Dr. Steven Novella Makes The Case for Vaccine Autism Link... By Mistake

The Phoenicians: Autism Recovery Denial, Drug Profits and the Media’s Flat Earth

Autism One Generation Rescue 2010 Autism Redefined Conference Register Now!

Dr. Steven Novella Makes The Case for Vaccine Autism Link... By Mistake

“Many children are diagnosed between the age of 2 and 3, during the height of the childhood vaccine schedule… The true onset of autism in most ASD children likely began a year or two prior to the vaccines that are blamed as the cause.” WRONG.

By J.B. Handley

I’m beginning to think that the term ”Science-based medicine”, which happens to be the name of a blog founded by Yale neurologist Dr. Steven Novella and co-run by blogging weirdo David Gorski, has much in common with other humorous phrases like “military intelligence”, “jumbo shrimp”, and “clean coal.”

How else do I explain the atomic stupidity Dr. Novella shared with the world when he once again tried to debunk the growing evidence linking vaccines to autism in a recent blog post entitled “The Early Course of Autism.”

Dr. Novella’s piece details a recent study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry titled “A Prospective Study of the Emergence of Early Behavioral Signs of Autism” that tried to figure out when signs of autism first emerge in babies.

Ironically, the study Novella references is quite supportive of the theory that autism is caused by the environment and most notably vaccines. But, by being a clue-free moron, Dr. Novella tries to use the study to make the opposite case, and crashes and burns, as I will explain.

Let’s start with the study itself, where the study authors conclude:

“These results suggest that behavioral signs of autism are not present at birth, as once suggested by Kanner, but emerge over time through a process of diminishment of key social communication behaviors. More children may present with a regressive course than previously thought, but parent report methods do not capture this phenomenon well. Implications for onset classification systems and clinical screening are also discussed.”

Stop. Wait a minute. Let’s rewind. Signs of autism emerge over time? Not present at birth? Diminishment of key social communication? More kids may present with a “regressive course” than previously thought? These authors appear to be preaching to the choir: this is the story I hear from parents every day and the one I lived. My son was normal, meeting his milestones, and slowly, he lost everything.

Novella then writes:

“But what these results indicate is that clear signs of autism emerge between 6 and 12 months of age. Further, social skills tend to be regressive in ASD between 6 and 18 months of age. It was previously thought that social regression was less common in ASD, but this study suggests it is the rule, not the exception. Meanwhile, language skills did not regress in this study, they continued to improve in the ASD group, just on a slower curve than the TD group.”

Reading Novella’s blog for the first time, when I got to this paragraph, I thought to myself, “Where the hell is this guy going with this piece? He’s one of the bad guys, but he sounds like he’s affirming the story of my son and so many other kids.”

Then, Novella drops the stunner, which made me shout and laugh at the same time, as he tries painfully hard to tie this new research to the vaccine-autism debate:

“The authors, however, do not discuss one very significant implication of this study (although an implication already raised by prior studies demonstrating early signs of ASD) – the observation made by many parents that ASD symptom onset correlates with certain vaccinations. Many children are diagnosed between the age of 2 and 3, during the height of the childhood vaccine schedule. This lends itself to the assumption of correlation and causation on the part of some parents. The phenomenon of telescoping, whereby memories of time contract, will tend to reinforce this false correlation. What this and other studies show is that not only is the assumption of causation fallacious, the observation of correlation is likely flawed as well. The true onset of autism in most ASD children likely began a year or two prior to the vaccines that are blamed as the cause.”

Please, take a moment, read Novella’s words again, I’m not done snickering – this is a neurologist from Yale and a major league hater of our community. Remember, the only purpose of his post, really, is to pile on, to somehow show that this new study, a very interesting study for our community because it addresses the critical issue of regression and the timing of regression, further proves that we parents are just nuts and simply “telescope” our memories of what happened to our kids.

The entire substance of Novella’s argument in his post hinges on these 2 key phrases which I have extracted from the above and repeated:

“Many children are diagnosed between the age of 2 and 3, during the height of the childhood vaccine schedule… The true onset of autism in most ASD children likely began a year or two prior to the vaccines that are blamed as the cause.”

Novella, as many of you already realize, is utterly wrong on both counts, rendering his entire position fatally flawed. Coming from a Doctor who has been so vocal in opposing our community and a doctor who works so closely with the aforementioned David Gorski and Paul Offit (more on that in a moment), it’s downright intellectual malpractice.
Let’s look at Dr. Novella’s two intellectual sins in more detail:

1. The height of the childhood vaccine schedule is not between the ages of 2 and 3 as Novella falsely contends, it’s between the ages of 2 months and 12 months, which perfectly matches the period of regression reported in the study.|

Pesky, pesky details, Dr. Novella. It amazes me how often people butcher the facts surrounding the US Vaccine schedule when the CDC makes it so easy to download a schedule for anyone to see right HERE.

And, because I want everyone to see just how incredibly wrong Novella really is, I’m going to spell this out, using the schedule I just downloaded from the CDC as my guide:
Vaccines given to kids, 2010 CDC schedule (by month of life)

Birth:     Hep B
2 months: Hep B, Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV
4 months: Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV
6 months: Hep B, Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV, Flu
12 months:    MMR, Hib, PCV, Varicella, Hep A, Hep B
15 months:    DTaP
18 months:    Flu, HepA
30 months:    Flu
42 months:    Flu
48 months:    DTaP, MMR, Varicella, IPV
54 months:    Flu
66 months:    Flu

Phew. From downloading the CDC’s schedule, to writing out the schedule on a notepad, to typing it in right here, that took me almost 15 minutes…

Remember, Dr. Novella’s argument is that we are all stupid because a new study shows that true regression to autism in children begins around 6 months of age, but the height of the vaccine schedule, according to Novella, is ages 2 to 3.

As you can see above, before an American child reaches the age of 5.5, they will have gotten 36 vaccines.

When do they get them? By 6 months, they will have received 19 vaccines, or 53% of the total. By 12 months, they will have received 25 vaccines, or 70% of the total.
What? But Dr. Novella, you asserted the height of the vaccine schedule is between the ages of 2 and 3.

In fact, between the ages of 2 and 3, children receive all of 2 vaccines, accounting for 5.5% of the vaccines they receive, while a full 70%, including MMR, come in their first 12 months of life, perfectly matching the time when this new study reported the beginning of a regression into autism!

Dr. Novella, if you had a goal of actually figuring out why the hell all these kids are so sick, you may have actually realized that this study is heavily SUPPORTIVE of our view, rather than debunking it.

2. Dr. Novella contends that many children are diagnosed between the ages of 2 and 3, which is why parents get confused, and we all missed the onset that began much earlier.
I’ve already demonstrated clearly that the entire argument Novella bases his post on is false, wrong, and actually supportive of our position, but I also want to address this more subtle point.

Firstly, the last time I checked, the average age of diagnosis for a child with autism was somewhere between 3-4 years of age, not 2-3. More importantly, autism is not an event, it’s a process. It is exceptionally rare that I hear the story, “my son was 100% fine, and at 2 years old after one vaccine appointment he lost everything.” I have heard that story, but very rarely.

More commonly, I hear from parents about a chronic slide into autism with a progression of health issues accompanying the slide. This was certainly true for my son. The eczema and bad bowels came immediately after the 2 month visit and his twelve month vaccine appointment (MMR, Varicella, Hep B, and Hib in his case) was what really seemed to push him over the edge, but it was a full year before we got a formal diagnosis. From 2 months forward, it was just a slow motion loss of everything.

Further, this notion by Novella that we parents are “telescoping” is simply the ridiculous introduction of a new and confusing term to try and explain away the chorus of tens of thousands of parents all screaming the same thing about what happened to their kids.

I don’t need your telescope Dr. Novella, I have something called a pediatric record that shows a very clear pattern of vaccination appointments followed by parental complaints of escalating physical ailments. My son’s pediatric record reads like a non-fiction horror story of what was done to him and how he responded to it. Take your “phenomenon of telescoping” and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

Conclusion

Dr. Novella got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. In trying so hard to make the case against our community, abandoning both facts and reason in the process, he helped bring to light a compelling study that makes a hell of a case that something very bad is happening to our kids during the time when they get the super-majority (70%) of their vaccines.

If you know who Dr. Novella is, none of this should be a surprise. Rarely mentioned by the press that increasingly turns to him for a quote (when Offit is on another call perhaps), is Dr. Novella’s participation in something called the American Council on Science and Health, a front group for special interests that has lined up doctors to shill for them now for decades.

Need someone to say pesticides are safe or fat doesn’t cause heart disease or that formaldehyde in insulation is safe? Turn to ACSH, funded largely by pharmaceutical, chemical, and food interests. And guess who sits on the “scientific board” of this shill front group for industry, right alongside Dr. Novella? You guessed it, the dark lord himself, Paul Offit, see them all right HERE.

Do you think I’m exaggerating? Than watch this priceless piece from the Daily Show when the ACSH protests Michelle Obama’s organic garden HERE.

Dr. Steven Novella: shill for industry, Offit wannabe, and hater of our community. Can’t count the vaccine schedule, doesn’t understand the reality of what happened to our kids, and ends up making the case for our kids by mistake.

J.B. Handley is a co-founder of Generation Rescue.

Posted by Age of Autism on February 18, 2010 at 07:20 AM in Current Affairs, JB Handley, Science, Vaccine Safety | Permalink | Comments (130)

Comments

I am truly convinced that there are genes particular children are born with in which their bodies react badly to a particular vaccine. My husband and i made an informed choice not to vaccinate our child. We didnt know which one/s he could or would have an adverse reaction to, the risks were not worth it. Im not saying a child can or can not be born with Autism. I just feel vaccines can make the condition worse. Im sure this is obvious to most of the parents on this thread. Just feel vaccines are all together are dangerous.

Posted by: Mommaj | December 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM

BillyJoe, you didn't say that more clinical trials or studies are needed. You said that
"There are doctors who use certain treatments based on their 'personal experience'" even though "all the clinical trials say the treatment does not work". Don't try to change what you said. Parents and practitioners would love for there to be more good research on alternative treatments. There has been very little research. In the meantime, our children are growing up, and if we hear that many people with autism benefit from (for example) the GFCF diet or vitamin B6, we'll try it, and we'll rely on our own perceptions of whether the treatment helps, hurts, or makes no difference -- which we would have to do even if there were studies, because each child is an individual. And practioners will rely on their clinical experience and that reported by their colleagues, as well as whatever research is available.

Likewise, if parents witness their toddlers developing a 105 degree fever, screaming for hours and having a seizure shortly after receiving vaccines, and then regressing into autism with various immune system related health issues, this is evidence which should not be ignored, even if our health authorities are refusing to study these events.

You said, "This is why they have clinical studies and clinical trial," not "We need more clinical studies and clinical trials."

Posted by: Twyla | February 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Twyla,

"BillyJoe said, "This is why they have clinical studies and clinical trials." But so far there have not been any clinical studies or trials comparing health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children."

I was commenting about the unreliabliltiy of "personal experience" and that clinical trials or studies are needed because of that.

I didn't say anything about whether or not these trials have been done. That is another discussion.

Posted by: BillyJoe | February 22, 2010 at 05:47 AM

BillyJoe said, "This is why they have clinical studies and clinical trials." But so far there have not been any clinical studies or trials comparing health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. There are no studies of the long-term cumulative effects of our vaccine program on children nor on animals. See the interviews with Dr. Bernadine Healy linked to in my prior comments. Also see the articles by Mark Blaxill and Polly Tommey on the suppression of research and reporting on the autism-vaccine link at:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/naked-intimidation-the-wakefield-inquisition-is-only-the-tip-of-the-autism-censorship-iceberg.html
http://www.autismfile.com/Library/Documents/AF_PollyPiece.pdf

Without proper research, we can only rely on all the other forms of evidence that exist, including parent and clinical experience.

And HRP III, casually dismissing as "post hoc fallacy" the thousands of reports of vaccine reactions followed by regression into autism is not scientific; that is just blind prejudice, especially when these reports are consistent with published peer reviewed studies showing various forms of immune system dysregulation in people with autism, and historical reports of vaccine induced encephalopathy compensated by our vaccine program, and recent cases such as Bailey Banks and Hannah Poling.

Posted by: Twyla | February 21, 2010 at 04:37 PM

Jessica,

"Parents don't know shit"

Well, perhaps it's more accurate to say that people don't always know what they think they know.

This actually applies to individual doctors as well. There are doctors who use certain treatments based on their "personal experience" with using the treatment on their own patients. When it is pointed out to them that all the clinical trials say the treatment does not work, they stubbornly continue to use it on their patients because of the conviction that their "personal experience" cannot be wrong.

It is false to think they you can know everything through "personal experience" and it applies equally to mothers and doctors. It applies to everyone.
This is why they have clinical studies and clinical trials.

Posted by: BillyJoe | February 21, 2010 at 03:44 PM

Quotes from the Early Behavioral Signs study:
1. “These results suggest that behavioral signs of autism are not present at birth, as once suggested by Kanner"
2. “More children may present with a regressive course than previously thought”
3. “This study suggests that identification of autism by the first birthday may not be possible in the majority of affected children”.

Quotes from ozmum:
1. We know it is not thiomersal (diagnosis of autism has continued to rise since it was removed)

I think Twyla responded nicely to this. As an example – my younger son (ASD) received more thimerisol than my older son (non-ASD). My younger son received the full thimerisol flu shot between his 12 and 15 mth shots because it had been added to the schedule. He received this flu shot in 2004, well after "thimersol had been removed" from all shots mantra.

2. we know it can't be MMR (which is given after the first signs emerge).

MMR may or may not play a role, but you are incorrect about the timing – please note quote #3 from the study – it may not be possible to identify the majority of the children by 12 months (CDC recommends MMR at 12 mths).

3. I know why you suspected the MMR (timeliness) What makes you suspect other vaccines now? and which one specifically?

The study supports that regressive autism is occurring (and more common than previously thought by the medical establishment, however parents have been reporting this for years). The majority of the children cannot be identified at 12 months. The inquisitive researcher considers the exposure(s) that the child may have encountered prior to symptom presentation. It does not take a degree in rocket science to theorize that there could be an environmental trigger(s) (viral, toxin, bacterial, or combinations) causing or exacerbating the onset of symptoms. The evidence that I have that supports this is: typical, sickness/plateau, regression, recovery process which suggest an environmental course.

Which ones (vaccines) specifically – I do not know, my child was given so many in combination, and received ~55% of his total shots by age 6 mths, I have not been able to determine if one specific vaccine was the culprit. I do have concerns regarding: Hep B, the flu shot, the 7 given at once at 12 mths (including MMR + varicella on the same day), and the combined 31 dose total by 15 mths.

Your comment regarding “how do you know your son was not born autistic”. Autism is a clinical (symptom) diagnosis – no symptoms presented – no diagnosis given. If a tree falls in the woods, do you hear it? I think that my child was born with a predisposition toward autoimmune issues. However, I do not ascribe to the “magic gene” theory in which my child has a gene, presents/develops typically, then “magically” this gene causes a regression without any environmental insult consideration. If anything, after reading this study, I am more adamant about wanting a vaccinated vs. not vaccinated study.

PS – my concerns with this study include the small sample size and the ASD cohort which consisted of 41% racial or ethnic minority compared to 24% of the control group. I have not seen data which supports ~40% racial/ethnic minority within the ASD population. Gender matching between cohorts and actual ASD population seemed reasonable.

PPS – So Kanner is debunked and nothing in the mainstream media? Where are the headlines of Study Confirms Parent Reports of Regression in Autism or Kanner Theory of Autism Present at Birth Discredited?

Posted by: PhillyMom | February 21, 2010 at 02:23 PM

The HepB shot at birth (with two in the series to follow within months) is the one that breaks my heart the most.

My child (the one with 40+ food reactions) broke out in a horrible rash and became extremely lethargic after the first one when he was born (I have the pictures). After seeing www.iansvoice.org I realize that he may be lucky to be alive. At the time I was told it was "mother's hormones" which I should have known was wrong (older brother, who didn't start the series until 4 months, didn't do this).

And having breast-fed my older child for a good number of months, I never could understand why my little one had a much harder time nursing(now I may have the answer after that primate study with HepB - thanks AofA).

Posted by: Parent | February 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM

"HRP III, the MMR never ever contained thimerosal."

That is correct, and I admit my error.

"With my son, the reaction was within 6 hours of his MMR/DTaP vaccination at 18 months. Many parents here have almost the exact same story..."

Well OK: this completely refutes Mr. Handley's assertion that it is "exceptionally rare" that he hears "that story." The early signs study shows, as Dr. Novella wrote, that "many parents blame their children’s autism on vaccines they received after the true onset of symptoms."

"You can't tell me that coincidence happens that often...."

Of course we can tell you that. These kinds of attributions--the perceived onset of almost any sign or symptom that leads to a serious diagnosis (Alzheimer's, cancer, whatever) following, and thus being presumed to be "due" to some discrete, memorable event (a car accident, surgery, the death of a loved one, a vaccination), is the NORM, not the exception. It's how our brains are wired. Frequently it's accurate (which is undoubtedly why we think that way), but it can also fool us, as shown by the early signs study. It's why our own ancestors, whose brains were just like ours but who had not yet discovered science, thought that if they didn't pray correctly the sun wouldn't rise or the rain wouldn't come.

It's the post hoc fallacy! There's nothing wrong with it, it's not an insult! It's one of our most powerful urges! We just have to understand that it can be wrong, no matter how "right" it feels (that's how it works!). In the case of MMR/autism, it has been shown to be wrong. In the case of thimerosal/autism, it has been shown to be wrong. A thoughtful person on this thread would conclude: hmmm, that casts doubt on the whole vaccine/autism link, because it all stems from similar post hoc attributions.

Posted by: HRP III | February 21, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Ozmun:
"If you now accept (as the studies show) that MMR and thiomersal are not linked to an increase in the likelihood of autism you need to say what specifically needs to be studied."

Please provide a link to any study that documents autism rates in children born after thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines (other than flu). As I'm sure you know, thimerosal was removed from most vaccines by 2001, but stocks of remaining stocks of thimerosal-containing vaccines continued in use through at least 2003. A study documenting autism rates post-thimerosal removal would therefore need to include only children born in 2004 or later.

I'd appreciate a link. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: MB | February 21, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Ozmum said, "We know it is not thiomersal (diagnosis of autism has continued to rise since it was removed)..."

1) What study has compared rates of autism among babies born after thimerosal was decreased (not completely removed) from vaccines with babies born before that? The CDC's most recent statistics were of 8 years olds in 2006 -- born in 1998.

2)Vaccines with thimerosal continued to be used for years after they stopped making them with thimerosal -- there was no recall.

3) Thimerosal is still used in flu shots, which are now recommended for babies starting at 6 months, and in "trace" amounts in other vaccines. The FDA has stated that they do not monitor the "trace" level to be sure that the purification process used to remove thimerosal (used when making some vaccines) is actually working. The FDA only tests this when the vaccine is first licensed.

4) Mercury continues to increase in our environment, and other vaccine ingredients besides thimerosal may throw the immune system into disarray, so you cannot possibly rule out one factor (thimerosal) simply because other factors are also at work.

Also, it is important to distinguish between undiagnosed adults who apparently are fully functioning but have some autie/aspie tendencies, and today's children with autism who are unable to speak in complete sentences, take care of basic life skills, etc. Yes, there may be a "nerd" susceptibility factor, and there have always been nerds, but so many of today's children have more severe problems than that.

Likewise, subtle signs of a baby being less sociable do not explain away the baby's vaccine reaction.

Posted by: Twyla | February 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM

ozmum,
I suspect vaccines, the MMR and DTaP in particular, because my son had a adverse reaction. To specify, he developed a fever of 105, had seizures, and developed an encepalopathy (we have CT scans of his brain). Afterwards, he lost all speech, lost the ability to walk until he was almost 3, and lost nearly every developmental milestone. I'm quite certain that many parents here can tell you similar stories. And we're supposed to expect this is coincidental? When even the CDC acknowledges that reactions like this occur? If the vaccines didn't cause this, what did?

Thimerosal is hardly ruled out because it is still in vaccines given routinely to children and pregnant women. And if you read the study in question, symptoms of autism began to appear in SOME of the children before administration of MMR. That is why the study says that they began seeing signs between 6 and 18 months.

The simple fact of the matter is that vaccines are still a concern. They will continue to be a concern until all avenues are pursued. We already know that the DTP vaccine caused brain damage in children it was administered to, which is why they changed the formulation to DTaP. But the MMR is the only vaccine studied in depth, and those studies are so riddled with methodological errors and data manipulation that a 10 year old can see them.

Posted by: Craig Willoughby | February 21, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Ozmum,

Again, here we are. Parents don't know shit. Thousands upon thousands of parents "missed" warning signs of their children being autistic from birth - it was all a coincidence that they shot up their children with numerous vaccines and their children regressed, sometimes within hours/days of their vaccine appointment. How do I KNOW my child wasn't born autistic? Because I'm his f*cking mother. I have the videotape, too. I have the ped records that show a typically developing, healthy child. You aren't going to convince me that I didn't SEE what I SAW.

Just the fact that you are claiming thimerosal is completely removed from vaccines says a lot. *yawn* Hint: it hasn't been. You get three guesses as to how much of that shit is in a routine flu vaccine, just for fun.

If you are a really good mummy and listen to your wonderful ped, your child will get at least 6 of those, plus if you are the world's BEST mummy, you will get him at least two doses of H1N1, so Little Bobby will get 8 doses of thimerosal-vaccine-goodness by the time he's in kindergarten. Uh oh, see where I'm going with this?

It's apparent you will believe what you want to believe - even after you watched your own child regress. Unbelieveable. You can't provide any studies that look at the current US vaccine schedule in its entirety (such a thing does not exist, duh). The studies you do provide are weak at best, only discuss ONE vaccine and ONE ingredient, and not a one of them is untainted with pharma interests. *double yawn*

You should stop saying "vaccine(s)," and learn the word "vaccine." And that's being generous.

Testosterone in utero? Okay. ABV, right? Let me know how it goes.

Craig - I think the 36 vaccines vs. doses it a semantics game. The idea for me is many parents don't realize what a cocktail they are getting, or how many times their children are getting the same vaccine, over and over and over again. If you didn't give vaccines in combo, and counted every dose seperately, you get 36. Add to that H1N1, it could be 38+. I can't count a tetanus shot one time when my child gets 5 doses of it.

Posted by: JessicaF | February 21, 2010 at 09:12 AM

Additionally in response to Craig W. (and yourself) as I understand the claim made is that a child has a vaccine (most commonly nominated is the MMR - witness the recent vaccine court cases) and then the parents witness (to quote Craig W) "With my son, the reaction was within 6 hours of his MMR/DTaP vaccination at 18 months. Many parents here have almost the exact same story." I have no doubts that many of the parents here feel and watched a similar thing - I myself watched as my happy little boy withdrew and turned in on himself. The irony is that the study discussed in this article shows that whilst we saw what we did we also missed other warning signs and symptoms, most likely because they were only slight. If you could go back in time (the authors used video) you can spot the child displaying autistic tendenices at 6months....months or even in the case of Craig W a year before the MMR was given to the child.

We know it is not thiomersal (diagnosis of autism has continued to rise since it was removed), we know it can't be MMR (which is given after the first signs emerge).

I know why you suspected the MMR (timeliness) What makes you suspect other vaccines now? and which one specifically?

Posted by: ozmum | February 21, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Jessica F said

"My child was not born with autisic. Maybe yours was, who knows, but mine was not."

Jessica, how do you know your child was not born autistic? I suspect mine was, as autism is a brain disorder, however I don't claim to KNOW this. Even if your child regressed, this does not mean that the child was not autistic when born, simply that the behavioural markers did not display until then.

As for the epidemological studies there are many on medline - do a search (Eg.Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kiełtyka A.
Przegl Epidemiol. 2008;62(3):597-604. and Miller L, Reynolds J.
J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2009 Jul;14(3):166-72. Review.)
Most are focussed on MMR and/or thiomersal as these are the two things that groups such as AOA have identified, however DPT has also been studied. If you now accept (as the studies show) that MMR and thiomersal are not linked to an increase in the likelihood of autism you need to say what specifically needs to be studied.

Jessica you did not acknowledge that I answered your request - what to study. I suggested the inutero enironment, paticluarly testosterone.

Posted by: ozmum | February 21, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Jessica, may I make a suggestion?

Are there really 36 vaccines by the time a child is 2? Or is it 36 doses of 14 or so vaccines? I think we need to clarify that number because the Oraccolytes love to nitpick that small detail.

The rest of your argument is valid. They have looked at 1 vaccine and 1 ingredient, and are using that to say that it vindicates all vaccines and all ingredients.

Posted by: Craig Willoughby | February 20, 2010 at 10:03 PM

@ Ozmum - I noticed you ignored my other question about naming which

"large epidemology studies showing no link between vaccines and autism."

That's vaccine(s). Plural. Many. More than one. Like 36 (or more depending on the parents level of pumping them full of flu/H1N1 vaccines) before kids go into kindergarten. Which study are you referring to that does this?? I can't seem to locate it.

You are in fact claiming your family members maybe are un-dxed on the spectrum. Please. Then it would all make sense, ya? "Bobby was destined to be this way!"

My child was not born with autisic. Maybe yours was, who knows, but mine was not.

Posted by: JessicaF | February 20, 2010 at 09:19 PM

Jessica F said
Ozmum,

This is such a tired, boring argument. Just like I asked "Kim D", what other enviornmental issue do you think we should be looking at? Just name one. I dare you. People that make this argument never, ever do.

Okay, my suggestion is to look at the in utero environment of the child, particularly excessive testosterone (which ties to the fact of more boys than girls affected) (actually I know there are studies of this type currently being pursued in my country - in particular at the Uni I am currently attending). Brain disorders of the type being discussed are usually set by the time a child is born (and as the study discussed here starts to show physically in early life).

BTW as for "diagnosing" my family members - I am not claiming they were/are autistic/aspies - simply that they displayed many of the criteria used for diagnosis today in the DSM IV TR. (which I studied when I got my degree in Behav. Sci.)

Additionally, the people I know I met through Autism support groups...just like yourself.

Posted by: ozmum | February 20, 2010 at 08:22 PM

These guys are used to having an ignorant audience so they have become arrogant about their absurdities. This study does nothing but bolster are argument. This is what happens when you stop being a true scientist and only use science to manipulate a pre determined answer.

Posted by: Maria | February 20, 2010 at 07:54 PM

Ozmum, the reason why so many of us are focused on vaccines is because so many of us saw our child go through a serious adverse event associated with a vaccination. With my son, the reaction was within 6 hours of his MMR/DTaP vaccination at 18 months. Many parents here have almost the exact same story.

But what Novella and Orac are telling us is that what we experienced didn't happen. What we saw was a figment of our imaginations. But they can't tell us what is causing autism. All they can tell us is that the reactions our children had were simply coincidental to the timing of vaccination.

You can't tell me that coincidence happens that often. That is an argument that falls into Oraccian levels of stupidity.

Posted by: Craig Willoughby | February 20, 2010 at 07:32 PM

ozmum, people on this site are focused on vaccines, and also on other causes such as environmental mercury. But the majority of people who control research dollars are focused on ABV -- anything but vaccines. Vaccines certainly are not taking research away from other causes. Millions of dollars have been spent on studying genes, the brain, eye gazing among fruit flies -- with little in the way of results -- the mainstream "experts" still say, "Nobody knows what causes autism and there's no cure, no effective treatment except for ABA and risperdal..." Maybe it's time for more focus on vaccines rather than less.

As Dr, Bernadine Healy has said, our government has avoided doing the necessary research because they are afraid of what they might find.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/12/couricandco/entry4090144.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml

Posted by: Twyla | February 20, 2010 at 06:31 PM

Ozmum,

We tend to hang out with people who have similar interests/beliefs we do. Therefore, it makes sense your pack of buddies don't believe in a vaccine/autism link. Every affected family I am friends with believes there is. See what a dumb argument that is?

You should excercise caution diagnosing your family members so you can claim genetics is the largest factor at play. It's like all of these media types diagnosing dead historical figures with autism. Gimme a break.

Also - which "large study" are you referring to that showed no link between vaccines and autism? That's vaccine(s), the plural word, meaning more than one - 36 vaccines specifically. I'm dying to read it.

Posted by: JessicaF | February 20, 2010 at 06:26 PM

Kub wrote:

The issue with the Novella's of the world is they seem to be more concerned with telling us what didn't cause your child's autism rather than support searching for the truth. Searching for the truth is what I want and that's why I think it matters "why."

Kub - the issue is that people are SO focussed on vaccines being the problem, that other potential causes/factors are getting ignored (let alone the consequences of a decline in vaccination rates). I often see people on this site compare vaccination with smoking...it was large epidemology studies that showed the direct link between lung cancer and smoking, and there have been large epidemology studies showing no link between vaccines and autism. I have a son like you who has autism and there are a lot of parents I know similarly affected...and not one of them believes vaccines had anything to do with.

(In my case I can see a family history even thought my son is the first ever to be diagnosed).

Posted by: ozmum | February 20, 2010 at 05:45 PM

"It is Mr. Handley and many on this thread who are moving the goalposts, as previously explained. A few years ago it was the MMR that was overwhelmingly impugned as The Cause of autism (see Wakefield's article and numerous others*); more specifically, it was thimerosal in the MMR that was impugned. When thimerosal was removed but the incidence of autism failed to drop,* you (plural) moved the goalposts by saying that it must be other things in the vaccines, or earlier vaccines, or the sheer number of vaccines. Now, when the latest study establishes that autism begins before children get the MMR, you pretend that you had never impugned MMR as the primary cause in the first place"

Umm, you do know that MMR never contained Thimerosal, right? So how can we blame the Thimerosal in MMR when it never contained it? You guys are sounding dumber every day.

The thing is that the study shows that ASD's are regressive. It shows that it usually represents between the ages of 12 months and 2 years, but can show up as early as 6 months. Novella's confirmation bias said that it rules out MMR because ASD's can be detected at 6 months. Wrong. it CAN BE detected as early as 6 months, doesn't mean it does in every case. Read the study. They said they saw regressions as early as 6 months, but the majority represented between 12 months and 18 months.

Oh, and it also means that they represent during the majority of a child's vaccination schedule. Just like we've been saying. Oh, and didn't "science" say there was no such thing as regressive autism?

Run along now...Orac needs to tell you what to think.

Posted by: Craig Willoughby | February 20, 2010 at 04:31 PM

HRP III, your 2/20 10:05 comment contains so much ignorance and error that it is hard to know where to begin, especially since I only have about 15 minutes to spare. Fortunately, everything that I don’t address most likely will be or has already been addressed by someone else.

I’ll start with this glaring error: “A few years ago it was the MMR that was overwhelmingly impugned as The Cause of autism... more specifically, it was thimerosal in the MMR that was impugned. When thimerosal was removed but the incidence of autism failed to drop, you (plural) moved the goalposts…” HRP III, the MMR never ever contained thimerosal. The MMR contains live viruses to which thimerosal would be poisonous. Nobody claimed that the harm from the MMR was caused by thimerosal in the MMR vaccines. The mechanism of harm for MMR is not thimerosal (although for some babies the thimerosal received in prior or simultaneous vaccines may have set the stage). For an in depth discussion of one of the mechanisms of MMR injury, see, for example, the Bailey Banks ruling at http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BANKS_CASE.pdf , and also see David Kirby’s presentation beginning at http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/05/david-kirbys-autism-one-presentation-metals-myelin-mitochondria-pathways-to-autism.html . A discussion of the MMR begins in Part 2 at http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/05/part-2-david-kirbys-autism-one-presentation-metals-myelin-mitochondria-pathways-to-autism.html

And regarding multiple sclerosis (MS), a discussion of the Hepatitis B vaccine causing MS begins in Part 3 at http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/05/now-few-people-know-this-but-there-is-a-hep-b-omnibus-proceeding-or-a-demyelinating-disease-omnibus-proceeding---in-vac.html .
“Now, speaking of babies, HepB vaccine actually can damage myelin in infants, as well. And particularly in Glaxo-Smith-Kline’s brand Engerix. In general, Hep-B was associated with increased risk for inflammatory demyelination – a 50% increase, and Glaxo’s was a 74% increase. And for kids who already had MS, demyelinization was increased 177%. And, the authors wrote, ‘The Engerix B vaccine appears to increase this risk, particularly for confirmed multiple sclerosis in the longer term.’” Also see this ruling by the Office of Special Masters in the U.S. Court of vaccine claims http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MILLMAN.DOE012109B_0.pdf stating that the petitioner is entitled to award for vaccine-induced multiple sclerosis (MS).

So much for your statement, HRP III, regarding the “hodgepodge of every silly speculation” that “Several are already known to be spurious (‘persistent vaccine viral loads,’ ‘toxic metal burden’) or are so implausible as to be laughable (ALS, MS).” I don’t think the judge in the above case, for example, was laughing.

Your statement that, “There are, in fact, no good animal models for autism, which is an important reason that it has been so resistant to investigation,” is ridiculous. Animal models can be used to study the many vaccine related outcomes reported by thousands of parents in their autistic kids and reported by scientists and doctors in autistic subjects/patients, including immune system dysregulation, oxidative stress, inflammation, glutathione deficiency, mitochondrial disorder, and even behavioral and cognitive issues. And it only stands to reason that vaccines, which are intended to affect the immune system, be studied in relation to long-term impact on the immune system – including to asthma, allergies, type 1 diabetes – all of which have increased dramatically in tandem with the increase in our vaccine program. In yet another so-called “coincidence” veterinarians and pet owners have been reporting that pets develop many of the same conditions after vaccinations as are often reported in people with autism – such as seizures, IBD, and eczema. Of course monkey studies could be done, as other posters have pointed out. If not all of this can be studied in one study, fine -- we need multiple studies!

As far as “moving the goalposts” that oft repeated phrase is so tiresome. When people report their cars accelerating out of control, and the manufacturers and government agencies first look at floor mats, then gas pedals, then electronics, is that “moving the goalposts”? No, that is investigating evidence. The scientific process starts with looking at available evidence, forming hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses. It seems quite apparent that autism does not have just one cause, and that vaccine injury does not just have one cause, and to look at the situation in a simplistic way where one factor causes either all or no autism would be stupid. Vaccines start on the day of birth or at two months of age, and if some babies have a gradual cumulative reaction, some show a major reaction to a particular vaccine (such as MMR) or batch of vaccines, some have a tendency towards a reserved nerdy personality which is exacerbated by vaccines, some are impacted by mercury in the environment or the mother’s amalgams or vaccines received by the mother, some react to the aluminum and fomaldehyde, some to the mercury, some to multiple viruses, some develope demyelination, some mitochondrial disorder, some IBD – all this variation does not disprove any individual child’s story, nor does it disprove the hypothesis that vaccines are the primary factor in today’s autism epidemic.

You say about “the ‘Early Behavioral Signs’ study” that “This is exactly this kind of ‘painstaking’ study that is necessary to make progress”, but what is frustrating is that as long as they are gathering all this data, why not also gather data on the vaccines received by these babies?

The “vaccine autism link” is much more than a “post hoc fallacy”. It is supported by many kinds of evidence.

Posted by: Twyla | February 20, 2010 at 03:48 PM

HRP III-

You said- "it was thimerosal in the MMR that was impugned"....

..are you serious - thimerosal in the MMR? If you are stating that anyone blamed thimerosal in MMR then you are clearly confused and not understanding the science of vaccines, the ingredients of vaccines or the mechanism of how they can injure.

Your "post hoc fallacy", "thimerosal in MMR", and "monkey study also should not be done" comments are bizarre little fantasies that show a mind that is trying hard to disprove the fact that vaccines have injured, killed and in our cases, caused the behavioral manifestations ie, "autism" that our children now suffer.

It is also obvious that like your fearless leader, Novella, you each should have someone else proof read your crap, ie, "one of the perils of daily blogging about technical topics, and posting blogs without editorial or peer-review"...is that you are both looking like fools now.

Posted by: Teresa Conrick | February 20, 2010 at 02:56 PM

HRP the Third-- you just gave a demonstration of spurious. Silly and laughable too, in a gallows humor sort of way.

There are already primate models for everything Garbo mentioned. Quick search on the web for studies involving these factors in primates shows that, regardless of relevance to autism or vaccines, they can and have be done. So what are you talking about?

Investigation involving food proteins and allergies in primates:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/ja/wo.jsp?WO=2009094717&IA=AU2009000104&DISPLAY=DESC

Research into ALS using primates:
http://www.alsa.org/research/article.cfm?id=912

Study of SIDS involving infant primates:
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/1996-September/025248.html

Multiple sclerosis model in primates:
http://www.cell.com/trends/immunology/abstract/S0167-5699(00)01627-3

Induced mitochondrial damage in primates via pesticide Rotenone:
http://www.worldpdcongress.org/program/Greenamyre_article.pdf

And to shrug off the need for a primate vaccine study, you cite a CDC report? On Verstraeten's initial VSD data? Verstraeten of GSK? And the Danish study?

Go ahead, get the original VSD study for review. Oh, you can't. There's always the Simpsonwood transcripts to hint about what was contained in that data and the subject line of Verstraeten's email to members of the panel regarding the original data: "It (the signal) won't go away"-- until they retooled it by adding children under the age of ascertainment to "weaken" the signal for the 2003 study that the CDC wrongfully identifies as the "original study" in the link you privided. It was not the original data-- that's locked up in an "offshore holding".

Spurious means from falsified or erroneously attributed origin, right?

The retort to that is all here: http://www.fourteenstudies.com

As far as trying to twist the testimonies of parents about their children's regressions, you have to consider "vacine court" standard for what constitutes "first signs". Regardless of whether any doctor could even diagnose the disorder at age one or so, the "first signs" are a legal standard, one which many of us have ambivilently adopted. It didn't mean parents "knew" right then and there. It's only clear in retrospect the way that first loss of glow or energy in a child is seen in retrospect by parents as the first sign of their child's subsequent leukemia.

Spurious also means "bastard".

Posted by: Gatogorra | February 20, 2010 at 01:01 PM

"The outcomes that you listed appear to be a hodgepodge of every silly speculation that has appeared on websites such as this one"

Boy are YOU achingly misinformed, despite your screen name and its whiff of entitlement and feigned superiority. Your self-regard is, in fact, breathtaking.

Of the list of things that the commenter wanted studied were "Digestive, mitochondrial, genetic expression changes, immune/autoimmune disorders, autism, diluent protein induced food allergy, asthma, SIDS, ALS, MMF, MS."

Many of those ideas are not based on "silly speculation" at all. There is at least one study associating the timing of DPT vaccine with asthma, and the Federal Vaccine Court has paid out or settled a number of vaccine injury cases involving autoimmune disorders and demyelinating diseases. There is even an entire Omnibus Proceeding involving Hep B Vaccine, in which several recent cases have been paid out for myelin associated diseases, especially MS. Here is but one example, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MILLMAN.FISHER071309.pdf - there are more.

Even a fibromialgia case was just settled by the Feds in Vaccine Court. In fact, the Feds have been quietly settling a LOT of autoimmune and nervous system disorder cases lately. Sadly though not surprisingly, most of these cases are not published, but the settlements are (you have to search around for them): http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/opinions_decisions_vaccine/UnPublished

Everyone should check out the published cases too, they are really quite interesting. Some of them refer openly to autism. The Freeman case is a good example, especially footnote #7 at the end of page 11: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/HASTINGS.Freeman.pdf

Now, is any of this proof of anything? Of course not. That would be "silly" to conclude. But it is also a basis on which certain parents suspect that certain vaccine ingredients may be harmful to certain children under certain circumstances and might lead to certain neurological, neuro-immune and autoimmune outcomes, of which autism is a part (See Zimmerman).

Obviously, the Special Masters believe that it's at least plausible that vaccines can cause MS, autoimmunity, myelin damage, seizure disorders and encephalopathies (including ones that can lead to ASD. It's not a bit silly to ask for more research along these lines. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee supports more research into autoimmune disorders as a clinical outcome of vaccine injury. Why? Because they know that, by making vaccines as safe as possible, more people will get their kids and themselves immunized.

If you don't like it, I suggest you go tell it to the judges, and the NVAC.

Posted by: Buna300 | February 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM

HRP 111: You WISH that monkey (or other animal studies showing the full effects of the vaccine schedule) couldn't or shouldn't be done. There is a Dr. McFabe from the University of Western Ontario who is doing some interesting research with rodents that shows ASD's can be induced. You people make me sick with first, your bullcrap about the Helsinki declaration and how it would be unethical to do a study comparing vacced and unvacced and now, how convenient, you think it couldn't be done with animals either. Then why do pharmaceutical companies do some of their supposed "safety/toxicity" studies on animals (who are immediately killed) if it is so difficult to measure these kinds of effects in them?

Posted by: jen | February 20, 2010 at 12:03 PM

This on VACTRUTH

“I have a little person in my office who had 10 rounds of antibiotics and 17 vaccines by 20 months of age. Yes, now autistic. That should be assault with deadly weapons and the doctor should be in jail. Instead, the parents were kicked out of their pediatrician’s practice for refusing more vaccines and wanting to get their child well. With these annoying, non-compliant parents out of the way, that doctor can continue to do what vaccinators do: Inject toxic substances into children, ruining their health and the lives of the child’s family members”

Bottom line, the truth is in the pudding, the proof is in a life gone south by people who don't care a rats behind about our kids. The poster that suggested we don't know our science, must be delusional.

Posted by: Kathy Blanco | February 20, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Garbo called for:

"A clinical non-pharma sponsored vaxed/unvaxed study (in monkeys) of the whole vaccine schedule as given to our children, starting at birth, surveying all outcomes including but not limited to digestive, mitochondrial, genetic expression changes, immune/autoimmune disorders, autism, diluent protein induced food allergy, asthma, SIDS, ALS, MMF, MS, [etc.]"

Garbo, as much as I accept that you truly believe that such a study could or should be done, you are wrong. It could not be done because it would be impossible to collect accurate data on so many outcomes, several of which cannot be measured in monkeys and several of which don't even occur in monkeys. The outcomes that you listed appear to be a hodgepodge of every silly speculation that has appeared on websites such as this one, together with a couple of known risks of vaccines (live polio vaccine rarely causing the disease, for example, which is why it is no longer used). Most bear no relation to the others. Several are already known to be spurious (“persistent vaccine viral loads,” “toxic metal burden”) or are so implausible as to be laughable (ALS, MS). Vaccine failure rates are well known, are mostly quite small, and by no means argue against using vaccines, since the failure rates of not using them are far greater. The monkey study could not be done even for the single outcome that we have been discussing here, because monkeys are not a useful animal model for autism.

There are, in fact, no good animal models for autism, which is an important reason that it has been so resistant to investigation. Those on this thread who imply that the “Early Behavioral Signs” study was unethical because it “painstakingly noted kids’ development but showed no concern over why kids regressed” are entirely innocent of how science works, and of how difficult it has been to even begin to understand the biological basis of autism. It is exactly this kind of “painstaking” study that is necessary to make progress—as exasperating as it is to everyone who would like it to happen more quickly, including the authors of the study, Dr. Novella, Mr. Handley, and everyone on this thread. Of course the investigators are concerned about why kids regress. Why else would they do the study? Why do you think they are in the field?

The monkey study also should not be done for the simple reason that the evidence does not warrant it.* Even if it were somehow done, I suspect that you and many others on this list would not accept the results when they failed to confirm your prior beliefs, regardless of who funded or performed it.

Craig Willoughby wrote:

"His rebuttal is even more burning stupid. He moves the goalposts, saying, 'Oh, I just meant that it rules out the MMR.'"

It is Mr. Handley and many on this thread who are moving the goalposts, as previously explained. A few years ago it was the MMR that was overwhelmingly impugned as The Cause of autism (see Wakefield's article and numerous others*); more specifically, it was thimerosal in the MMR that was impugned. When thimerosal was removed but the incidence of autism failed to drop,* you (plural) moved the goalposts by saying that it must be other things in the vaccines, or earlier vaccines, or the sheer number of vaccines. Now, when the latest study establishes that autism begins before children get the MMR, you pretend that you had never impugned MMR as the primary cause in the first place.

The post hoc fallacy remains a strong motivation for these beliefs. Teresa Conrick’s calling it “so urban legend” reveals nothing but willful ignorance. There are several more examples on this thread alone, notwithstanding Mr. Handley's claim that he has “very rarely” heard such stories: those of Anne, JenB, Autism Grandma, Ms. Conrick herself, Garbo, Adriana, and Sue. Some of them refer to earlier vaccinations, but they have a common theme: “my (child) was 100% fine, and...after one vaccine appointment he lost everything.” They have all made the case—by mistake, it seems—for the vaccine autism link being nothing more than a post hoc fallacy. Didn’t they read Mr. Handley’s piece closely enough to realize that he was cueing them NOT to do exactly that?

* http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/VSD_Chart_of_Autism_Studies-Updated_Aug_18_09.pdf
And:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919130?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=7

Posted by: HRP III | February 20, 2010 at 10:05 AM

BillyJoe, No.

To put it into simple terms (and it is simple, really. Mercury is a known neurotoxins that is injected into infants. What does a neurotoxin do?) All the mercury from the shots before the MMR do considerable damage. And then the MMMR comes along and does even more damage, like sometimes actually infecting people with measles and...

From "Mother Warriors" by Jenny McCarthy pg. 35-36

"The man from the AAP began by telling us about his own contributions to be medical establishment since the beginning days of the AAP and how far they have come. He was involved in the early research that discovered rubella was associated with certain types of autism. (Rubella is a live virus, the common European strain of the measles.)

Wait a second. Did this AAP guy just admit that he was involved in early research proving that the rubella virus can cause cases of autism?...If rubella can cause autism in some children, and moms claim that they lose their children after the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella), which has three live viruses, including rubella, is it such a huge leap to say vaccines might trigger autism in some kids?"

Some interesting reading for you might be toxicologist Dr. Aposhian's testimony in vaccine court about mercury and what is does before the MMR vaccine is introduced.

Posted by: A Mom | February 20, 2010 at 09:34 AM

It's important to remember all our children are unique individuals who suffer from ASD and have their own story. I never witnessed my son talking or hitting all his milestones and then watch him regress, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen to JB's child or anyone else’s. The only milestone my son ever hit on time was rolling over. I can't honestly say he changed after a series of vaccines. The issue with the Novella's of the world is they seem to be more concerned with telling us what didn't cause your child's autism rather than support searching for the truth. Searching for the truth is what I want and that's why I think it matters "why."

Posted by: Kub Marshman | February 20, 2010 at 07:29 AM

HRP III wrote:
(Note to Donna: I wrote nothing about "at 2 years old").

I apologize for misinterpreting the point you were making when you quoted that passage in your first comment.

The point I wasn't very clear about making in my earlier response to your comment was that the U.S. prospective study doesn't tell us anything about how children in Great Britain reacted to their MMR because they have a different immunization schedule as well as use a different MMR vaccine. It may be the brand specific MMR vaccine used there that is running up their autism increase. If their MMR is more pathogenically immunogenic (hypersensitive response), or more capable of setting up a persistent infection in genetically susceptible ileal lymphoid tissue (some pathogens are host specific), well that possible etiology for autistic regression could still exist but have nothing to do with U.S. children starting to show signs of regression at 12 months.

Furthermore, I don't believe we even know the immunization status of the subjects of the U.S. prospective study. If the subjects followed the CDC/ACIP's recommended schedule an objective theory for regression might consider immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserve for those who may be genetically and/or physically susceptible. Each individual vaccine is developed to illicit an effective/robust immune response. What happens when you multiply immune stimulation by n+1 vaccines given at one time, then repeated at frequent intervals to subjects genetically predisposed to hyper IgE/IgG expression or mitochondrial weakness? or maybe some other interaction bench science hasn't revealed yet.

More and more reputable scientists from the variety of disciplines studying autism are finding common ground in how the immune system plays a key part in influencing the expression of autism. Parents have offered a place to start looking--a temporal association with an immune manipulating procedure. Good, honest inquiry starts with an observation and then follows the evidence.

Posted by: Donna Kincanon | February 20, 2010 at 04:45 AM

This is just silly nonsense.

Posted by: jessie | February 20, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Just to be clear...

Do we all agree with the following statement:

The MMR vaccine cannot be the cause of Austism because it is given at or after 12 months of age whereas symptoms of Autism commence before 12 months of age.

That, at least, is what the article referenced by Steven Novella seems to be saying.

Posted by: BillyJoe | February 20, 2010 at 12:22 AM

Hmmm... Hrp III secretion?

Your comment:

"The "early signs" study refutes that hypothesis and shows that, in retrospect, it must have been due to that most human of all judgmental errors, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy."....

...is so urban legend and used by the wackosphere ad nauseum. Haven't you anything better to offer us? You must be an Igor to the unimpressive Dr. Novella.

Posted by: Teresa Conrick | February 19, 2010 at 09:42 PM

I think parents like "Kim D" have no idea what it's like for parents of non-"HFA" kids. It's like comparing my experiences of shit-smearing, psychotic tantrums that lasted for 6 hours, outrageous aggression, severe GI pain, assortments of food intolerances, 100% non-verbal abilities and 18 months of chronic constipation to a completely verbal, socialized child that just seems "quirky." (oh how cute, little Bobby just luuuuuvs dinosaurs! can't get enough!)

Just because it didn't happen to YOU doesn't mean it didn't happen to ME. Can you get that? Here it is again - just because it didn't happen to YOUR child doesn't mean it didn't happen to MY child.

On another note, she willingly admits there is probably an eviornmental aspect. Gosh - like what? Can you name just ONE thing? All of these people so sure it ain't the vaccines, and they never, ever name a single other "enviornmental" component.

You just *know* it's not the vaccines. Riiiiight.

Posted by: JessicaF | February 19, 2010 at 08:57 PM

Pass the Popcorn;
My Daddy always told me that it takes a very smart person to be a good liar.
Because it takes a good memory to remember them.

Posted by: Benedetta | February 19, 2010 at 07:15 PM

My son who has HFA now had 9 shots on that dreaded day years ago.....who knew.....

Nothing was ever the same.....

2 years of screaming thereafter.....

Endless therapy .......and now a private school.....

I have said for years it was the vaccines........no-one cares, no one will ever admit to it...., so now what....warn others to have obne shot at a time....seperate the MMR!! Why doesnt anyone listen to the parents...no study will tell us anything new....we know what it is from!!

Did he have some signs before, maybe slight however he laughed, looked at me and spoke and interacted. After that day he went into his own world.....the world of Autism.

Posted by: Anne | February 19, 2010 at 07:08 PM

Kim D's comments are comparable to someone commenting on a blog for clergy abuse victims that her priest never hurt anybody.

Her success story does not negate the reality of many other people's pain and suffering. Instead she merely rubs salt into fresh wounds.

And her laissez-faire "don't care" attitude parallels vaccine manufacturers' refusal to learn from their mistakes in order to improve their product, so all can benefit instead of some lucky ones.

I'm sadly surprised by the number of children deemed autistic from birth whose parents show no intellectual curiosity about tracking sources of toxic exposures. Promoting "acceptance" without doing biological sleuthing is irresponsible.

Posted by: nhokkanen | February 19, 2010 at 07:07 PM

Good to know!!

Novella writes:

"I make these kinds of errors from time to time – that is one of the perils of daily blogging about technical topics, and posting blogs without editorial or peer-review. Most blog readers understand this, and typically I will simply clarify my prose or correct mistakes when they are pointed out."

So he makes errors from time to time that in this case completely negated the point of his post, he doesn't bother to show his ramblings to anyone before posting them, and his readers understand this!

Must be nice to be Steven Novella. Great gig.

Posted by: pass the popcorn | February 19, 2010 at 06:48 PM

HRP III

As in Hrp III secretion?

Posted by: StephM | February 19, 2010 at 05:25 PM

Dr. Milco--

The article in Swedish on the vaccine injury compensation case is here:
http://svt.se/2.33782/1.1896991/dom_kunde_ha_ruinerat_pojke

The translation is here:
http://tinyurl.com/yf9wtm9

I just read a Finnish blog in which it was said that Finnish media has been "taken over by the GSK mafia". I have a strange impression that safe harbors are disappearing.

Posted by: Gatogorra | February 19, 2010 at 05:17 PM

His rebuttal is even more burning stupid. He moves the goalposts, saying, "Oh, I just meant that it rules out the MMR."

Pathetic

Posted by: Craig Willoughby | February 19, 2010 at 05:17 PM

Well, of course you don't know what the monkeys are for! If you really seek the truth, you need the monkeys. A clinical non-pharma sponsored vaxed/unvaxed study of the whole vaccine schedule as given to our children, starting at birth, surveying all outcomes including but not limited to digestive, mitochondrial, genetic expression changes, immune/autoimmune disorders, autism, diluent protein induced food allergy, asthma, SIDS, ALS, MMF, MS, Gullaine-Barre, reproductive health, persistent vaccine strain viral loads, unforeseen retroviral contaminations, and toxic metal burden. Not to mention the vaccine failure rate (mumps epidemics!) and vaccines causing or spreading the disease they were meant to prevent (polio, rotavirus, HPV). Maybe we can draft a few monkeys and give them anthrax and yellow fever shots too. Show me the monkeys. I would like to see them please. Wouldn't YOU? If not, you are more interested in the status quo than the truth.

Posted by: Garbo | February 19, 2010 at 05:10 PM

@Garbo:

What's in it for me is what ought to be in it for you: seeking the truth. I have no idea what "show me the monkeys" means.

Posted by: HRP III | February 19, 2010 at 04:01 PM

Kim D said,

"In the end, though, I really don't care about the "why.""

If one doesn't care about the "why" then one doesn't really care at all. People who are uncaring make me sad.

Posted by: Cybertiger | February 19, 2010 at 03:49 PM

@HRP, what's in it for you? Show me the monkeys! Oh, wait, you can't.

Posted by: Garbo | February 19, 2010 at 03:02 PM

AMEN PHILLY-MOM!

Posted by: Parent | February 19, 2010 at 02:49 PM

DSO,

I hope you keep coming back, and I hope you can have patience with some of the less diplomatic elements of the site.

When I was learning of this issue and trying to decide what was truth, what was not, it was the rationality to a great extent of parents and doctors that were in the position of being a messenger of an unwanted message, (and really had little to gain by it, as the continuing history of this is issue repeatedly demonstrates) that helped me find information that truly helped my child.

But that was nearly five years ago and there had been years of advocacy, and grass-roots research already in place in the trenches that I had been oblivious of. Years of frustration, dismissal, mischaracterization, etc., that was hard for me not to feel some degree of ownership of even though I hadn't made any of that effort--"You mean they KNEW about this way back in 19--!" "All that time I was desperately wondering what was behind all those regressions...that huge downward regression that began about a week after Kindergarten boosters, every gain in the past two years reversed, and worse...I have to find out about this on the internet..."

I stopped reading Novella and Gorski, etc., when I realized that nothing they said helped me or my child, and their substance was often, I think, intentionally inflammatory, wanting to fight against a message that by nature of their positions and beliefs in life was an attack on their inner well-being, and for the most part they are better off considered irrelevant, but children are continuing to be harmed by the nongeneral recognition of what is, at the least, one of the major sources of this epidemic.

I think we need both the rational, detailed discussion, and the hyperbolically less (than myself) inhibited personalities, such as Mr. Handley, Jenny McCarthy to end this assault on our children.

Posted by: JenB | February 19, 2010 at 02:32 PM

DSO,

You think J.B.'s namecalling is bad? It is nothing compared to what the people he's namecalling have called us.

Posted by: Craig Willoughby | February 19, 2010 at 02:23 PM

@Garbo:

What does Brian Deer have to do with this? The source that I cited was Wakefield's paper itself, which just happens to be linked at Brian Deer's website. If you click on the link you will see Wakefield's paper.

Your apology for Wakefield's paper only makes my point for me: that at the time a common reason offered for the vaccine/autism hypothesis was a close temporal relation between a child receiving the MMR vaccine and his parents first noticing signs of autism. Thus Mr. Handley's assertion that it is "exceptionally rare" to hear such a story doesn't ring true (unless you think that Wakefield made up his case histories, which even I doubt). We even see an example of “that story” right on this thread: http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/02/dr-steven-novella-makes-the-case-for-vaccine-autism-link-by-mistake.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e20120a8b54d90970b#comment-6a00d8357f3f2969e20120a8b54d90970b

@Teresa Conrick & Donna Kincanon:

How I 'came up with that' is simple: the first signs of autism appear, according to the study reviewed by Dr. Novella, between 6 and 12 months of age. The MMR vaccine is given, at the earliest and even in the US, at 12 months. Thus it cannot be the cause of autism. (Note to Donna: I wrote nothing about "at 2 years old").

Sure, it is technically possible that MMR aggravates a pre-existing condition (which would be the case for anything that occurs after the onset of that condition: the first birthday party, for example, or maybe the first haircut), but to make that argument, as many on this thread have done, amounts to historical dishonesty.

The historical fact (documented in Wakefield's paper) is that only a few years ago many people argued that the MMR vaccine, all by itself, caused autism. They believed this because they were certain that their child had, shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine, changed dramatically.

The "early signs" study refutes that hypothesis and shows that, in retrospect, it must have been due to that most human of all judgmental errors, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This does not imply stupidity or any other undesirable characteristic. Nevertheless, intellectual honesty requires rejecting a hypothesis when the evidence leads to that—not pretending that it was something other than what it was.

Posted by: HRP III | February 19, 2010 at 01:41 PM

I'm wondering which name calling has everyone so up in arms. blogging weirdo? clue-free moron? shill for industry? intellectual malpractice? incredibly wrong? hater of our community? can't count? bad guy? doesn't understand?

If the shoe fits, wear it proudly. People who continually put themselves out there defending the indefensible on behalf of a corrupt industry deserve everything that's coming to them. Their every dishonest twist of reason harms more children daily and then prevents those who've been harmed from being healed.

Posted by: Garbo | February 19, 2010 at 01:37 PM

@Robin,
You say this isn't rocket science, but you do both sides of this issue a disservice with that statement. Whatever you believe about the cause of autism, it is likely a complex issue which has no simple answers.

Posted by: steveallen | February 19, 2010 at 01:36 PM

VERY IMPORT MESSAGE FROM SWEDEN:
I have no time to translate this article, I am a dokter in sweden, my name is Milco.
Summary: parents of a swedish autistic boy have went to court to fight that they believe their son was damaged by DKTP and or enviroment...etcetc....all the way to the hig courts...they lost....the boy who is 17 must pay about 90.000dollar law costs....It is important why!!!! not because they lost( I am so sorry for that!)
but that people are trying to go to trial.....all the way!!! VERY VERY important!
I have seen many kids ruined by vaccinations and their is a link..
May be you must translate or look for english: it is on the top page on the biggest website in sweden and tonight it will be full force......it is important
Here is the article in swedish:

GR Milco

En autistisk, omyndig pojke i Malmö blev efter en dom skyldig försäkringsbolaget Trygg-Hansa nästan 900 000 kronor. Men Trygg-Hansa väljer på fredageftermiddagen att efterskänka pengarna.

Hans föräldrar processade för att han skulle få försäkringsersättning för sin autism, men förlorade.

- Om Trygg-Hansa insisterar på att få pengarna kommer min son att fråntas allt utöver existensminimum resten av livet, konstaterade den 17-årige pojkens mamma.

Föräldrarna hoppas att domen ska leda till en debatt om rättshjälp i Sverige. De pekar på privatpersoners sårbarhet när de ska processa mot bolag.

- Svenska folket fattar inte att de inte är skyddade, säger mamman.
Pojken blir skyldig att betala försäkringsbolagets rättegångskostnader i både tings- och hovrätt, totalt 893 000 kronor. Rättsskyddet i familjens hemförsäkring ger bara 60 000 kronor.

Ett stort antal expertvittnen har flugits till Sverige för att medverka i det medicinskt komplicerade målet. Föräldrarna menade att pojkens autism kan ha orsakats av vaccin mot difteri, stelkramp och polio, eller annan miljöpåverkan. Försäkringsbolaget hävdade att autismen var medfödd och därmed skulle ett undantag i försäkringsreglerna tillämpas som gör att han blir utan ersättning.

Hovrätten skriver med hänvisning till de expertvittnen som hörts i målet att det inte finns några vetenskapliga bevis för ett samband mellan autism och det slags vaccinationer pojken fått.
Hovrättsassessor Boel Havelius, en av tre domare i målet, kallar själv domen uppseendeväckande.
- Det är ganska uppseendeväckande. Det blir så väldigt tragiska konsekvenser i det här fallet när det har varit fråga om så stora rättegångskostnader, säger hon till TT.

- Ett barns ekonomiska framtid har i och med rättsprocessen i detta speciella fall äventyrats och det anser inte vi är försvarbart, därför väljer vi att efterskänka alla kostnader, säger Björn Sporrong, ansvarig för Trygg-Hansas barn-, sjuk- och olycksfallsförsäkringar, på fredagseftermiddagen

Posted by: Milco | February 19, 2010 at 12:35 PM

thanks cybertiger...

The "Dunning-Kruger effect" certainly seems to be in play for Novella, Gorski and Offit.

Sadly, the three of them could not have been diagnosed sooner, where they might have been able to be saved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

"Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy."

Can Dr. Novella request that his own paper be retracted, as it supports the opposite argument that he intended ? Or does the paper have to remain in public where it can be mocked for years ?

Could Dr. Novella simply state that he is on the Dunning-Kruger spectrum and is seeking treatment ?

Posted by: cmo | February 19, 2010 at 12:35 PM

"In the end, though, I really don't care about the "why." I care about the "what next." My son hasn't become a drastically different child between the ages of 3 and 9 because I pined over the what-ifs and why-fores. He is the amazing child he's become because I thought about how to make his life the best it could be" ~ Kim D.

Kim D - you must not read AofA frequently, because if you did you would recognize that the parent's in this community live in "what's next". I have not encountered anyone on AofA who considered the conventional wisdom of "no hope, no treatment, no recovery" road for their child.

I am not interested in "why's" to cast blame, but I do consider the "why's" for several basic reasons:
1. If I know "why", I can better treat my child.
2. If I know "why", I can avoid whatever environmental toxin(s) may contribute to (or excerbate) my child's condition.
3. Prevention -- many in this community have younger children and do not want to repeat the cycle or see friends, family, or strangers for that matter repeat the cycle.

My son was not initially in the "high functioning" spectrum. But he is today. I can paraphrase and apply your comments to our situation: my son did not dramatically improve from the ages of 2 to 6 because I pined over the what-if's. He improved because my husband and I considered all the possible causes (and treatments) and tried a variety of therapies that we found reasonable. Today, he is a much healthier child, which resulted in him becoming a much happier (and a higher functioning) child because of a combination of interventions.

What you are suggesting is that we look at a "collapsed bridge" (our sick children) and not consider how. By examining the evidence in the collapsed bridge, we may be able to determine the causes. By determining the causes, we can build stronger and safer bridges in the future.

PS - My child received 31 vaccines by the age of 15 mths. Please take your "anti-vaccine crowd" label elsewhere.

Posted by: PhillyMom | February 19, 2010 at 11:58 AM

In my previous post I meant to say 'They say it as though simply saying it makes the case that there ISN'T any causation.'

It doesn't. They haven't made that case yet and haven't even tried.

Posted by: Robin Nemeth | February 19, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Kim D.

I've not heard those who've concerns with vaccines say "my child is my science" nearly so often as I've heard the other side say "correlation does not equal causation". No, it does not make sense to say that a few anecdotal cases means vaccines cause regression into autism. Perhaps, however, it makes sense when it's not a few anecdotal cases, but tens of thousands.

You know, I do understand that correlation doesn't equal causation. What I do not understand is why it is that so many on their side say this as though this is all that needs to be said. They say it as though simply saying it makes the case that there ISN'T any correlation. This is not so.

All people are asking for, all they've been asking for for well on a decade at least now, is a fairly done study. Look at the numbers. Take a large random sample of people. Look at the number who've been fully vaccinated and developed autism. (Count only the plain as day full-blown autism cases; I've grown so tired of the “oh that child doesn't have autism he's just spoiled” argument.) Look at the number who were never vaccinated and developed autism. Then look at the number who were vaccinated and don't have autism and then the number who were never vaccinated and do not have autism.

This isn't rocket science. I believe that the former head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, has said it could and should be done.

# autism/vaccinated
# autism/unvaccinated
# without autism/ vaccinated
# without autism/unvaccinated

A table with these numbers would settle things once and for all. If it was fairly done. (And no at this point I don't trust my government health officials nor do I trust the vaccine makers to do this study. I've already seen how corrupt and desperately they don't want this study done, and the lengths they will go to in order to keep facts from being heard.)

All I've seen and heard, over and over again in the last six years, are the same old lame arguments. Usually by people who are not willing to put their name to their posts. It's the same old fear monger and the same old lies and the same old ad hominem and even censorship.

Posted by: Robin Nemeth | February 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM

DSO that is a bunch of BS. Very telling that you are "upset" by name calling and not the fact that 1.5 - 3 million children have been struck down by autism, the vast majority of which are not due solely to genetics but rather vaccine injury. I am very sorry for your family's issues but this couldn't possibly be a more apples and oranges conversation. Please stop trying to deflect people away from fighting this horrible holocaust against our children by feigning offense at words when children and families have been destroyed.

Our child was just slammed into the kitchen floor by a vaccine injury seizure condition. She has the mind of a 5 yr. old because of vaccine injury autism. She should be in college RIGHT NOW. Her genetics testing was normal. The only abnormalities in her work-ups are high levels of mercury and high testosterone and androgens. This and all the other children like her whose lives were ripped away from them is what you should be offended by.

Our language needs to match exactly what has been done to our children -- needs to match exactly the arrogance and disregard heeped upon us by so-called professionals and people like you.

Never would I have ever spoken to you like this and that would have been completely because of the ordeal you have been through with fragile x. We'd like some of the same courtesy. We know who damaged our children. It was an industry that continues to do it every single day.

Posted by: A Mom | February 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM

I am a recent subscriber to your publication. I have a grandson with Fragile X syndrome and autism and a granddaughter with same. She is more protected because of the extra chromosome, but these children struggle everyday of the week to overcome their secondary autism symptons.

I am investigating all angles of this disorder and have found your publication extremely informative, although I don't agree with all you say.

What I am offended by is the personal attacks on these people and the name calling that appears in the above article. You do your cause no good when these episodes of name calling appear and you can turn off those that may otherwise be willing to listen to your arguements.

Posted by: DSO | February 19, 2010 at 09:24 AM

Kim D. Are you sure that your child was never given the hep b at birth in the hospital? I read too many accounts of parents not wanting the hep b, but the hospital goes ahead and gives it anyway. Or, is your son type A blood, did you receive the rhogam vaccine while pregnant? Or did you get a flu shot while pregnant? I believe Holly Pete Robinson also said no vaccines for her injured child too, and found out when she left the room that the ped gave him the shot(s). I would comb my birth hospital records to find out if in fact they did give your child not only the he b but the vit K too.

Posted by: StephM | February 19, 2010 at 08:52 AM

Kim D.

You say you know for certain that your child's autism was not caused by vaccines, since you didn't allow him to be vaccinated. You seem equally certain that vaccines cannot cause autism in any child, since they were not responsible for your child's autism. This is not logical. No one here is suggesting that vaccines are the one and only cause of autism, merely that they are one of the causes. Your child's autism is likely the result of yet another environmental trigger that has not yet been identified.

On that note, I have a very personal question to ask you: Do you have "silver" fillings in your teeth? The reason I ask this is because they aren't actually made of silver, they are 50 percent mercury, and they break down over time. I just recently had my mouth full of mercury fillings, which had been in my mouth for 25 years, removed because they were breaking down (a metal stain was actually coming off on the dental floss when I flossed my teeth, and I had developed a very strong metal taste in my mouth). I had the above-stated evidence that they were breaking down for about two years before I finally had them removed, at which point I was experiencing (and my doctor confirmed) multiple symptoms of metal poisoning, including: burning and tingling sensations throughout my body, tremors in my hands, low thyroid function, frequent urination, and very serious digestive problems. For the latter I ended up on a baby-food only diet for a couple months, at which point I began adding back solid foods. Through this process I figured out that I was able to digest a large variety of solid foods, but that my body had lost its ability to digest GLUTEN and DAIRY (sound familiar to anyone?)

My husband and I had been trying to conceive just prior to what became for me a serious medical crisis. I feel certain that had I conceived and carried to term, my child would have been metal-poisoned.

So, I'm wondering whether some of the women who know for certain that their child did not develop autism from vaccines are equally able to rule out other prime suspects, like mercury filings, as the cause?

Thank you in advance.

Posted by: lisa | February 19, 2010 at 08:39 AM

Kim D, of course it is true that not every regression is linked to vaccines (ours wasn’t either). Whatever it is that vaccines trigger - or speed up, or amplify - could possibly be triggered by other mechanism. We simply don't know what is involved, and that is why we urgently need pre and post-vaccination biological, and virological, and immunological studies that link to neurology. We need huge cohort of children to study their immunological and virological (XMRV anyone? http://tinyurl.com/ykhebeo) profiles pre-and post vaccination and to compare that to their neurodevelopment scores, and then to compare it all to parallel profiles of unvaccinated children of the same ages (and yes, thousands of them around, no need to design “unethical” studies).

There are already hundreds of potentially very useful animal studies out there that could provide some answers – the particular one that springs to mind is how a prenatal viral infection in mice changes neuronal gene expression (nb: not genes themselves!), but which becomes apparent only later in infancy, after a considerable latency period. This could have implications for both autism and schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder (all are highly comorbid). How does this fit in with vaccination? There is all that HIV research that could provide answers, if only scientists would ask the right questions.

And consider this: can you say with certainty that your “very high-functioning” son would have ended up as very high-functioning had you decided to stick to vaccine schedule? For all we know he could have ended up very very severely affected (as in adding insult to injury). How many of “very-low functioning” children and adults out there would have been less so if had they avoided vaccine? No one can claim to know the answers, but these are very urgent and essential questions that need answering.

Unfortunately for as long as we have stone-age morons like “dr” Novella out there posing as experts and blocking questions from even being asked we won’t be moving forward with the answers.

And consider this: can you say with certainty that your “very high-functioning” son would have ended up as very high-functioning had you decided to stick to vaccine schedule? For all we know he could have ended up very very severely affected (as in adding insult to injury). How many of those “very-low functioning” children and adults out there would have been less so if had they avoided vaccine? No one can claim to know the answers to these are very urgent and essential questions.

Unfortunately for as long as we have stone-age morons like “dr” Novella out there posing as experts and blocking questions from even being asked we won’t be moving forward.

Posted by: Natasa | February 19, 2010 at 07:42 AM

Kim D. wrote:
“why would boys be wildly more prone to autism than girls?”

The reason for that is not genetics.

Baby girls (not all) tend to have stronger immune system (in infancy and in early childhood) than baby boys.

Instead on concentrating on “gene and environment” the focus should be on the “Early Immune System Development and the Environment”.

Posted by: Luke Tunyich | February 19, 2010 at 07:36 AM

It is hard not to conclude that Novella, Gorski and Offit are unbearably, unbelievably and willfully stupid, full to the brim with a dreadful arrogance of ignorance. I therefore suspect that they may suffer from the extremes of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

"Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy."

Posted by: Cybertiger | February 19, 2010 at 04:36 AM

I don't know if this comment will appear, since it doesn't buy into the anti-immunization hysteria. I don't doubt that autism may have an environmental component. I also don't think that injecting kids with mercury is a good idea. I just don't buy the knee-jerk "it's vaccines!" cry. Why? Because of what I have observed in my own son. Since anecdotal evidence (what parents see in their own kids) is championed by the anti-vaccine crowd, you have to give the other side the same courtesy. My son did seem neuro-typical when he was born. He was very independent, but he also seemed very engaged. I have pictures of him at 3 months staring bright-eyed into the camera, making perfect eye contact. But he never spoke a word. He didn't crawl. He didn't walk. By 12 months I was concerned. By 15 months, I'd talked to the doctor and had him referred to get evaluated. At 3, he was diagnosed.

So, why do I know that his autism has not one thing to do with vaccines? Because I had believed the hysteria. I refused to allow the doctors to give them to my son. And, yet, he is autistic. He is very high-functioning, but he fits almost every single diagnostic criterion for the disorder. He requires very close supervision. He is extremely echolalic. He doesn't care to play with peers. He becomes extremely focused on things. He stims, including hand-flapping and spinning. He has no sense that other people are separate, with their own needs and wants. He didn't speak a word until he was 3. He required extreme dedication on the part of my husband and myself, his older sister, his therapists, his teachers, his hab provider, and (especially) himself to become a child who can carry on a conversation. In short, he has classic autism. But no vaccines prior to onset. Yet, his older sister, who had every single one of them is neuro-typical. The reason? Because the vaccine excuse is bogus.

Maybe there are environmental links to autism. I am prone to think it arises from a combination of interacting causes, with both genetic and environmental bases. If that were not the case, why would boys be wildly more prone to autism than girls? If it's all the evil vaccines pushed on our children by Big Pharma, it shouldn't be so strongly linked to those with a Y chromosome.

In the end, though, I really don't care about the "why." I care about the "what next." My son hasn't become a drastically different child between the ages of 3 and 9 because I pined over the what-ifs and why-fores. He is the amazing child he's become because I thought about how to make his life the best it could be. That is what I care about. That is all that I care about.

Posted by: Kim D. | February 19, 2010 at 03:32 AM

The stupid, it burns! Look, Novella's telescoping rectospectroscope is on fire!

Posted by: Cybertiger | February 19, 2010 at 03:26 AM

JB--Your sarcastic wit along with the undeniable facts really drives it home. I love the way you confront the truth and tell it like it is. AMEN.

It's a long disgusting story as to what happened to my grandson, but basically my daughter refused the vaccines until age 6 months when he was in the hospital regarding intestinal disorders, and the hospital staff doctors referred my daughter and me both to child protective services for "medical neglect" regarding the vaccines and threatened removal of custody. This scared the sh*t out of my daughter but she would only agree to 2 vaccine doses. They LIED to her by pretending to comply with her demands, but unbeknownst to her they actually gave him a total of NINE vaccines combined in two injections. Then a few months later they gave him "2 vaccines" (actually NINE more again), and finally at age 12 months they hit him up with another nine doses including MMR--27 vaccine doses within 6 months and the last pull of the trigger sent him right over the cliff IMMEDIATELY into autism. He became a zombie, could no longer talk or walk, acidic diarrhea that ate his skin away, non stop screaming, rashes all over on and on. It was absolutely obvious that the vaccines were the culprit so we got a lawyer to get all this insanity stopped, but here it is 2 1/2 years later and we are still fighting for his recovery.

Thank God for the internet, nutritional products and alternative medicine, Defeat Autism Now, Age of Autism and all of the other wonderful people who are helping us to fight the battles. Although my grandson is night and day compared to the onset, and he is just recently recovering language, he still has a long way to go.

I realize that many people do not have this kind of experience with immediate onset of autism after vaccines, however I have read many accounts of others whose children had immediate severe reactions to vaccines resulting in autism along with the intestinal and many other health issues...and tragically the immediate reactions for some results in death. So we are just so grateful that my grandson survived all this because where there is life there is hope.

Posted by: Autism Grandma | February 19, 2010 at 02:04 AM

As i have said many times before my son who was born in 89 & had all the stuff happen to him & had seziors 2 wks. after the shots was perfectly normal & nite after shots ran high fever cried loudly all nite that after having 2 older sons in 78 & 79 who r fine i knew exactly that the shots caused all his problem & regession after being a perfect normal baby but i had no way to let my voice be heard & all who knows me that i said then it was the shots & i did not just jump on the band-wagon when austim became knowed as it is today & good job on proving that dr. wrong.

Posted by: Linda | February 19, 2010 at 02:00 AM

JB wrote:
"More importantly, autism is not an event, it’s a process. It is exceptionally rare that I hear the story, “my son was 100% fine, and at 2 years old after one vaccine appointment he lost everything.” I have heard that story, but very rarely."

Novella (at his blog) and HRP III are stubbornly stuck on the "at 2 years old after one vaccine" part of this article. JB's comment "autism is not an event, it’s a process" is the point, but they can't acknowledge it because then they would have to admit that the study demonstrates support for the claims many parents have been making.

The immunization schedule in Great Britain is very different than the U.S. and to compare the outcome of this study as "evidence against the MMR vaccine causing autism" for children from the early 90's in Great Britain following a live virus vaccine doesn't make sense.

Posted by: Donna Kincanon | February 19, 2010 at 12:37 AM

I love it when you slam these bastards J.B.!

Posted by: curt Linderman sr | February 18, 2010 at 10:56 PM

HRP III said:

"It is reasonable, therefore to conclude that the study that Dr. Novella reviewed is evidence against the MMR vaccine causing autism."

Not sure how you come up with that. This from the study:

"But what these results indicate is that clear signs of autism emerge between 6 and 12 months of age. Further, social skills tend to be regressive in ASD between 6 and 18 months of age."

My daughter, 17 next month, and the older kids had MMR at 18 months. It has now been moved up to 12 months (any correlation with that switch and an increased uptake in autism, btw?) so this study is saying at 6-12 months there is regression- signs of autism - then more regression at 6 months until 18.

My daughter followed this pattern. Thimerosal poisoning after each doctor visit, loss of skills, eye contact and then a big regression after her MMR at 18 months.

This study tells us what we have all witnessed - that vaccines at the well baby visits did cause regression and our children kept regressing as our doctors denied or made lame excuses until they regressed right into "autism."

Now why are you more worried about Novella instead of 1:100 babies injured by a PHRMA product in a needle?

Novella is not

Posted by: Teresa Conrick | February 18, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Looks like Novella outsmarted himself again! Thanks JB!

Posted by: AutismComic | February 18, 2010 at 09:47 PM

HRP III, if you think anyone here believes Brian Deer is a reliable source you are barking up the wrong tree. The fact remains that Wakefield listened to what those parents said, scoped those kids who came to him because of their severe gastrointestinal distress, and found vaccine-strain measles virus in the biopsies. No kangaroo court or corporate-mandated retraction is going to make the science, or the problem, go away. You shills can play whack-a-mole all you want with pharma-sponsored studies finding that mercury is safe, and MMR doesn't cause autism, and autism is an untreatable genetic disorder and anyone who says otherwise is itchin for a fight even though we can't find the genes responsible and there's no such thing as a genetic epidemic. But it doesn't make it true and it doesn't make the ever-expanding vaccine schedule as given in the real world any safer, and it doesn't do anything to help our kids.

Show me the monkeys!

Posted by: Garbo | February 18, 2010 at 09:11 PM

Before videotaping became common, "regressive autism" was supposed to be a parental fantasy too. . . Suddenly we could prove it so they had to figure out a way to explain it.

Posted by: CarolynKylesMom | February 18, 2010 at 08:54 PM

What was obvious before has become now fact:

These "science-based" bloggers are twisting research to fulfill their need to keep autism as far away from vaccines as possible, thus preventing the Truth of thousands injured by vaccines and more damaged today and daily until there is a moratorium on the reckless procedure of "well baby visits" -- that they deceive on purpose -- that they have an agenda that has nothing to do with science -- and that they are without morals.

These are the behaviors of criminals.
Wake up NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, TIME, NEWSWEEK, et al.

Posted by: Teresa Conrick | February 18, 2010 at 08:36 PM

mary southon wrote:
"Wanna be(t) that Novella believes in "Intelligent Design", too?"

In reality there is no difference between “Inteligent Design” and “IntelliGENE Design”

The majority of the people rejecting the intelligent design but the problem is that nearly everyone believes in “IntelliGENE Design”.

Genetics hype is based on a grain of science and the rest is “IntelliGENE Design Belief”

That is the fact which is responsible for the absence of intelligent thinking.

Genetics science should be just a small part of the science of heredity.
Today we don’t have science of heredity because of genetics hype that is (in great extent) “InelliGENE Design Belief”

Posted by: Luke Tunyich | February 18, 2010 at 08:28 PM

"It is exceptionally rare that I hear the story, 'my son was 100% fine, and at 2 years old after one vaccine appointment he lost everything.' I have heard that story, but very rarely."

And yet that is exactly the story that we heard repeatedly only a few years ago, when it was repeatedly offered to impugn the MMR vaccine. Of the 12 children reported in Wakefield's (now discredited) paper, MMR vaccination was the "exposure identified by parents or doctor" in 8, and in those 8 the "interval from exposure to first behavioral symptom" was 1 week, 2 weeks, 48 hours, "immediately after MMR," 1 week, 24 hours, 2 weeks, and 1 week. The "Age(s) at onset of first (behavioral) symptom" for these 8 were 12 months, 13 months, 14 months, 4-5 years, 15 months, 21 months, 19 months, and 15 months. (See Table 2 of Wakefield's paper, available at: http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.pdf )

It is reasonable, therefore to conclude that the study that Dr. Novella reviewed is evidence against the MMR vaccine causing autism.

Posted by: HRP III | February 18, 2010 at 07:14 PM

mary southon - "Wanna be(t) that Novella believes in "Intelligent Design", too?"

You would lose.

Posted by: Nick | February 18, 2010 at 06:22 PM

"many parents blame their children’s autism on vaccines they received after the true onset of symptoms."

Hardy har har har. Nice try, doc. I would say many parents blame their children's autism on idiots like you who prevent them from getting honest, scientifically valid medical care. A cursory glance at my son's pediatric growth chart shows that no indeedy, I don't blame the shots he received AFTER the onset of symptoms. It was the ones BEFORE the onset of symptoms that were the problem. We delayed starting the vaccines until three months and then did one at a time; I charted each pediatric visit and know exactly which shot did it. The first Hib at 4 months sent him off the 50th percentile where he'd been since birth. The third DTaP, at six months, caused a hard right turn from the 25th to the 10th and continued its trajectory until he fell below the third percentile after the MMR at 12 months and has stayed there ever since. That third DTaP, with tylenol no doubt, then the digestive issues, ear infections, antibiotics, digestive issues, etc. One shot at a time, he still met all developmental milestones on time, and wasn't diagnosed until age 3 1/2. I have no doubt in my mind that if we'd done the shots on the recommended schedule, he would probably have been profoundly autistic enough to have been diagnosed in Novella's random and largely inaccurate 2-3 year window. Instead he is small but high functioning and mostly recovered, no thanks to Novella and his ilk. What a sorry bunch of useless maroons. Instead of being excited and inspired by the science in front of them, they are compelled to deny, deny, deny.

Posted by: Garbo | February 18, 2010 at 05:59 PM

"Here is the very very first species of mammal on the face of the planet Earth, which develops in infancy and then undevelops. And its all genetic- Absolutely incredible. Such a crying shame that Darwin had to miss this most amazing phenomenon of evolution"

Comment of the week, I agree. No, make it comment of the year. It's a keeper!

Posted by: Natasa | February 18, 2010 at 04:50 PM

He wrote an addendum:

"As several commenters have pointed out, I erred when I wrote that “Many children are diagnosed between the age of 2 and 3, during the height of the childhood vaccine schedule.” What I meant to convey was that this time period is still within the childhood vaccine schedule, and therefore it is likely that when parents first notice the signs of autism their child would have been recently vaccinated by chance alone. The point remains, however, that many parents blame their children’s autism on vaccines they received after the true onset of symptoms.

Here I was thinking primarily of the MMR vaccine, the first to be blamed for autism (thanks to Andrew Wakefield). As you can see from the vaccine schedule, the first MMR vaccine in the series is scheduled for 12 months – after most children already have detectable signs of autism. This is why I used the Cedillo case to reflect this point."

Wrong again! MMR wasn't the 1st vaccine in America to be blamed for Autism. There were reports of vaccine reactions that started back in the '80s, mostly from the DPT shot. So now, he's adding revisionist history to his list of delusions. Nice

Posted by: Craig Willoughby | February 18, 2010 at 04:41 PM

Keith says:
"JB
I am upset too. But what is with all the name calling?"

You must be able to understand. These people who have the MSM's ear make themselves out to be scientists, and have controlled the debate for years from both the scientific and moral high ground, and then they even twist contrary facts staring them in the face to suit their ends. It's more than a parent of a terribly damaged child should have to take. It's like, time to pull down the statues, chop heads, scream. Cut them some slack, Keith.

Posted by: Stan | February 18, 2010 at 04:26 PM

Wow, that was refreshing. I always feel like my lifespan is "telescoping" back out again when I get a good solid laugh at industry incompetence. Thank you, JB.

I also got a bit of a reminder not to take news reports of studies at face value. When I first read the mainstream "farticles" on the study this week, I was furious, thinking the researchers were making a case for "genetic regression". Always important not to come to any conclusions until reading actual study texts. It's not impossible that these researchers were being dissident in providing evidence for age of regression. It's quite supportive of what millions of parents report witnessing regarding their children's "disappearances".

My kids crashed after MMR, flu shots and four other shots at age one and were not diagnosed until two years later. There was no "telescoping" on our part in interim between injury and dx-- just a bunch of mainstream peds and neurologists telling us "not to worry". Maybe the mainstream doctors were "telescoping"...right in on the Merck and Sanofi logos printed on drug promotional knick knacks covering every inch of their offices.

Posted by: Adriana | February 18, 2010 at 02:40 PM

I am upset too. But what is with all the name calling?

Posted by: Keith | February 18, 2010 at 02:06 PM

Ooof! I'm guessing the truth hurts, especially when JB uses it to repeatedly hit one over the head with it. Is anyone from the media paying attention to what's going on? I mean, when are they going to wake the *bleep* up? At what point are they going to look around the cozy FedPharma cave and realize that they're the only ones still in there looking at the shadow pictures on the wall? That they look completely stupid? Wake up, you losers! Don't you realize that your financial bankruptcy is a just logical extension of your lazy moral bankruptcy?

Posted by: Garbo | February 18, 2010 at 01:45 PM

"puckered effluvious region"

nhokkanen, you owe me a keyboard.

Posted by: MB | February 18, 2010 at 01:22 PM

"Forget about these crazy doctors- Call in the evolutionary biologists. I guarantee you ; They will be fascinated. Here is the very very first species of mammal on the face of the planet Earth, which develops in infancy and then undevelops. And its all genetic- Absolutely incredible. Such a crying shame that Darwin had to miss this most amazing phenomenon of evolution .Please JB, call them right now."

I nominate this comment as the comment of the week. Frikkin brilliant!!!

Posted by: Craig Willoughby | February 18, 2010 at 01:18 PM

I saw my oldest grandson's symptoms at three weeks of age, after his first set of shots combined with his circumcision (what a bad day for THAT little guy, huh?). He started cutting his head and eyes hard to the side to avoid seeing faces. He was nonverbal until he was almost four. And the real bummer of it all? He STILL doesn't have the autism diagnosis he deserves. Nope, he's "emotionally disturbed with post-traumatic stress disorder." And medicated with Strattera, Abilify, and Tenex to keep him docile. Now that they've stopped the Risperdal and speed, I mean...

His baby brother regressed more slowly, because he was behind on his shots. He regressed after the ped. "caught him up" and administered a flu shot, all in the same day. When he had an ear infection. Vaccines don't cause autism, indeed. Pediatricians DO. I want that bumper sticker...

Posted by: Sue | February 18, 2010 at 01:14 PM

Great work again JB.

What I think I see with the Dr. Steven Novella paper, is a "new form of regression".

Something... could be genetic, or it could be enviromental, is causing a Dr. from Yale to regress... and begin to shit all over himself in public.

Posted by: cmo | February 18, 2010 at 01:04 PM

JB - What can I say but thank you for being our watch dog on these so called scientists! It made the day of an exhausted full time working mom recovering her vaccine injured child from autism. We all applaud and appreciate your efforts in this battle!!

Posted by: K Kauffman | February 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM

A blast from the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJYSu2OVCGM

Posted by: Kelli Ann Davis PS...To JB From Stefania | February 18, 2010 at 12:52 PM

I love it when the Novellas of this world trip themselves up.

Another brilliant bit of "deconstruction" in this piece Mr Handley!

Posted by: GennyGC | February 18, 2010 at 12:47 PM

"The phenomenon of telescoping..."

LOL! Tell me he didn't really say this...

Wow. I am off to practice my superb telescoping skills. Be back in a few days ... Or maybe minutes... depending on how I do.

Novella, you make me laugh... I wonder if he even realizes what a fool he looks like here.

Posted by: A Friend | February 18, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Hey Novella! (Somehow, I just KNOW you're reading this awesome, slam-dunk post from JB -- call it a "telescoping hunch"):

Got anything in that magic hat of yours that can wipe away this following notation (FROM A DOC) in my son's medical records shortly after his 2 WEEK "grab-em-and-stab-em" apt?...."possible reaction to immunizations?"

Schazam, schazam....imagine that. WE bring our son in because he's "sick" and THEE DOCTOR is the one that makes the "vaccine" connection!

Oh, and btw: I only saw this notation 12 years later -- when I decided to do a timeline on my son's first 2 years of life -- based on his medical records, shot records (last time I checked, hospitals and schools consider those "legit" records) and video tapes....

"Nothing up my sleeve....presto!" [Insert bunny out of magic hat HERE] NOT!

Posted by: Kelli Ann Davis Hey Novella! PRESTO! | February 18, 2010 at 12:32 PM

In my investigation of "Science"Blogs, I made one reference to Steven Novella's connection to the ACSH, and he goes absolutely ape-shit!
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=955

Posted by: Jake Crosby | February 18, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Forget about these crazy doctors- Call in the evolutionary biologists. I guarantee you ; They will be fascinated. Here is the very very first species of mammal on the face of the planet Earth, which develops in infancy and then undevelops. And its all genetic- Absolutely incredible. Such a crying shame that Darwin had to miss this most amazing phenomenon of evolution .Please JB, call them right now.

Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | February 18, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Mr Handley,
Thank you. This is great.

Posted by: kathleen | February 18, 2010 at 12:26 PM

How many times have we heard the argument that it is unethical to perform a study that uses vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. The risk would be too great to the unvaccinated children.
Well now here is a study that takes place during the vaccinations and follows the children into autism and who knows how many other immune compromised diseases. We need to demand the vaccine schedule that each one of these children followed and lets take a look at the correlation. Or maybe this study should of been stopped as the ressearchers realized that some of these children might be developing autism. Ethically speaking with chidren shouldn't the parents have been notified of their child's seemingly pre-autism type behavior?

Posted by: nora | February 18, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.