Vaccines and autism report to be released on Tuesday, May 10, 2011

[In Vitro Infidelium]

Orac is funded by the department of defense. It matters to me becuase I have no idea why the DOD would be interested in funding a blog (written in the style of ORAC's) that's supports vaccines.(ORAC doesn't reveal his true idenity, what does he have to hide working for the DOD?) Why is it their business? How big is there budget? The DOD had a biological weapons research program at one time, and XMRV was created in a lab. Is it possible their are disease in society created by the DOD? Who will ever really know? Of course the DOD is such an opaque organization we will never know the true answers to many of these questions.

It's not the blog that's funded, it's ORAC's real world persona - he claims to be a doctor. I know very little about the DoD (this is how I spell 'defence' !) but even two minutes of googling shows the DoD is a major health purchaser: https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/quickref.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4520&type=0&sequence=7 I don't doubt the DoD is in some parts a malign influence but it is a massive social and economic presence in the US and looking for harm in every refrence to it seems to me be unjustifiably paranoid.

IVI, that blog was terrible. The guy could not have been more full of himself. "The things I do for you" was a common expression.

I've no intention of acting as an appologist for his 'blog style' - but have considered ORAC might be being 'ironic' ?

IVI

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

Of course for some of us (e.g. me), a vaccine was the trigger for developing CFS.
Do you think this has ever been investigated in sufficient depth?

But how do you 'know' that a vaccine was the trigger - I understand of course that your experience is that was the case but as with the claims about a connection to autism, the principle that "correlation does not imply causation" has to be applied to any logical assessment. If we accept that there are several million people in the developed world who have M.E/CFS and that vaccination at puberty and older for a range illness - seasonal flu, tropical diseases (travel exposure etc) may run at something exceeding 5% p.a then out of sheer random occurrence a number of people will develope M.E/CFS following closely on a vaccination.

If there are more than a few people like yourself reporting M.E/CFS onset following a vaccination, then certainly the epidemiology of this should be investigated, and if the correlation is statistically significant then of course further investigation should be required. After the Wakefield fraud though it might difficult to pursuade any researchers that this is a valid direction - discredited scienctinst always cause a chilling effect on the field they are associated with.

IVI

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

Just curious did the last generation of "skeptics" all die of lung cancer? The "skeptics" back then probably lapped up all the evidence that the tobacco companies produced proving their product had no connection to cancer.

Well as someone who actively campaigned for increased health services in a community with one the highest rates of chronic lung disease in the UK, all thanks to the free cigarettes handed out over 60 years by the largest local employer - Big Tabacco, then I think it fair to say my scepticism was widely applied.

Well, from reading your own information, this situation does seem rather startling. I can't imagine that a parent receiving compensation, because their child has had a permanent severe reaction to a vaccine, will be particularly delighted to hear that the government has a compensation program. I think they would be more impressed to know that the vaccines were 100% safe in the first place because the government had done all they possibly could do to make them safe, and to research the known dangers. I don't ever remember being told by my doctor, when receiving a vaccine, about the potential risks involved. Instead, everything is swept under the carpet by governments, and we are told that vaccines are entirely safe. Is that good science or pseudo science?

No medical intervention is 100% safe and all medicine is about judging risks. According to the US Goverment figures (which you no doubt dispute) 2100 children qualified for compensation in nearly 30 years - approx 70 per year or something in the region of prevalence rate 0.001%. Match that to the position prior to introduction of the MMR where measles alone accounted for 450 deaths in the US each year. Are you really arguing that every person who is offered a standard vaccine, should be asked to evaluate the comparative health risks to themselve/their child, matched against a societal benefit, for every disease and health condition (what basis for judging the risk of rubella do you choose ? or the health risks to someone with conjective heart disease who may contract flu from you ?) relevant to a given vaccine ?

What societies do is 'societal' and that is rarely 'strict' science. What if it were to turn out that M.E/CFS were caused by a virus that is ubiquitously carried by the human population but is activated only in vulnerable individuals - you and me - because of a genetic predisposition, and that predisposition was highly heritable, meaning our children were vulnerable - and that a peculiarity of the genetics was that vaccination wouldn't work on those who are vulnerable, only on the rest of the popultion ? The only way then for our children to be protected from developing M.E/CFS would be wide scale vaccination of the population most of whom wouldn't need protection for themselves, personally I'd have no problem asking for such a socially beneficial programme of vaccination (allowing that a 99.99% safe vaccine could be developed) to go ahead - society could, after all, have the disablity costs of M.E/CFS largely removed.

IVI

 

[floydguy]

B
If there are more than a few people like yourself reporting M.E/CFS onset following a vaccination, then certainly the epidemiology of this should be investigated, and if the correlation is statistically significant then of course further investigation should be required. After the Wakefield fraud though it might difficult to pursuade any researchers that this is a valid direction - discredited scienctinst always cause a chilling effect on the field they are associated with.

IVI

The psyche industry goes forward quite nicely despite little evidence of most of the crap they put out. Offit et al are only going to put the connection to vaccinations to rest when autism and the neuro-immune diseases are solved or a very compelling alternative hypothesis emerges.

 

[markmc20001]

Funny guy calling me paranoid with a user name like yours!

Not paranoid IVI. My mind is open to all possibilities now after all the stuff I have seen go down on these forums.

Everything/everybody is suspect in my new found reality where much of information sources I had deemed reliable in the past has it turned out to be made up of half truths.

Good luck to anybody who believes everything they read here, read in the newspaper, or watch on TV.

Mark In Partibus Infidelium

 

[liquid sky]

People are ends in themselves, not means.
It is wrong to sacrifice one person, even for "the greater good."
Where are we going in this argument over vaccines?
Autism is an appalling tragedy for the child and for the family involved. I would rather live normally and die early of smallpox than be utterly disabled by being unable to relate to another human being during my life.
We cannot buy our own health by causing suffering to others.
That is why the risks of vaccines are never discussed, because we would have to admit we are doing this.

The whole problem has just been denied rather than faced up to.
So the research that needs to be done has not been done.

I agree, it is wrong, but it is also the whole basis that the vaccine program is set up on. The same holds true to medications. When you read the adverse effects some will get from using the drug, you just figure it's a small number and won't be me. It is never a small number when it does affect you though. Then it is huge.

The difference is the effects of vaccines are being hidden from people and healthy people are required to submit to them for school, jobs, etc. The first vaccination is given at birth, a Hep. B vaccination. That seems rather extreme to me, considering mothers are screened before birth for hepatitis.

 

[rwac]

I agree, it is wrong, but it is also the whole basis that the vaccine program is set up on. The same holds true to medications. When you read the adverse effects some will get from using the drug, you just figure it's a small number and won't be me. It is never a small number when it does affect you though. Then it is huge.

The difference is the effects of vaccines are being hidden from people and healthy people are required to submit to them for school, jobs, etc. The first vaccination is given at birth, a Hep. B vaccination. That seems rather extreme to me, considering mothers are screened before birth for hepatitis.

An additional difference is that medications are generally used to treat *you* for some existing ailment. Vaccines are instead meant to reduce the risk of certain ailments and protect society. So you're exposing yourself to risk now in return for potential future benefits.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

.

If there are more than a few people like yourself reporting M.E/CFS onset following a vaccination, then certainly the epidemiology of this should be investigated, and if the correlation is statistically significant then of course further investigation should be required. After the Wakefield fraud though it might difficult to pursuade any researchers that this is a valid direction - discredited scienctinst always cause a chilling effect on the field they are associated with.

IVI

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop you there, IVI. Your claim that there is a 'Wakefield fraud' is not safe. It is based on the claims of Brian Deer in the BMJ only, and you will know these have been contested. They're also highly problematic - I say that not because I'm some Wakefield groupie (I certainly am not), but because of what is known about, for example, medical note-taking, among other things.

He has not been convicted of 'fraud'. There's no indication he's even been investigated by the police. 'Fraud' is a very serious allegation to make about anyone, even 'scientific fraud' (whatever that might be).

Now you are free to claim you THINK Wakefield committed 'fraud' - whatever you think that is (and you hope that never comes back to bite you on the bum. Named individuals of course could eventually find themselves on the end of libel cases)- but I cannot allow you to make that claim without clarifying that this is merely your opinion, it's not fact (even when wikipedia unwisely chooses to behave as if it is).

I'm sorry to have to correct you - but you really needed correcting here. It's unsubstantiated claims like this that allow bad science and libel and misinformation to prevail. I would have thought you'd be against that sort of thing- if you really are the equal opportunities skeptic you claim to be.

 

[Esther12]

I don't know enough to really comment, but it does seem like the press conference was a bit of a damp squib.

Wessely's work showed that a particular combination of vaccines used in the gulf war was associated with Gulf War Syndrome, so I'm not saying vaccines can't cause problems, but there is scaremongering around this issue too. Luckily, I'm too ill for exotic holidays abroad, so have no need to think about vaccines at all.

 

[liquid sky]

An additional difference is that medications are generally used to treat *you* for some existing ailment. Vaccines are instead meant to reduce the risk of certain ailments and protect society. So you're exposing yourself to risk now in return for potential future benefits.

So true rwac.

 

[liquid sky]

I don't know enough to really comment, but it does seem like the press conference was a bit of a damp squib.

Wessely's work showed that a particular combination of vaccines used in the gulf war was associated with Gulf War Syndrome, so I'm not saying vaccines can't cause problems, but there is scaremongering around this issue too. Luckily, I'm too ill for exotic holidays abroad, so have no need to think about vaccines at all.

Every time one of my nieces, nephews or grandchildren gets a vaccine, I shudder. My grandson got a raging case of the measles with his last MMR. There really needs to be honest science to figure out what is causing this huge increase in autism. We need to be protecting our young and vulnerable.

 

[Snow Leopard]

But how do you 'know' that a vaccine was the trigger

Because I was a active and healthy teenager and then became ill less than a week after a vaccination, soon becoming very ill (not being able to walk). Several medical practitioners were very worried and suggesting GuillainBarr syndrome, but only my GP was interested after that was ruled out by nerve conduction tests.

If there are more than a few people like yourself reporting ME/CFS onset following a vaccination, then certainly the epidemiology of this should be investigated, and if the correlation is statistically significant then of course further investigation should be required

There is a significant minority on this forum who report they became ill straight after vaccinations. The problem with 'statistically significant' correlations is that in the case of somewhat rare vaccine reactions, very large groups need to be considered. This would require an official programme with a reasonable amount of funding to undertake such investigations. Of course to justify that, they would need substantial evidence in the first place (not to mention the underlying political issues), leading to a catch-22.
This is why the association of GuillainBarr syndrome with vaccinations has not been 'proven'.

On the Wikipedia page, it states that while the Influenza vaccine has been associated with GuillainBarr syndrome, Influenza itself is also associated. Perhaps live attenuated viruses can trigger similar adverse immune reactions, to that of the virus itself in cases of GuillainBarr syndrome or CFS. (even though the underlying reaction in the case of CFS is different to that of GuillainBarr syndrome)
Of course if we understood the common pathway of these vaccinations and viruses led to the development of these syndromes, then treatments could be developed and the negative effects of vaccinations would be reduced significantly. But for some reason, no one seems to be doing that.

 

[WillowJ]

is this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/08/26/vaccine-safety-report.html?ref=rss that same study?

 

[Bob]

is this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/08/26/vaccine-safety-report.html?ref=rss that same study?

This isn't the same study as was mentioned in the opening post.

The article refers to a 'comprehensive safety review' carried out by the U.S. Institute of Medicine at the request of the U.S. government's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. But it doesn't look very 'comprehensive' to me.

 

[u&iraok]

Well, with all the controversy between anti-vacs and pro-vacs I think we can at least say that at least some children and some adults are reacting adversely to vaccines. Here's a theory by Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D. regarding the connection between vaccines and autism. It's just a theory but Dr. Blaylock is a highly respected board-certified neurosurgeon so I think it's appropriate to paste it here:

Dr. Blaylock's theory can be summarized as follows:

1. Priming: Your child's immune system gets "primed" through exposure to an excitotoxin, such as a vaccine or an infectious agent, causing his/her microglia (special immune cells within the brain) to shift into "readiness mode."

2. Microglial Activation: Subsequent exposures to vaccines or other immune stresses over a relatively short period of time activate the microglia into full "battle mode," prepared to defend your child's body against what they perceive as an all-out invasion.

3. Bystander Damage: Excitotoxins and free radicals are generated, causing "bystander damage" in a runaway process that cannot be shut down. This leads to chronic inflammation and damage to brain tissues, including mitochondrial dysfunction, brain inflammation, seizures, and the other difficulties seen with autism.