Comments on: Vaccines – Too Few, Too Late http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/ Your Daily Fix of Neuroscience, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking Sun, 19 May 2013 01:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: andrew23 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-22944 andrew23 Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:58:57 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-22944 Hello, Sir, This is a story which may be of some interest to you. Thank-you. NaturalNews) A 16-year-old girl lost nearly all of her vision within 10 days of receiving the second course of her vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), reports a case study in the Journal of Child Neurology. The HPV vaccine is designed to prevent infection by the strains of the virus that are responsible for the majority of cervical cancer and genital warts cases. The study recounts the case of a previously healthy teenage girl who developed a headache on the left side of her head and began to lose vision in her right eye eight days after receiving her second HPV vaccine shot. Over the course of the following 48 hours, the pain spread across her head and she began to lose sight in her left eye as well. At this point, the girl went to the emergency room, where doctors found her vital signs to be normal with no indication of infection or systemic illness. While under supervision, her vision continued to deteriorate until she was able to identify light and movement only from the left eye, and then only inconsistently. She reported no symptoms prior to the onset of headache and vision loss and had not experienced any recent disease or trauma. Further examination revealed demyelination in her brain and along her optic nerves. In demyelination, characteristic of multiple sclerosis and similar diseases, the protective myelin sheath around nerve cells degrades, leading to interrupted nerve signaling. Eighteen months after her initial visit, the teenager had recovered from her weakness but her vision had not improved. Although the HPV vaccine is widely promoted for teenage girls, its safety and effectiveness have primarily been tested in women over the age of 18. No evidence yet exists that vaccination reduces rates of genital warts or cervical cancer, or deaths from cervical cancer. Hello, Sir,

This is a story which may be of some interest to you. Thank-you.

NaturalNews) A 16-year-old girl lost nearly all of her vision within 10 days of receiving the second course of her vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), reports a case study in the Journal of Child Neurology.

The HPV vaccine is designed to prevent infection by the strains of the virus that are responsible for the majority of cervical cancer and genital warts cases.

The study recounts the case of a previously healthy teenage girl who developed a headache on the left side of her head and began to lose vision in her right eye eight days after receiving her second HPV vaccine shot. Over the course of the following 48 hours, the pain spread across her head and she began to lose sight in her left eye as well.

At this point, the girl went to the emergency room, where doctors found her vital signs to be normal with no indication of infection or systemic illness. While under supervision, her vision continued to deteriorate until she was able to identify light and movement only from the left eye, and then only inconsistently. She reported no symptoms prior to the onset of headache and vision loss and had not experienced any recent disease or trauma.

Further examination revealed demyelination in her brain and along her optic nerves. In demyelination, characteristic of multiple sclerosis and similar diseases, the protective myelin sheath around nerve cells degrades, leading to interrupted nerve signaling.

Eighteen months after her initial visit, the teenager had recovered from her weakness but her vision had not improved.

Although the HPV vaccine is widely promoted for teenage girls, its safety and effectiveness have primarily been tested in women over the age of 18. No evidence yet exists that vaccination reduces rates of genital warts or cervical cancer, or deaths from cervical cancer.

]]> By: chrisdbarry http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-22810 chrisdbarry Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:53:26 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-22810 And now the epidemics begin: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/23/whooping-cough-now-an-epidemic-in-california/ And now the epidemics begin:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/23/whooping-cough-now-an-epidemic-in-california/

]]> By: ccbowers http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-21579 ccbowers Sun, 30 May 2010 12:19:35 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-21579 Passionlessdrone- I agree that the research has not specifically addressed the question you have put forth because it is SO broad. You are basically arguing the possibility of too much too soon, but with every limited basic research to back that up. Try to think of a satisfactory study design to address that broad question. I can't because no matter how you altered the schedule someone could still say too much too soon. It is really a prblem of moving the goalpost. First it was MMR, then thimerosal, now its this. This is what I mean about being stuck on vaccines... how did we get to this point? My point about the genetic link is that autistic children are likely very different in many ways, and the basic research you point to is just further evidence of that. "these concepts also ought to be driving a skeptic mad" Well the world is full of grays. Most diseases are multifactorial, complex, and we should just get used to it. Very few things are like Huntington's or even lung cancer. Passionlessdrone-
I agree that the research has not specifically addressed the question you have put forth because it is SO broad. You are basically arguing the possibility of too much too soon, but with every limited basic research to back that up. Try to think of a satisfactory study design to address that broad question. I can’t because no matter how you altered the schedule someone could still say too much too soon. It is really a prblem of moving the goalpost. First it was MMR, then thimerosal, now its this. This is what I mean about being stuck on vaccines… how did we get to this point?

My point about the genetic link is that autistic children are likely very different in many ways, and the basic research you point to is just further evidence of that.

“these concepts also ought to be driving a skeptic mad”

Well the world is full of grays. Most diseases are multifactorial, complex, and we should just get used to it. Very few things are like Huntington’s or even lung cancer.

]]> By: BillyJoe7 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-21531 BillyJoe7 Sat, 29 May 2010 22:11:38 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-21531 PD, "The problem to my mind is that I do not consider myself part of the “anti-vaccination” crowd, and therefore, would not like to have their arguments assigned to me. " Again, I was clearly referring to "the anti-vaccination crowd". If you assumed that I was including you in that group, I can only reiterate that I did not have that in mind when I wrote that response. PD,

“The problem to my mind is that I do not consider myself part of the “anti-vaccination” crowd, and therefore, would not like to have their arguments assigned to me. ”

Again, I was clearly referring to “the anti-vaccination crowd”. If you assumed that I was including you in that group, I can only reiterate that I did not have that in mind when I wrote that response.

]]> By: passionlessDrone http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-21522 passionlessDrone Sat, 29 May 2010 15:04:45 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-21522 Hi CCBowers - <i>We already know that autism has a genetic component to its cause, and it is not a surprise that autistic children may be different in several ways. The problem is that we are hung up on the vaccine thing when there appears to be nothing there. What you are pointing to is some basic research, which is interesting but does not provide much insight into the question we are discussing. </i> What I have posted here is also a small subset of the data regarding the immune dysfunction involved in autism, and less than half of our data concerning early life immune challenges in animal models. Similarly to what I have told BillyJoe7, the very idea that immune activation in early life could have lifelong consequences is a very new idea. I will not argue against a very strong genetic component to autism; I happen to think that with a condition that manifests as heterogeneously as autism, there will likely be a great number of roads to the same behavioral endpoint. I for one, am not particularly hung up on the vaccine thing, but it happens to represent 99% of the online conversations involving autism. I do happen to be alarmed at how weak our existing research is when compared to how strong it is portrayed. <i>There have been several large trials attempting to find an association between vaccines and autism, and all have been negative. Now there is the argument that there is a specific subpopulation within the larger, and that is an unsubstantiated claim. Of course you can always make that argument when studies are negative, but you need some real proof of this. </i> But those trials have not been about <i>vaccines</i> and autism! They have been about thimerosal, or a single vaccine, the MMR, which is given much, much later in life than the bulk of our schedule. Seriously, try going to pubmed and finding <i>a signle study</i> regarding autism and vaccination that does not involve one of those two parameters. They aren't there. The fact that this study is 'news' ough to clue you as to why your assertion is incorrect. A single trial with one thousand children that included none with autism. If you look at references 7 and 8 I posted above, you will see that the authors found time-dependencies of effect, in other words, there was only an impact on the animal if the challenge occurred within specific developmental timeframes. For that reason, making broad assumptions that studying the MMR is a valid proxy for the entire vaccine schedule is a big, massive confound that ought to drive a rationalist up the wall. We don't give the MMR at two months for very good reasons, why should we expect that the generation of antibodies is the only a system as complicated as the immune system? <i>There are studies that indicate that there likely is no large increase in autism at all, but due to better detection of the disease. Do you think 20 years ago the average parent even knew what autism was? The problem is that no matter what research is done some people will still claim that more is needed, but we can never do double blind placebo controlled trials on this issue. There are enough studies on the topic to conclude that there is likely nothing there, and more money into the vaccine idea is talking money away from other areas, (like genetic or other environmental factors). Lets not let irrational fears dictate where reasearch dollars should go</i> I am well aware of the arguments involving diagnostic substitution, increased "awareness" and a broadening of the criteria for autism. For the record, I'll state that I have no doubt that these things are having an impact on our rates of autism. But, these concepts also ought to be driving a skeptic mad; they are completely unfalsifiable and maleable to whatever the latest counts are on the ground. For example, if autism rates quintipled next year, what would keep us from just saying, "Well, greater awareness. It can't be real!"? We'd have exactly the same rationale, <i>and evidence</i>, that we've been using as a crutch for the past decade. This has already happened if you pay close attention; we have several studies that show advanced parental age has a small effect on autism risk, nowhere near large enough to account for our observations, but still very likely real. It also has a biologically plausaible mechanism behind it. Now, the narrative is along the lines of "Well, advanced parental age is contributing to our observations of increase, but <i>the rest</i> is due to diagnostic changes." If you dig deeper, and try to figure out how such a conclusion can be made with certainty, there's nothing there except for expediency to a favored conclusion. I happen to think that the potential ramifications of a true increase in autism are too goddamned important to leave up to the soft scientists. I appreciate your tone. Thank you. - pD Hi CCBowers –

We already know that autism has a genetic component to its cause, and it is not a surprise that autistic children may be different in several ways. The problem is that we are hung up on the vaccine thing when there appears to be nothing there. What you are pointing to is some basic research, which is interesting but does not provide much insight into the question we are discussing.

What I have posted here is also a small subset of the data regarding the immune dysfunction involved in autism, and less than half of our data concerning early life immune challenges in animal models. Similarly to what I have told BillyJoe7, the very idea that immune activation in early life could have lifelong consequences is a very new idea. I will not argue against a very strong genetic component to autism; I happen to think that with a condition that manifests as heterogeneously as autism, there will likely be a great number of roads to the same behavioral endpoint.

I for one, am not particularly hung up on the vaccine thing, but it happens to represent 99% of the online conversations involving autism. I do happen to be alarmed at how weak our existing research is when compared to how strong it is portrayed.

There have been several large trials attempting to find an association between vaccines and autism, and all have been negative. Now there is the argument that there is a specific subpopulation within the larger, and that is an unsubstantiated claim. Of course you can always make that argument when studies are negative, but you need some real proof of this.

But those trials have not been about vaccines and autism! They have been about thimerosal, or a single vaccine, the MMR, which is given much, much later in life than the bulk of our schedule. Seriously, try going to pubmed and finding a signle study regarding autism and vaccination that does not
involve one of those two parameters. They aren’t there. The fact that this study is ‘news’ ough to clue you as to why your assertion is incorrect. A single trial with one thousand children that included none with autism.

If you look at references 7 and 8 I posted above, you will see that the authors found time-dependencies of effect, in other words, there was only an impact on the animal if the challenge occurred within specific developmental timeframes. For that reason, making broad assumptions that studying the MMR is a valid proxy for the entire vaccine schedule is a big, massive confound that ought to drive a rationalist up the wall. We don’t give the MMR at two months for very good reasons, why should we expect that the generation of antibodies is the only a system as complicated as the immune system?

There are studies that indicate that there likely is no large increase in autism at all, but due to better detection of the disease. Do you think 20 years ago the average parent even knew what autism was? The problem is that no matter what research is done some people will still claim that more is needed, but we can never do double blind placebo controlled trials on this issue. There are enough studies on the topic to conclude that there is likely nothing there, and more money into the vaccine idea is talking money away from other areas, (like genetic or other environmental factors). Lets not let irrational fears dictate where reasearch dollars should go

I am well aware of the arguments involving diagnostic substitution, increased “awareness” and a broadening of the criteria for autism. For the record, I’ll state that I have no doubt that these things are having an impact on our rates of autism.

But, these concepts also ought to be driving a skeptic mad; they are completely unfalsifiable and maleable to whatever the latest counts are on the ground. For example, if autism rates quintipled next year, what would keep us from just saying, “Well, greater awareness. It can’t be real!”? We’d have exactly the same rationale, and evidence, that we’ve been using as a crutch for the past decade.

This has already happened if you pay close attention; we have several studies that show advanced parental age has a small effect on autism risk, nowhere near large enough to account for our observations, but still very likely real. It also has a biologically plausaible mechanism behind it. Now, the narrative is along the lines of “Well, advanced parental age is contributing to our observations of increase, but the rest is due to diagnostic changes.” If you dig deeper, and try to figure out how such a conclusion can be made with certainty, there’s nothing there except for expediency to a favored conclusion.

I happen to think that the potential ramifications of a true increase in autism are too goddamned important to leave up to the soft scientists.

I appreciate your tone. Thank you.

- pD

]]> By: passionlessDrone http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-21521 passionlessDrone Sat, 29 May 2010 14:43:01 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-21521 Hi BillyJoe7 - <i>You must have missed my introductory sentence “Yes, this is what the anti-vaccination crowd are reduced to.”</i> The problem to my mind is that I do not consider myself part of the "anti-vaccination" crowd, and therefore, would not like to have their arguments assigned to me. For example, I have absolutely no doubt that vaccines work at preventing disease and that they have saved millions and millions of lives. I also have no doubt that herd immunity is real, and the idea of widespread vaccination refusal has very real and dangerous implications for the return of diseases. It is entirely possible to believe this while simultaneously recognizing the frailty of our existing understanding of the effects of vaccination. You might be surprised to find that I consider myself a skeptic. The facts on the ground are that here in 2010, decades after we began aggressively incresing our vaccine schedule, we have exactly one study that tests for the effects of cumulative vaccination on neurological outcomes. When the overriding narrative is that 'the question has been answered, this level of supporting data bugs the heck out of me. The underlying assumption of vaccination has always been that an a robust innate immune response is harmless absent the pathogenic mechanisms of the actual bacterial or viral organism. To illustrate this, try to find a study that shows the innate immune parameters in infants pre and post vaccination. I am making the assertion that thesee studies <i>do not exist</i>. Instead of worrying about what the "anti-vaccination crowd" may or may not say, why don't you try posting a study like this to allay my concerns? - pD Hi BillyJoe7 –

You must have missed my introductory sentence “Yes, this is what the anti-vaccination crowd are reduced to.”

The problem to my mind is that I do not consider myself part of the “anti-vaccination” crowd, and therefore, would not like to have their arguments assigned to me.

For example, I have absolutely no doubt that vaccines work at preventing disease and that they have saved millions and millions of lives. I also have no doubt that herd immunity is real, and the idea of widespread vaccination refusal has very real and dangerous implications for the return of diseases.

It is entirely possible to believe this while simultaneously recognizing the frailty of our existing understanding of the effects of vaccination.

You might be surprised to find that I consider myself a skeptic. The facts on the ground are that here in 2010, decades after we began aggressively incresing our vaccine schedule, we have exactly one study that tests for the effects of cumulative vaccination on neurological outcomes. When the overriding narrative is that ‘the question has been answered, this level of supporting data bugs the heck out of me.

The underlying assumption of vaccination has always been that an a robust innate immune response is harmless absent the pathogenic mechanisms of the actual bacterial or viral organism. To illustrate this, try to find a study that shows the innate immune parameters in infants pre and post vaccination. I am making the assertion that thesee studies do not exist. Instead of worrying about what the “anti-vaccination crowd” may or may not say, why don’t you try posting a study like this to allay my concerns?

- pD

]]> By: ccbowers http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-21519 ccbowers Sat, 29 May 2010 14:18:40 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-21519 Passionless- We already know that autism has a genetic component to its cause, and it is not a surprise that autistic children may be different in several ways. The problem is that we are hung up on the vaccine thing when there appears to be nothing there. What you are pointing to is some basic research, which is interesting but does not provide much insight into the question we are discussing. The whole reason why vaccines are in the discussion was a fraud, but people keep wating to cling to something. There have been several large trials attempting to find an association between vaccines and autism, and all have been negative. Now there is the argument that there is a specific subpopulation within the larger, and that is an unsubstantiated claim. Of course you can always make that argument when studies are negative, but you need some real proof of this. There are studies that indicate that there likely is no large increase in autism at all, but due to better detection of the disease. Do you think 20 years ago the average parent even knew what autism was? The problem is that no matter what research is done some people will still claim that more is needed, but we can never do double blind placebo controlled trials on this issue. There are enough studies on the topic to conclude that there is likely nothing there, and more money into the vaccine idea is talking money away from other areas, (like genetic or other environmental factors). Lets not let irrational fears dictate where reasearch dollars should go Passionless-

We already know that autism has a genetic component to its cause, and it is not a surprise that autistic children may be different in several ways. The problem is that we are hung up on the vaccine thing when there appears to be nothing there. What you are pointing to is some basic research, which is interesting but does not provide much insight into the question we are discussing.

The whole reason why vaccines are in the discussion was a fraud, but people keep wating to cling to something. There have been several large trials attempting to find an association between vaccines and autism, and all have been negative. Now there is the argument that there is a specific subpopulation within the larger, and that is an unsubstantiated claim. Of course you can always make that argument when studies are negative, but you need some real proof of this.

There are studies that indicate that there likely is no large increase in autism at all, but due to better detection of the disease. Do you think 20 years ago the average parent even knew what autism was? The problem is that no matter what research is done some people will still claim that more is needed, but we can never do double blind placebo controlled trials on this issue. There are enough studies on the topic to conclude that there is likely nothing there, and more money into the vaccine idea is talking money away from other areas, (like genetic or other environmental factors). Lets not let irrational fears dictate where reasearch dollars should go

]]> By: BillyJoe7 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-21511 BillyJoe7 Sat, 29 May 2010 07:16:14 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-21511 ...unless you are claiming that the <i>anti-vaccination crowd</i> has not made that argument. But you couldn't be claiming that. Could you? …unless you are claiming that the anti-vaccination crowd has not made that argument. But you couldn’t be claiming that. Could you?

]]> By: BillyJoe7 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-21510 BillyJoe7 Sat, 29 May 2010 07:13:54 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-21510 PD, "It might be best if we attempt not to assign arguments that haven’t been made." You must have missed my introductory sentence "Yes, this is what the anti-vaccination crowd are reduced to." Oh well. :( PD,

“It might be best if we attempt not to assign arguments that haven’t been made.”

You must have missed my introductory sentence “Yes, this is what the anti-vaccination crowd are reduced to.”

Oh well. :(

]]> By: passionlessDrone http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vaccines-too-few-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-21500 passionlessDrone Sat, 29 May 2010 04:02:43 +0000 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1976#comment-21500 Hi Carl - <i> would you mind giving actual references? Just the year and article title is not all that useful. Any of these from major journals? Available online?</i> Will the journal titles and PMIDs help? Many are available online in full. 1. Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor and Autism Spectrum Disorders [Grigorenko, 2008, Pediatrics] PMID: 18676531 [Full version available online] 2. Increased serum levels of high mobility group box 1 protein in patients with autistic disorder. [Enzo, 2010, Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry] PMID: 20302902 3. Differential monocyte responses to TLR ligands in children with autism spectrum disorders [Enstrom, 2010, Brain, Behavior and Immunity] PMID: 19666104 4. Preliminary evidence of the in vitro effects of BDE-47 on innate immune responses in children with autism spectrum disorders [Ashwood, 2009, Journal of Neuroinflammation] PMID: 19211157 [Full version available online] 5. Proinflammatory and regulatory cytokine production associated with innate and adaptive immune responses in children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental regression [Jyomouchi, 2001, Jounral of Neuroinflammation] PMID: 11694332 6. Postnatal programming of the innate immune response [Galic, 2009, Integrative and Comparative Biology] No PMID available [full version available online] 7. Postnatal Inflammation Increases Seizure Susceptibility in Adult Rats [Galic, 2008, Journal of Neuroscience] PMID: 18596165 [full version available online] 8. Early-life immune challenge: defining a critical window for effects on adult responses to immune challenge [Spenser, 2006, Neuropsychopharmacology] PMID: 16395304 [full version available] 9. Long term alterations in neuroimmune responses of female rats after neonatal exposure to lipopolysaccharide [Spenser, 2005, Brain Behavior and Immunity] PMID: 16226008 10. Neonatal programming of the rat neuroimmune response: stimulus specific changes elicited by bacterial and viral mimetics [Ellis, 2006, Journal of Physiology]. PMID: 16423854 [full version available online] 11. Early-life programming of later-life brain and behavior: a critical role for the immune system [Bilbo, 2009, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience] PMID: 19738918 [full version availalbe online] I'm not qualified to comment on the prestige of these journals, except, if I am not mistaken, Pediatrics is considered a 'major' journal. Does this help? - pD Hi Carl –

would you mind giving actual references? Just the year and article title is not all that useful. Any of these from major journals? Available online?

Will the journal titles and PMIDs help? Many are available online in full.

1. Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor and Autism Spectrum Disorders [Grigorenko, 2008, Pediatrics] PMID: 18676531 [Full version available online]

2. Increased serum levels of high mobility group box 1 protein in patients with autistic disorder. [Enzo, 2010, Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry] PMID: 20302902

3. Differential monocyte responses to TLR ligands in children with autism spectrum disorders [Enstrom, 2010, Brain, Behavior and Immunity] PMID: 19666104

4. Preliminary evidence of the in vitro effects of BDE-47 on innate immune responses in children with autism spectrum disorders [Ashwood, 2009, Journal of Neuroinflammation] PMID: 19211157 [Full version available online]

5. Proinflammatory and regulatory cytokine production associated with innate and adaptive immune responses in children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental regression [Jyomouchi, 2001, Jounral of Neuroinflammation] PMID: 11694332

6. Postnatal programming of the innate immune response [Galic, 2009, Integrative and Comparative Biology] No PMID available [full version available online]

7. Postnatal Inflammation Increases Seizure Susceptibility in Adult Rats [Galic, 2008, Journal of Neuroscience] PMID: 18596165 [full version available online]

8. Early-life immune challenge: defining a critical window for effects on adult responses to immune challenge [Spenser, 2006, Neuropsychopharmacology] PMID: 16395304 [full version available]

9. Long term alterations in neuroimmune responses of female rats after neonatal exposure to lipopolysaccharide [Spenser, 2005, Brain Behavior and Immunity] PMID: 16226008

10. Neonatal programming of the rat neuroimmune response: stimulus specific changes elicited by bacterial and viral mimetics [Ellis, 2006, Journal of Physiology]. PMID: 16423854 [full version available online]

11. Early-life programming of later-life brain and behavior: a critical role for the immune system [Bilbo, 2009, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience] PMID: 19738918 [full version availalbe online]

I’m not qualified to comment on the prestige of these journals, except, if I am not mistaken, Pediatrics is considered a ‘major’ journal. Does this help?

- pD

]]>