One Wing.
By J.B. Handley
The year is 2025.
Oceanic Co., the largest and only remaining manufacturer of airlines in the world, has the world focused on its new passenger jet, the four-story QuadSpeed. The QuadSpeed holds 1,200 people, and will revolutionize air travel forever.
The 1,200 people boarding the inaugural flight, from San Francisco to Tokyo, are honored to be a part of such a technological marvel. While QuadSpeed is the first airplane that only received safety testing in a flight simulator, they know the FAA has endorsed the QuadSpeed’s safety, which they learned about from the senior management of Oceanic, many of whom used to work for the FAA. Senior management has chosen not to board the inaugural flight, but will meet the plane in Tokyo upon its arrival.
The uneventful take-off is covered on the one remaining broadcast network, NBC, a network grateful for the advertising dollars Oceanic has spent with them to keep them afloat, as the Internet and millions of blogs have all but destroyed conventional media.
Twenty minutes into the flight -- disaster. A giant boom is followed by a death spiral, straight into the ocean. A few alert passengers were able to make quick phone calls, all cut off as the plane hit the water. 1,200 dead, they never had a chance. The black box recorder? Lost forever, although theories emerge that the company salvaged it and destroyed it.
It takes days for NBC to cover the story, although the blogs are reporting right away that the plane never made it to Tokyo…
One week later, Oceanic holds their first press conference. Management expresses shock for the outcome of the flight, but strong conviction that the QuadSpeed jet, the future of Oceanic’s business, is perfectly safe. Management mentions that several passengers, in their final phone calls, screamed something about the right wing, and they will be investigating promptly.
One month later, Oceanic finalizes their safety study of the plane. Using passenger feedback from the final moments of the flight, they focus exclusively on the right wing of the airplane, and declare that nothing about the right wing whatsoever was unsafe, so mechanical error was not the cause of the crash. While they aren’t certain, they believe the pilot had some mental problems, and in a momentary state of insanity, he flew the plane right into the ocean.
NBC’s airline analyst reports on the story. Fancy Flighterman, a former consultant to Oceanic, lets the world know that the QuadSpeed is safe, because the right wing is fine, and people should feel very comfortable boarding the QuadSpeed, which will be the only jet flying within a year anyway. Very meekly, Fancy’s colleague mentions that the airplane is more than just a right wing. Fancy shoots back, “The passengers said the problem was with the right wing, and the wing is fine!”
Most of the world breathes a sigh of relief that the QuadSpeed was safe, as most people fly for their livelihood, and know that the QuadSpeed will soon monopolize air travel. A group of bloggers, however, are screaming that only analyzing the right wing of a complex flying machine that never had any safety flights is insane, but few people take notice.
Over the next year, Oceanic is able to finalize production on twelve QuadSpeed jets. Without exception, each new flight suffers the same fate of the first one, with a spectacular crash into the ocean…
* * *
Here we sit, the mainstream press screaming that “It’s been proven, vaccines do not cause autism!” This conclusion, as false as it is, is based on three things:
1. Studies conducted comparing the neurological outcomes of children who received vaccines with thimerosal (a preservative in some vaccines made from mercury), with less thimerosal, and with no thimerosal. Children who received no vaccines were not part of these studies.
2. Studies conducted comparing the neurological outcomes of children who received the MMR vaccine and those who did not. Every child in these studies received other vaccines, including in some case the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccines separately.
3. Three court cases in Vaccine Court where petitioners argued that MMR or MMR and thimerosal caused their child to develop autism. Aside from MMR, no other specific vaccines were considered in these cases.
In 1983, as many of you know, the maximum number of separate vaccines a child would receive by the age of 5 was 10. Today, that number is 36.
By the time a child is 2 years old, if they follow the CDC’s recommended schedule, they will have received the following vaccines, many in multiple doses (the doses is what gets you from 11 to 36: you get DTP 4 times, for example):
1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio
7. Flu
8. MMR
9. Varicella
10. Hepatitis A
11. Meningococcal (only for certain groups)
Of the 11 separate diseases covered above, there are actually 34 separate vaccines licensed with the FDA. For example, your child might receive either Rotateq or Rotarix, each of which has been developed in a separate and unique way to address the disease Rotavirus. The possible combinations of total vaccines your child might receive are almost infinite: my child got the Merck Hep B, but the Sanofi Flu, etc, etc.
In my own experience, my son had very notable reactions after his 2 month “well baby” visit. At this single visit, he received, like most children in America, 6 separate vaccines in about 15 minutes:
2 month visit:
1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio
My son, now diagnosed with autism, developed eczema immediately after this appointment. He began to cry every night, and he became withdrawn.
Two months later, at 4 months of age, my son, like most children in America, received the same 6 vaccines, all administered at the same time:
1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio
Two months later, at 6 months of age, my son, like most children in America, received 7 vaccines, all administered at the same time:
1. Hepatitis B
2. Rotavirus
3. DTP
4. Hib
5. Pneumococcal
6. Polio
7. Flu
So, by 6 months of age my baby boy had received 19 vaccines through 3 visits to the doctor. It’s worth noting that many kids also receive a birth dose of Hepatitis B, boosting this number to 20 vaccines.
I’ve often stated that the vaccine schedule is not tested for combination risk. Many bloggers on the other side disagree strongly with me on this point. As one example, “DT” wrote the following in response to my assertion:
“Mr Handley, why are you lying again? A simple pubmed search on the safety of combination vaccines yields 642 research papers on the subject HERE:”
DT referenced more that 642 papers that he felt strongly addressed the issue of combination risk. I commented that not one of the studies considered the real world example of the potential risk from the two month well baby visit that would need to look something like this:
Give a certain group of two months old all six vaccines at one time. Give a certain separate group of two months old a placebo or nothing. Compare outcomes. This is done all the time with drug trials, and would certainly help address parental concerns, since it’s never been done. Every reference I looked at (the first 100 or so) from DT’s list compared vaccinated kids to other vaccinated kids, or only considered a single vaccine. None contemplated testing the safety of the actual, real world schedule – they’re all flight simulators.
My recommendation for how to test the vaccine schedule received a blistering response from Dr. David Gorski, who blogs under the name “Orac.” He wrote:
“There are a fair number of circumstances when it is unethical to use a placebo control group. Read the Helsinki Declaration and the Belmont Report…from the Helsinki Declaration, with only very limited exceptions and only with extreme justification both scientifically and ethically, a placebo may not be used unless no current proven effective intervention exists for the condition under study. That is not the case in vaccine trials. Proven effective preventatives of disease do exist, namely vaccines. It is thus unethical to have a placebo control group in a randomized clinical trial of vaccines. The only exception is when a disease for which no effective vaccine yet exists is being studied…That's why any trial of vaccinated versus unvaccinated can't be a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Under the Helsinki Declaration, it would be unethical except in the cases of specific diseases for which we do not currently have an effective vaccine…In other words, it's a misunderstanding of science- and evidence-based medicine man that placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials always have to be done to verify the safety and efficacy…The bottom line is that you simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to how drugs are studied. You think you do, but you do not. You do not know science (or you "know" it but reject it because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear); you do not know epidemiology; you do not know clinical trial design; and in particular you don't understand (or, again, you understand but reject) the bioethical framework upon which clinical trial design has been built since World War II. Moreover, it has been explained to you time and time again and is not a difficult concept…In other words, for a clinical trial to be ethical, one major condition is that the hypothesis being tested must be science-based and founded on sound and compelling preliminary evidence from basic science, animal work, and clinical observations. Your hypothesis fails that test as well.”
I decided to share this long post from Dr. Gorski, because I think his position embodies what many from the other side will try to argue to defend the vaccine program:
- Looking at unvaccinated kids is either impossible (due to confounders) or unethical
- Looking at adverse events based on giving children 6 vaccines, the way we do in the actual schedule, has never happened and never will, because of the “Helsinki Declaration”
A quick review:
- Our kids receive 11 separate vaccines, including 19 doses by 6 months of age
- Of those 11 separate vaccines, exactly one, MMR, has been studied as it relates to autism, and then only with children who otherwise received their vaccines.
- According to at least some on the other side, no further study in these areas can really be done, for ethical reasons.
Case closed. The right wing is fine. Parents, please put your children on the plane and find some other way to get to Tokyo, they’ll meet you there.
I am the father of an autistic boy, one who was developing normally until he received his 28th, 29th ,30th and 31st vaccinations at 21 months of age. And coincidentally.... 28,29 and 30 were the three constituents of his second MMR shot. As much as I'd love to see a study comparing the rates autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, I'd also love to see a study that compared the vaccination records of the general public, to the vaccination records of the children of pediatricians. I suspect that the differences would be significant, and I'd love to see how they explained those differences to the parents of their autistic patients.
Posted by: Barry | May 26, 2009 at 11:31 PM
To Maurine Meleck, Thankyou for this story- Its a warning to all of us. Probably the autism community needs to get involved in pursuing some of these cases. Could a parent not sue the hospital for unauthorized medical interventions unrelated to the childs illness. Are we not losing our most fundamental rights? Well, obviously we are and someone needs to pursue this to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | March 04, 2009 at 01:25 PM
With the MMR and DPT actually being 3 vaccines in one, your son actually received 8 vaccines at a time, I think
Posted by: Lin | March 04, 2009 at 10:56 AM
To Orac:
Regarding medical research ethics per Helsinki and Neuremburg
First look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
It states “The fundamental principle is respect for the individual (Article 8), their right to self determination and the right to make informed decisions…”
Then look at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/121/2/e208
A medical research study funded by the National Institute of Health via the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under the United States Department of Health and Human Services has newborns injected with vaccines containing thimerosal by the researchers--to do what? Measure mercury in blood levels from the thimerosal!
And look at the millions of the kids pregnant women given flu shots with thimerosal and no mention of mercury in the CDC handout at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/Pubs/vis/default.htm#flu or http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/Pubs/vis/downloads/vis-flu.pdf
Where is the medical community outrage over ethics violations per Helsinki and Neuremberg?
Posted by: sdtech | March 04, 2009 at 06:38 AM
Amazingly enough, it is discovered that for reasons difficult to explain no Amish children die on these flights. Director Gerberdingdong, points out that it's probably something to do with genetics. Hogwash! Parents point out that Amish children don't even get on the damn plane.
Posted by: michael framson | March 04, 2009 at 12:01 AM
I wonder if anyone has looked into the effects of the introduction of recombinant vaccines on this whole issue . My son's doctor mentioned to me that the Hep B vaccine is recombinant and said that made it safer. We did not get it but I did go home and look up information on recombinant vaccines and what I found surprised me. As I understand it, they are essentially genetically modified vaccines where the guts of the original virus are inserted into a yeast cell or bacterium so they can be replicated easily. The benefits, according to the vaccine manufacturers, are supposed cost and safety. Could this explain the yeast connection? Also, genetically modified foods are known to cause allergic reactions in people. What would a gmo vaccine injected directly into the bloodstream do?
Here's what I found at vaccineinformation.org (a pro-vaccine site, but they had the information):The hepatitis B vaccines used in the United States are recombinant DNA vaccines, which means they are produced by inserting the gene for HBV into common baker's yeast where it is grown, harvested, and purified. HBV infection cannot occur from receiving hepatitis B vaccine.
Posted by: RSM | March 03, 2009 at 10:39 PM
"Proven effective preventatives of disease do exist, namely vaccines. It is thus unethical to have a placebo control group in a randomized clinical trial of vaccines."
The simple answer is some yo-yos are living proof the three stooges had children. Th bivious one thinks Thimerosal-containing placebos are a secret. Shooosh!
Posted by: certainly NOT Dr. Mock, chief scoffer | March 03, 2009 at 10:34 PM
This nonsense response from Dr. Gorski (aka Orac) is hilarious. Can anyone honestly say that he makes any sense here? It's as if he's trying to outwit you with his superior knowledge - yet failing miserably.
From Orac:
"Read the Helsinki Declaration and the Belmont Report…from the Helsinki Declaration, with only very limited exceptions and only with extreme justification both scientifically and ethically, a placebo may not be used unless no current proven effective intervention exists for the condition under study".
Let's disregard his obvious sentence structure issues. Since when is a newborn baby considered to have a "condition" that needs to be studied?
From Orac:
"It is thus unethical to have a placebo control group in a randomized clinical trial of vaccines".
This is so far out there that I couldn't even begin to shred it apart. In Orac's twisted mind it is unethical NOT to inject babies with toxins and live viruses that haven't been proven safe in the schedule given? Wow. He really needs to get back to his Star Trek blogging.
Then there's this gem from Orac:
"The bottom line is that you simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to how drugs are studied. You think you do, but you do not".
This had me laughing out loud ... What a pompous ass! This from a guy who has yet to admit that there's anything wrong with the bogus Danish autism studies...
Thanks for the laugh :)
Posted by: Sue M. | March 03, 2009 at 05:36 PM
Orac really has some twisted logic.
When the HPV was in clinical trials, the only prevention available was condom use and the yearly pap. Interventions were and are available, but have nothing to do with vaccines. Therefore the most ethical manner of studying HPV in clinical trials would have been to use an inert placebo. We all know that's not what happened and now girls are dying and having their lives forever altered by debilitating illness.
It seems Orac is fine with this.
Sick man... just sick.
Posted by: Angela Warner | March 03, 2009 at 04:30 PM
Clarifying myself on earlier post...
Rather than "I am no scientist but it seems to me the above statement would apply when you are comparing the efficacy of two treatments, or in this case means of prevention, for a given condition/disease. That’s not what we are talking about here. In this case we are not comparing two means of prevention."
It would have been more appropriate for me to have said that, " I am not scientist but it seems to me the above statement (from ORAC) would apply when researching a new treatment/intervention when another treatment/intervention already exists. That's not what we are talking about here. In this case we have no other intervention to compare vaccines,in general, to."
Posted by: Pamela | March 03, 2009 at 04:24 PM
I think we should start comparing autism rates in the US with those of other countries. According to the information I've been able to gather for the past few years, autism rates are much lower in most European countries compared to the US, with the possible exception of an increasingly fascist Great Britain (the country with ubiquitous cameras watching your every move). This comparison should give us concrete answers about the effects of multiple vaccines given simultaneously. I know for a fact that it is common practice to give only one vaccine at a time in Spain. Furthermore, the pediatrician writes a Rx for the vaccine and the parent is responsible for getting it from the pharmacy and taking it to the ped to be administered opn their next visit. This affords them an opportunity to go through the information written on the vaccine box, which is much more detailed than the CDC "fact sheet", those outright bunch of lies found in any US ped office. While autism rates seem to be on the rise in Spain too, they are nowhere near the rates seen in the US. I've always suspected that multiple simultaneous vaccination is the main culprit behind the horrendous US rates.
Posted by: WE SHALL OVERCOME | March 03, 2009 at 03:57 PM
I find Orac’s statement completely illogical in this case.
Orac says, “...Read the Helsinki Declaration and the Belmont Report…from the Helsinki Declaration, with only very limited exceptions and only with extreme justification both scientifically and ethically, a placebo may not be used unless no current proven effective intervention exists for the condition under study..." He goes on to say "…That's why any trial of vaccinated versus unvaccinated can't be a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Under the Helsinki Declaration, it would be unethical except in the cases of specific diseases for which we do not currently have an effective vaccine…"
I am no scientist but it seems to me the above statement would apply when you are comparing the efficacy of two treatments, or in this case means of prevention, for a given condition/disease. That’s not what we are talking about here. In this case we are not comparing two means of prevention. We are talking about the safety of the one and only prevention...vaccines. ORAC’s logic seems to fall apart here when he says …” it would be unethical except in the cases of specific diseases for which we do not currently have an effective vaccine…” Again we are not talking about the efficacy of vaccines in preventing disease. We are talking about exploring the risk of the preventative which is the use of vaccines in general. We have no other preventative to compare vaccines against…we only have vaccines. So what option would you have other than the use of a placebo to test the safety of vaccines, in general? If a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study reveals that a subset of children are injured by vaccines we can then begin the process of exploring which vaccine/vaccines is/are the culprit; is the schedule the culprit or are specific ingredients the culprit?
Also to the portion of the comment “a placebo may not be used unless no current proven effective intervention exists”. This is just the point. Isn’t our assertion that we have not proven that a “current, proven, effective, intervention ” does exist? If vaccines are injuring a substantial subset of our population then vaccines are not an effective intervention. Period.
Posted by: Pamela | March 03, 2009 at 03:21 PM
"If they really believe in the scientific method, eventually the realization will be reached that just because something is unpalatable to research, failing to do so is even more troubling."
"Franky, there are a number of unknowns here."
"I'm not sure how endorsing some long term epidemiological studies and balking at the request for one that contains vaccinated and unvaccinated kids due to confounders is balanced either."
Careful - you guys are "tugging on Superman's cape", dontcha know...
Posted by: Randy | March 03, 2009 at 01:33 PM
From Orac -
“There are a fair number of circumstances when it is unethical to use a placebo control group. Read the Helsinki Declaration and the Belmont Report…from the Helsinki Declaration, with only very limited exceptions and only with extreme justification both scientifically and ethically, a placebo may not be used unless no current proven effective intervention exists for the condition under study. That is not the case in vaccine trials. Proven effective preventatives of disease do exist, namely vaccines...."
It boggles my mind that a person of Orac's caliber would stoop to quoting the Helsinki Declaration as the reason why it is perfectly okay to poison and maim an entire generation of children. Try and explain that to people who do have an iota of common sense. Gee, we could not, would not, should not do a vaxed vs. unvaxed study because we might end up violating the Helsinki Declaration!!
Grow the hell up Orac. Even you know that is the lamest of the lame excuses for not doing the study.
Posted by: Orac'stracized | March 03, 2009 at 01:17 PM
JB
I find the airplane analogy even more appropriate since all the unsafe vaccine pushers always tell us "a disease is only a plane ride away."
Here's a vacine story that'll make your hair stand up. My daughter(a psychologist) works with newly diagnosed diabetesI children and young adults. These kids are on the verge of diabetic shock(with sugar glucose levels above 600). They are rushed by helicopter to the hospital and she has to go and meet them there. Today(as no different from any other day) a young boy was rushed in and even before they gave him a shot of insulin-he had the FLU SHOT and 2 others(which they said were appropriate for his age level). Neveer asked the mother-just said the endocrinologist said they were a requirement prior to admittance.
As much a horror story as your above.
maurine
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | March 03, 2009 at 12:59 PM
JB,
I believe you forgot to officially blame the victims. Hundreds of millions will need to be spent studying the genetics of the passengers on the Quadspeed.
Posted by: Kevin Barry | March 03, 2009 at 12:30 PM
karenatlanta;
Interesting observation. The very nature of the vaccination schedule almost prohibits proving concise causation. Post surveillance data is almost all anecdotal.
I'm not sure how leaving the coincidental door open indefinitely will win the trust those questioning vaccine safety.
I'm not sure how endorsing some long term epidemiological studies and balking at the request for one that contains vaccinated and unvaccinated kids due to confounders is balanced either.
AA
Posted by: anonymous antivaccinationist | March 03, 2009 at 12:06 PM
pD;
I've been long troubled over the inflammatory aspect of vaccination, and the piercing of the skin delivering Ag IM. This kind of cell injury simply does not occur in the real world, absent some sort of trauma. And even then, there are limits to the kind of bacterial/viral exposure with that kind of trauma. Specific cell injury is one of the determining factors the type of immune response and which pathway is taken (complement, adaptive).
I followed the exchange that this post is referring to... and another one. In a different post inflammation was brought up, and a question posed as it relates to an infant's drug handling capacity during. Franky, there are a number of unknowns here.
AA
Posted by: anonymous antivaccinationist | March 03, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I find the Helsinki argument to be a fascinating insight into the bureaucratic mind. I would also argue, to those who would hide behind it, that the Helsinki Declaration's own provisions might make it possible for placebo trials to be used.
"unless no current proven effective intervention exists"
One could argue that because many of the children contracting pertussis and measles in the recent outbreaks were fully vaccinated, those vaccines are not proven effective and therefore more study is warranted comparing outcomes with a saline placebo group.
I would also posit that since (by their own admission) "no proven effective intervention exists" for curing autism, that means the NIH's abandoned chelation studies would be ethical under this code, contra their assertions, so they might want to look into resurrecting them.
It might also behoove them to undertake a study of the entire schedule using primate subjects -- no conflict there, right? Except they already know what they will find, thanks to Burbacher et al, don't they?
I think that those who hide behind the Helsinki Declaration without question may actually be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Science and journalism are being held captive by pharma dollars, and sadly they seem to be enjoying it.
Posted by: Garbo | March 03, 2009 at 11:56 AM
On Feb. 25, in response to the Autism Omnibus rulings, the L.A. Times ran an editorial called "A Dose of Reality on Autism". See http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-autism25-2009feb25,0,1407432.story
(Caution -- brace yourself for the anger you will feel on reading this editorial!)
On Feb. 27 the L.A. Times printed two brief but good letters in response to this editorial http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-friday27-2009feb27,0,6742249.story?page=3
One of these letters is copied below:
The Times' editorial covers a number of issues involved with this condition, including the surge of autism cases over the last 20 years or so. But, as in all other discussions of the disease that I have read, I did not see one universally overlooked possibility.
As a practicing veterinarian for many years, I learned early on to limit the number of vaccines given on any one occasion; otherwise, I would frequently be treating that animal for illness within just a few days after the vaccines were given.
In today's hurry-up world, small children are often given three or more vaccines in one office call, yet this possible cause is almost never mentioned in writings dealing with the subject.
Why is that? Is it just too obvious?
Bud Stuart
Santa Barbara
Posted by: Twyla | March 03, 2009 at 11:29 AM
The more I read on T cell mediated immunity the more I cannot believe we pile such a stack of vaccines, all at once, on developing babies.
I think they do it on purpose to cover their tracks. Making it difficult to peg one vaccine as the culprit.
Posted by: karenatlanta | March 03, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Gorski proffers this convenient leap of illogic: "Proven effective preventatives of disease do exist, namely vaccines. It is thus unethical to have a placebo control group in a randomized clinical trial of vaccines."
That black-and-white circular misassumption is typical of someone who reads words rather than experiences the actual world. Reality lies within our children's GI tracts, within their spinal fluid, bloodstreams -- medical evidence that regarding vaccines, one size does not fit all.
I'd imagine Gorski's worst nightmare is being flown to Autism One or a DAN! conference and being forced to see vaccine-injured children and talk with their parents and treating physicians... or worse, look at some labs. Omigod, Reality! N-O-O-O-O-O!!!
Posted by: nhokkanen | March 03, 2009 at 10:35 AM
I would have added that NBC's parent company, GE, being a defense contractor, also happened to manufacture the equipment that machined and formed the ribs and spar for Oceanic wings.
For those that don't know, NBC's parent company GE owns Amersham/US Bioscience (now a division of GE Healthcare) which makes equipment for vaccine manufacture involving thimerosal.
Posted by: Keith | March 03, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Hi JB Handley -
Your point concerning the limitations of our existing set of research is well taken. Eventually, if you have enough discussions with people that don't think that analysis between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are warranted, you get to the point where the real issue is that they cannot imagine a way in which vaccination could be causing such diverse symptoms.
Unfortunately, emerging science is telling us that the results of an immune response can be just as damaging as an actual infection.
Interested parties might want to read this paper: "Postnatal inflammation increases seizure susceptibility in adult rats". Full copy is available online, I'm not linking due to spam filter considerations. Anyways, researchers found that a single immune response at a critical timeframe caused rodents to be more succeptible to seizures for their entire lives. Here is a snipet from the discussion section.
The most exciting finding of the present study is that a mild inflammatory response evoked by LPS during a critical period of development causes a long-lasting increase in hippocampal excitability in vitro, and enhanced seizure susceptibility to the convulsants LI-PILO, KA, and PTZ in vivo. The latter effect was observed over a range of mildly inflammatory doses of LPS and was only evident if administered during the second postnatal week (P7 and P14), and not before (P1) or after (P20) this time. Importantly, inactivation of the proinflammatory cytokine TNF with an intracerebroventricular TNF antibody blocked the long-term changes to seizure susceptibility induced by LPS, whereas intracerebroventricular administration of rrTNF alone mimicked the effect of LPS on seizure susceptibility. These novel results indicate that a single transient inflammatory episode during development can modify the brain through a TNF-dependant mechanism, making it more susceptible to generate seizures in adulthood
Check that out. A single immune response during critical windows of development permenantly skewed neural excitability towards having more seizures! We are all aware of the high levels of comorbidity between autism and epilepsy; and in fact, over 60% of children with autism have been shown to exhibit abnormal EEGs. As you have noted, our ability to glean anything about a possibility of this relationship in humans is completely absent from our existing studies.
Also of importance here is the critical nature of tnf-alpha in the genesis of seizure succeptibility. Our children have been shown in several studies to generate tnf-alpha at rates greater than their undiagnosed peers when challenged with bacterial proteins (i.e., antigens).
One argument you will commonly run into in this discussion is the notion that the immune response generated by vaccination is no different than thousands or millions of normal exposures to bacteria that every animal is exposed to; and thus, worrying about a stimulated immune response is foolish. In this instance, the authors seem completely unconcerned over the fact that we are bypassing our skin, mucous, and gastric acid in order to insure an immune response is generated. Likewise, as near as I can figure, my two month old wasn't getting any adjuvants in his mothers breast milk.
But in this study we have clinical evidence to the opposite; all of the animals were exposed to normal bacterial and viral exposures; and yet, for some curious reason, only those animals that had bacterial proteins injected went on to display increased succeptibility to seizures. It is a loser argument whose time has come.
For anyone who wants to get really depressed, take a look at "Glial activation links early-life seizures and long-term neurologic dysfunction: evidence using a small molecule inhibitor of proinflammatory cytokine upregulation." It turns out, having a seizure early in life is related to long term 'neurologic dysfunction'. Hoho. Behavioral abnormalities, chronically activated microglia, and succeptibility to epilepsy are all associated with early life seizures in animal models. How many of those symptoms sound familiar to our subgroup? And again, these long term end points were blocked if the inflammatory response was shut down.
It is about generating an immune response! Our children have been shown by a variety of mechanisms to have poor regulatory control over immune responses. We simply have no evidence as to the effect of generating those immune responses at earlier and earlier timeframes. Those who would hold themselves up as bastions of science will need increasingly exotic explanations as to why research like what we have above bears no imprortance to our vaccination schedule. If they really believe in the scientific method, eventually the realization will be reached that just because something is unpalatable to research, failing to do so is even more troubling.
- pD
Posted by: passionlessDrone | March 03, 2009 at 09:02 AM
great article JB, love your compare/contrast you are right on. keep writing..it is part of how the truth will bubble up..our lawyer states the autism cases will likely take another 10 yrs to be fairly judged. there will likely be many appeals and or civil trials.we cannot get justice with special masters..how many of us had MRI done after a siezure most of us were sent home with febrile seizure diag: many of us did not have exstensive neuro x-am we were sent home to wait and see...what if the 5,000 cases were studied were tested for mito..or had MRI to prove demylination . our smart lawyers need to get going..we need the studies...vax/ un vax where do we send money to get this done? candace
Posted by: candace passino | March 03, 2009 at 08:43 AM
On one of my son's business trips he took on the new ProQuadSpeed he received a pamphlet before boarding that was written in a language he was not familiar with. Apparently the pamphlet was a warning of the potential for adverse reactions one could suffer from ProQuadSpeed. There was no mention of the right wing but there was mention of a potential "non-left foil structural displacement" due to pilot and/or passenger error.
I did find an interesting notation where it said, that the FAA said that due to the size of ProQuadSpeed it reduces the amount of air traffic and is recommended as a convenient service and as a result having this one huge airliner will reduce the possibility of midair collisions due to over crowded skies, thus saving millions of lives.
The ProQuadSpeed, this plane has crashed several times in testing yet the FAA wanted to "see if it will fly" once it is approved for takeoff, the old "nothing ventured nothing gained" approach.
Apparently the plane has two times the likelihood of crashing than even the earlier QuadSpeed model. No word as to why, but those in authority at the NTSB and FAA say it was due to wind or other unavoidable environmental conditions, including something about flocks of geese.
In a statement issued the other day when ProQuadSpeed announced the suspension of product due to being unable to locate an ample supply of jet fuel.
They said: "The FAA and NTSB are looking very carefully at this finding and will continue to evaluate the data from these studies as they are finalized. FAA and NTSB will provide updates and take any necessary actions based on this continued evaluation. FAA plays a critical role in evaluating and assuring air safety at every stage of the product life cycle from pre-market testing and development through post-market surveillance and risk management."
This immediately eased a good number of the public's concerns with safety issues.
Meanwhile the passenger adverse reaction reporting agency just listed two deaths as a result of the use of ProQuadSpeed. The deaths were reported by Oceanic nearly one year after Oceanic suspended the ProQuadSpeed. Meanwhile NBC reported that governmental, business and civic leaders are requiring air travel for all children prior to their 5th birthday. In fact the idea has literally taken off, most communities do not even offer ground transportation anymore and children are forced to travel by air as much as 36 times before they are two years old, even if they need to just travel back and forth across the street.
"Business is booming" said Oceanic's director of information, Dooche Offit. When asked about the exponential increase of the adverse reactions in relation to the new mandatory demand in flight, Offit offered up the following, "Sure anytime progress interferes with the archaic way of life of foot traffic, anti-air troublemakers will always pop up with their paranoid ravings, sure there are more deaths and crippling injuries now that more people are required to fly, the numbers of travelers increases, thus deaths increase, it's simple math, but come-on look at how many people DIDN'T die or become maimed. Huh? Anytime we go outside we are taking a risk, each of us, everyday, it's no different than someone 10,000 feet in the air traveling at 700 mph... it's going to have some risks, nothing is safe. If you look at the data you will find that most people killed or seriously injured after an incident with ProQuadSpeed or any of Oceanics other products, you'll find that these passengers may have failed to have placed their seats in full upright position. Our studies have shown that in 99% of all passenger related deaths or injuries the passenger was found, in the crash debris, to have a seat malfunction that could have been the result of improper use by the passenger. Oceanic issues pamphlets to all passengers warning of possible issues not associated with Oceanic corporate policies or the use of any of their products. In fact we are immune to being held accountable so why even bring this stuff up in the first place? What'd ya wanna do panic people?"
Offit has been known to say, "Hey, if air-travel was so ding-dang bad for you, why would the FAA approve it?"
Meanwhile bloggers at ageofairtravel.com just released another report documenting the dangers of not only air-travelers but those whose lives have been ruined by having a four story jetliner crash into their house. "These on the ground victims," AoA says, "are the only eye witnesses to the majority of these crashes and deserve to have their story told. Most of these people see a wing fall off the plane prior to it hitting their house and no one listens."
NBC does a two hour "news" show on the "New Chicken Littles of Our Time - The Sky is Falling, People Scared of Flying Ruin it for the Rest of Us" The commercial teaser for the show showed a toddler crawling across a busy freeway, cars whizzing by at 70 miles per hour and the voice-over said, "This baby is going to die unless it can fly."
How do you get a baby to cross the road, make it.
Posted by: bensmyson | March 03, 2009 at 07:49 AM