• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

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

Messages
646
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
 
Messages
646
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
 
Messages
646
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

Senior Member
Messages
650
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.
 
Messages
877
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

Senior Member
Messages
371
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

Senior Member
Messages
172
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

Senior Member
Messages
1,026
Location
Essex, UK
.

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

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
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

Senior Member
Messages
371
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

Senior Member
Messages
371
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

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
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.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)

u&iraok

Senior Member
Messages
427
Location
U.S.
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.
 

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,452
Location
Ashland, Oregon
I just did an AI query as to whether there was a thread on PR that had autism and vaccines or vaccinations in the title. This is the only thread that came up. Was pleasantly surprised to see it was started by Rich Van Konyenberg, who was quite the champion for pw/ME/CFS, besides being an all round good guy (now deceased).

I was looking for an appropriate place to post a quote I just ran across that was pretty heart breaking. It's not scientific, but is just one more data point that points to injuries inflicted by vaccines that go unnoticed, unreported, or in some way shoved under the rug.

It seems clear to me most vaccines cause harm, whether minor or major. It should always be a choice as to whether anybody (including children) are required to have them. Here's the quote I just ran across by a labor and delivery nurse:

"...most babies, upon being born, look at you in the eyes with lots of feeling. every single time i have tried to make eye contact with a baby after delivery they hold my gaze. every time i try to make contact with a baby who is a few hours old and received their hep b vaccine, they cannot hold my gaze.​
my experiences are not necessarily scientific, and it could be any number of things, hospital stimuli are very stressful, low blood sugar could present as autistic like symptoms in a newborn, trauma from separation from the mother, etc.​
regardless, i still remain sure that the immediate change in disposition is autistic like and has such a close proximity to the administration of the hep b vaccine that there is more than likely a very strong relationship between the two.​
 

southwestforests

Senior Member
Messages
701
Location
Missouri
And the autism rate appears to continue to climb.
I haven't asked how many others here are autistic, therefore do not know.
I've only ever been a member of one autism and Aspergers forum, Wrong Planet.
Do look at articles on a neurodivergence website on Word Press, Neuroclastic.

➡️
Have read posts there; have read research publicly published online; have read books;
Which make and support the case that it is unknowable or at least uncertain whether the autism Rate is increasing ...
because ...
the refining of autism diagnosis is still happening.

My being autistic was TOTALLY missed in the 1960s, 1970s, even in to the 1980s, because pretty much nobody was looking for what are sometimes termed 'high-functioning' and/or 'high masking' autistics,
(I was misdiagnosed and mis-medicated as bipolar for just shy of 30 years, but that's a whole 'nother story)
And ...
because in the 1970s and 1980s that same pretty much nobody was Not looking for autistics in their teens and twenties.
And ...
During my life time there were plenty of paid professionals in medical and psychological (supposed) Science who simply assumed, ASSUMED, that children grew out of autism.

So ...

I suggest the not assigning of large significance to reports of autism rates.

Here, have my classic posting of 3 different references to a thing,


First Opinion

There is no epidemic of autism. It’s an epidemic of need​

By John Elder Robison and Dena GassnerMarch 23, 2023

https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/23/autism-epidemic-cdc-numbers/

This increase may sound scary. But as autistic adults and as parents of children with autism, we advise you to relax. There is no “epidemic of autism.” Instead, what we face is an epidemic of need.


The main reason we are finding more autism is simple: Clinicians are getting better at spotting what was always there. There is no simple test for autism, so diagnosing it requires substantial training in observational techniques. As a result, diagnosis can vary significantly depending on the population and the competence of clinicians. The CDC reports significant variations in autism rates from state to state and even from one school district to another. Yet there is little biological evidence to explain this. In another example of the variation, prior reports found more autism in white children.


In the new reports, the balance has shifted, with increasing identification among people of color. We see that as an improvement, but we’ve still got a way to go, particularly when it comes to diagnosing autism in girls and women, in people with less visible symptoms, and others. The new CDC report finds a 4-to-1 ratio of male-female diagnoses. But we are skeptical of that number, which has barely changed over the past decade, even as overall prevalence has risen. In our academic work, we find that autistic female students often outnumber autistic male students in college groups. One of us, (D. G.), is a social worker and notes that women in adult settings often come to diagnosis later in life, frequently as mothers and grandmothers. This suggests many females still escape childhood diagnosis today.
...

March 3, 2017
5 min read

The Real Reasons Autism Rates Are Up in the U.S.​

A hard look at whether the rise comes from more awareness, better diagnosis—or something else
By Jessica Wright & Spectrum

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-reasons-autism-rates-are-up-in-the-u-s/

In 1966, researchers estimated that about 1 in 2,500 children had autism, according to criteria derived from Kanner’s description. This and other early estimates of prevalence probably focused on children at the severe end of the spectrum and missed those with subtler features.

Autism didn’t make its debut in the DSM until 1980. In 1987, a new edition expanded the criteria by allowing a diagnosis even if symptoms became apparent after 30 months of age. To garner a diagnosis, a child needed to meet 8 of 16 criteria, rather than all 6 of the previous items. These changes may have caused the condition’s prevalence to tick above 1 in 1,400.

Then, in 1991, the U.S. Department of Education ruled that a diagnosis of autism qualifies a child for special education services. Before this time, many children with autism may instead have been listed as having intellectual disability. The change may have encouraged families to get a diagnosis of autism for their child. The number of children who have both a diagnosis of autism and intellectual disability has also risen steadily over the years.

In 1994, the fourth edition of the DSM broadened the definition of autism even further, by including Asperger syndrome on the milder end of the spectrum. The current version, the DSM-5, was released in 2013, and collapsed autism, Asperger syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified into a single diagnosis.

The most recent CDC estimate of autism prevalence is based on the fourth edition of the DSM. Future estimates will be based on DSM-5 criteria—which may lower autism rates.

Has the rising awareness of autism contributed to the prevalence?
Increased awareness of autism has undoubtedly contributed to its rise in prevalence, Durkin says.


Autism rates are up, but is it really on the rise?​


Study argues that an uptick in cases in schools is mostly caused by changing diagnoses​


https://www.science.org/content/article/autism-rates-are-it-really-rise

The data indicate that the autism rise is partly the result of students being moved from one category to another, Girirajan says.

For him, one lesson is that autism encompasses a potpourri of symptoms. It can also occur hand-in-hand with other conditions including intellectual disabilities, epilepsy, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. That mixture makes it hard to pin down how common autism really is, and lends itself to shifting diagnoses, he says.

The findings, reported today in the American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, underscore the growing acceptance within institutions and families of a condition once either ignored or avoided as a mark of shame, says Roy Richard Grinker, an anthropologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., who has studied autism rates and wrote a book about autism, Unstrange Minds. He points to a recent Washington Post article about the emergence of groups of autistic adults advocating for acceptance through events like "Autistic Pride Day."

"What this paper is saying is that autism is increasingly being embraced as a useful, acceptable, less stigmatizing framework," says Grinker, who has an autistic daughter.

There are some risk factors that might account for a small amount of the increase in autism cases, says Jon Baio, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) epidemiologist and principal investigator for an autism monitoring program. That includes children born premature or underweight. A recent study in the journal Molecular Psychiatry found that older fathers, and older or teenage mothers had a higher risk of having children with autism.
 
Last edited:

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,452
Location
Ashland, Oregon
Hi @southwestforests -- I'm curious, do you have an opinion as to whether or not autism rates have increased in the past several decades? Or do you believe the increased prevalence is because of better diagnosis and reporting? Or perhaps both?

Best...
 
Last edited:

southwestforests

Senior Member
Messages
701
Location
Missouri
Hi @southwestforests -- I'm curious, do you have an opinion as to whether or not autism rates have increased in the past several decades? Or do you believe the increased prevalence is because of better diagnosis?
My attitude is that what I believe would be irrelevant therefore I have no personal belief/opinion about that question.
I go by what the available testable documentation says.

➡️ And then "as an added bonus at no extra charge!"
I'll toss in these two bits of personal and family history;

Soon after my 2009 diagnosis at over 40 years old there was a time my parents were going to be in town visiting same day I had appointment with psychologist I'd been seeing since around 2007.
Psychologist was not involved in establishment of my diagnosis.
Talked to my parents and to Bonnie, and all said, yes, let's do a family session.

After parents had been in for a bit they left and Bonnie and I continued.
Bonnie: "Given the common stereotype of course I expected your father would be the autistic parent, but no, it is your mother. Your mother totally is autistic."

Mom was born on a midwestern farm in 1940, so of course she was not diagnosed.
And I'll bet she got rather fewer vaccinations in 1940 than does a child born in 2020.

➡️
I have no children. My little brother has 3 boys born in late 1980s to early 1990s.

Two of them would do things like stand on their toes twirling round and round through the house while reciting their homework from memory; and/or reciting entire pages or even chapters of their textbooks from memory while doing same twirling.

But ...

Military doctors who provide health care to military dependents:
"Child makes eye contact, therefore can not be autistic"
"Child can cooperate with others, therefore can not be autistic."
"Child is not a savant, therefore can not be autistic."

To this day my brother holds the same attitude.
And dismisses my diagnosis, and by definition the diagnosis of many other people, as a result of quote, "nothing but Liberal activists who are trying to mainstream autism and take more of my tax money to do social programs for it."

🤔
Now it is time to play, "You Be The Judge".
 
Last edited:
Back