Jenny McCarthy Speaks Out on HuffPo RE: Andrew Wakefield BMJ Report
Please read and comment on Jenny McCarthy's full post at HuffPo HERE. Don't get trampled by the trolls.
Last week, parents were told a British researcher's 1998 report linking the MMR shot to autism was fraudulent -- that this debate about vaccines and autism is now over, and parents should no longer worry about giving their children six vaccines at a single pediatric appointment or 36 by the time they are five years old.
Is that the whole story? Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study of 12 children with autism actually looked at bowel disease, not vaccines. The study's conclusion stated, "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described [autism]."
Dr. Wakefield did something I wish all doctors would do: he listened to parents and reported what they said. His paper also said that, "Onset of behavioral symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in 8 of the 12 children," and that, "further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome [autism with gut disease] and its possible relation to this vaccine."
Since when is repeating the words of parents and recommending further investigation a crime? As I've learned, the answer is whenever someone questions the safety of any vaccines.... Read and comment on the full post HERE.
"Brian Deer cannot possibly understand the nuances of diagnosing pervasive development disorders"
This bears repeating again, and again, and again.
Posted by: ATSC | January 12, 2011 at 07:51 PM
though, i must add, of my two, the one that is more 'classically' autistic is the second one.
the first one was more interested in talking like an adult, arranging shop displays, and screaming and crying about every little unexpected noise. she is now 7 and several years ahead in academic topics - but still socially behind and struggling.
the second one is the one walking round on tip toes, flapping and shouting incoherent babble, while running her trains over every single piece of furniture, studying the wheels' every motion, and repeating everything she hears, verbatim, ad nauseum.
but as the second one is more forward, less sensory defensive, and very, very curious, she "seems" less affected than the eldest. in reality its just her personality being very different to the painfully shy first one's.
they both have the same diagnosis - high functioning ASD, and they both have a subdiagnosis of semantic-pragmatic disorder.
Brian Deer cannot possibly understand the nuances of diagnosing pervasive development disorders such as my kids have, let alone much more severely affected children like the Lancet 12. How dare he presume he can question the ever changing criteria and therefore know more than eminent gastroenterologists as well as developmental paediatricians as well??
The man must have balls of steel.
Posted by: Jen | January 12, 2011 at 02:43 PM
my two are 4.5 years apart. both have high functioning autism. So does their father (diagnosed just after the eldest was) and I have many traits myself.
both were very large full term / late babies (4.56kg, 4.2kg) and both are female. both have the same father, an assumption science just can't make these days. both were breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months, and then well into the 'extended breastfeeding' territory.
i had no miscarriages in between their pregnancies. i took vitamins with the first but not the second. i am overweight but quite fit, with only an underactive thyroid which is well medicated with Armour thyroid.
neither of my girls are vaccinated with ANYTHING, not even vitamin K. they still have autism.
both births were elective caesareans. first one because she was 'too big', 10lb 1oz, at 40 weeks. second one because by 41 weeks she had not progressed at all and we were risking a scar rupture. she was 9lb 8oz.
Why are they autistic? probably something genetic, possibly triggered? Silicol valley syndrome - we were/are IT computer nerdy types. As their mother, though, i can guarantee that both were autistic from birth. there was something 'wrong' from very early. no reciprocity, little eye contact, no give-and-take of love. that sort of thing.
Do i still believe in vaccine-induced autism? hell yes.
Posted by: Jen | January 12, 2011 at 02:21 PM
I agree with Cherry's comment except I'm starting to see severe autism here in the United States again. My son is 11 and it's been years since I've seen toddlers as bad as my son was. All his vaccines had thimerosal. Over the weekend, I met a 21/2 year old toe walking, non verbal, drooling, spaced out autistic child. This is the third toddler in four months. My immediate reaction was this must be a parent who fell for the swine flu hoax of last year. Sigh. After striking up a conversation, I sadly discovered that I was right. Sever Autism is striking again.
Posted by: mary | January 12, 2011 at 08:22 AM
Prnt Screen, I agree with you that the Autism in those closer to highways study should not be dismissed. It does , in fact, fit in very well with the mercury hypothesis of autism. After all, if the glutathione proteins in a child's blood are occupied trying to remove toxic substances inhaled from freeway-polluted air, they may not be available to remove the mercury which enters the childs body through other sources such as vaccines, air, water, fish, etc. The mercury would then be free to move to the brain and do its terrible damage.
At the same time, commenters here, including myself are totally fed up with the attempts to distract the public, thereby delaying the truth of autism and thereby continuing the status quo which is still making some kids autistic, though, not so badly as in previous years. In this, I speak only about the US. In India we have lots of high mercury vaccines and lots of autism since those were put on the schedule. So when I look at an autistic child in my school in New Delhi, I get furious with the people who are trying to drag out and delay this issue and avoid the studies of vaccines that need to be done. If you are a novice to this issue, I would recommend that you go back and look at the transcripts of the Simpsonwood meeting and the comments about that meeting by Robert Kennedy Jr. The author of the study which was being discussed at Simpsonwood, openly said that no matter how he reworked his data , he could not make the "sign" of autism go away. According to him , his study indicated the need for further study on the topic, however, his study was then presented as PROOF that vaccines are not related to autism , and since then our Medical-PublicHealth friends have done their best to distract the public from the topic of vaccines. Anyone who thinks that the Public Health Officials want to know the truth about autism is gullible. They ALREADY know the truth
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | January 12, 2011 at 05:00 AM
In reply to Ms. Cournover -
Your logic regarding B vitamins is flawed. Here's a parallel situation to the linkage you are implying: folic acid deficiency in pregnant women is well known to be associated with neural tube defects (e.g., spina bifida) in their babies. However, if a woman is lacking in folate and gives birth to a baby with a neural tube defect, all the post-natal folate administration in the world won't do anything to correct the defect. Thus, while there may be some benefit to vitamin administration in children with autism, it's not for the reason you imply.
Posted by: Angie Shah | January 11, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Assuming this is not asking someone to waste their time--maybe these studies are not well-designed enough to be sure they are not finding anomalous results--on the assuption that situations like living closer to a highway or being the second sibling less than two years apart in age are actual risk factors, can anyone adept at statistics/mathematics give a comparative idea of what the risk would still be based on these studies if you attempt to avoid these factors?
It may be a non-issue, but my children are barely less than two years apart, my eldest essentially NT and her younger sister on the spectrum. I know there were fairly significant differences in the risks taken in their vaccinations, such as my younger daughter received at least one dose from a previously unshaken vial (shouldn't unequal dosing be considered as something that will happen in vaccine safety studies) and the follow-up vaccination was given after 2-3 days of fever, but I've also wondered about my younger daughter possibly having been affected by her elder sister's receipt of the live viral MMR, i.e. the possibility of horizontal transmission while she was in utero or postnatally.
Posted by: JenB | January 11, 2011 at 04:58 PM
Regarding the ridiculous news flash that autism is the result of closely spaced pregnancies, haven't families been having "Irish Twins", ie kids born 12 months or less apart for centuries now?
And for centuries those younger siblings were not diagnosed with autism. So what has changed? And how come reasonable people from the medical establishment have not questioned this obtuse logic?
Posted by: Lisa Thompson | January 11, 2011 at 03:56 PM
Julie said: "All this emphasis on any cause but vaccines is a calculated diversion."
Sarah said: "you nailed it!"
Sir William Siemens said: "Such startling announcements as [Edison’s light bulb] should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress." (1880)
Posted by: Stabby | January 11, 2011 at 02:35 PM
Julie said: "All this emphasis on any cause but vaccines is a calculated diversion."
you nailed it!
This whole media frenzy over Brian Deer calling Wakefield a fraud is a calculated diversion as are all these weak autism risk studies that are showing up in the news like birthspacing and freeways.
It's a diversion away from them.
We all want answers but pharma is setting up nothing but roadblocks, deadends and detours with the help of the mainstream media.
I guess as long as the candyman writes them checks, the media will continue to do their bidding.
Posted by: Sarah | January 11, 2011 at 02:04 PM
I'll tell you why, PrntScreen. Because this is just too damn serious. It's a matter of life and death. All this emphasis on any cause but vaccines is a calculated diversion.
Posted by: julie | January 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM
@ john w. heil - I'd be very interested in knowing more about your injury. Was the rubella jab a univalent live attenuated jab or multivalent?
I believe that two of my siblings were injured by the vaccine schedules, one of whom became schizophrenic in adolescence, the other with CRS. Both of their lives were completely destroyed. We were raised in a heavily-vaccinated military family.
Posted by: patrons99 | January 11, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Here's an autism GI study quietly being done at MGH-Boston.
Intestinal Inflammation and Carbohydrate Digestion in Autistic Children
Gastrointestinal disorders in children with autism receive little attention. However, symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, and flatulence have been considered contributing to the behavioral problems. These symptoms are associated partially with the deficiency of enzymes digesting carbohydrates and inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. The effect of intestinal inflammation on neurological disorders experienced by autistic children remains unclear. We will study this problem using recently developed non-invasive tests based on two proteins (calprotectin and lactoferrin) analysis in children's stool Activity of enzymes needed for carbohydrate digestion will be tested in small samples of intestinal tissue. Intestinal permeability will be assessed by measuring urinary excretion of carbohydrate substances administered via the endoscope. This test will help to determine if intestinal inflammation contributes to a "leaky" gut syndrome. The study will provide valuable information for understanding the association between gastrointestinal disease and behavioral problems in autistic children.
Posted by: Sarah | January 11, 2011 at 11:00 AM
....Dr. Andrew Wakefield:
....By the time I left the Royal Free in 2001, nearly 200 hundred children with this condition had been seen and diagnosed. The problem came of course, when the parent said, my child regressed after the vaccine. If the child had regressed after, let's say natural chicken pox, we would not be having this conversation right now. There would have been no controversy, it would have been, "that's extremely interesting, let's have a look at it." There would have been no problem, but because it happened after a vaccine, all hell broke loose.
......I have just come back from China where they estimate there are some 4-5 million children with autism. One home has 3,000 children in it and has no idea how to treat them. I met with doctors and scientists in Hong Kong who were of a similar opinion that there is a major problem with the vaccination program in the context of childhood mental disorder. So that kind of support makes it possible to continue and do this kind of work.
Posted by: cmo | January 11, 2011 at 10:50 AM
I don't understand some of you. Don't you want them to study autism? Shouldn't you embrace and encourage every study that is coming out? It's still autism research even if it's not exactly the information you want. It's still people searching for answers. Whether it's birth order, highways, genetics, environmental and more. Everyone is screaming for a reason for autism and to go ahead and just blast every study and call it "grasping for straws" when they are all just looking for a reason. Who is to say what these studies might lead to?
I believe autism could definitely be multi-factored. Linked to environmental, toxins, genetics in some cases or a predisposition. If a study showing that those near highways might lead to an increase in autism then good! Let's start finding out what chemical there is in excess that could start this. If there is a higher likelihood of birth order or parental age that might lead to higher autism rates than good, more knowledge.
It seems that some of you are so intent on ignoring and blasting any autism research that doesn't involve a vaccine, that you are missing the big picture. Any research could lead to break-through's. Let's encourage autism research. Let's encourage it to continue to be studied. Let's encourage keeping autism in the news. Encourage awareness of it. The infighting is starting to make this site look weak and desperate. Support other autism researchers.
Posted by: PrntScreen | January 11, 2011 at 10:33 AM
That old quote comes back to me. "No good deed goes unpunished." If they were so confident in their vaccines, wouldn't they have dropped all this nonsense with Wakefield by now? Why the continued witch hunt if they "got nothing to hide"? I hate to use and old quote from my brother that tis rather vulgar but "the one who smelt it dealt it!" applies here!
Their own efforts is what is doing this! The more they go after Wakefield, the more people wonder why! If he is already discredited, why beat a dead horse, unless there really is merit to what he did. To quote Lord of the Rings "often evil does evil mar."
Posted by: Theodora Trudorn | January 11, 2011 at 09:24 AM
if you want to get to the bottom of this debate,the rubella vaccineof 69 and 70 hold all the ansewers,i know because i am a victim of it.
Posted by: john w. heil | January 11, 2011 at 08:56 AM
I really think the Pharma-medical complex and their media puppets are stalling for time at this point. They are losing the public and they know it. Frantic mudslinging at Wakefield, books by fancy New York journalists touting vaccines, all these "autism is really caused by -----" stories appearing daily. It just reeks of desperation. The truth will come out, but it will be too late for many, many children.
Posted by: julie | January 11, 2011 at 07:58 AM
4Bobby and Taximom recall:
"The line used to be that it was the first born child who was more likely to be autistic."
As I understand it .. most children "regress" between 1 1/2 and 2 years of age .. and .. I suspect most parents don't consider the possibility that vaccines may have played a role until months after diagnosis.
So .. I suspect the biggest reason there is a significant decrease in children born 3 or more years AFTER an older sibbling has been diagnosed autistic .. is because the parents are far more likely to be extremely hesitant to allow THAT child to receive the same exposure to vaccines .. in time and number .. as the older .. autistic .. child received.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | January 11, 2011 at 07:01 AM
Dr. Wakefield was on Gary Null's radio show yesterday (1/10/11.) Good interview.
Posted by: mary | January 11, 2011 at 05:20 AM
I think we all know why the "new" Wakefield fiasco has come around again. I believe it was to make new parents believe that it is safe to vaccinate themselves with the flu vaccine, and to vaccinate their newborn babies with the HepB, ect. It also has paved the way for all of these new ridiculous studies to get media attention.
I just saw a new commercial on T.V. from Autism Speaks talking about Autism and how it now affects 1 in 110 children. Then it went on to say.."Learn The Signs." Really? Learn the signs? I think we all know the signs by now!
Posted by: Isaacs Grandma | January 11, 2011 at 02:38 AM
The line used to be that it was the first born child who was more likely to be autistic. I believe the explanation was the "maternal off-lode" of toxins. Now a completely different story with news of the 2nd child being affected if born too closely. Grasping at straws indeed.
Posted by: 4Bobby | January 11, 2011 at 12:12 AM
The trolls and pharm shills are in full force at huffpo!
They're doing the typical warfare, trying to blast Jenny for, umm, being an actress and a former Playboy bunny, as if that has anything to do with whether or not she is right.
And over and over, they are ordering their readers to "listen to the experts."
The "experts" are recommending flu shots for all babies over 6 months--in spite of the fact that both the BMJ and JAMA have commented that the flu shot is not effective.
They are also recommending flu shots for women in all stages of pregnancy- -in spite of the fact that the package insert recommends that pregnant women NOT be given the flu shot.
They also recommend that all senior citizens receive not one but TWO flu shots--in spite of the fact that again, the BMJ and JAMA conclude that the flu shot is ineffectiv e, and the risks of two flu shots have never been studied in anyone, let alone in senior citizens.
Oh--and the "experts" who make up ACIP (which makes the recommenda tions for the vaccine schedule) include Paul Offit, who holds a patent on Rotateq--w hich remains on the vaccine schedule in spite of 175 deaths associated with it, according to VAERS (http://www .medalerts .org/vaers db/findfie ld.php) and in spite of the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administra tion reported that in May of 2010, fragments of two types of pig viruses were found in Merck & Co.'s Rotateq vaccine.
Posted by: Taximom | January 11, 2011 at 12:06 AM
They just can't seem to get their stories straight, can they?
Last year, they were telling us that first-born children were at higher risk of autism.
This year, it's second-born children born too soon after their older siblings?
Oh, and the highways--let's not forget the highways!
I can't wait to see what straw they will grasp at next...
Posted by: Taximom | January 11, 2011 at 12:03 AM
We all know exactly what has been behind Brian Deer's false allegations all along. And now Big Pharma is in a big damn panic about more people actually discovering the truth about the MMR and our huge multiple vaccine schedules causing autism, bowel disease and other disorders in our children. They are utilizing counteraction propaganda to diffuse the attention away from these new books that are really blowing the lid off the vaccine industry lies: Callous Disregard and The Age of Autism. The journalists and reporters don't do their own research so they are taken in by the same propaganda and end up parroting Brian Deer because he is also a "journalist". On top of this the news network administration has to keep the advertising $$$$ coming on from Big Pharma's drug ads, so they are taking orders from their advertisers and not willing to risk anything by being in the position of "rocking the boat."
Re: "36 by the time they are five years old": I am looking at the vaccine schedule right in front of me. It is 36 vaccine doses by age 18 months, not age 5, and that is where the damage is really done. By age 5 the total doses is 49. Autism was unheard of when the schedule was 6 doses, 8 doses, 10 doses, 12 doses, but after the big WHAM of this huge schedule, presto we have autism all over the place. Well gee whiz that was only in the past 20 years, and gee whiz what a coincidence.
Re: "Close birth spacing linked to autism." Oh yeah, and now autism is also supposedly linked to "living near freeways". Wonder why autism was so rare until just the last 20 years, with all those people living near freeways and no emissions controls. Gee when I was growing up everyone was having kids one right after the other, bam bam bam, prior to the invention of birth control pills, and autism was only 1 in 20,000.
Posted by: AutismGrandma | January 10, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Quoting the birth order article, "Reasons behind the birth spacing-autism link aren't clear." Yet, they state that other biological factors could be at play. "Pregnancy depletes a mother's nutrients like folate, a B vitamin found in leafy green vegetables, citrus fruit and dried beans."
Well, that beats all, doesn't it? The words "autism" and B vitamins in the same paragraph?, yet when mothers try to feed vitamins to their autistic children they are wack-jobs? Interesting....
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | January 10, 2011 at 09:05 PM
I have a new name for our media, "grasping at straws and at all cost don't speak the words vaccines and autism.". I get all the speech about toxic accumulation, certainly these load the guns, but something universally is pulling a trigger. I had my kids close together, but I am lead to believe that's actually good, because babies chelate mom of mercury, therefore subsequent children would be relieved by the last babies accumulation. I am more inclined to think the close kids together is a mom who relatively thinks pediatricians are the cat's meow and believe everything coming out of their lying mouths. And or, she is seeing the same OB GYN and the last baby got somewhat immediately cord clamped, but the new one really did, because "mom needs a C section" crappola.
Posted by: kathy blanco | January 10, 2011 at 08:08 PM
On top of everything else, now we have to listen to "Close birth spacing linked to autism."
Never mind we are vaccinating pregnant women with abandon. Can't look there, oh no, no, no.
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | January 10, 2011 at 07:48 PM
There has been lot of fury about how, they say, this study has never been replicated. ("NEVER!!" is how it's put . . .)
However, in addition to the comment about the 2010 vaccine being different than the 1998, there is another possibility.
Did any of the wish-to-replicate studies give the children all of the prior (thimerosal-containing) vaccines beforehand? According to whatever schedule would have been usual in the UK in 1998?
The mercury would make a difference. Plenty of other people have already thought of this.
After a young lifetime of thimerosal, the MMR might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Just one too many.
Posted by: Nonnymouse | January 10, 2011 at 05:58 PM
If they were to use the 1998 MMR Vaccine for testing versus using the 2010 MMR Vaccine, the results would have been much different. That's just my view on it....
I could be 100% wrong.
Posted by: Elucidatus | January 10, 2011 at 04:25 PM