Bob Wright on Autism and Vaccines

By David Kirby

I just read an article online in the Daily Telegraph of the UK in which Bob Wright, co-founder of Autsim Speaks, is quoted rather extensively on the vaccine-autism debate. ("Should We Want To Cure Autism?)

Mr. Wright is essentially saying the same thing as I have been saying for quite some time: This debate is not over, and it is incumbent on our government to study the long-tern effects of our national vaccine schedule on (genetically) susceptible individuals.

He is what he said:

“There is no question but that autism is partly genetic and partly environmental, but we don't know whether environmental factors account for 30, 50 or 60 per cent of cases … we ought to be able to zero in on some of the environmental factors in early childhood.
Vaccines are one of the variables.

The last vaccine (my grandson) Christian had before he regressed was MMR - that's why my daughter concentrates on that. I don't know whether his autism is linked: it was certainly coincidental, what we don't know is if it was causal. Nor do we know whether the thimerosal (the mercury-based preservative used in vaccines) is a factor, although mercury is clearly poisonous.

Governments want to run from that issue but they should become more aggressively involved. They have to follow children through to see if there are any effects. When we spend so much money on vaccines, we should be spending money tracking each year group.”

Mr. Wright’s comments are very much in line with other prominent Americans, including Barack Obama, John McCain and former NIH Director Dr. Bernadine Healy.

Since 2002, I have been researching the potential connection between mercury, vaccines and other possible environmental "triggers" and autism. I believe that the majority of autism cases are caused by a combination of genetic susceptibilities and environmental factors.

In my recent lectures, I lay out evidence to suggest a scientific link between autism and heavy metals and multiple simultaneous vaccinations in at least some subsets of genetically vulnerable children. My main sources are leading studies done at major universities and published in top-flight peer-reviewed and indexed journals, as well as officials, agencies and panels of the United States government.

Research into mercury, vaccines and autism continues today at universities and within the federal system, as well as at large mainstream private organizations such as Autism Speaks.
Autism Speaks recently authorized three studies on thimerosal and autism, and I know for a fact that the foundation is considering funding some more groundbreaking, unprecedented research into the possible links between vaccines and autism.

PS: Happy Birthday Age of Autism!

David Kirby is author of Evidence of Harm and a contributor to Age of Autism.

Comments

[diane]

I do think there may be a genetic predisposition - but my own research (my identical boys) clearly shows that its not ALL genetics. My one kiddo is classic ASD, the other is typical.

Curious that I can't find one research study that wants to study them - they should be knocking down my door - guess its because we disprove the purely genetics theory ...

[Robin Nemeth]

All of this talk about autism as a genetic disorder really disturbs me a lot. Why is everyone so anxious to qualify ‘susceptible people’ with that word ‘genetically’? I’m never shown evidence for this genetic component, though. Even after all of these years of hearing David say that there can be no genetic epidemic—even he then proceeds to speak of genetically susceptible people.

Here we’ve been taking a substance that has a skull and cross bones on the bottle, and then, without ever really testing it to see if the concentrations being used are low enough to be safe, we’ve been injecting it into babies. How asinine, it seems to me, to be searching for the genes that make people particularly susceptible to being harmed by stuff that’s got a skull and crossbones on the bottle.

I know that there is an increase in incidence for children who have a sibling with autism. But I’ve always wondered if this might not be due at least in part to some common environmental factor that they were exposed to. The assumption always seems to be that this higher incidence in siblings points to genetics, when I don’t really see that that follows at all. And so I went looking for this evidence for a genetic susceptibility, and I found twin studies.

Twin studies say that in twins raised together, if there’s a higher rate of concordance for some trait in pairs of identical twins than can be seen in fraternal same sex twins, this difference has to be due to the fact that identical twins have a more similar genetic makeup. And these studies as I understand it are pretty much what the autism as a genetic disorder claims rest on.

And it seems pretty obvious to me that just because it runs in families that this doesn’t necessarily point to genetics. But it turns out that even the twin study evidence for autism as a genetic disorder might not be all that strong. I found this book by clinical psychologist Jay Joseph called The Missing Gene

http://books.google.com/books?id=8EtVEZYPs0sC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=jay+joseph+missing+gene&source=web&ots=3NCZVqoGcX&sig=ObxMdI9uL97AXI6yMASw8AF7yJ4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1

I’m not a scientist and I’ve so far only read parts of the book that I have been able to preview online, but he makes what to me looks like a pretty good case for the idea that the predominant evidence for the belief that genes are responsible for autism—twin studies—is not really all that solid. His contention is that the fact that identical twins have a higher concordance rate than fraternal twins, for autism (and other disorders as well), does not necessarily translate into proof that the disorder is genetically based. His chief criticism is of the ‘equal environment assumption’, in which it has been assumed in these types of studies that identical twins and fraternal twins experience similar environments. He in fact contends that identical twin pairs share more similar environments than do fraternal twin pairs. I’m not sure why, postnatally, this would be, but prenatally he speaks of shared placentas and amniotic sacks, and says that the majority of identical twins share them, but fraternal twins don’t.

He goes into other criticisms of the twin studies, such as selection bias. It’s his opinion that the majority of studies and the majority of printed text on the subject of autism as a genetic disorder is biased toward calling it genetic in nature when in reality there’s little evidence of that. The first twin study done, in fact, in 1977, showed that the higher concordance rate in indentical twins wasn’t higher than what could be expected to be seen by mere chance, given the size of the sample. And yet it was reported far and wide as evidence of a genetic link. And he explains that polio could as easily have been described as a genetic disorder, based on similar types of studies that were done, if they had been evaluated the same way, but polio is in fact caused by a virus.

I’m not saying it’s not possible that there could be a genetic susceptibility. Maybe I’m being overly sensitive. But I keep thinking that the evidence is probably not as strong as one would imagine it to be based on the amount of time and money and effort that’s gone into looking for one. And to what end?

It seems to me to be just a very convenient way for those responsible for causing harm to avoid accountability. Simply by making the claim, over and over again and with no real evidence, that it’s not anyone’s fault, it’s just genetics.

I spoke to an old man once who was insistent that there was no such thing as children who were lead poisoned. He was quite serious. He felt that it was just that blacks are inferior genetically, and were trying to make excuses for their poor performance and behavior. No acknowledgement that paint or lead pipes might be a factor, or that certain groups of people might be exposed to these things more than others.

[Willie]

Hi Ben

Autism as a genteic disease is confined to a small number of patients typically fragile x and other chromosomal abnormalities. Further without a documented mutation of a gene or a reliably reproducible verifiable mode of inheritance (ie autosommal dominate or reccesive, sex linked x or y linked) I would look to vaccines rather than genetics.

Genetics can be checked just like trisomy 21 (downs syndrome etc.) Gentics could never account for the increased numbers of this devastating disease that crosses all cultural lines.

The people who say the are authorities and are opining genetics without specific information in my opinion should be ignored as charlatons and their information regarded as nonsense as this is a lost leder. That approach may sound harsh but there is real science and there is BS.

I hope your family does well and recovers Ben

[Willie]

Kara

You are correct vaccines should not be given until they are proven safe the way to do that is to do a closely monitored randomized study on each individual vaccine after you have determined that there is an actual need for the vaccine.

By the way as a relevant aside most of these vaccines given to our children are not needed as the diseases that they have been formulated for do not fit the criteria of a potential infecting agent that requires a vaccine. Typically a disease that requires a vaccine must be contagious (easily spread from casual contact or minimum interaction) in addition the disease must have a high mortality and morbidity rate (should render the child dead or totally incapacitated or debilitated permanently). The diseases that previously fit these criteria were Poliomyelitis and Smallpox. Both of these diseases were spread through the respiratory tract by a virus (by inhalation.) Both diseases were well controlled by vaccination programs that although ultimately helped to eradicate these diseases for the most part, were implicated in actually causing harm to some patients and actually giving children the disease. The Salk vaccine is the classic example of a live vaccine that caused the disease that it was meant to prevent. This vaccine was eventually discontinued.

The big problem is this, based on these two diseases Polio and Smallpox and the eventual results of the vaccines and prevention we have given A PASS TO ALL VACCINES without the proper consideration for if there is actually a need for the vaccine for a specific disease and without the proper testing of the vaccine alone and or in combination(THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE RANDOMIZED DOUBLE BLIND STUDY ON EVEN ONE VACCINE ALONE OR IN COMBINATION).

The classic example of the above is Hepatitis B vaccine. This is as corrupt, devious and nefarious as it gets. Epidemiologically (how the disease is spread) infant children are not the people who get Hep b and therefore they should not be exposed to the live virus. Male homosexuals and IVDA’S (IV drug abusers) are by far the most common individuals that get this disease, by far. Why? because the disease is spread through bodily fluids either semen or blood and there is no debate in that regard. Further Hep b is not contagious through causal contact it requires invasive contact which is why it s not contagious. Most of our children are not having gay sex and shooting drugs the first day of life. The Hep b virus is given the first day of life. There are a small percentage of women that are Hep B positive themselves and spread the virus via breast milk to their infant children. Even so there is no reason to have mass vaccinations for our infant children against this virus. This is a shotgun approach which is always discouraged and rarely is efficacious in medicine that only benefits the pharmaceutical companies and other groups that are behind massive vaccination program and is clearly not well thought out. A simple questionnaire and blood test will elucidate those mothers who will put their infants at risk and should be monitored and treated accordingly. The Hep b vaccine can in these infant children pass through he blood brain barrier that does not close on average until 18 months because the child is born with no IgA (IgA is to large to pass through the placenta only IgG can pass through) the baby has little defense against the virus that no matter how attenuated it is, it is more than a match for this little immune system that will not mature until almost 7 years of age. The final insult of course is that the Hep B vaccine only last for 10 years so by the time the child is in adolescence if they are sexually active and or using (God forbid) IVD the vaccine no longer has any reliable protective effect. This is called serious risk without reward.

The bottom line here is it is not just the mercury and probably not the mercury for the most part at all IT IS THE LIVE VIRUS VACCINES IN UNDER DEVELOPED IMMUNE SYSTEMS OF NORMAL CHILDREN

CHILDREN ARE BY DEFINITION IMMUNOCOMPROMISED BECAUSE THERE IMMUNE SYSTEM HAS NOT YET DEVELOPED. They should never be exposed to live viruses but protected from them.

This is a lot for you guys to read and I could go on and on. I will answer any questions you have about my opinions and the above info later goodnight

[Ben's dad]

Willie - I have some family history in the current generation that supports a genetic component, so I tend to believe it is a factor. However, I do not think genetic research should be the priority because:
1. A genetic component alone does not explain why autism rates have skyrocketed in the current generation. Of course, this has not been established as a universal fact yet, but anyone looking for housing for adults with autism in the next 20 years will have no trouble figuring it out.
2. I do not believe that genetic marker exploration will lead to either prevention, care or cure because the testing for genetic markers is too expensive to be of any practical global use, and the science itself is still too new. I think this is a situation where scientists have a cool toy, but they need to put it away and get serious.
3.Autism is a spectrum disorder, and in the absence of a clear on/off switch, you are going to end up with a large number of related markers without a clear way to predict how any combination of markers will play out in development.
4.Within these markers, how would you distinguish between personality traits and problematic autism traits – who decides? Are these marekers going to be studied throughout the entire population?
5. At the end of the day, I don’t see us any better off then we are now. We will have markers that show a correlation with autistic traits, but as we are all regularly reminded, CORRELATION does imply CAUSATION. The interaction between genes, chance, and the developmental environment will make predicting autism a guessing game and an ethical quagmire.

I can certainly see the advantages of a genetic approach though. For one it helps show that this is an issue that only affects a “small” percentage of individuals and is not a threat to the general population. It helps limit the unknown in cost benefit calculations of mandatory vaccinations programs. It puts responsibility on isolated individuals.

On the other hand identifying environmental risks would give you something that could be changed on a broad scale. However, this rapidly becomes a large cost issue and responsibility of society, governments, and industry.

Hmm – Individual responsibility vs society, government and industry responsibility, what to do?

Unless...there was something simple and cheap that you could try. How big of a threat to society or children would it be to delay vaccinations until age 2 or 3? Most of the herd would be fully vaccinated and that would prevent the spread of an outbreak. If this approach does not show any change in autism rates then try something else.

[Lea Schizas]

It's nice to see a 'movement' of positivity into what many have been saying. What bothers me is this:

"It is now mandatory to screen for autism, not once but twice at 18 months and 24 months,"

First off, why do some have to wait until it touches home to actually listen what others have been saying?

Second, screening at 18 months and 24 months is great, but what about the children who receive vaccinations at one/two/four months? What can we do to ascertain their immune systems can handle it? That there's no underlying factor that will 'bring on' autism?

I suppose one step at a time is better than none.

[Kathy Blanco]

God knows, AS has enough money to prove the connection by now, and ask yourself, WHY, they haven't? Answer, sponsers. Vested interests. A stash of pride? My parents saw my kids go bye bye after their vaccine, one child, almost died in front of them...they will never deny what THESE PEOPLE have done..never, be it a high position or not, they would sell their arms to get the answers..not avoid the obvious question for years? If my parents had the MILLIONS, every panney would have been spent BY NOW, on this connection..so I have to wonder why BOB is doing this? To bring Katie back to he family fold? Probably? Let's just see if he will put his money where his mouth is. See, that is the problem with big NPO's (especialy the rich ones funded by NIH and CDC)...they don't have a parent at the healm deciding who gets funded, who wants vindication, instead, give it to their scientific board, and then wonder why things aren't getting done? Put me as president, I would tell them, yesterday, prove the connection..Autism never spoke for me, and my children..I do...

[Cherry Sperlin Misra]

Reply to Willie- I basically agree with you, but as I understand it the term environmental is actually a sort of code word for MERCURY !You see, a vaccine is technically part of the environment. Apart from that, some other sources of mercury in the environment are beginning to get very interesting- Mercury from paper mills, crematoriums, forest fires, cinnabar deposits in California and China, mercury from power plants. Remember the clever idea that autism must be genetic because so many IT professionals in Silicon Valley had autistic kids? Well, look where they live- Exactly in the place where the winds bring mercury from coal fires of China to the U.S. ,and of course there are so many of the other factors mentioned here as well .Plus fish, plus parents who who dont miss a single vaccine.
Regarding genetics we're all so sad and bitter about the money and time wasted searching for the "genetic" cause of autism.Mainstream scientists have made fools of themselves doing this. True- someday they may discover that there are some human beings who excrete mercury less easily than others, and by the time they reach this conclusion the world will have another couple of million autistic children.The situation is so pathetic, that I believe today ,that if you want to know which disorders are caused by mercury or other metals you just have to watch for the little announcements of "possible" genes for _____ (Fill in almost any neurologic disorder which has been called genetic but strangely is now increasing!)
Some observers think- Well, those environmental factors have always been there, and there was no autism- so it cannot be the mercury. This misses the facts that these sources are increasing and that mercury is not salt- It doesnt just wash away: We have a power plant in New Delhi that has been spewing out mercury unhindered for 20 years. For the last three years scrubbers have been functioning to reduce emissions- But for twenty years before the mercury poured out and it landed somewhere- Land/River/Someones bedroom - and it has not gone away . Now its in the water in the tubewell. Now its in the grass which the cow eats.Now its in the fish in the river. The little autistic kids are the canaries in the coal mine. They may not even be able to speak, but they tell us " Look at me! Today my brain is full of mercury- Tomorrow it may be yours"

[Cherry Sperlin Misra]

Thanks, to s.d.tech for this reminder of what is basic and should be obvious, but we allow public health authorities and doctors to distract us. We need to keep hammering away with these basic principles, because any new-comer to autism discussions, would think "Well, that doesnt sound unreasonable" Perhaps we could write our own AoA 10 commandments of vaccines with such basics.

[Maurine Meleck]

Well, I will remain hopeful that this will be a new beginning for Bob Wright, for AS,
for all those who repeat the government mantra that all vaccines are safe for all children.
Thanks, David, for remaining steadfast for our cause.
Maurine Meleck
grandmother to Joshua, raising and hoping to recover him

[Shauna- Together In Autism- www.togetherinautism.org]

Still seems to be on the fence, not stating that after the MMR, he agrees something changed in his grandson. Right now Autism Speaks is speaking softly. Lets all hope that they get louder. Sounds like there is hope on the horizon.

Shauna-Founder
Together In Autism
www.togetherinautism.org

[John Stone]

It should be said that both this article and the one by Suzanne Wright a few days later in the Guardian were wholly exceptional in the British context. Also, in the UK, as in the US, Autism Speaks - which acts as small but very powerful lobby organisation - has been seen to be obstructive on the vaccine issue. It is to be hoped this is a new dawn.

[ElizaCassandra]

To Kara Bell, From "across the pond":- Yes, Kara, there is "anecdotal evidence" (that's doctorspeak for 'the parents told me') that Augmentin (?American name?) from the penicillin family has been implicated in a subsequent diagnosis of ASD. This may be because it's in common usage for childhood ear infections and is considered to be a "safe" drug or because it truly has something to do with descent into regressive autism. I know that my ASD daughter had Augmentin as a baby and that, on receiving penicillin at five years, developed an all-over red rash. Her medical records at the surgery and at school now carry warnings of a possible severe reaction to penicillin. N.B. I'm allergic to penicillin as was my paternal uncle and his grandson. I can't help wondering if this is one more indicator/factor in the descent into regressive autism for a subset of genetically susceptible children. Does anyone on this website have the medical knowledge to cast further light on this possibility?

[Kara Bell]

I was wondering if there is any correlation between antibiotics in combination with vaccines causing Autism. Is there any link?

[sdtech]

Please consider what is missing here. Any call for testing, while still giving the vaccines, lacks the most important aspect. We do not know that vaccines are safe and our children should not be treated as guinea pigs!

The medical profession needs to step up to their direct responsibility in giving vaccines. It should be first do no harm - not first forgo safety for profit.

The federal authorities need to step up to their direct responsibility by preventing the use of any vaccine component until proven safe. Congress should pass legislation similar to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Since 1976, under TSCA, if the USEPA administrator finds that any chemical “may present an unreasonable risk of injury,” or there “may be significant or substantial human exposure” then testing is required to prove there is no unreasonable risk of injury to health before the chemical can be used. Under TSCA authority the USEPA already banned mercury as a preservative in latex paint way back in 1990 to protect children from mercury poisoning.

In other words, first do the studies. Second prove they do not present an unreasonable risk of injury by relying on animal studies and available epidemiologic studies (Evidence of Harm would be a good starting point). And third, only after proof of no unreasonable risk of injury to health, go ahead and allow the use of the vaccinations with those components.

With regard to mercury as a vaccine component, the sole evidence of the Minamata mercury poisoning tragedy is enough to establish unreasonable risk of injury to health about the safety of Thimerosal as a preservative.

[ElizaCassandra]

From "across the pond":- Please note that there's no opportunity for comment to be made on this article in the "Daily Telegraph". This is typical for articles concerning autism in general and vaccines in particular. Somehow the newspaper editors in the U.K. have become very wary of allowing reader participation - some autism parents suspect the heavy-handed intervention of the Department of Health but how do we prove it?

[Willie]

Part of the problem with autism and part of the good of autism is that anybody with a few bucks can pontificate and say whatever they want no matter how ill informed and well meaning. Autism is not genetic and anybody who say that it is has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Part of being a physician and a clinician is taking a history. In the case of autism you have literally millions of the exact same history from parents. "My child recieved the vaccines had a fever and then became withdrawn, we thought he was deaf because he would not look at us, we had his hearing tested and his pediatrician said he would be ok and not to worry" This is what is called a history and it compells us, actually cries out for us to study vaccines prospectively. To continue to assert that this is a genetic and or enviromental phenomena is point blank stupid no matter how much money you have or what you do for a living. There is simply no evidence for it. The problem is staring us in the face we just have to have the courage to say "do the study or we will take legal action". Consider this: there has never been a disease before in the world that has required congress to pass a congressional bill to get it studied

[Kevin C.]

Bob Wright said; "The last vaccine (my grandson) Christian had before he regressed was MMR - that's why my daughter concentrates on that."

The MMR doesn't contain mercury but it does most likely contain mycoplasma.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/chronic_infections.htm

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2002/ChronicMycoplasmal27.htm

[Birgit calhoun]

I have no doubt that mercury is involved in autism, and that genetically susceptible individuals are poisoned by either just mercury or a cocktail of mercury and other toxins that may come from amalgams, Thimerosal, aluminum, etc. But one should not ignore that the susceptibility might not just come from fateful genetic misfortune. The fact that Vitamin D deficiency has recently been implicated should be an added part of the puzzle. Vitamin D has started to emerge as a much more important factor in wellbeing than had previously been postulated. It is correlated with diabetes, multiple sclerosis, certain cancers (breast, prostate). Might it be that the lack of Vitamin D changes the body's ability to deal with heavy metals, or even more likely, since heavy metals destroy the kidneys, is it possible that the active form of Vitamin D cannot be made? Why is that important? Vitamin D is involved in the body's glutathione production, and glutathione is needed for heavy metal detoxification. Would it be useful to give children receiving vaccines or amalgams or who eat fish an extra large dose of Vitamin D as a kind of prophylactic? It’s the environment all right. And mercury should be kept as far away from living things as possible.

[Media Scholar]

He said he doesn't know if his own grandson's autism is linked to vaccines.

That means the rest is wind in the trees.