injury. You lie.

Wrong. I stated no STUDY has shown it. But if you want, try and prove me wrong. Again, wrong, not a liar.

Ah, back from a weekend trip. For penguin, you're not going to get that type of answer. I've had this same conversation with Robert in past posts and he was unable to provide any link to a study demonstrating a mechanism for any of their accusations but kept demanding more and more studies for points I made. They are also unable to provide you with studies that have demonstrated any form of association between the two conditions. The same argument that they'll keep making is that since we don't know everything there is to know regarding genetics or biology, they're able to state that vaccines cause autism or that they could and we can't 100% completely disprove them. I could also claim solar eclipses cause autism with as much evidence as they're providing since we'll never know 100% with absolute certainty of anything. But, we can make that claim of just about any type of scientific argument.

This is the main difference between arguing with a denier and arguing with a scientist. The scientist will provide you with links towards research articles demonstrating their point whereas the denier will keep demanding an impossibly high burden of proof on your part but not keeping their own arguments to that same standard. They will also then state that since you can't prove your argument with absolute 100% certainty or provide complete knowledge of anything related to the subject (all genes involved with a condition for example), their own argument is valid. This is despite the case that you can prove your own argument with 99.99%...(insert as many 9s here as you like), but their own argument has a far lower certainty...

Fortunately though the field of genetics, medicine, and other sciences delving into the realm of biology isn't run by them.

Oh,now I'm confused about the definition of lying? I'm pretty sure I understand this.

"Wrong. I stated no STUDY has shown it. But if you want, try and prove me wrong. Again, wrong, not a liar."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/3/383.abstract

Abstract

Objective. To determine if there is evidence for a causal relationship between acute encephalopathy followed by permanent brain injury or death associated with the administration of further attenuated measles vaccines (Attenuvax or Lirugen, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Kansas City, MO), mumps vaccine (Mumpsvax, Merck and Co, Inc, West Point, PA), or rubella vaccines (Meruvax or Meruvax II, Merck and Co, Inc, West Point, PA), combined measles and rubella vaccine (M-R-Vax or M-R-Vax II, Merck and Co, Inc, West Point, PA), or combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (M-M-R or M-M-R II, Merck and Co, Inc, West Point, PA), the lead author reviewed claims submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Methods. The medical records of children who met the inclusion criteria of receiving the first dose of these vaccines between 1970 and 1993 and who developed such an encephalopathy with no determined cause within 15 days were identified and analyzed.

Results. A total of 48 children, ages 10 to 49 months, met the inclusion criteria after receiving measles vaccine, alone or in combination. Eight children died, and the remainder had mental regression and retardation, chronic seizures, motor and sensory deficits, and movement disorders. The onset of neurologic signs or symptoms occurred with a nonrandom, statistically significant distribution of cases on days 8 and 9. No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine.

Conclusions. This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.

I guess I just proved you wrong.

What now? Are you going to debate that death hasn't been shown in studies to be a permanent condition? Liar

so when I showed you a study from 10 years ago that was outdated according to you, but now you show a study from 15 years ago and suddenly its acceptable????

I can't see whats changed except for the person posting the study. quite hypocritical

But I have to give it to you. You did manage to find a study that was later disproven with much bigger trials. I mean, 48 patients? Really? Ive shown you studies that exceed that number by 1000 fold.

But technically, I've got to give it to you. You did find a small, single center, non randomized retrospective study that suggested a harmful effect of vaccines

Its just too bad it was disproven by multiple, larger, multicenter trials this century

"Biff & Robert, if autism is caused by vaccines, show us ONE person that has gotten autism from vaccines, without having an underlying condition (like Poling's mitochondrial dysfunction)"

Just want to ignore that one huh? Don't feel bad, so would everyone at the CDC.

Oh, you want to discard the largest publicized case in vaccination history that ended in a favorable judgment for vaccination injury resulting in autistic-like symptoms and seizures. A case that had submitted biomedical evidence supporting a causal connection between vaccination injury and autism.

So Penguin, for the record, has vaccination injury ever caused serious and permanent neurological injury. Your sidekick Eric says that no studies have ever proved this. Is he right, or just lying?

Be careful, I posted a publication.

I am still waiting for a response Penguin. Is Eric a liar? Do you state that vaccinations have never been proven to result in ANY permanent injury by a study?

I guess manufacturers put those little inserts in the vaccinations to humor us. They list possible serious side effects as a joke. A pediatrician is also in on this joke when they explain these side effects. Well actually that is a joke. They jab without mentioning anything. If you ask about them, they''ll roll their eyes.

I got to process all this new information.

Vaccinations never cause permanent injury.

No study has ever confirmed this, ever.

No one ever proved this injury and was compensated for it.

Manufacturers and pediatricians warn about serious side effects that don't ever happen.

Hard to believe, but if you say so.

Be careful, I posted a publication.

One from nearly 2 decades ago involving less than 50 patients and was thoroughly debunked by subsequent studies

Way to go. I guess I should have specified sticking to this century, but you definetely got me. Next why don't you pull a study on bloodletting to release evil humours

Oh, you want to discard the largest publicized case in vaccination history that ended in a favorable judgment for vaccination injury

with absolutely NO finding of causation. Again, good show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

Although many parents view this ruling as confirming that vaccines cause regressive autism, most children with autism do not seem to have mitochondrial disorders, and the case was conceded without proof of causation

Here's how you can tell when you're arguing with a denier rather than a scientist. You have to watch for a few key traits that scientific training "beats" out of you through long nights of study and repeated attempts at an experiment after reviewers rip you a new one.

First. Assumptions using "common sense". Believing that more children a generation or two ago meant that fathers had children at a younger age. Even a first year grad student would be able to point out several problems with such assumptions. One of which would be that we were not provided with data as to when fathers started having kids. Perhaps fathers simply had children earlier generations ago. There are others but I'll leave the task of finding them as a game for the reader. Can you find them all?

Second. Using a low probability event as evidence against a far larger probability event. This trait is often missed, but with a careful look at the argument, you can pick it out. We'll show how this works in a little scenario.

Action A results in a marked benefit with a reduction in a communicable disease, but in a very small number of cases there may be an association to injury. This association to injury isn't specific as to what it would cause.

Action B results in a marked decrease in immunization, an increase in a communicable disease, but removes this small injury.

A denier will state that because we don't know everything there is to know about the results of action A, we should suspend action A because of the possibility of a injury. What they often miss is that in the biomedical world every procedure performed has some chance of injury. Surgery, medication, visits to the emergency room (lots of sick people there) etc. all have a chance of resulting in a worse condition. However this chance is rather low compared with the benefit provided from the medical procedure. A scientist or doctor on a review board would look at the chance of benefit provided vs. the chance of injury.

A seasoned scientist would also recognize that possible links to nuerological conditions does not mean autism. The seasoned scientist would realize that before making such a claim, they would have to come up with a mechanism for how that could happen.

A grant writing scientist would also recognize the foolishness of putting his resources towards studying such things currently when the multitude of evidence points towards the contrary. It's one thing to be adventurous and study a new area with new ideas. It's a completely different thing to ask for more detailed studies trying to show something that previous studies have repeatedly negated. If interested in publications, look above for some of eric's postings. You'll find publications there. For those further interested, do a search for the condition of interest and vaccine on Pubmed to see the latest studies.

The third thing to look out for with a denier is the elation they have when they find an extremely old study that appears to confirm their results. A scientist will first get a far more recent one as older studies don't benefit from any new research techniques and often have different definitions from current studies. This especially true in the medical field where disease definition can change when we learn more about the condition.

What you'll also notice is that such articles don't really address the original issue, which in this case, was the possible link between autism and vaccination. This is a common tactic by the denier to lead you into an area that they can't possibly be proved wrong in, but then use the fact that they can't be proved wrong as evidence they are right in their original assertion. When confronted with this type of behavior, what you need to do is show how this current point they're making isn't related to the original point. If it is, then it is the denier job to relate the two with a mechanism instead of hand waving about how they're both neurological conditions and expected everyone to magically make the jump they have.

Now, there are more than 3 ways to identify a denier from a scientist. I've given you a few methods, but I'll leave finding the others as an exercise for the reader.

I am still waiting for a response Penguin

Wow, after a whole 45 minutes...impatient much? Sorry, I had better things to do than to talk to a repetitive monkey like yourself...like put my beautiful daughter to bed. Family before flimsy.

So Penguin, for the record, has vaccination injury ever caused serious and permanent neurological injury

Of course. Poling's case illustrates that. What Poling's case does NOT illustrate, however, is that AUTISM results from vaccines, which is what your argument was (as was Robert's). ZERO evidence of that is given in these judgments. Care to revise (again)?

They are also unable to provide you with studies that have demonstrated any form of association between the two conditions

Prior to 1940 can you find peer reviewed literature that smoking caused cancer? No. In fact doctors advertised smoking as good for your throat and stress. Since the scientific consensus agreed that smoking didn't cause cancer did that make it so? Why didn't the medical doctors fight for truth back then? Was there not enough "peer reviewed" evidence? Do doctors always go with consensus? What generally happens to a doctor who buck the consensus? He gets his career taken away.

Vaccine science is nothing but tobacco science bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies who try to sell us that we need more and frequent vaccines when we don't. The CDC is in on the take. Julie Gerberding ring a bell?

Are you really trying to say that the mountain of evidence on vaccine effectiveness and safety is akin to the OPINION on smoking from 70+ years ago? REALLY?

Wow. The CDC is on the take? HOW? The fact that you don't explain ANYTHING or provide any evidence to back up your ludicrous assertions shows how out in left field they are.

Bucking the trend? Perhaps with evidence. But with no evidence, you're just a quack. You claim vaccine science is nothing, BUT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT IT!!! So your theory is just as unsupported as you claim vaccines are!

So your theory is just as unsupported as you claim vaccines are!

I don't have a theory. People die from vaccines period. It's not a theory! Most peoples immune systems can handle viruses and bacteria with no problem. It's not a theory. It's a fact.

Are you really trying to say that the mountain of evidence on vaccine effectiveness and safety is akin to the OPINION on smoking from 70+ years ago? REALLY?

Medical consensus does not make something true or right. History has shown this to be true.

Again, unsupported opinions with no facts to back them up... Most peoples immune systems do not handle a variety of viruses with no problem. See polio, measles, smallpox, hepatitis, etc. Far more people die from such diseases than from vaccinations for them. Medical consensus is a far more accurate look at what is true or right then a deniers inability to process evidence or understand statistics.

Most peoples immune systems do not handle a variety of viruses with no problem.

Do you have a citation for this or is it just your opinion.

Did you know that the CDC estimates that 86% of measles cases before vaccines weren't even reported? Because measles was known to be mostly self limiting.

Do you believe that polio infection mostly leads to paralysis? Why do you believe this?

Polio and paralysis rates from it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis

Measles. Go to the epidemiology section that contains a citation from WHO regarding the number of deaths from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles

I'll let you do the smallpox search.

Now, where is your citation or research showing the vaccines for these diseases cause more deaths then they prevent? Or, are you going to do what you usually do and demand citations from others but provide none for yourself.

Major fail! Your wikipedia doesn't say what you need it to say to substantiate your claim.

Now, where is your citation or research showing the vaccines for these diseases cause more deaths then they prevent?

That's not your argument. Stop shifting the goalposts! You claim that most people cannot handle a variety of viruses. You have not even shown this to be the case with the polio virus let alone "most" viruses.

A healthy human immune system can handle almost any virus. This is a fact that you will not be able to prove wrong!

A healthy human immune system can handle almost any virus.

I have bolded two key words in your statement that merit closer examination

1. Healthy--many individuals now have compromised immune systems either through illness (cancer), treatment with immunosuppresents (organ transplant patients, autoimmune disease) and, obviously, AIDS. With the number of these individuals growing, they are clearly at risk and immunization of both them and the population at whole is of utmost importance

2. Almost--this is an ok word when talking about vacuum cleaners or cars. When you are talking about people, "almost" is not good enough, especially when near perfection is possible in some cases. Even if "most" cases of measles were self limited, this still leaves thousands of people at risk for serious complications like encephalitis, pneumonia, and even death in a few cases. Even if 99% of these cases were eliminated through basic sanitation, I'd like you to look into the eyes of the parents of that 1% and tell them there was good evidence that their child could have been saved but was not

And before you tell me to do the same thing to the parents of autistic children made that way from vaccines, you have to PROVE it first. Otherwise we are back to the moonbeam argument for which you have no answer.

ou claim that most people cannot handle a variety of viruses. You have not even shown this to be the case with the polio virus let alone "most" viruses.

Umm robert? Firstly, you are grossly misquoting him in an obvious attempt to turn a true statment into a false one that you can try and discredit.

here's his actual quote, with the pertinent portion highlighted:

Most peoples immune systems do not handle a variety of viruses with no problem

Not most. A variety. This is a huge difference. Is the only way you can win an argument is lie about what the other person said?

Now, do you really need evidence that his original argument is true? It should be common sense

How many cases of HIV do you know that were self limited, especially before expensive, lifelong treatment became available?

How many people told you "boy, I was in bed all weekend with a bad case of AIDS but im getting over it now"

Same is true with hepatitis C, ebola (not common, but the point is true for this one nonetheless), Marburg virus,human t-lymphotropic virus, and smallpox

All of these have very high rates of complication, even including mortality

This is direct evidence that proves you wrong

As a consequence, i suspect you will not respond

You may be on the autism spectrum, but you are obviously not severely autistic. You can read and write and live a normal life. People want a cure for the severe cases, where the children will never grow up to live a normal life.

Redmoth - you obviously have no idea what it's like to be a "high functioning" adult on the spectrum. The statement about "living a normal life" is absolutely inane. There is no "normal" with anyone on the spectrum. I am 47 and have high functioning autism. Yes, I can read and write - and my I.Q. is on the high side - but when I go out in public, I rock, my hand flaps, the buzzing/flickering from florescent lights makes me crazy, crowded places make me panic, loud noises frighten me, and I have to wear loose, soft clothing and tennis shoes because I cannot stand anything tight on my skin. My bedroom is decorated in Marvel superheroes because I am obsessed with them (and have been since the age of 4) and the only thing that calms me down when I am having a meltdown is to go into my darkened bedroom with a blue light on, or swing in a hammock chair.

Would you like to recalibrate your definition of how that is "normal?"

Welcome to "my" normal.

I am so tired of all these people with severely autistic kids berating those of us on the "higher" end of the spectrum and calling us "normal" as if we didn't exist. We exist and have very real issues - they just might be DIFFERENT issues than what the people on the severe end of the spectrum face.

Hence the term "SPECTRUM..."

Thank you! I would love to talk with you! My daughter is 8 years old and has been diagnosed as ASD. She is very high functioning and it has mostly affected her spoken communication and socialization. We have worked closely with her teachers and SLPs over the years and she has made tremendous progress in both areas. One of our main focuses is to teach her to adapt to the world, not expect the world to change to her. Like most parents I worry about how independent she will be in the future and what we can do to help her. Having imput from someone who truly understands what she is experiencing and who can communicate as passionately and honestly as you have would, in my opinion, be helpful.

Also, I beg to differ with this study. My husband was 30 years old when we got pregnant with our daughter. Both of us are healthy, non-smokers, non-drug users (even prescription), educated people. I gained a healthy amount of weight during my pregnancy, but not too much; eat well, but not too much; made regular doctors visits; and had no issues during my pregnancy. Our daughter scored 9s and 10s on her ABCAR tests and had not health issues before any ASD issues showed up.

I am not really sure how one story means that the study is wrong. The plural of anecdote is not data.

byron,

excellent quote. I use it myself often

Alyssa, age increases risk. That doesn't mean nothing occurs in other situations. We were also both 30, and our first- who is ASD- apparently normal. That is, until we started doing the research about autism after his diagnosis. We quickly realized he was autistic from birth (or before), we just didn't know what to look for or what the red flags were.

Redmoth--- You are pretty clueless about what 'normal' is. My son is a very high functioning autistic. He's going to be 15 this Monday and beginning High School this year. I've done all I can, with his help, to prepare him for 'the real world' of high school hell. He's lucky, he a good looking, smart (and almost all autistic people I've met are super super bright), gets good grades, I buy the 'right clothes' (he has zero interest in fashion and hate shopping. He'll wear whatever I bring home, thank goodness!). He has a blue belt in both Jujitsu and Karate (adult class, not the kiddy class-he passed those classes with the highest rank possible, a year in advance of most kids who make it that far). He's set his goal to become a brown belt by the middle of his Sophomore year of high school. So he can be called, well shoot I can't remember. Anyway, He comes in first or second place in his bowling league.
He's on track to go to college, he's an "A" and "B" student.

Sure all that's 'normal', right? Sadly, my son has problems making friends. He's 'odd' and say's 'odd' things. So other kids, while he's not picked on, pretty much ignore him. He doesn't care about the latest 'fad', or snark on 'who wore this or is ugly', he doesn't care about most things teens care about. He's oblivious to them. (I'd rather he be ignored that picked on, I've seen the kids be viscous to the picked on kid). One of our goals this year, since he's going to a new school, is for him to find a friend for in school and out of school. I told him I'll give him an allowance, so he has money to socialize.

Bottom line, he'll be college educated, but I'm worried about him find/obtaining a job. It's easy to figure out, once you spend/talk to my son that 'somethings odd' about him. But, he is very capable of kicking your butt, both physically and mentally...

AlissaW- When my son was around 4 (he was already in special day school and getting interventions through the school district and I took him to see private specialist, which I paid a ton of money for), I joined a lot of groups and talked with parents of 'older' kids who were successful in transitioning their kids into 'real life'. Most of them said they didn't expect any less (in all aspects) or treat their "special needs" any different than they would a typically developing one. And, that is what I heard and saw for myself, over and over. As you know, no one can make promises, but it worked very well for my son. He did a year of special ed. kindergarten and then transitioned into 'regular' kindergarten (after fighting with my sons school district to hold him back a year (one of my friends, who's child was still in special ed. in the fourth grade and wanted to transition hers out to mainstream him, did the same and held her child back a year. That child was very successful too). Over the years he's received speech therapy, occupational therapy, adapted PE, and he still uses RSP services in place of one of his elective classes & We also used Linda Mood Bell to help with classroom work. I'm not going to say it was easy, it's not. It's not cheap either, I paid a lot for those classes. There are nights "I" want to run away from home and never look back, and so does my son, but the rewards have paid off for him. In middle school his grades and tests were good enough he could have entered the GATE program (I turned it down. No way, he already spends enough time doing school work). I don't know what the future holds for him, I worry about after he's done with college, but for now, he's a happy, healthy, bright guy who's the light of my life.

Angela, right on. I watched as my wife's autistic brother finished his high school degree and got a job at a sheltered workshop. While he will likely never be able to live on his own, he has limitless potential, and has been employee of the month/year several times. I can't guess at your son's abilities, per se, but I'm sure that if he's able to go through high school and potentially college, he too will be successful. Sometimes it's better to be ignorant about the ugly part of this world than cognizant of it. Good luck to both you and him as he enters HS!

penquin,

interesting devolpment. Our mutual friend robert and his sidekick biff are convinced that I am actually you, but masquerading with a second profile

I guess because we both value evidence and science--these appear to be foreign concepts to them

Anyway, I just thought that was funny....

It is indeed interesting Eric, since I've been largely absent from Newsvine for the past year or so while helping to raise my infant daughter. I barely have time to think, much less post on these sites. But those that seek to ignore science will do just about anything to get their way (shaking head).

I have a very good friend who is high functioning autistic and 64. He has a very high IQ and is a research scientist. He is very successful, but I am not sure you could say he is living a normal life. I hear students making fun of him all the time and I know he hates to teach the first couple of weeks of a new semester. Which makes things doubly bad because the new students don't know him and he is extra fidgety. He is always isolated and alone.

you either know a LOT of people and 8 sets of parents is a small fraction of them, or these "autistic" kids aren't autistic. Autism is thrown around as this all encompassing term that gets applied to everything.

Yeah, have to agree with Jay.

While rates of Autism have increased, it's still not common. 1 in 88 fall into the spectrum (of which the vast majority will live normal lives since even being 'shy' will land you on the spectrum) which would mean, statistically, you would have to personally know 704 families to personally know 8 with autistic kids... ... or one of your friends with an autistic child has introduced you to other parents in an autistic support group.

While I don't claim to be Mr Popularity, I have know a lot of people through my life. Some of these are people I grew up with, others I met in adulthood & the rest I have worked with in corporate America. All of these people have had their children to numerous specialists who all came with the same diagnosis. While some are worse than others they all exhibit symptoms to the point where you can tell they are different when you try to interact with them.

I just think with the amount of autistic children out there, it doesn't seem to make sense that there is only one common factor.

There likely isnt' a single factor, there hardly ever is.

But, if one factor causes 60% of cases, the next highest 20%, the next highest 5%, the next highest 0.1% ...

Which should you focus your efforts on?

Millions have been spent trying to find a link between vaccines and autism, and no one has found one yet. Except the one study where all the co-authors admited they lied. After all that effort, I think it's safe to say we can move on and focus that money are more likely avenues.

I am not one of those people that blame it all on vaccines, but of the people I know there is a lot of commonality. They all had children who were all developing normally in speech & attention span, then some where between 18-24 months of age there was this totally regression, from that point on they were always delayed. One child is still in diapers at 7 years old. I'm not a medical professional, so I don't understand how they can be progressing normally, then all of a sudden show symptoms, if they were born that way.

I just hope more information comes to light to help them. For their sake & their parents who always seem to be worn out trying to combat their many issues.

I don't understand how they can be progressing normally, then all of a sudden show symptoms, if they were born that way.

Here is the best explanation I can give:

Development (growing up) occurs in stages. Each stage has a certain set of genes associated with it, which are active during that stage. After that stage ends, many of those genes are inactivated, and new ones are turned on in the next stage.

For example, say that there are two stages, 1 and 2, and stage 1 requires the activation of the genes in Group A, while stage 2 uses Group B. If there is a problem with the genes in group B, it will not impact development during stage 1, because the faulty genes aren't active anyway. When the person goes from stage 1 to stage 2, however, genes in Group B get turned on, including the damaged one. Then, incorrect development (especially in the brain) can hinder things that worked perfectly well before.

Here we go again with DENIAL of any link to the insane amount of vaccinations filled with toxins injected into children under 30 lbs and of course under 20 lbs.

Sure it isn't the cause for ALL, but it is a valid concern. Unless you have watched your child go from a babbling infant to a screaming, not sleeping, diarrhea, eczema nightmare don't begin to speak as if you have knowledge.

There is always some type of genetic possibly for some. The number of "high funcitioning" individuals with autism or aspergers doesn't mean life is a cake walk. It just means that they look normal until some sensory overload and then "whats wrong with them" comes into play.

Stop attacking one possible cause just because you found another possible cause. One doesn't negate the other. Foolish!

Sure it isn't the cause for ALL, but it is a valid concern. Unless you have watched your child go from a babbling infant to a screaming, not sleeping, diarrhea, eczema nightmare don't begin to speak as if you have knowledge.

Until you have a decent understanding of statistics, don't begin to speak as if you have knowledge.

There has been a link found between the age of the father and the incidence of autism.

There has been no link found between vaccinations and autism. Personal suffering does not give you license to mislead people.

@MariaWise,

The people who stick with the thoroughly discredited Wakefield vaccine theories are not just poorly informed and not just incapable of critical thinking. They are so desparate to "pin" ASD on some external factor that they will risk the very lives of their children and other unknown children to try to assuage the guilt that they assume genetic factors bestows on them. But this is a guild that comes from within, not from without.

As vaccination patterns, compositions, and dosages have changed, the ASD rates have remained the same when controlled for changes in diagnostic thoroughness. This pretty much vindicates vaccines as some sort of generic cause for ASD. This was especially true when tiny amounts of organic mercury used as a preservative was taken out of most vaccines. The ASD rates did not drop.

The fact of the matter is that ASD manifests itself at the same time that a child is getting vaccinations is just coincidence. One could just as easily say that medium size disposible diapers are the cause.

But if you spread misinformation about vaccines, or refuse to have your own children vaccinated, it is a social "crime" tantamount to murder. If your world is so self-centered and asocial that you don't care whose kids you kill or maim you are little better than Jerry Sandusky or that crowd. Currently there is a major outbreak of whooping cough caused, in major part, by the failure of parents to have their kids vaccinated. These parents are simply guilty of manslaughter.

Yes, there are problems with vaccines in general. The whole idea of vaccines is to create a response by the body's own immune system. They even add unrelated chemicals to vaccines to make that reaction more pronounced and requiring less vaccine material be given. The immune system is the body's most complicated system and vaccines DO trigger very bizarre reactions in some people's immune system. These are well-known and well-documented. They are not the fault of the vaccine, but of the defective immune system of the person getting the vaccine. That's why the government has vaccine courts that use special masters to award damages to those with adverse reactions. These courts have the lowest standard of proof of any legal system in the world. All you have to do to collect is show that your child has an adverse reaction to a vaccine and that the reaction has been linked to that vaccine. You don't even have to have a lawyer. But to date there has not been a single piece of scientific data associating vaccines with ASD.

It's time for parents of ASD children (and adults) to realize that the causes are mostly genetic. Otherwise you are like the drunk on his hands and knees under a streetlight for his wallet. A man stops to help him look. Finally after looking for a while the man asks the drunk, "Are you sure this is where you lost your wallet?" To which the drunk replied, "No, I lost it down the street but the light is better here."

Vaccinations are not a possible cause as you state. But the chances are very high that if you have a child with ASD you or your partner "gave" it to them right along with their eye color and the color of their hair.

The main support for the idea that vaccines cause autism is that the prevalence rates have climbed at the same time. Except that they didn't. Yet another study shows a relatively flat prevalence for kids born in the 1990's--just out today.

The other explanations have been shown to be wrong--Andrew Wakefield's hypothesis isn't biologically plausible (even ignoring his multiple ethical failings). The mercury hypothesis likewise doesn't work either biologically. Neither MMR nor thimerosal increase the risk of autism.

It isn't attacking those ideas to point out these facts.

It isn't attacking those ideas to point out that a lot of time and effort was spent testing them. Time, effort and money we could have used for some other idea.

--Matt Carey

LBRB Sullivan

"The main support for the idea that vaccines cause autism is that the prevalence rates have climbed at the same time. Except that they didn't."

Same time as what? The increase in the number of vaccinations? Uh, yes they have.

"The other explanations have been shown to be wrong--Andrew Wakefield's hypothesis isn't biologically plausible (even ignoring his multiple ethical failings). The mercury hypothesis likewise doesn't work either biologically."

Yeah because biologically mercury doesn't destroy brain cells or is neurtoxic. I see. Please go on...

'It isn't attacking those ideas to point out that a lot of time and effort was spent testing them. Time, effort and money we could have used for some other idea."

Alot of effort was put forth by parents with tinfoil hats in getting a know neurotoxin removed from vaccinations. Good point.

We should have used this money actually confirming that thimerosal wasn't neurotoxic and vaccinations containing it were absolutely safe.

You actually posted your name on that garbage?

These courts have the lowest standard of proof of any legal system in the world. All you have to do to collect is show that your child has an adverse reaction to a vaccine and that the reaction has been linked to that vaccine. You don't even have to have a lawyer. But to date there has not been a single piece of scientific data associating vaccines with ASD.

Well...

New research shows how Thimerosal, the preservative in vaccines, causes damage. Some vaccines still contain it. Supplements and nutrients could prevent the damage.

A new study again shows that Thimerosal (THIM), used to preserve vaccines, can cause brain damage. Dr. Dorota Majewska of the Marie Curie Chairs Program at the Department of Pharmacology and Physiology of the Nervous System, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw, Poland, showed how THIM injections in rats cause increased levels of glutamate. Glutamate is toxic to the brain and is one of the reasons THIM causes neurological diseases. Her research was published in the journal Neurochemical Research...

THIM is used in vaccines in many countries, including Canada and the US. You can ask your doctor to use a vaccine that doesn't contain it. The nursing mother can try to boost her sulfur intake, and some high sulfur products include garlic and onions. Sulfur is also stored in glutathione. Some amino acids might also prevent THIM damage, such as l-cysteine. Glutathione also prevents THIM damage, and l-cysteine is the main nutrient that can increase it.Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/326089#ixzz24POJGHJ7

From the abstract of the original research as published in the article:

Thimerosal, a mercury-containing vaccine preservative, is a suspected factor in the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders. We previously showed that its administration to infant rats causes behavioral, neurochemical and neuropathological abnormalities similar to those present in autism...

And....

Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.

But there's a trade-off: occasionally, vaccines cause injury or death. Very rarely, patients are left with what's known as "encephalopathy", the medical term for brain damage.

In fact, CBS News has found nearly 1,300 cases in which vaccine-related brain damage has been compensated in court over the past 20 years.

The debate over any links between vaccines and autism - a behavior problem triggered by brain damage - couldn't be more contentious. The great majority of medical opinion holds that vaccines don't cause autism. However, many of the same experts don't dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage...

Neither the court nor the government is tracking how many vaccine-brain damage cases involve children who also ended up with autism or autistic-like behavior. When we asked for the statistics, vaccine compensation officials told us: "The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20016356-10391695.html

Yeah, my SIL told that same story about her daughter developing normally and then started to regress, but it wasn't true. I think she got that idea after her daughter was diagnosed and it started to become her reality. My niece showed signs of autism from the second she was born. She hated to be held, wouldn't breastfeed because the close contact just made her scream bloody murder. You couldn't even feed her a bottle while holding her, she wouldn't eat, she would just struggle. Then when she was old enough she just rocked and rocked no matter where she was and would be perfectly happy. She met all of her developmental milestones except for speech and social skills. Her motor skills are out of this world. I told her mother when she was a year that she should have her tested for autism because where I live you can get free therapy services for any developmental disorder that is diagnosed before the child starts school. Something she conveniently forgot when she entered into her fantasy world.

Anyway, so we had a falling out which also covered her entire family because everyone was taking "my side" or really they just couldn't make believe as well as she could. She went on to have a boy a few years later and never vaccinated him and what do you know. He has very severe autism, unlike his sister who is high functioning. So, she unfortunately had reality slap her in the face and then started to watch home videos of her daughter and realized the truth.

If ethymercury caused autism why was there not a high incidence of autism when we used Mercurochrome and then a steep decline when it was taken off the market here followed by another increase with an increase in the vaccine scheduled? Also, the incidence should have been markedly higher during the Mercurochrome years because it contains about 30,000x more than all the vaccines given to children in the 90s and was used much more regularly. Also, toxic levels of inorganic mercury do not often cause neurological problems. It more commonly causes renal problems.

Redmoth,

There are several potential reasons that parents see a change following a vaccine that is really independent of the vaccine itself. Autism usually presents at similar ages to when kids get vaccines and parents tend to look for symptoms following vaccines, which add to reporting bias.

A very basic example: using the assumption that 1/3 of kids get vaccines in the same year that the symptoms of autism show up. If you associate autism with vaccination and say look at a time frame of 2 weeks following vaccination, there is about a 1/78 chance that you will associate these 2 events even if they are completely independent. If you look at 3 week post vaccination to look for symptoms you are now at about a 1/50 chance to associate these 2 events even if they are completely independent.

Given the huge number of vaccinations and the large number of cases of autism you would expect to see many kids with autism that have had very recent vaccinations even if the 2 events are completely independent. It is simple probability.

Since we don't know the cause of all cases of autism, how can we rule anything out completely? I don't think vaccines are a major cause, but too many parents saw major changes in their children immediately following a vaccine to say there's definitely no link at all. Let's keep an open mind.

Imagine you had a country where every single person's medical history was an open book for medical research. Imagine how easy it would be to look at the rate of autism in kids who are vaccinated vs the rate of autism in kids who aren't. It would be so simple right? The Netherlands has such a system, the studies have been done. A sample size of several million children show no correlation between the two. Enough of this "we can't ever know", we can, we do. Vaccines are not the problem.

Nearly all of it really is coincidence. Autism naturally first becomes evident between the ages of 1 and 4, which happens to be when children receive the majority of their vaccines.

But that doesn't mean the vaccines are the cause. Autism has been around a lot longer than vaccines. Until you can honestly say "My baby's brain scans came back normal the day before the vaccine, but turned abnormal a week after," you cannot place a definite link between them.

Truth is, I think the cause is more environmental. Additives in our food supply make their way into the infant's system both before and after birth. Prolonged exposure to these things may have no impact on a healthy adult, but as we see with OTC medications, they can have a catastrophic effect on a developing infant.

When scientists say that something causes something else, that usually doesn't mean that in some people, the disease is caused by A, and in others it is caused by B. What it means is that in everyone with the disease, A AND B and probably C all contributed to the disease (although the degree to which A contributes compared to B may be different.

Maybe it is that we vaccinate our children at so early an age, so frequently throughout their young lives, with so many different vaccines combined into one syrum that it is simply too much for a child's brain, immune system and entire body to be able to tolerate? This, coupled with environmental factors and the fact that we seem to be poisening ourselves and our planet, and then we go ahead and hide litagation limits for drug companies in things like the "Patriot Act"?

Your tin foil hat has a hole in it, you might want to get that fixed.

Then we should see a decrease in rate as parents increasingly choose not to vaccinate. This isn't what has happened.

Then we should see a decrease in rate as parents increasingly choose not to vaccinate. This isn't what has happened.

Then you should be able to see the same rate of autism in the vaccinated and completely unvaccinated. The authorities that be apparently don't won't to be bothered by this type of scientific study. The data might not turn out the way they like it.

That goes against what we know about the immune system, just saying.

Too young? Children get the most diseases when they are young. If vaccinating them young caused autism then life in general would cause autism. Also, most pathogens have anywhere from 5-100 antigens in a single infection. No vaccines have 100 antigens. None of this makes any logical sense.

Actually, Robert studies like that have been done several times in other countries. Why keep beating this poor horse?

Name one study SUllivan please?

Yes, pretty please. Just a little one.

biscuits,

here you go

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889

Scientific literature study comprehension fail, Dr. Eric. Please try again.

Please read carefully.

robert,

what a elegant, well thought out post. I never looked at it quite like that. You really very well summed up all the salient points

Just saying "fail" doesn't make it so. Try again

P.s. Fail is old--i can tell youre an old guy picking up what the kids said 5 years ago. Little late on the scene with that one robby

Why attack Robert's response Eric? Biscuits asked for something, and Robert pointed out that you didn't provide it even though you contend you did.

a) its weak voting up your own post

b) I attacked it because it was a failed attempt to criticize my citation. He did absolutely nothing to discredit it. Biscuit asked for a study that looked at vaccinated vs unvaccinated children and rates of autism. thats EXACTLY what I posted

don't let your bias get in the way of your brain...

I didn't vote up my own post and I (and Robert) contend you didn't give biscuits what he asked for. As for bias getting in the way of your brain, look who's calling the kettle black. You're one of the most closed-minded people on here.

maybe, but at least I back up what Im saying

Tell me ONE way in which my study does not fulfill what biscuits and robert asked for

Not my job Eric.

what?

I realize its not your job but I thought you might be capable of independent thought. I guess not.

so then in he future don't butt in if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation

Free country, isn't it?

no one is saying youre absolutely not allowed, but it just doesn't make sense

You imply that my post did not meet robert's specifications, but when pressed on how, suddenly youre speechless

I mean, you must see how thats a bit strange. I can't make it simpler for you

I originally asked why you attacked Robert's response. If you were curious as to what was lacking in your citation, you could have asked Robert but instead you criticized the manner in which he delivered the message.

you could have asked Robert

i did. I told him just saying he doesn't agree, and told him to try again

instead you criticized the manner in which he delivered the message

Um, because it was rude, and completely vacuous.

and again, this is completely irrelevant to the manner in which you responded, which was to simply criticize my post without adding anything of substance to the discussion

Both you and robert have that in common

The point of this whole forum is to share ideas. Simply posting in a manner in which you and robert have just done is counterproductive

I urge you to stretch yourself more in the future. Push yourself to grow from what you are now into something better, more intelligent, and more productive.

I didn't criticize your post Eric. I said

Why attack Robert's response Eric? Biscuits asked for something, and Robert pointed out that you didn't provide it even though you contend you did.

A simple question, I thought.

And what do you know about how good, intelligent, and productive I am? I could say the same thing to you but that would be condescending, wouldn't it?

I didn't criticize your post Eric.

seemed critical...guess we'll agree to disagree

And what do you know about how good, intelligent, and productive I am

im speaking strictly in regards to this discussion

that would be condescending, wouldn't it?

its a free country, right?

The Madsen paper is a retrospective cohort study. I looked only at MMR vaccine and autism diagnosis correlation. If you are not familiar with this study I can see how the line

After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group,

Could lead you to think that the children were not vaccinated at all. This is not true. They are referring to MMR vaccine status as vaccinated or unvaccinated.

That doesn't sound like a study comparing vaccinated v unvaccinated children. It's also 10 years old. Dr.Eric, could you post a different study?

a) Like I told biff, 10 years is not a long time. If it were 50 years, you'd have a point. But if you can tell me one thing that's changed in the past decade with vaccines and autism that would invalidate the results of the trial, Id be surprised

b) I have already posted others, which I suspect youve read

c)MMR is at least disproven as causing autism by this study

c)MMR is at least disproven as causing autism by this study

No. That's not what this type of study does. It does not disprove! It doesn't support the hypothesis that MMR may be involved in autism. There is a big difference in that type of wording. One that an honest scientist would see. Saying that this type of study disproves something is something that media types or PR propagandists would do.

Are you an honest doctor?

it does robert.

It supports the scientific fact that MMR doesn't cause autism

Im going to ignore your childish, immature insults. I think you are capable of better robert. are you capable of discussing things like an adult?

Not supporting doesn't equal disproving. Sorry Dr. Eric, but you are wrong. We have yet to find evidence of life on other planets. So the lack of evidence does not support that life does exist on other planets. It does nothing to disprove that life may exist on other planets.

See, you learned something else. Keep up the good work.

sorry biff, but you don't understand science

It is the same thing in this case. If MMR vaccines caused autism, why do we not see the effect in this study? Just one reason? Come on.

I can dispel with your analogy easily. The reason we haven't found life yet is the universe is large, and we have only examined a small part of it. The power of the study is low

However, the power of this study is sufficient to detect an effect, if there was one

See, there's this concept of power in statistical studies. By looking at the prevelance of a disease in the general population, you can statistically calculate the number of people youd need to include in a study to demonstrate an effect

You really think this concept of "not supporting not equaling disproving" was just discovered just now by you? And smarter people hadn't htought of it before, and ways to account for it in studies???

I hope now youve learned someting

Nope

haha...what a erudite, well thought out argument. You really hit all the high points. Just shows the intelligence that went into it

Thank you, Biff, for making my day! Keep up the excellent rebuttals - the erics of this world have a lot to learn!

I always get my medical advice from the guy in "Deuce Bigalow".

That seems unlikely, but is not impossible. Oxytocin is not related to oxycodone or oxycontin. Oxytocin is a naturally occurring neuromodulator (like dopamine and serotonin), and during labor, natural levels of oxytocin explode.

The oxytocin thing is silly because you make that naturally during labor, breastfeeding, and sex.

The link to autism is new, and very important because DNA is virtually all that the father contributes to the child (biologically speaking), meaning that there must be some genetic component to autism.

Also, Nature, along with Science, is the influential scientific journal in the world. It is not easy to get published in either.

The link to autism is new

No, it's not new. It's been well known for some time. Follow the link I provided and see for yourself. This particular study is not the first to establish a link. It made to effort to quantify how the effect accumulates, as noted in the better-written NYT article about the study.

I'm wondering, did you even read the article?

The entire article was, in a polite manor, calling peole who feel there is a link between autism and vaccines idiots. Yet here you are on a soap box complaining about the media supporting that link?

I didn't see it calling them idiots. I saw a very legitimate point being made. Over and over tests, studies, and meta studies have shown no link, but just look at threads after articles, posts on message boards, and other related places where anything autism-related is discussed. It doesn't matter how scientifically poor or well-done a study is, you will find that vaccine blaming will begin. Then it will be followed by big Pharma comments and how we are all being poisoned by a huge population control agenda, greedy, horrible government and more big pharma comments, and then the thread will descend into insults and attacks on anyone who tries to say that this is a study, not the neighbors or one personal experience. Name-calling begins, continues, and the term "sheeple" will be thrown around.

We've descended from civilized conversation about an important topic into lack of even seeing what studies are about, how well they have been done, or what results are into sides and camps for a war. Yes, I can see groups being pressured into still studying vaccines, and while I wouldn't say they are perfect, stopping them isn't a viable option either, but since people are passionate on the subject (understandably so) and we don't have all the answers, it isn't smart to focus just on vaccines after so many studies have disproved a link. Yes, keep searching in that area, but focus funding on areas that have shown promise. The thread will progress as I mentioned I will bet, and when it does it will bear out the comments the writer made.

Note I am not saying that never in history was a vaccine related to an illness in a child. I'm just saying that making it into a big conspiracy or insisting that the focus be on vaccines isn't helpful. Study other possible causes and then we have other areas covered as well. It isn't about being "idiotic", but about investigating, reviewing results, and then covering other areas well, too, and then comparing and contrasting results.

Lead in vaccines? Mercury (as in the element, not a compound)? Yeah, you know what you're talking about.

And you are unconcerned about the mercury coal fired plants spew into the air every day?

If there is a mercury link, this would seem to be most prevalent and most probable.

If by "excuse" you mean "huge amounts of empirical evidence", then yes.

Also, biologically active mercury compounds (not elemental mercury) are not found in vaccines, and haven't for many years. Also, coal plants do not produce a large quantity of biologically active mercury compounds.

Also the symptoms of mercury poisoning are totally different from the symptoms of autism. And chelation therapy doesn't effect the symptoms of autism in the slightest. But don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Right, Pragmatic, in some cases they are actually polar opposite. Like in brain size. Also, if children were really getting too much inorganic mercury why is there no increase in renal problems, the most common symptom of inorganic mercury toxicity?

Until there is a large scale study comparing vaccinated vs non vaccinated children...they will never be able to say that vaccines are 100% safe.

The study in question was a massive study, which did exactly what you described: compared rates of autism between different groups, among them vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. It is the largest, and newest, study in a VERY long line of studies to have done the exact same thing. ALL of them have found the same thing: rates of autism in vaccinated children are no higher than in unvaccinated children.

The studies that are currently used to tout the safety of vaccines were surveys of existing studies that compare children that received specific vaccines against children that received inoculations containing all of the ingredients of a vaccine minus the vaccine antibodies

This is not entirely accurate. Studies like those you have described have been done, but there have also been studies done where the nonvaccinated children received a "sham" injection of saline, or no injection at all. In all cases, the outcome has been the same: no difference.

FWIW, there are children on the autistic spectrum that have never received a vaccine... but that doesn't prove (or disprove) the high percentage of children that started to exhibit symptoms immediately after receiving vaccines.

First problem: as we teach students in introductory biology, nothing, NOTHING is ever, EVER proven or disproven in science. They can be supported or disputed, but never proven or disproven. That's actually kind of a key component of science.

Second, there are many explanations for why many children first display autistic symptoms shortly after vaccination. The best one is that autism only becomes apparent at the same age that children receive vaccines.

There has NEVER been a well-designed, large, prospective, double-blind, randomized study done by researchers with NO FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST comparing the current CDC vaccine schedule with a more spread-out one. Such study is desperately needed to settle the vaccine schedule safety controversy once and for all. All the studies that vaccine proponents love to tout as "proving" the safety of the current vaccine schedule have serious methodological flaws. That is what has given credence to the vaccine critics. We parents need to know the truth, and without a good study, we simply don't know what that is.

Until there is a large scale study comparing vaccinated vs non vaccinated children...they will never be able to say that vaccines are 100% safe.

Vaccines are not 100% safe. We already know this. Children do suffer from vaccinations at times, and there is a board set up to compensate such victims.

On the other hand, if you had ever seen a crippled 10-year old child pull himself along with his arms because his legs don't function, you wouldn't be able to give your child a polio vaccine fast enough.

And polio is one of the ones that we vaccinate against that actually does spare its victims - somewhat - it leaves them alive, at least. I am always stunned at what the anti-vaccination crowd is advocating for the rest of us.

researchers with NO FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

what researcher financially benefits from vaccines?

Crimson, you could technically say that about any scientific study ever done. However, the facts are that studies which find no link have been done several times, and they have produced the same conclusion. On the opposite side, where links were supported, all were small-scale, discredited studies with problems not only in interests, but in the key methodologies in the studies.

There has NEVER been a well-designed, large, prospective, double-blind, randomized study done by researchers with NO FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST comparing the current CDC vaccine schedule with a more spread-out one.

Funny, this whole anti-vaccine movement was started by researcher with a financial conflict of interest trying to show that the MMR vaccine was unsafe so that his financial backers could sell an M, M, and R vaccine separately for three times the price.

Funny, this whole anti-vaccine movement was started by researcher with a financial conflict of interest trying to show that the MMR vaccine was unsafe so that his financial backers could sell an M, M, and R vaccine separately for three times the price.

How is that supposedly anti-vaccine?

BTW the MMR is known to cause convulsive febrile seizures at a much higher rate than the background rate.

Okay, but febrile seizures are not known to cause long term neurological problems and MMR is an old vaccine. Why would we have not seen an increase in autism years and years before we did if MMR was to blame?

Now you have a problem with the tylenol fever treating people. Are fevers serious or not? What about when you inject a child with something and they go into convulsive febrile seizures? Is that a normal thing?

Another practical medical contradiction.

"You better give Suzie tylenol for her fever. You don't won't her to get a seizure do you?"

Fever with virus. Bad. Convulsive febrile seizure with vaccine...no problem.

Now you have a problem with the tylenol fever treating people

he never said that. You are exhibiting the signs of someone losing an argument. If you can't disprove what he says, put words in his mouth you can disprove. So obvious

. Are fevers serious or not?

Wrong question. It depends what causes the fever. For most viruses, no. for sepsis, yes

onvulsive febrile seizures? Is that a normal thing?

abnormal does not equal harmful.

Fever with virus. Bad. Convulsive febrile seizure with vaccine...no problem.

actually, neither is usually bad--meaning neither usually result in any long lasting effects

In your haste to be contrarian you missed the obvious medical practice contradiction of fever mongering vs. vaccine side effect poo pooing.

Why is tylenol given for infection again Dr. Eric? Don't tell me it's not commonly reccommended. I'm sure many posters here can vouch that it absolutely is.

"what researcher financially benefits from vaccines?"

This country's biggest vaccine cheerleader, Paul Offit, has made tens of millions of dollars from developing the Rotovirus vaccine. And he sits on the CDC advisory panel that decides which vaccines to recommend and when. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse...

obvious medical practice contradiction of fever mongering vs. vaccine side effect poo pooing.

that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

Why is tylenol given for infection again Dr. Eric? Don't tell me it's not commonly reccommended. I'm sure many posters here can vouch that it absolutely is.

It is recommended more to satisfy parents than anything else Mr robert. Thats why there's a MR. before your name and a Dr. before mine. Because Im qualified to comment on these matters while you are not. You are severely underqualified, actually. Your vast internet experience nonwithstanding

There is no absolute recommendation for tylenol in fevers in children. It can be used to reduce fever for the comfort of the child, but obviously only if he/she is in apparent discomfort

It does nothing to modify the course of the illness, and some think it actually may be harmful

It is recommended more to satisfy parents than anything else Mr robert.

Scientifically solid medical practice Dr, Eric. That's what you call evidence based medicine right there. Create a neurosis in the parent's and then treat them via their child with tylenol.

Create a neurosis in the parent's

a) source? that the medical establishment created a neurosis in parent's of sick children

b) irrelevant. typical robert technique. When you lose an argument, shift the focus

) source? that the medical establishment created a neurosis in parent's of sick children

Medicalization and fearmongering promotes neurosis.

theres no evidence that doctors have contributed to fear mongering with fever

I can't tell you how many parents I personally told not to worry about their kids temperature of 100.8 when the clinical picture pointed towards a benign virus

There was an article on here in fact a few weeks ago that tried to dispel the the myth that every fever is dangerous

theres no evidence that doctors have contributed to fear mongering with fever

That proves you've haven't been in a hospital or many doctor's offices.

And if that's the case where do you think the source of this fearmongering comes from? I've personally experience this in a neurologists office. It wasn't the doctor but the nurse said "you don't want her to have a seizure do you?" when I refused tylenol to specifically reduce my daughters temp for a differential diagnosis.

I can't tell you how many parents I personally told not to worry about their kids temperature of 100.8 when the clinical picture pointed towards a benign virus

What if the temp is 105? What do you tell them then? Do you try to lower the temperature? Why? What are your concerns? Evidence?

It used to be practice, and still is, that tylenol was given to lower fevers to prevent febrile seizure. Maybe you're to young to know this of your profession.

I'm sure many parents could give you "evidence" of this fearmongering practice if you're in "evidence" denial.

That proves you've haven't been in a hospital or many doctor's offices.

hahahaha...how many have you been in lately robert? Any number is a small percentage of the total, so its insignificant anyway. I shouldnt really have to tell you that

I've personally experience this

Really? You personally? that must mean its widespread right? I mean, if youve experienced it, then everyone has automatically right?

the rest of your post is nonsense where no response is even possible. Think of a cohenrent post and I'll respond

Yeah, that book is about as relevant as leeches are for curing disease.

Kirby has disappeared after he, and a few others, tried to make a aplash with their "investigative journalism".

So is this book free or is someone making money off of it?

"Read the book..."Evidence of Harm"..."

What makes you assume that those of us in this discussion haven't? I did. Sensationalist. Yes. A good source for evidence? No.

There is no aluminum in vaccines. There are aluminum salts in some. The concentration are miniscule and radio-labeling experiments have clearly shown the half-life in the body to be measured in hours.

You are exposed to more aluminum from cans and cookware than any vaccine.

Aluminum is incredibly nontoxic. The lethal oral (eaten) dose of pure aluminum sulfate is about a pound for an adult male human.

Aluminum is so increadily non-toxic that it rates a 0 on the toxicity scale. For comparison, sodium chloride (table salt) rates a 1, and sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) is rated at 2.

My daughter is high functioning ASD. She had EVERY one of her vaccines in a timely manner. Her father was 50 years old when she was born.. I have said for years, that just like a mother's age can contribute to Downs (notice I used the word CONTRIBUTE)... a father's age can contribute to Autism/ASD. There is NO one cause.. Genetics, age all play a part.. as do, I think, environmental factors. We also lived near a power substation when I was pregnant. That could have played a role as well. Who knows... I have far more important things to do than to dwell on what CAUSED the ASD.. It won't change anything for me or for my daughter. My focus is on helping her achieve her fullest potential to become a productive member of society... Do I think vaccines caused her ASD... Personally I don't..... but if someone is worried about that, then there is NOTHING to say you can't spread the vaccines out over a longer period of time... I would rather Vaccinate my daughter... She will not DIE from ASD/Autism.. She COULD die from one of the diseases the vaccines are designed to prevent.. I could not live with that. I read recently that incidences of whooping cough are on the rise... Lack of vaccines I am sure.. I would hate for us to have another epidemic of something that could be prevented but for vaccines... Autism has many factors involved which is why a cure is so daunting so far... SO, I guess the debate will go on..

"When you or your child is injected with a vaccine, the aluminum compounds it contains accumulate not only at the site of injection buttravel to your brain and accumulate there"

Citation? You're not just making that up, are you? Nawwww!

If you’re looking for a more sensible, “user-friendly” vaccination schedule that may present fewer risks than the CDC’s “one-size-fits-all” schedule,

1. No vaccinations until your child is 2 years old.
2. No vaccines that contain thimerosal (mercury).
3. No live virus vaccines.
4. The following vaccines should be given one at a time (not as a combination vaccine), every six months, beginning at age 2:

a. Pertussis (acellular, not whole cell)
b. Diphtheria
c. Tetanus
d. Polio (the Salk vaccine, cultured in human cells)

If your pediatrician doesn’t agree, or isn’t open to discussing this issue with you, it’s high time to find a new one who will understand your concerns.

Scientist1 -

As an actual cellular neuroscientist, I would like to say that your statements are totally and completely false. There has never been any convincing evidence of aluminum neurotoxicity, either in its metallic form or as a hydroxide salt. Those concerns date to the 1960's, and were dispelled quickly.

If aluminum were to enter the brain, it would be very difficult for it to enter a neuron because neurons and extremely selective about ion flow into and out of the cell.

Lastly, there has never been any reliable evidence to suggest that any of the currently CDC-recommended vaccines carry any significant risk whatsoever, regardless of the inoculation schedule.

Lastly, some vaccines must be given before 2 years if they are to be effective, because this is the period in which the core of immune system is developing.

Thanks, ham. Good post.

seconded

"If you’re looking for a more sensible, “user-friendly” vaccination schedule that may present fewer risks than the CDC’s “one-size-fits-all” schedule"

Have you spent any time to research this?

First-- all infants are vulnerable to infectious diseases

Second--you leave everyone vulnerable to Measles, mumps and rubella.

Third--you leave everyone vulnerable to pertussis and diphtheria

You probably didn't realize that last one, did you? Why did someone give a "user friendly" schedule that tells people to give single vaccines that don't exist?

There are single tetanus vaccines, but I don't recall if they are approved for young children.

You should be able to report posts for giving medical advice. Especially when that advice is so very poor.

Well said. I have had several discussions with Dr. Russell Blaylock. He is very knowledgable in this area of research.

You can cancel those Apocalypse plans. December 21, 2012, will dawn as any other day.

mooloodara -- your photo would show you wearing a tin foil hat.

Childhood vaccinations are relatively safe and are certainly preferable to kids getting the diseases and infecting others. Ask your pediatrician what he or she would do for his/her own kids and 99% will say, "Follow the recommended vaccination schedule" and don't listen to the fear-mongers.

As far as the Mayan calendar is concerned, the world has already ended. Sorry you missed it. The Mayan calendar had no leap days.

10% correlation does not equal causation.

It does establish a link between aging fathers and increased autism incidence. Let's focus on a pure hypothetical here...if a whooping cough increase in the U.S. was 10% tied to a decrease in the percentage of people vaccinated, it DOES show a potential causation. Just because we're talking low numbers DOES NOT rule out causation. You obviously have never taken a statistics course or you wouldn't be talking out of your @$$.

"Just because we're talking low numbers DOES NOT rule out causation. You obviously have never taken a statistics course or you wouldn't be talking out of your @$$."

Does that apply to the low numbers associated with vaccination injury and autism as well?

Does that apply to the low numbers associated with vaccination injury and autism as well?

Low numbers such as ZERO? As in the number of people who have been proven to have developed autism from a vaccine?

No one denies that there are injuries from vaccines. You're telling us that autism (not vaccination injuries, but AUTISM) results from vaccines with ZERO evidence.

Of course I'd love to be introduced to this mythological person who got autism from vaccines. Please enlighten us. Poling: Brain injury, not autism (Strike 1). Banks: Brain injury, not autism (Strike 2). Careful Biff, 3 strikes and you're out! HELLO, MCFLY?!?!?!

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/08/media-tricks-and-old-sperm.html#more

No one denies that there are injuries from vaccines. You're telling us that autism (not vaccination injuries, but AUTISM) results from vaccines with ZERO evidence."

Your buddy Eric does.

Penguin, if a child has a vaccination injury that results in neurological damage, and that damage later results in an autism diagnosis, how does that equate to zero evidence?

It doesn't. To any rational person, that suggests that the vaccination induced injury caused autism.

"No one denies that there are injuries from vaccines."

That's exactly what you are doing. You're denying that vaccination injury will result in neurological damage that manifests as symptoms of autism, and will be diagnosed as autism.

You can play with the wording all day long. It doesn't change a thing.

Are you stating that this has never happened?

No one denies that there are injuries from vaccines. You're telling us that autism (not vaccination injuries, but AUTISM) results from vaccines with ZERO evidence."

Eric the doctor says that serious injury from vaccine does not occur. Scary actually that someone in power over someones health could have this type of denial thinking.

Robert, Dr. Eric said no studies ever proved this. Unless he sees a study, things do not exist. If you show a study, he'll still be the one whom decides what is true. No one is capable of understanding anything more than him.

Of course. Of course. Peer reviewed literature is infalliable and empiricism is all encompassing and comprehensive.

Well is it a ball or strike Dr. Eric?
“It ain't nothin' till I call it.”

"I'm a doctor! You're NOT!

I bet he has no understanding of what has been found implicated with autism causation. Never bothered to look at any biomedical research or anything else for that matter. But it doesn't stop him from acting as he is an authority on the subject.

Then you got the alter ego Penguin with his genetic root cause is the answer for every disease.

He admits that Hannah's condition resulted from a mito-disoder and it was the root cause. Therefore the multiple vaccinations had nothing to do with it. You know, that way it's a genetic disease.

Hey Penguin, if mitochondrial DNA defects are only inherited from a mother, why is this article saying it's older father's sperm?

Penguin, if a child has a vaccination injury that results in neurological damage, and that damage later results in an autism diagnosis, how does that equate to zero evidence?

Too bad this has NEVER happened. Banks and Poling have never been diagnosed as being autistic. Hence the use of the term "autistic-like symptoms" (i.e. they are NOT autistic according to the DSM definition of the term).

So if you produce one example of this happening, I will tell you you're correct. However, this has never happened. Brain injuries that have SOME symptoms of autism DOES NOT mean that the child is autistic. Sorry that your friend Robert has led you astray.

You're denying that vaccination injury will result in neurological damage that manifests as symptoms of autism, and will be diagnosed as autism

Biff, I'm only saying that the last little tidbit "will be diagnosed as autism" is incorrect. Vaccination injury to brain damage? Yup. Manifests as (some) symptoms of autism? Yup. Diagnosed as autism? No...no one has ever fit the DSM definition of autism after having a vaccination injury. Ever. Again, a car crash victim and ADHD kids have SOME symptoms of autism...are they autistic though? NO. Do you realize how complex the DSM definition of autism is?

So Robert, you rely on biased "age of autism" to tell me something's incorrect? Instead of an EDITORIAL, how about an actual study for proof? Otherwise it's just someone's opinion. Last I checked, that wasn't proof.

I bet he has no understanding of what has been found implicated with autism causation

And yet you cling to vaccines = autism without anything being found on causation re: vaccines. Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think?

Then you got the alter ego Penguin with his genetic root cause is the answer for every disease

All I said was that for Poling, the vaccine may have been a trigger, but it's not root cause. You still don't get it, do you?

Hey Penguin, if mitochondrial DNA defects are only inherited from a mother, why is this article saying it's older father's sperm?

Wow, so many things wrong here, where to begin?

1. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother. Defects, however, may either be handed down maternally OR be spontaneously occurring. So Poling's mother does NOT have the same defect because of a spontaneously-occurring mutation during fetal development, as was shown during the court case. So it IS possible to not inherit defects from the mother.
2. Older father's sperm...because AUTISM is not related to mitochondrial DNA. As this study shows, it's related to mutations in a parent's DNA, which occur more frequently in older parents, with this study focusing on paternal DNA. Younger sperm still have defects which could result in offspring's autism, but older sperm have more defects (approx. 65 defects in older vs. 25 in younger in this study).
3. There are two ways to get DNA defects resulting in autism. Either they are inherited from a parent (as in the case for siblings with autism) or they are spontaneously occurring (as occurs when two parents' DNA combine or from mutations after zygote formation). You put defects in stomach genes and you get stomach problems. You put defects in hand genes you get webbed hands, etc. You put defects in neurological genes, and guess what? You get neurological problems like schizophrenia, autism, etc. It's not that hard to understand.

Studies have proven my genetic theory...where are your studies to prove vaccines cause autism? Oh, I forgot, you don't have any. A pity, really. Respond when you come up with those studes. Otherwise, you're just hot air.

No...no one has ever fit the DSM definition of autism after having a vaccination injury. Ever.

Cite your source for that claim, please. I wanna see documentation and not just your opinion as to how one tells the difference between a child who "has autism" and one who just exhibits "autistic-like symptoms" after a vaccination injury.

Especially when I've found this on Google without even much trying:

Neither the court nor the government is tracking how many vaccine-brain damage cases involve children who also ended up with autism or autistic-like behavior. When we asked for the statistics, vaccine compensation officials told us: "The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20016356-10391695.html

There is no blood test for autism. There is no genetic test for autism. There is no physiological test for autism. The diagnosis is based on symptoms.

C'mon, Eric. Penguin. I'm curious.

Two children standing next too each other at 10 years old, for example.

Without consulting their written histories, tell me which one was "born" with autism and which received a vaccination injury resulting in brain injury manifesting itself in "autism or autistic like symptoms".

While you're at it, post a publication that concludes that autism can only be genetically aquired from the mechanisms that you had provided above.

Um, you forgot to mention that normal genes involved with neurodevelopment can be adversely expressed by exogenous forces. Epigentics Penguin. You left that out. Vaccination adjuvants qualify as exogenous sources that may cause these normal genes to be expressed abnormally. Show a publication that proved this as false.

BTW, Hannah was diagnosed as autistic. Her father is a neurologist, but I guess that doesn't count either. It's also published in the Journal of pediatric neurology.

"Defects, however, may either be handed down maternally OR be spontaneously occurring."

Define spontaneously occurring.

Define the difference between one whom has symptoms of severe autism and severe autism.

BTW, Hannah was diagnosed as autistic. Her father is a neurologist, but I guess that doesn't count either. It's also published in the Journal of pediatric neurology.

Penguin has authoritatively stated that neurologists can't diagnose autism. Only psychiatrists can. No joke. We had a long denialism thread on that subject also. The guy has his head in the sand like an ostrich.

Neurologists can't diagnose autism? Huh. I know a boy that was diagnosed as severely autistic by a neurologist. I guess he really isn't autistic then. Good to know. Thanks Penguin.

He was desperately trying to discredit Dr. Jon Poling both as a parent and a highly educated neurologist. It show what lengths the mass vaccine ideologists will go to uphold their viewpoint of how the world should act and how it should be.

A few of these know what they're doing. They know what type of political philosophy they wield even though they masquerade it a medical/goverment "science". And a few are just irrational and crazy.

I know where these two fall. They are not at the top of the ladder.

I can't believe the outright ignorance on this thread...its just amazing.

But this statement takes the cake for sure:

Define spontaneously occurring.

Really? Umm...its something that occurs spontaneously. Its really self explanatory. In the case of genetics, penquin is referring to mutations that are not inherited; rather they occured at some point during development starting from conception.

This is opposed to inherited mutations...do you need me to define that for you too?

Again, despite all your talk on how you are so well read on this subject, and have consulted experts and read all kinds of publications, you still ask these kinds of questions

No one will ever take you seriously when you demonstrate that level of a lack of understanding

Sure, you might be good at looking up easily searchable factoids like the names of fatty acids, but when it comes to COMPREHENSION, to actual understanding, you clearly fall short

The question I quoted of yours proves that. irrefutably

Further, while you and your BFF robby agree on everything, you can see that penquin and I actually disagree

I don't think vaccines cause autism or autistic symptoms. I don't think they cause encephalopathy either. In fact, I don't think they cause any sort of long term consequences.

Have they ever will undoubtedly be your next question to me. The answer is I don't think so, but we'll never know for sure. Because there's no way to tell. You could give a vaccine and the kid could have convulsive seizures the next day, but you'll never know what would have happened had the kid never got the vaccine

Suspicous? No doubt about it

Definitive? Sorry, but no

And don't be hypocritical. You use the same argument against me with statins. Do they save lives? Hard to prove for certain because we don't know what would have happened had someone not been treated.

The difference is we have large, prospective, randomized trials which make the benefit of statins a scientific certainty

And thats what youd need to show to really prove this. What if I told you my friend took statins his whole life and is now 80 with no problems at all. Is that proof of statin efficacy?

Because you are trying to do the same thing with this hannah poling thing.

We have nothing of the sort for "vaccine injury"

In fact, lets sum up the evidence you've presented

1) Expert opinion (this carries a category C weight in scientific literature, the lowest possible)

2. Case reports

thats about it. Nothing else. Really weak in terms of level of evidence. If you went to the FDA trying to get a new drug approved and thats all you had, you'd be laughed out of the building

Here's what you need to show:

1) Large retrospective trial showing correlation. Note that Im not even asking for prospective or randomized, which would be necessary to prove causation. Because if you can't even show CORRELATION, then causation by definition is imposible

2) A plausible mechanism of action. You haven't even attempted this yet really. Biff has thrown up some weak sauce about mitochondrial demand, but when pressed on details he just flips out and calls me a liar. Its like asking an architect about blueprints and he says, "I guess big and wide".

Details are everything

You didn't answer my question, Eric.

This one:

Two children standing next too each other at 10 years old, for example.

Without consulting their written histories, tell me which one was "born" with autism and which received a vaccination injury resulting in brain injury manifesting itself in "autism or autistic like symptoms".

Please explain to me what the difference would be in the presentation of their symptoms - you know, that would allow you to tell one from the other. Since you believe there obviously IS a difference.

"The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20016356-10391695.html

I cannot interpret this statement in any way but to mean that it is medically recognized that

a) Vaccination causes brain injury in a rare but definite number of cases (or maybe not so rare)

b) This brain damage can result in autistic behavior (which currently cannot be defined medically as being something different from the behaviors of those "born" with autism)

nd which received a vaccination injury resulting in brain injury manifesting itself in "autism or autistic like symptoms".

Both were born with autism as vaccines don't cause autism or autistic like symptoms

cannot interpret this statement in any way but to mean that it is medically recognized that

Let me help you out. Courts are places to legally recognize something. Hospitals and research laboratories are places to medically recognize

This is an important distinction, because the level of evidence is vastly different. While courts only have to show a preponderance of the evidence, medicine must show causation

No court has ever claimed to, or been able to prove causation

Either way, you and I both know cases have been settled often because a full trial would be more expensive and risky than a quick settlement. This is really common knowledge, and is in no way proof of anything

Furthermore, there's a reason you are trying to use the court's decision as evidence, rather than the evidence presented at trial itself

Because that "evidence" is thin, and has been disproven by subsequent, larger trials.

By cutting out that little fact, you are trying to gloss over the heart of the matter--the evidence that vaccines cause these problems

Its nonexistent

a funny comparison just popped into my head...

were the salem witch trials proof that witches were rampant in massachusetts in colonial america?

If no, why not?

"I can't believe the outright ignorance on this thread...its just amazing.

But this statement takes the cake for sure"

Define spontaneously occurring.

I asked for the definition not a whole bunch of nonsense.

"Really? Umm...its something that occurs spontaneously. Its really self explanatory. In the case of genetics, penquin is referring to mutations that are not inherited; rather they occured at some point during development starting from conception."

EPIGENETICS & THE ENVIRONMENT

The genome dynamically responds to the environment. Stress, diet, behavior, toxins and other factors activate chemical switches that regulate gene expression.

What exactly were you saying about spontaneously occurring?

Put your foot in your mouth again? Penguin knows what I meant when I asked for the definition. Notice that he didn't respond. He will though, and deny epigenetics and vaccinations as an exogenous influence has nothing to do with autism.

"Again, despite all your talk on how you are so well read on this subject, and have consulted experts and read all kinds of publications, you still ask these kinds of questions"

"No one will ever take you seriously when you demonstrate that level of a lack of understanding"

"Sure, you might be good at looking up easily searchable factoids like the names of fatty acids, but when it comes to COMPREHENSION, to actual understanding, you clearly fall short"

"The question I quoted of yours proves that. irrefutably"

Really Dr. Eric? The only thing you proved was not understanding epigenetic influence on gene expression. Well that and you don't know what you are talking about. What else is new?

I asked for the definition not a whole bunch of nonsense.

Its not nonsense, you just don't understand it. Here's a wiki article to help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Spontaneous_mutation

Please tell me where I was wrong, or it didn't make sense, and I can help you comprehend it.

Please tell me where "i put my foot in my mouth"

ot understanding epigenetic influence on gene expression

Umm...its not that difficult of a concept. Please show me where I stated anything incorrectly regarding that topic

Its simply any factor which affects gene transcription or expression. Are you understanding it now?

The difference is we have large, prospective, randomized trials which make the benefit of statins a scientific certainty

Science can not give certainty. If you were a scientists instead of a medical doctor you would know this.

Dr. Eric

And thats what youd need to show to really prove this. What if I told you my friend took statins his whole life and is now 80 with no problems at all. Is that proof of statin efficacy?

Absolutely not. How many of your patients who took statins will die and not be saved only to have their cholesterol lowered in vain?

http://www.thennt.com/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease/

• 98% saw no benefit
• 0% were helped by being saved from death
• 1.6% were helped by preventing a heart attack
• 0.4% were helped by preventing a stroke
• 1.5% were harmed by developing diabetes*
• 10% were harmed by muscle damage

vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/307723/

robert,

I feel like we have the same discussion over and over again.

1.6% every 5 years....times 10 (for 50 years--the time that people are usually taking a statin) that 16%--not bad

as far as "harmed" by diabetes--a recent study showed those people STILL had a lower risk of heart disease than if they hadn't taken a statin

Plus you are picking the people who, as best as we can possibly predict, have the absolute lowest risk for heart disease

The fact that statins help ANY of them shows you how powerful they are, not the opposite

Why do you never quote the studies on the higher risk individuals which show an NNT of 14 over 3 years?

1.6% every 5 years....times 10 (for 50 years--the time that people are usually taking a statin) that 16%--not bad

that's not what the evidence says. You need to provide a study of over 50 years that show 16%. To bad that doesn't scientifically exist. That's called evidence based not wishing and assuming based. What you give out is called faith based medicine.

Plus you are picking the people who, as best as we can possibly predict, have the absolute lowest risk for heart disease

The fact that statins help ANY of them shows you how powerful they are, not the opposite

Why do you never quote the studies on the higher risk individuals which show an NNT of 14 over 3 years?

http://www.thennt.com/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-with-known-heart-disease/

• 96% saw no benefit
• 1.2% were helped by being saved from death
• 2.6% were helped by preventing a repeat heart attack
• 0.8% were helped by preventing a stroke
• 0.6% were harmed by developing diabetes*
• 10% were harmed by muscle damage

Are you sure you're a cardiologist? You give out these pills nilly willy? Perhaps you should stick to your expertise in vaccine policy and injury rate.

that's not what the evidence says. You need to provide a study of over 50 years that show 16%

Actually, I agree. But you are saying the effect is only seen over the 5 years of the trial, and then assuming a 0% effect after that

Assuming a zero response after the trial makes less sense than assuming a linear response over time

What you give out is called faith based medicine.

What do you call assuming a rate of 0 after the end of the trial?

96% saw no benefit

incorrect. 96% saw no benefit ONLY WITH RESPECT TO MORTALITY

You changed the enpoint. the first trial's endpoint you cited was non fatal MI. Now you choose all cause mortality?

Do you think consistency is important?

What is the NNT for the second trial for nonfatal MI? What about cardiovascular mortality?

Did you think I really wouldn't notice that?????

Actually, I agree. But you are saying the effect is only seen over the 5 years of the trial, and then assuming a 0% effect after that

Assuming a zero response after the trial makes less sense than assuming a linear response over time

too many confounders to account for. Science has to be silent. But some still open their mouths. Too bad it's just not science.

You changed the enpoint. the first trial's endpoint you cited was non fatal MI. Now you choose all cause mortality?

Do you think consistency is important?

What is the NNT for the second trial for nonfatal MI? What about cardiovascular mortality?

Did you think I really wouldn't notice that?????

"Efficacy Endpoints: Death, heart attacks, strokes"

You are on the end of a losing battle. But, hey, you get P.A.I.D. so what do you care? Dispense the pills. Dispense the pills. Who cares about evidence? Hopefully you'll save somebody. Anybody? To bad you'll never know who and you'll just have to have faith that's it all of them or any of them.

Perhaps this crazy psychological battle is what causes you to erroneously conclude that vaccines cannot cause permanent damage.

Caveats: Virtually all of the major statin studies were paid for and conducted by their respective pharmaceutical company. A long history of misrepresentation of data and occasionally fraudulent reporting of data suggests that these results are often much more optimistic than subsequent data produced by researchers and parties that do not have a financial stake in the results. These additional studies may however take years. Also, harm from these drugs is difficult to predict, partly because harms are often difficult to anticipate and are often poorly tracked. Such findings often come up years after new drugs have been on the market.

Perhaps you entire career is based on fraud and false assumptions paid for by...Pharma. Perhaps you'll never know. Unfortunately many of your patients will not either. Bad science dies slow.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/structure_of_scientific_revolutions.pdf

It dies one Dr. Eric, his colleagues, and their dogma at a time. The people speak. Dr. Eric ignores. Paradigm shifts slowly. We laugh at Dr. Eric's beliefs and profession in hindsight. But not currently as we continue to swallow his pills. The truth, as history shows, comes later.

Good luck in your new profession of artery clearing, Dr. Eric.

Apparently you didn't read the whole article, Eric.

The great majority of medical opinion holds that vaccines don't cause autism. However, many of the same experts don't dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain
damage.

Which may manifest itself in autism or autistic like symptoms.

Also, you didn't answer at all my first question. I'll repeat it again, for you, a third time.

Two children standing next to each other at 10 years old, for example.

Without consulting their written histories, tell me which one was "born" with autism and which received a vaccination injury resulting in brain injury manifesting itself in "autism or autistic like symptoms".

Please explain to me what the difference would be in the presentation of their symptoms - you know, that would allow you to tell one from the other. Since you believe there obviously IS a difference.

robert,

Again, assuming a benefit of 0% after the trial is just as bad

shak,

I answered it already. I don't believe in vaccine related autism, so the whole premise of your question is invalid in my opinion. Its like asking who's taller--santa claus or the tooth fairy

Again, assuming a benefit of 0% after the trial is just as bad

You have zero scientific evidence of any"after the trial" effectiveness. According to your epistemology then it must not exist.

You have zero scientific evidence of any"after the trial" effectiveness

No, I have the trial itself. Unless you believe that the effect is ONLY seen during the 3 or 5 years of the trial, and no effect is seen before or since because of...what? Magic?

No, I have the trial itself.

No you don't. No evidence. Please provide this scientific evidence you says exists in this trial.

You're dreaming. Remember your epistemology. No peer review. No evidence. Doesn't exist.

robert,

what is your evidence that the benefit of statins is zero beyond the end of the trial?

Do you have the evidence of your claim or not? It appears that your beliefs are based on belief instead of evidence. Poor Dr. Eric. I thought you were all about "evidence". Turns out you're just as biased and pigheaded as the next guy. Awww. I thought you had special powers that you M.D. degree gave you. Apparently not.

Now again. Do you have actual evidence or do you rely on your beliefs?

i have more evidence than you

I can't make it any simpler for you

We have data for 5 years worth of taking statins. That clearly shows a benefit--this is undeniable. However, we as physicians have to make a decision about recommendations for beyond just 5 years--we need to be concerned with the next 20 at least

So what do we do in the face of incomplete data?

The approach you take is silly. You assume a benefit of zero past the end of the trial. This is stupid. The drug clearly had a mortality benefit every year of the study--to assume that goes to zero is just dumb

The second approach is to extrapolate based upon known data--that's the smart way. Thats what I advocate.

Is it as good as having 20 year follow up data in front of you? Absolutely not. Is it better than just assuming a zero benefit rate even though the trial data says otherwise? Absolutely yes

Think of it this way--if i told you a certain condition had a 2% risk of stroke per year over a 5 year study period (10% total), and a patient asked you his cumulative risk over the next 15 years, would your answer be 10%?

How about the next 20 years? The next 30 years? Still 10%?

Thats ridiculous

Now again. Do you have actual evidence or do you rely on your beliefs?

Now again. Whats YOUR EVIDENCE? At least mine is based on something called math

you really, really, really need to read this paper. It will help you overcome your obvious deficiencies in using some of these statistical tools, especially NNT that you have clearly demonstrated in our discussions

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527399/

i have more evidence than you

You're funny! Being you is easy isn't it?

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2012/08/31/13592105-sheriff-man-stole-doctors-id-saw-500-patients

thats the best you can do?

And you accuse me of taking the easy way out? Youre a pitiful creature. I actually feel sorry for you

What do you do for a living, robert?

says the word of biff with no evidence or sources

You won't have many friends on this thread biffy

"You won't have many friends on this thread biffy"

That won't change the facts. People whom deny vaccinations cause neurological damage are not people I would prefer to have as friends. So what's your point?

So what's your point?

just that youre wrong, you have no credible source, and you don't know that raw meat spoils because of bacteria. And you think mitochondrial disease and vaccination results in autism, cite a source which stated the exact opposite

That about sums it up

What science are you basing your claim on, Biff?

"just that youre wrong, you have no credible source, and you don't know that raw meat spoils because of bacteria."

Resorting to lying right off the bat?

"And you think mitochondrial disease and vaccination results in autism,"

Results in encephalopathy with autistic-like symptoms. Not always, but it does happen. I think the ex-head of the CDC confirmed this. You know, before she left the CDC to work for Merck. Don't shoot the mesenger. I didn't tell her to say such things.

Resorting to lying right off the bat?

What was a lie? Be careful here, I can pull up any of your previous posts....

I think the ex-head of the CDC confirmed this

As did jenny mccarthy. You still don't get it. Opinion is just opinion--it doesn't matter if its some celebrity airhead or Einstein. All that matters is evidence.

Anyway, your own source said otherwise. Why is one right and the other wrong? Because you said so?

"What was a lie? Be careful here, I can pull up any of your previous posts...."

You know exactly what you are lying about. I can pull up your lies, but I'm sure no one cares. I even have an expert with a PhD that you challenged, and were exposed as a wannabe lipid metabolism expert.

Dr. Eric how do you treat your autistic patients? What surgery or medication do you give them? You sound so concerned about them. Or are you just concerned about the welfare of the vaccine program and status quo medical practices?

You know exactly what you are lying about

I don't

I can pull up your lies

Please do. I dare you.

s. I even have an expert with a PhD

correction. She is working on her PhD

and were exposed as a wannabe lipid metabolism expert

Never claimed to be. But I have read books, while you rely on the internet.

Dr. Eric how do you treat your autistic patients?

I don't have any, but if I did, I'd treat them like anybody else

What surgery or medication do you give them?

Whatever is indicated. Its a behavioral, not physiological disease

You sound so concerned about them

You make that sound like its a bad thing. For shame robby

Or are you just concerned about the welfare of the vaccine program and status quo medical practices?

im not concerned. People with your beliefs are few and far between, thankfully. The majority of the population is safeguarded

"Never claimed to be. But I have read books, while you rely on the internet."

You didn't know that DHA and AA were LCPUFAs that readily oxidize in vivo. Didn't know that they were vulnerable to autoxidation. You actually asked where they authors of the publication that I had posted stated that DHA and AA were in fact LCPUFAs.

What book did you read. Lipid metabolism for dummies?

Since when has the internet been deemed as a inferior source of information? Do physicians go the the library to find recent scientific publications or do they search on line?

You seriously make the most petty comments.

As a cardiologist, how did you manage to avoid hearing about DHA, AA, or any other long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids? DHA and EPA have been touted as cardio-protective for over a decade now. Yet, as a cardiologist you were unaware of these fatty acids. Unaware that PUFAs actually oxidize in vivo? I guess you are unfamiliar with eicosanoids, postaglandins, resolvins, protectins,etc.. This is why I have serious doubt that you are in fact a cardiologist.

How is a cardiologist without an understanding of LCPUFA metabolism allowed to manipulate natural cholesterol synthesis via statin prescriptions?

That's not only wrong, it's horrifying. Actually it should be criminal.

How would you treat them?

dr. Eric:

I don't have any, but if I did, I'd treat them like anybody else

How is that? What medication? What surgery? What could you do that the mother couldn't?

Robert, please stop trying to put words in his mouth. He's a cardiologist, so if an autistic person came in experiencing heart or blood vessel problems, THAT is where he would "treat them like anybody else". Nowhere in his statements did he say he would treat their autism. You just look foolish when you try to pin this kind of ridiculous statement on someone who doesn't agree with you to try to make you somehow appear smarter. You just look foolish now.

What medication or medical treatment would you recommend Dr. Penquin? I think Dr.Eric can speak for himself. The point is medicine has not treatment or no answer to autism. There only interest is because it threatens the vaccine program. It caused them to serve notice. Yet they still have nothing for it.

And how do you treat vaccine damage. What do you medically do for that? Adderall? Anti convulsants? antideppressants? What?

penquin is exactly correct

Your post adds nothing

The point is medicine has not treatment or no answer to autism

Robert, I love your strawman argument. It has been thoroughly explained to you that the medicine or treatment Eric is referring to is for the cardiac problems a patient would come in for, whether autistic or not. Don't turn this into a "Eric said that he has medication to treat autism" argument, because that, my friend, is the ultimate strawman, as you love to use the phrase. So please stop with the out-of-context lies...they're old and tired, just like your vaccine-autism mythical link.

It's obvious you don't know what a logical fallacy is, let alone a strawman argument, Penquin the so called pharmaceutical scientist who only has a bachelors degree and most likely is a quality control engineer in a pharma warehouse.

Bachelor's in Biochemistry and an MBA, working in QA right now for a major pharma company (me) versus guy who has no background in science whatsoever according to his own admission (you). Hmm, Robert, and you want to poke fun of MY background and training? Dear Lord!

Strawman: Asking Eric what his "treatment for autism" is when it was clear as day that he said he would treat autistic patients as he would any other patient in his own practice, which is cardiology. You're making an argument based off of an incorrect assumption, which is the very definition of strawman.

Look, you can either back up your own words with studies as Eric and I have, or you can debate people's backgrounds and belittle them without any evidence to support your own statements. You have little difficulty in asking for data from us, why not quid pro quo? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

So again, tell me I'm a QC scientist again. That MUST mean that your theory is correct. Those that have no evidence seek to tear down others to make their own arguments look valid, i.e. ad hominem attack. No legs to stand on? Attack someone who disagrees with you! Always been Robert's M.O., always will be. Forget the facts, Attack! Right, Robert?

You're making an argument based off of an incorrect assumption, which is the very definition of strawman

You don't know what a logical fallacy is. That's why you repeatedly and dishonestly use them.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
   Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
   Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
   Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
   Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

1. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

2. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
   Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
   Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
   Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

I have a question, Biff. What science is there to support your claim that vaccines cause autism?

Good question. An individual with an underlying mitochondrial disorder may be harmed by vaccinations. If this problem exist in cells such as neurons, anything that exerts an increase in energy that exceeds what these cells can produce will lead to cell death. A vaccination induced fever or seizure can cause an increased energy requirement. Excessive neuronal death will result in brain damage and cognive decline. Fairly simple.

Think about it this way- If your car had a bad alternator, therefore it couldn't keep up with supplying enough current on demand to the battery, Driving at night in the rain and cold would cause the car to stop running. Why? Because one would be using the heat, wipers, lights and so on that require an increase in output from the alternator to the battery to the accesories being used. The car would begin to shut down accesories until all available current was drained from the battery.

Think of mitochondria as alternators for cell energy production. If defective, these cells will shut down if energy requirements can not be met.

corny analogies are not evidence

Dr. Eric, I wasn't talking to you. Micflic asked a question and I answered it. I don't assume he/she understands mitochondria energy production and how abnormalities in this can result in injury from vaccinations.

BTW, what part of my corny analogy is incorrect?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Biff, your analogy is completely inaccurate with regard to vaccines and autism. You actually proved that something else is the root cause. In your analogy, the bad alternator is the mitochondria and the driving at night in the rain, etc. is the vaccine. Which is the root cause for your car's problems, the alternator or the driving at night in the rain? The alternator. So the problem in children that have bad reactions to these vaccines in your instance is poor mitochondrial functionality, NOT the vaccine. If the car had good alternators/mitochondria, the night/rain/vaccine would do NOTHING, therefore it's not the root cause.

Give the vaccine to people with healthy mitochondria, and nothing happens. Therefore you've proven it's NOT the vaccine's fault.

Dr. Eric, I wasn't talking to you

Really? Because in post #23 you said this:

Any questions? I mean intelligent questions Dr. Eric.

seeing as my post was in #23.4, which is in the same reply thread, its not unreasonable at all to think you were talking to me

Wrong again, biff. You should be used to it by now

BTW, what part of my corny analogy is incorrect?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Was I supossed to respond in the 2 second window between the time you typed your question and the "thats what I thought"

Ok tough guy. Youre wrong in that vaccines place any stress on the body in excess of what the patient experiences in the course of normal life

Youre wrong that the only reaction of a cell when it is presented with demands in excess of its supply is to die. Myocardial cells are well known to hibernate--in other words, a cell can lower its energy requirements, at least for a time. When energy is restored, presumbly after the stressor is relieved, the cell can recover

Now I can provide documentation of everything I just said. So its not just words unlike your statement

But if you don't believe me, why don't you just check out your own source. You remember that one, right? The one that completely contradicted you...

Do you want me to dig up for you biffy? Just say the word...

"Ok tough guy. Youre wrong in that vaccines place any stress on the body in excess of what the patient experiences in the course of normal life"

The patient in this situation could be an infant or toddler. Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Are you suggesting than an infant's immune system is fully developed and not vulnerable to stress from vaccinations? Define normal life. Life without mitochondrial disease? Make some damn sense. You're all over the place.

Here, watch the ex-head of the CDC explain what I have mentioned. Maybe you're more knowledgable than the ex-head of the CDC. But I doubt it.-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxJE92R0ss

"Biff, your analogy is completely inaccurate with regard to vaccines and autism. You actually proved that something else is the root cause. In your analogy, the bad alternator is the mitochondria and the driving at night in the rain, etc. is the vaccine. Which is the root cause for your car's problems, the alternator or the driving at night in the rain? The alternator. So the problem in children that have bad reactions to these vaccines in your instance is poor mitochondrial functionality, NOT the vaccine. If the car had good alternators/mitochondria, the night/rain/vaccine would do NOTHING, therefore it's not the root cause."

I thought I used english when I explained this. Let me dumb it down Penguin.

Infants and toddlers with a mito-disorder have problems with supplying energy to their cells. If energy demand is exceeded, these cells can not meet this required energy demand and die. Vaccinations to these individuals cause an increase in energy demand, in an effort to provide an immune response, that can not be met, and it causes these cells to die.

Root metabolic issue- mitochondrial disorder

Cause of vaccination injury- stimulated immune response via vaccinations requiring increased cellular energy production that can not be met.

"But if you don't believe me, why don't you just check out your own source. You remember that one, right? The one that completely contradicted you...

Do you want me to dig up for you biffy? Just say the word..."

Dig it up. Be careful what you ask for. Let's see it and we'll go over it.

"So the problem in children that have bad reactions to these vaccines in your instance is poor mitochondrial functionality, NOT the vaccine. If the car had good alternators/mitochondria, the night/rain/vaccine would do NOTHING, therefore it's not the root cause."

Probably one of the most ignorant comments used to divert attention from vaccination injury. Let's exmaine it.

"So the problem in children that have bad reactions to these vaccines in your instance is poor mitochondrial functionality, NOT the vaccine"

Uh, yeah, mitochondrial abnormailities predispose individuals to harm when metabolic demand for energy production is exceeded. And a round of vacciantions that stimulate increased energy production that is impaired may also result in harm.

I feel like I should also be using sign language.

Biff, I'm actually not interested in your hypothesis as to why vaccines cause problems as I am in what valid research has been donte to support your claim.

"Biff, I'm actually not interested in your hypothesis as to why vaccines cause problems as I am in what valid research has been donte to support your claim."

First off, it's not my hypothesis. Secondly, there is valid research available.

I think the more appropriate question would be- If there is scientific evidence that supports a causal relationship between mito-disorders and vaccination injury that results in autistic-like symptoms, why aren't there thousands of publications exploring this?

Simple answer- You don't fund studies that show any causal relationship. You fund studies showing no relationship. Got it?

Dear AAP Pediatricians,

As a physician, scientist, and father of a vaccine-injured child, I have many issues with Offit and Moser�s critique of Dr. Sears vaccine book, particularly its authoritarian tone and content. Offit is certainly entitled to his opinion, but it must be recognized as that. We must stick to the science and recognize the open questions with regards to vaccine safety.

Excerpt from Offit and Moser article: {Sears has a poor grasp of the scientific method. "Some studies have been published in recent years that have failed to show statistical proof of a relationship between vaccines and autism," he writes. "However, by the same token, it is also difficult to prove that there is not a connection." Using the scientific method, investigators form the null hypothesis. Good epidemiological studies are powered to reject or not to reject the null hypothesis. However, the scientific method does not allow investigators to accept the null hypothesis. Said another way, scientists can never prove never. The most that scientists can show is that 2 events are not associated statistically; scientists cannot prove that the events can never be associated statistically. In stating that it is "difficult to prove that there is not a connection," Sears is suggesting the impossible.} End Excerpt

In their assault on Dr. Sears, Offit and Moser confuse scientific methodology. Even more dangerous than not having an understanding of science, is the presumption that one does �grasp the scientific method.� Actually, in designing an epidemiological study, one must have a good estimate of the effect size, in order to determine the power of a study. Offit misuses the statistical term �power� to suggest that this allows one to �reject or not to reject the null hypothesis.� This is incorrect.

If one mistakenly rejects the null hypothesis (usually assigned <5% probability related to the alpha probability), than one has committed a Type I error. On the other hand, if one mistakenly does not reject the null hypothesis, this is called a Type II error�the probability of a Type II error, 1-beta, is described as the �power� of a study.

�Said another way, scientists can never prove never,� according to Moser and Offit. In truth, science does not �prove� negative or positive; it can only determine, in statistical terminology, the strength of conclusions derived from the data. Actually, if one has powered a study appropriately, then a negative result can be stated with a low probability of Type II error. Due to the complexities in effect size and power determination, generally negative and neutral studies do not warrant publication, particularly in high quality journals. This has not been the case in the peer reviewed neutral studies in relation to vaccination and autism, leading many to speculate that these studies are proof against causation.

Regarding the epidemiological studies that have not shown a link between vaccines and autism, one must take a step back. What is the probability that by saying �vaccines don�t cause autism,� you have committed a Type II error. Offit and others frequently cite 15 well positioned studies in the literature as proving that the vaccine-autism connection is a myth. Unfortunately, one cannot derive from these studies any estimate of effect size or power, so the probability of Type II error is completely unknown.

The Institute of Medicine�s final 2004 report on vaccines and autism recognized this major shortfall, and clearly stated that without biological markers of autism subpopulations at risk, further epidemiology would not be helpful. In other words, they did not say that vaccines don�t cause autism�-since without knowing what autism is, science cannot determine what it is not. Etiological determination is greatly encumbered by behavioral rather than medical characterization the disorder. It is highly probably that there are multiple autism(s) with multiple genetic and environmental triggers (Depakote being recently added to the list). This simple truth about autism greatly reduces the stastical power of even the largest epidemiological studies.

As a Neurologist that saw his normally developing daughter regress into autism before turning 2 years old, co-incident with immunization, I obviously have an inherently different bias than Offit, the wealthy vaccine inventor and patent holder. One in my situation must ask�What is post-vaccination encephalopathy? What are the mechanisms? Is there any treatment? Can it look like �autism?� There are many unknowns here, as no concerted effort has been made to understand the scope of post- vaccination encephalopathy. This leads to the next logical conclusion which is, since science does not understand post-vaccination encephalopathy, then we don�t know what factors could increase or decrease its incidence (thimerosal, aluminum, live virus combinations, diet/metabolic factors, multiplicity of vaccines). We can now perform genetic screening to determine who may react poorly to smallpox vaccine�this strategy might also benefit children with genetic susceptibilities similar to my child, thus preventing injuries like hers in the future.

Autism studies aside, there are several recent studies linking vaccination practices to autoimmune disorders-- like the recent Manitoba study demonstrating that a short delay in DTP administration reduces the rate of asthma by 50% and the AAN Neurology publication showing that one brand of HepB vaccine increases the risk of childhood MS by almost 3 times.

As physicians we took an oath to �first do no harm� to our individual patients. Dr. Sears offers a pro-vaccine individualized approach to childhood immunization that acknowledges the risks, benefits, and uncertainties of this medical intervention. Dr. Sears should be applauded for his efforts to provide safe vaccination alternatives to his patients, given the void of randomized controlled trials to support continued growth of the current CDC/AAP schedule.

Rather than personal attacks, let�s turn to science to provide the answers. The enormous public benefit of vaccination cannot be used to stifle open discourse on critical vaccine safety issues. One size does not fit all.

Sincerely,

Jon S. Poling MD/PhD

Conflict of Interest:

Dr. Poling is a practicing neurologist also holding a PhD in biophysics with focus on neuroscience. He is the father of a vaccine-injured child.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.abstract/reply#pediatrics_el_49911

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.abstract/reply#pediatrics_el_49911

• Corrinne Zoli, researcher

Syracuse University

What is unfortunately missed by Offit and Moser's (2009) recent essay is the informing context for the current vaccine debate�-shifting parental trust in medical institutions with implications for patient (and particularly, parent) doctor relationships. The vaccine debate plays out against a backdrop�-not only of facts vs. falsehoods, refereed vs. non- mainstream journals and studies, science vs. speculation, a complicated enough arena�-but of conflicting cultural �facts,� which may be equally important as the science. For instance, parental concerns over the safe cumulative levels of thimerosal (ethyl mercury) in vaccines were unwittingly validated by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the U.S. Public Health Service and others� recommending their removal (which largely occurred in 2001)�even while these organizations were steadfast in public declarations of no causal link between the preservative and various neurotoxic or neuropathological ill-effects. What did parents learn from this decision? Aside from the fact that the preservative had been long removed in many countries of the world (i.e., the UK and even Russia), or that infants may have received doses exceeding EPA recommendations, they learned that organizations designed to serve the public trust were contradictory in their words and deeds. They also learned that these same organizations did not value parents as partners in children�s health enough to speak forthrightly with them or to address all sides of a complex issue. Ultimately, whether or not the known neurotoxin ethyl mercury had an impact on developing brains, or whether or not new or available scientific research would prove this, was beside the point. The larger �lesson learned� by parents was to fear the decision making processes of medical and public health institutions and to become critically engaged with them using whatever tools at one�s disposal (i.e., online information, reading scientific studies, discussion groups, etc.).

The thimerosal debate is only one (still relevant) example of the �lessons learned� by parents today in their opinion of members of the medical community and institutions of public health. (The FDA�s recent and multiple blunders in the drug approval process do not help with this impression). Vaccine manufacturers play a role in undermining public trust when they do not practice accountability or when the FDA and CDC in their oversight role do not see that they do. The Merck internal memo which attested to the cumulative mercury in vaccines for infants at 87 times safe FDA limits (disclosed by The Los Angeles Times, 8 Feb 2005) and the Aug 2002 and Feb 2003 reports in Infectious Diseases in Children of SV -40 viral contamination of millions of doses of polio vaccine from monkey kidney tissues (also found in the experimental Hep A vaccine) feed this view. Unfortunately, other issues of current debate (i.e., safety, especially of MMR live viruses, lack of long-term studies, research by scientists employed by pharma firms, use of pre-World War II data to set benchmarks, etc.) are being handled in the same way and convey the same lesson: parents are not equal partners and decision makers in their children�s health, and they should exhibit blind trust in institutions that many perceive as marred.

One of the significant differences between Offit and Moser (2009), who reiterate this view, and the Dr. Sears series of books, is this realization. The Sears books have done exceedingly well at engaging this cultural phenomenon, addressing parents as peers and decision makers, a deliberative response that becomes more important when scientific opinion is unclear, in flux, or insufficient. Offit and Moser (2009), by contrast, seem unaware-�or unwilling to see�-this as a problem. The most obvious example of their blindspot is demonstrated by the fact that Offit, designated in the article as �the co-inventor of and co-patent holder for RotaTeq,� tries to make the case for the trustworthiness of public health agencies and pharmaceutical companies when his own professional situation, arguably a conflict of interest by any meaningful standard, belies the very distinction between public oversight agencies and profit-motivated companies. Moreover, Offit and Moser (2009) are out of touch and even condescending with respect to parent�s concerns on various vaccine-related issues. They write: �given that young infants currently receive 14 different vaccines, requiring as many as 5 shots at a single visit and 26 inoculations by 2 years of age, the concern that children might be overwhelmed by too many vaccines is understandable.� It is unacceptable that they found no need to know the current recommended CDC (and AAP) childhood immunization schedule which suggests not, �up to 5� vaccines at once, but 9 at 12 or 15 months. Moreover, many parents are not, �overwhelmed,� but are in fact offering critiques of the policies, protocols, institutions, and practices of childhood vaccination and the institutions that regulate them on a range of substantive grounds (from science, to safety, health and prevention issues, to long term effects, etc.). It is easy to reduce parents� concerns to �conspiracy theories,� as opposed to institutional critiques, or to simplify parents� attempts to enter this public debate as a false choice of �pro/anti-vaccines� (where does safety and improving vaccines fit in?). Such moves do nothing to redress or restore public trust and, to the contrary, relay the falsehood that children�s health is a matter confined only to the exclusive ranks of health professionals�and not to public deliberation. Beyond science, which is only part of the problem, only when organizations such as the AAP, the CDC, and others choose to recognize this new cultural phenomenon, that patient-physician relationships have irrevocably changed from the 1950�s �doctor as god� model, will a real dialogue of equals and, hence, public trust be restored.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

... less

Dig it up. Be careful what you ask for. Let's see it and we'll go over it.

Go back to the previous vaccine thread we were commenting on. I posted your claim, and then an excerpt from your source

They were diametrically opposed

No. not so.

what? I wasn't talking to you, genius...

Robert, Dr Eric is talking about a strawman argument he created and was caught in. As usual, he was talking about things he didn't understand and made some statements that were not true. Then when proof was provided he went strawman.

Post it Dr. Eric. I'll show you again how you are wrong.

haha...what strawman? those are the words you use when you lose an argument. You start bellyaching about strawman, or non sequitor, or some other diversionary tactic.

biff's own words:

Like Hannah Poling's condition Eric. The underlying condition that caused autistic-like symptoms after her vaccinations.

I disagreed, and biff made some snarky comments and told me to "educate myself" by going to a few links that he supplied

I actually did read them, and imagine my surprise when one of the links said this:

Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions. Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines. MitoAction encourages parents to talk to their pediatrician about these concerns.

http://www.mitoaction.org/blog/statement-autism-vaccines-mitochondrial-disease

this proves that:

a)biff is wrong about mitochondrial disease

b) biff does not read his own sources

"I actually did read them, and imagine my surprise when one of the links said this:"

I'm surprised you can read. Comprehension is another topic altogether.

Like Hannah Poling's condition Eric. The underlying cindition that caused autistic-like symptoms after her vaccinations.

What's false about that statement?

"Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions. Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines. MitoAction encourages parents to talk to their pediatrician about these concerns."

"this proves that:

a)biff is wrong about mitochondrial disease

b) biff does not read his own sources"

Show me where these experts say vaccinations can not worsen an underlying mito-disorder and result in injury.

If you can comprehend what was stated, you'll be surprised to realize that they didn't say that at all. You have to expect slippery talk when dealing with the pro-vaccination crowd. These individuals use every tactic except truth when defending the safety of vaccinations.

"Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations"

Even children like Hannah Poling? Cause it didn't work out so well for her.

"The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions."

Is this implying that there is NO risk to a vaccine-related reaction? I would use the term injury rather than reaction is some cases, but the author's job is to downplay how serious a reaction could be. Slippery. They are stating that the risk of reaction from a communicable disease is higher than a risk from a vaccination induced reaction/injury. Which is ridiculous of course. They act as if there is all this biomedical research that has been conducted that concludes a child with a mito-disorder is less likely to be harmed by a communicable disease than a round of vaccinations.

Proof in point. Hannah was a very publicized case of this type of vaccination induced injury. Where is the biomedical data supporting the decision? It was sealed from the public. So how many other children have been harmed under the same circumstances? Why isn't this data shared with all pediatricians?

"MitoAction encourages parents to talk to their pediatrician about these concerns."

Talk about what? Talk about biomedical data that was never shared with them? Talk about a serious reaction/injury that may occur if your child has a mito-disorder and is vaccinated? I guess if we were being honest and stopped denying that it happens in the first place, we could discuss these issues as encouraged by MitoAction.

"Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines."

Yup, thimerisol isn't dangerous. Can't cause neuronal injury. Perfectly safe.

They had to throw that in there. They removed it though. There isn't any proof that thimerisol can cause harm to a developing infant?

Hey Dr.Eric,

"a)biff is wrong about mitochondrial disease"

I am? Explain

"b) biff does not read his own sources"

Read them and comprehend them.

By all means Dr. Eric, show me all the studies that examine communicable disease injury vs. vaccination injury towards those with mito-disorders.

Biff, do you not understand root cause? In Poling's case, it was THE UNDERLYING MITOCHONDRIAL DYSFUNCTION that caused her symptoms. Without any sort of disorder BEFORE a vaccine is given, she wouldn't have gotten brain damage. Thus the vaccine, while a trigger, is NOT he root cause.

Back to your car example. If the auto mechanic told you that the night time and the rain were what's causing your car problems, he'd be just as wrong as you are here. You fix the alternator (as in your example), and the night/rain don't affect the car's performance. How simple an analogy can you screw up?

Yes, we all agree that ON VERY FEW OCCASIONS vaccines cause damage to individuals. But to think that there would be less disease out there without these vaccines runs counter to every study out there. How many kids died from whooping cough this year alone? More than will die from all vaccine injuries. And that's just from ONE disease. Your head needs to be extricated from your rear.

biff and robert,

I cannot make it simpler for either of you. It is so clear the fact that yall continue to deny it speaks volumes

Biff said mito disease + vaccines equal autism. HIS OWN SOURCE says that risk is less than the risk of the disease, and to date, no link has yet to even be established!!!

Just admit a mistake. It happens. We all make them. I would have much more (well, mildly more) respect for both of you if you would just admit the obvious

penguin15

"Biff, do you not understand root cause? In Poling's case, it was THE UNDERLYING MITOCHONDRIAL DYSFUNCTION that caused her symptoms. Without any sort of disorder BEFORE a vaccine is given, she wouldn't have gotten brain damage. Thus the vaccine, while a trigger, is NOT he root cause."

No, her symptoms were a result of a vaccination induced encephalopathy. She had an underlying mito-disorder that when stressed by several vaccinations, resulted in her neurological decline, seizures and a host of other health issues. The mito- disorder may have resulted in none of these injuries if not for the increased cellular stress provoked by the vaccinations. It is quite possible to have a mito-disorder, wherein symptoms are so mild, it may go undetected. Additionally, depending on the severity of this disorder, an individual could live their whole life without serious health complications from this underlying disease.

You just don't understand mito-disorders. That's not my fault.

"Back to your car example. If the auto mechanic told you that the night time and the rain were what's causing your car problems, he'd be just as wrong as you are here. You fix the alternator (as in your example), and the night/rain don't affect the car's performance. How simple an analogy can you screw up?"

Did I say the mechanic told me the night and rain were the problem?

I said if your car had a problem supplying electrical current when needed due to a fault alternator, the excess demand for this current ( driving at night, in the cold and rain-using the lights, wipers and heater circuits) would cause the car to stall and not start again.

So if your cell's alternator (mitochondria) are incapable of supplying increased energy when stressed (vaccinations), these cells could die or just not function properly. If these cell's mitochondria could produce enough energy, without being pushed or stressed to exceed their capability, they wouldn't cause such a condition.

You're saying that the root cause is responsible for her injuries. That's not how it works.

"Thus the vaccine, while a trigger, is NOT he root cause."

Guns kill people everyday. Without a trigger, I suspect that this wouldn't be the case.

"Biff said mito disease + vaccines equal autism. HIS OWN SOURCE says that risk is less than the risk of the disease, and to date, no link has yet to even be established!!!"

I tried to decipher that pig latin, but was unsuccessful.

"risk is less than the risk of the disease, and to date, no link has yet to even be established!!!"

Risk of what is less than risk of what disease? Risk of communicable disease resulting in injury is less than risk of vaccination induced injury? So how are these two risks being compared if one doesn't exist? That's just silly talk. Something an 8 year old would say.

No link has been established for vaccination induced injury resulting in autistic-like symptoms?

Julie Gerberding admitted it happened. The government conceeded that it had happened. The Poling's were compensated because it happened. So what are you talking about?

Show me anywhere those experts at MitoAction stated that vaccinations will not cause individuals with mito-disorders injury.

Show me where these experts proved me wrong .

Penguin, you can help your buddie Eric out, unless he is your alter ego.

i don't need anyone's help to deal with someone of your educational level

the risk of communicable injury is less than the vaccine injury risk-that is correct

the risk of vaccine complication does exist--in the form of swelling and redness at the injection site, rare febrile seizures with no lasting complications, and anaphylaxis with no lasting effects

The risk of communicable disease equals death in some cases

But the bottom line is you claim that vaccines caused autism, where your OWN SOURCE says that link has never been established

i really can't make that any easier to understand.

Julie Gerberding admitted it happened. The government conceeded that it had happened. The Poling's were compensated because it happened. So what are you talking about?

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

"Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions. Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines. MitoAction encourages parents to talk to their pediatrician about these concerns."

Dr Eric, where do these experts state mito-disorders can not cause vaccination injuries?

Why would they make a risk assessment if a risk did not exist?

They suggest that a communicable disease would pose a lesser risk than vaccinations, but never stated that it doesn't happen after vaccinations. That's because they can't.

Then they recommend that parents discuss these issues with their pediatricians. Why discuss a risk that doesn't exist?

Mitochondrial disease experts are specialized in this field of medicine. Is a pediatrician the appropriate person to be consulting when weighing risks that don't exist?

Why did MitoAction recommend discussing these risks with a medical professional that doesn't specialize in these metabolic disorders?

biff,

You said vaccines caused autistic like symptoms in poling. You directed me to a website where it said no link has ever been established and recommended that all patients ESPECIALLY patients with poling's condition get vaccinated

How do you not see how idiotic that makes you look?

"the risk of vaccine complication does exist--in the form of swelling and redness at the injection site, rare febrile seizures with no lasting complications, and anaphylaxis with no lasting effects"

Oh, so now vaccinations DO NOT cause serious injuries? Gotcha. Downplaying serious vaccination injuries in such a manner is not only dishonest, but insulting towards those unfortunate individuals and families suffering from these injuries. Show some damn respect!

"The risk of communicable disease equals death in some cases"

Yeah, vaccinations cause death as well in some cases.

You deny facts and insult when you are challenged by them. As a cardiologist, you should be a bit more professional.

Does a cardiologist make a post like this one when challenged?-

"your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!

your own source says no link is there!!!"

That's a post from an eight year old throwing a temper tantrum, not a real cardiologist.

biff,

You said vaccines caused autistic like symptoms in poling. You directed me to a website where it said no link has ever been established and recommended that all patients ESPECIALLY patients with poling's condition get vaccinated

How do you not see how idiotic that makes you look?

"You said vaccines caused autistic like symptoms in poling. You directed me to a website where it said no link has ever been established and recommended that all patients ESPECIALLY patients with poling's condition get vaccinated"

"How do you not see how idiotic that makes you look?"

"You said vaccines caused autistic like symptoms in poling."

They did, and you say it never happened.

"You directed me to a website where it said no link has ever been established and recommended that all patients ESPECIALLY patients with poling's condition get vaccinated"

We've been over this. I asked to see where these experts stated vaccinations CAN NOT cause serious injuries towards individuals with mito-disorders. Which in fact they never stated because it is untrue. In fact they stated that there were risks from both and suggested that one was greater than the other. Well anyone that denies that an injury does happen, as for the case of vaccination injuries, wouldn't acknowledge that a risk truly exists. Therefore these instances where mito-disorders actually cause injuries after vaccinations will also not be acknowledged. So how do you weigh risks between two different causes of injury if one doesn't exist? You can't.

Did you ever wonder why I posted that publication in the first place? Because I didn't read it? Because I didn't understand it?

It actually explains how dysfunctional the whole medical community is. Denialist and outright liars. You fit right in.

You said vaccines caused autistic like symptoms in poling. You say this is evidence that vaccines are dangerous, and people should think twice about getting them

You then directed me to a website where it said no link has ever been established and recommended that all patients ESPECIALLY patients with poling's condition get vaccinated

your link said to do the exact opposite of what you preach. How do you not see the ridiculousness of it?

"Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions. Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines. MitoAction encourages parents to talk to their pediatrician about these concerns."

You then directed me to a website where it said no link has ever been established"

They said no causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism.

Where did they say there was no link to vaccination induced injury and mito-disorders?

They didn't. You are either just lying or truly still can't comprehend the statements made. I put my money on lying.

"You said vaccines caused autistic like symptoms in poling. You say this is evidence that vaccines are dangerous, and people should think twice about getting them"

Never said people should think twice about anything. Liar

If you knew your child had a mito-disorder, it would be wise to think twice about vaccinations.

"You said vaccines caused autistic like symptoms in poling. You say this is evidence that vaccines are dangerous"

I did and it is.

I had to cut off the rest of the sentence. The part where you claimed I told people to think twice. Liar

Can you have a discussion without lying and denying everything. It's called an honest debate. Learn the rules or don't play.

you specifically said "autism like symptoms" in poling, then directed me to the website, where it says a link has been DISPROVEN

How are you still not getting this?

P.S. If you think im lying, then post conflicting statments like I did exposing you. Then we'll see

biff's own words:

Like Hannah Poling's condition Eric. The underlying condition that caused autistic-like symptoms after her vaccinations.

All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions. Any causal relationship of thimerisol to incidence of autism has been disproven by observing the incidence of autism before and after eliminating this form of mercury from the vaccines.

Just sack up and admit the truth. Its clealy in black and white right there. Admit you messed up. Admit your OWN source disagrees with you.

Admit youre wrong. Be a man

I'm obviously dealing with someone of low intelligence. Sorry Eric, we been over this. Honestly, I doubt anyone else is following this discussion. So, you know your lies are obvious at this point.

I have respect for those who honestly debate important issues, regardless if we see eye to eye. I have no respect for someone such as yourself. If you're going to debate, at least be honest in doing so. If not, don't waste my time.

your post adds nothing. There is literally nothing of intelligence there. You accuse me of lies without quoting me at all

Its obvious you were proven wrong by your own source. Deal with it

Biff, how to put this without going over your head. If the mechanic in your analogy said your car was acting up because of the rain (i.e. vaccines) and told you not to drive in the rain, then you wouldn't buy his explanation, would you? If, however, he told you that the simple root cause was that you had a faulty alternator (i.e. mitochondrial DNA), which upon being put in the rain was acting up, that would be a much better explanation.

Why, then, do you insist that the vaccine, not the mitochondral problem, was root cause here? It simply doesn't make sense. Autistic-like symptoms DO NOT EQUAL autism. A car-crash victim lying in the hospital has some autistic-like symptoms too...you wouldn't say that car crashes cause autism too...or would you?

"Why, then, do you insist that the vaccine, not the mitochondral problem, was root cause here?"

You're the one making a stink over root cause. Gee Penguin, would autistic-like symptoms have occurred if the mitochondria were not pushed past their energy production potential? So an underlying mito-disorder could actually result in no neurological injury unless a trigger caused it to happen. So what is your point exactly? Where did I even mention the term root cause? Starting a strawman argument?

Not to change the subject, but do you agree with Dr. Eric's foolish comment below?

He stated vaccination injury has NEVER resulted in ANY permanent injury. Claims there are NO studies that confirmed that this has ever happened.

Do you agree?

You're the one making a stink over root cause

yeah penquin, why the hell do you care about the cause of problems? Its not like that would help further human understanding, and lead to treatment and maybe even prevention?

Gosh, loser.

He stated vaccination injury has NEVER resulted in ANY permanent injury. Claims there are NO studies that confirmed that this has ever happened.

Again, you continue to misquote me. I said no STUDY has shown this.

And YOUR OWN SOURCE backs me up. I think the face in the mirror is really the person youre mad at, since you led me to that site in the first place

Don't you find that funny? I will bring it up on every single post you ever make on here. every time, every chance I get.

I hope youre not sick of it yet cause I haven't even started.

mitochondria were not pushed past their energy production potential

So you must know the ATP producing capacity of both normal mitochondria and those in patients with this disorder. You must also know the amount of ATP required to deal with the demands a vaccine places on the body

Please share this information Biff. I am eagerly awating this revelation

"So you must know the ATP producing capacity of both normal mitochondria and those in patients with this disorder. You must also know the amount of ATP required to deal with the demands a vaccine places on the body"

"Please share this information Biff. I am eagerly awating this revelation"

Revelation, as in newly discovered information? Do I know the amount of ATP required to keep up with demands that multiple vaccinations place on different cells? No, but I'm not assuming that a mito-disorder wouldn't compromise this increase in energy demand. You are. Why don't we know how multiple vaccinations will affect cells with mito-abnormalities? Unimportant? These diseases don't exist?

Are you going to ignore science all day? Ask silly questions?

If a communicable disease can cause injury to an individual with a mito-disorder, why couldn't a provoked immune response(s)? Doesn't make much sense scientifically. But when you don't apply science, you can make any claim that you like.

Hey Eric, I wonder why Penguin won't support your claim. No study has ever shown that vaccinations caused a permanent injury. Duh

Dr Eric, LIAR,LIAR MEDICAL PANTS ON FIRE.

Hey did you find a study proving that DHA and AA were in fact LCPUFAs? The rest of the world knows it's true, but I can see why you need a study to prove it.

Did you find a study showing that they oxidize in vivo? Every other cardiologist probably knows this, but again, I understand the need for you to read a study about it. They have only been out for about 15+ years.

Hey, I got a good idea. Maybe instead of going to the library to look up recent publications, you can do what the rest of the World does now. Use the internet.

It's like a sauna in here.

No, but I'm not assuming that a mito-disorder wouldn't compromise this increase in energy demand. You are.

What???? Youve said it a million times!!! Like 2 posts ago!

mitochondria were not pushed past their energy production potential?

All Im asking you to do is quantify what the energy production potential is and how far past we pushed it. Come on, if you make a claim you need to back it up when pressed. Otherwise you will be seen as all talk and come off as a dilettante

Why don't we know how multiple vaccinations will affect cells with mito-abnormalities? Unimportant? These diseases don't exist?

Um, thats what Im asking you buddy...

If a communicable disease can cause injury to an individual with a mito-disorder, why couldn't a provoked immune response(s)? Doesn't make much sense scientifically. But when you don't apply science, you can make any claim that you like.

thats like saying "if a knife can hurt someone, why can't a rubber chicken?" Science doesn't work like that biff. You don't get to just make assumptions and then go to town with them

They need EVIDENCE

If you have evidence of vaccine induced injury in mito patients then by all means share it. But I assume your study will have an N of greater than 1

. No study has ever shown that vaccinations caused a permanent injury. Duh

Why is a ten year old study bad when I show it but a 15 year old study acceptable when you show it?

Are you scared to answer that question?

I'll wait....

Hey did you find a study proving that DHA and AA were in fact LCPUFAs?

No, i didn't know that and either did you without googling. Im not sure why youre so proud of your ability to search on google,. My little niece can do it to. Congrats. she now wears pull ups. Are you proud of that too?

Use the internet.

Thanks for proving my point. Only you would be proud of this fact biff. That statement is more telling than anything else

"No, i didn't know that and either did you without googling. Im not sure why youre so proud of your ability to search on google,. My little niece can do it to. Congrats. she now wears pull ups. Are you proud of that too?"

Your neice wearing pull-ups? I guess so. Tell her I said good job.

A cardiologist prescribing statins to normalize cholesterol levels doesn't know that DHA and AA are LCPUFAs. LOL, That's funny. Gee wiz Eric, how does one manipulate natural cholesterol synthesis without understand lipid metabolism? That's like baking dough without understanding how yeast is important.

I guess it doesn't matter much. Statins are pretty much worthless. But it doesn't stop you from writing lifetime prescriptions. Perhaps if you took a peep at modern science, you would understand a bit more. Use your computer to learn these things rather than on Newsvine.

Hasn't one of your patients ever asked about the benefits of DHA and EPA? Cmon man,lol, be honest. You're a pretend cardiologist.

Hey doc, I heard DHA and EPA from fish oil were cardio-protective,

You can't prove that.

Yeah, that's what's been reported for the past 15 years.

Never heard of them.

The exert anti-inflammatory effects and have been suggested to combat inflammation.

Still never heard of them.

Yeah they oxidize and exert these effects.

You can't prove that.

Really, its been proven and even recommended among hundreds of cardiologists.

No study has ever shown the benefits of DHA or EPA, even though I don't know what they are.

I'll help you out, or you can have your neice google it for you.

Consumption of marine fish oil has been reported to improve the prognosis of several chronic inflammatory diseases characterized by leukocyte accumulation and leukocyte-mediated tissue injury, including atherosclerosis, IgA nephropathy, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.^1–4 These beneficial effects of fish oil have been associated with the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which are abundant in marine fish oil.

EPA and DHA are highly polyunsaturated and easily undergo auto-oxidation.^5,6 In fact, it is very difficult to avoid the oxidation of these very labile fatty acids. More importantly, in vivo, a large increase in tissue and plasma accumulation of both omega-3 fatty acids and fatty acid oxidation products is noted in subjects consuming fish oil, even after addition of antioxidant supplements to the diet.^7–10 This suggests the possibility that oxidized omega-3 fatty acids may be an important component of the observed antiinflammatory effects of fish oil. Indeed, our previous studies have shown that oxidized EPA, and not unoxidized EPA, potently inhibits leukocyte–endothelial interactions, both in vitro and in vivo, through a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)α-dependent mechanism.^11,12

One of the early events in inflammation is the upregulation of endothelial chemokines, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) and IL-8, in response to proinflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and IL-1. MCP-1 and IL-8 in turn promote leukocyte chemotaxis, adhesion, and transendothelial migration,^13,14 and neutralization of MCP-1 has been shown to attenuate in vivo injury arising from inflammatory mechanisms.^15–17 The aim of this study was to determine the effects of oxidized versus native omega-3 fatty acids on the endothelial expression of chemokines MCP-1 and IL-8, and, if effective in inhibiting chemokine expression, to determine the mechanism for the inhibition of chemokine expression.

See wannabe cardiologist? They do oxidize in vivo.

Time to post a sentence 10x and throw a hissy fit.

Hey, they say they autoxidate in vivo. Gee wiz Dr.

liar,liar, medical scubs on fire

"Again, you continue to misquote me. I said no STUDY has shown this."

Yeah, I get it. You state no study has proven this*citation needed*, therefore no one has ever suffered from a permanent vaccination injury.

Liar

, how does one manipulate natural cholesterol synthesis without understand lipid metabolism?

I understand it better than you. I just don't have the names of all the fatty acids memorized. and either do you. You just google it. You admitted as much

Use your computer to learn these things rather than on Newsvine.

Hahah...i used medical school. You can keep your internet. I still can't believe youre proud of that fact

Liar

How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I mean, your life is sad. You have nothing to do but go on the internet and insult people? Are you a wuss in real life? Honestly? With some internet courage I bet you feel like you are getting back at all those people who picked on you

So sad and pitiful. Really terrible. I feel sorry for you

"How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I mean, your life is sad. You have nothing to do but go on the internet and insult people? Are you a wuss in real life? Honestly? With some internet courage I bet you feel like you are getting back at all those people who picked on you"

"So sad and pitiful. Really terrible. I feel sorry for you"

Are you speaking from experience?

I predict a hissy fit coming.

"I understand it better than you. I just don't have the names of all the fatty acids memorized. and either do you. You just google it. You admitted as much"

Liar. I just kicked your #ss earlier. Want some more?

Time to post a sentence 10x in a hissy fit.

"I understand it better than you. I just don't have the names of all the fatty acids memorized. and either do you. You just google it. You admitted as much"

Liar, liar , medical scrubs on fire!

"I understand it better than you. I just don't have the names of all the fatty acids memorized. and either do you. You just google it. You admitted as much"

I hate to be the grammar police, but that's the second time you used either instead of neither in a sentence. It's actually either, or ...neither nor.

See, you learned something else today. You're welcome.

im done with you. You do not answer any of my questions, like how much ATP a vaccine causes a mitochondria to use, and 95% of your posts have become personal insults

I suggest you find some other outlet for your frustrations

"im done with you. You do not answer any of my questions, like how much ATP a vaccine causes a mitochondria to use, and 95% of your posts have become personal insults"

Apparently vaccinations forced Hannah's cells to exceed her amount of ATP production capability. She had a mito-disorder. It resulted in seizures, autistic-like symptoms and other health issues.

You're asking me what level of ATP needs to be produced by mitochondria of cells to exert a proper immune response after vaccinations? Which cells, which vaccinations? How many vaccinations? Which adjuvants are being used?

I'll say it again. If a communicable disease can cause a mito-disorder to create serious injuries, a vaccination provoked immune response could do the same. Both would require an increase in cellular energy to provide an immune response. Both could overwhelm and exceed available enery due to a mitochondrial abnormality.

I'm sorry that you disagree. I didn't make up the rules of biochemistry.

ANYTHING THAT FORCES A CELL'S MITOCHONDRIA TO EXCEED AVAILABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION MAY CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY. THAT INCLUDES MULTIPLE VACCINATIONS AND THE QUESTIONABLE COMPONENTS THAT THEY CONTAIN.

Which cells, which vaccinations?

Um, you tell me...this is your theory. I think someone who is so adamant about the fact that vaccines cause injury but continually is clueless with regards to questions about mechanisms, causation, etc is being a bit disingenuous

But I'll give you a clue. All nucleated cells have mitochondria. I suppose vaccination would cause the most "stress" ie, largest demand on energy production from immune cells like T or B cells in order to multiply, produce antibodies, cytokines like IL-2 or TNF. Just a thought

If a communicable disease can cause a mito-disorder to create serious injuries, a vaccination provoked immune response could do the same.

Ill say it again--that takes proof. Its like me saying, "a gun killed this person, therefore a ping pong ball is also lethal."

Both would require an increase in cellular energy

My friend, dose is tremendously important. Walking causes an increase in cellular energy demand, but these patients just don't keel over after taking a few steps. Do you have evidence that the increase in cellular ATP production demand is significant with vaccines? If so, can you quantify it?

I'm sorry that you disagree. I didn't make up the rules of biochemistry.

No, but you should know them and be able to apply them to this discussion. Thats all Im asking. Im not asking for theory or supposition here; Im asking for facts and numbers.

If you were an architect, is it good enough when someone asks you how high to build a building, and your answer is "tall"?

Specifics, believe it or not, matter

ANYTHING THAT FORCES A CELL'S MITOCHONDRIA TO EXCEED AVAILABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION MAY CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY. THAT INCLUDES MULTIPLE VACCINATIONS AND THE QUESTIONABLE COMPONENTS THAT THEY CONTAIN.

Calm yourself. First, you haven't even proved that vaccines cause a significant increase of cellular energy production above, lets say, riding a bike. All im asking is for quantification so we can see if this is true

Sheesh

Biff, I have a life. Sorry I can't be at your beck and call to answer your questions 24/7. I have a beautiful family now, and can't stand to stay up til all hours of the night to counter your terrible arguments.

If someone has a condition, be it heart condition, diabetes, mitochondrial condition, what have you, you cannot take the idea that they developed a separate condition (in Poling's case, brain injury) and say that it was only the result of whatever they ingested, injected, etc. without fully understanding everything involved.

For example, if a patient's immune system were compromised by HIV/AIDS, and a fungal infection ended up killing them (as with many AIDS patients), would you therefore claim that they were killed by a fungus or by complications from AIDS? Using your weird train of thought, you would only say that the fungus (or vaccine, in Poling's case) contributed...therefore vaccines are evil! Yet this completely dismisses the ability of the fungus to invade the body because of the patient's weakened immune system. Would the fungus have killed the patient without him or her having AIDS? Nope. Would Poling have developed brain injury from this vaccine without the underlying mitochondrial condition? NOPE. Therefore, you RULE OUT the vaccine as the cause of her brain injury. That is the idea behind root cause.

But what do I know -- it's only the scientific method! Better to ask slanted websites and Robert what Poling's condition really is (they'll say it's autism, but it's not, according to her doctors, parents, and court verdict) or what caused it (they'll say it's vaccines, but it's not...it's the mitochondrial condition).

What happens when you or I get that same vaccine? NOTHING. But when you introduce the mitochondrial condition, brain injury can occur. Hmmm, which is root cause again? God, you make me laugh.

Now back to demanding answers within the hour on Newsvine (or whatever your job is).

I'm sorry that you disagree. I didn't make up the rules of biochemistry

Biff, so if one were to have a biochemistry degree (as I do) and tell you you're full of crap (as I am), would you believe them?

"Biff, so if one were to have a biochemistry degree (as I do) and tell you you're full of crap (as I am), would you believe them?"

No.

"What happens when you or I get that same vaccine? NOTHING. But when you introduce the mitochondrial condition, brain injury can occur. Hmmm, which is root cause again? God, you make me laugh."

I see. So a mito-condition may result in brain injury after a vaccination.

I agree. I'll call anything a root cause. But at least we agree that vaccinations will cause brain injuries to those with nito-problems. Thanks

But at least we agree that vaccinations will cause brain injuries to those with nito-problems.

In certain cases, yes. But you can't take that next step and call it autism, especially when Hannah's own doctors cannot diagnose her as autistic. You're not autistic unless you fit the DSM-IV definition. Period. End of debate on that one.

Are there injuries from vaccines? Surely. But you'd have to admit that there are far fewer vaccination injuries than injuries from the disease itself. It's not bulletproof, but it's the best we've got. I doubt there are more than 10 fatalities from the whooping cough vaccine...while there are more than that for the actual disease this year alone, with thousands injured. You want to compare numbers? I'd be more than happy to do so. Be my guest.

"In certain cases, yes. But you can't take that next step and call it autism"

So no child with a mito disorder or vaccination injury ever fit a DSM-IV for autism?

How exactly do you know this? Publication please.

Of the 4800 families awaiting compensation for vaccination injury, none of these children have been diagnosed as autistic?

Publication please.

What you are asking me to believe is so far left of right that it is almost embarrassing on your part.

You work for pharma right? Do they take out the portion of your brain used for independent thinking?

Penguin, using your root cause nonsense, How is it applied to a drunk driving fatality?

A man gets drunk at a bar and then leaves in his car. He smashes in to a family of five and they all die. What was the root cause? The car, because it was what caused the injuries? Without the car, the accident wouldn't have happened?

From your root cause foolishness, the alcohol impairment wouldn't be the root cause. It was something that came after a car that was already ready to kill. You place no bearing on the effect of alcohol consumption and driving a car intoxicated.

Apply you AIDS patient whom dies after a fungal infection in the same manner. AIDS killed the patient, because it was the root cause. It was ready to kill. The fungal infection has no impact on this death.

Really Penguin?

Which cells, which vaccinations?

Um, you tell me...this is your theory. I think someone who is so adamant about the fact that vaccines cause injury but continually is clueless with regards to questions about mechanisms, causation, etc is being a bit disingenuous

But I'll give you a clue. All nucleated cells have mitochondria. I suppose vaccination would cause the most "stress" ie, largest demand on energy production from immune cells like T or B cells in order to multiply, produce antibodies, cytokines like IL-2 or TNF. Just a thought

If a communicable disease can cause a mito-disorder to create serious injuries, a vaccination provoked immune response could do the same.

Ill say it again--that takes proof. Its like me saying, "a gun killed this person, therefore a ping pong ball is also lethal."

Both would require an increase in cellular energy

My friend, dose is tremendously important. Walking causes an increase in cellular energy demand, but these patients just don't keel over after taking a few steps. Do you have evidence that the increase in cellular ATP production demand is significant with vaccines? If so, can you quantify it?

I'm sorry that you disagree. I didn't make up the rules of biochemistry.

No, but you should know them and be able to apply them to this discussion. Thats all Im asking. Im not asking for theory or supposition here; Im asking for facts and numbers.

If you were an architect, is it good enough when someone asks you how high to build a building, and your answer is "tall"?

Specifics, believe it or not, matter

ANYTHING THAT FORCES A CELL'S MITOCHONDRIA TO EXCEED AVAILABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION MAY CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY. THAT INCLUDES MULTIPLE VACCINATIONS AND THE QUESTIONABLE COMPONENTS THAT THEY CONTAIN.

Calm yourself. First, you haven't even proved that vaccines cause a significant increase of cellular energy production above, lets say, riding a bike. All im asking is for quantification so we can see if this is true

Sheesh

How do you guys have enough time to argue with each other about this post? I didn't even have enough time to finish SKIMMING through your comments! You must really care about this subject, enjoy arguing, or have to be right. Either way IDK where you find the time!

i don't know...even if Ive made 50 posts on here the past 5 days, thats 10 posts a day...each one takes me 5 min---thats less than an hour a day

Most people watch tv an average of 4 hours a day for comparison's sake

Jackiel, I think it's a little bit of all those things. Enjoy the show.