Vaccination & epidemic

[Undertoad]

For archival purposes, I have made a local copy of Google's cache of Wikipedia's deleted Desiree Jennings page:

Desiree Jennings

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So: no neurological opioid connection, no need for GFCF.

How certain are you about this pain theory?

Jesus Christ on a cracker, UT. How many different ways can I explain that there are multiple pieces of internal dysfunction, multiple sets of symptoms, and multiple treatments that do not all work for every child? The chart that I attached awhile back didn't specifically mention "pain," because that's not a measurable symptom--instead it mentioned things like "inflammation," which any moron can realize leads to pain.

I haven't been discussing treatment of symptoms because you haven't been discussing it; you've been hammering alternately on vaccines and thimerosal. Pages and pages ago, in fact, the thread did take a little tangent off into treatments, with reference to the idea that if these treatments are working, it is de facto additional evidence that the disorder is autoimmune and the cause is environmental.

But since you're suddenly interested in the treatment of existing cases of autism, I'll give you a basic rundown of the biomedical model.

There are three major components, which all lead to a display of neurological symptoms in their own way: gastrointestinal, immunological, and toxicological. Every autistic child I have met has dysfunction in at least two, if not all three categories, with varying severity. But again, every kid is different.

My son, for example, is highly gastrointestinal and to a lesser degree immunological. The GFCF diet improved his symptoms, but it wasn't a cure. Removing all the foods he was allergic to made him even better, but it still wasn't a cure. A temporary stint on the liquid diet--which serves two purposes, incidentally, both to remove 100% of potential food allergens from his system, as well as to allow digestive damage to heal--is showing even more improvement, but it still is not a cure. (What's more, it does have the negative side effect of promoting intestinal infections, as the formula is the perfect food for bacteria as well. So it generally needs to be tempered with antibiotics so that you don't substitute one digestive problem for another.) But, while he did develop all these food allergies, and didn't get a single illness--not a cold, not a fever, nothing--for almost 2 years, he doesn't seem to have a significant myelin auto-immune component (which is what about half of those autoimmune cites I gave you are talking about--the fact that a huge number of autistic children show de-myelinization in the brain due to the immune system incorrectly targeting the myelin cells, just like it incorrectly targets small intestine cells in a person with celiac disease.) The treatment for de-myelinization is methylated B12 shots, which is what the body uses to repair and create new myelin. My son has not shown significant improvement with these shots, thus we are deducing no significant de-myelinization. We'll be doing the lab tests in another few weeks to find out if he has toxicological problems, but my personal instinct is that I think he probably will not.

On the other hand, my daughter is only very mildly gastrointestinal. Her primary symptom was constipation, rather than diarrhea. Foods did not seem to affect her behavior much, even when the food was causing obvious gastrointestinal problems, such as bright green stools with whole pieces of food completely undigested. And likewise, the liquid diet has shown some small improvements for her, but nothing like what my son has shown. She also had a few allergies, but nowhere near as many as he did, and she gets sick on a normal basis. But, she does seem to have a strong de-myelinization component, as she's been showing very significant improvements in just the last few days, after starting the B12 shots. She's not ready to do the toxicological labs yet, but my personal instinct is that I think she will have a significant toxicological problem, because her blood work has already shown she has an extremely low concentration of glutathione, which is the body's natural substance for removing toxins from the bloodstream. My son, on the other hand, had normal levels of glutathione.

I personally suspect that in 30 years, when these treatments have become more mainstream and had a chance to get real funding to be studied on a large scale, they will determine that there are several identifiable disorders at play here. One disorder that leads to an autoimmune attack on the myelin sheath, another disorder that leads to lesions in the digestive tract, another that breaks the metabolic cycle that removes toxins from the body... the overriding theme being varying levels of chaos in the immune system. Aside from the components that are not well understood yet, many kids with autism have other identifiable immune dysfunction, including celiac disease, Crohn's disease, severe food allergies, environmental allergies... and they've also confirmed that autism runs more strongly in families where the parents have various autoimmune disorders of their own. A mother with celiac disease, for example, is three times more likely to have an autistic child. What this ostensibly shows is a genetic predisposition for immune dysfunction. At which point the question becomes, what environmental factor has changed in the last thirty years, that is causing all of these disorders to be triggered in ever-growing numbers?

Of course you know my opinion on it: a specific type of insult to the immune system, leading to a variety of forms of immune dysfunction, accounting for the rise in not just autism, but also asthma, allergies, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, Crohn's, rheumatoid arthritis, etc. But just like the treatments for these autoimmune diseases are completely different, there are a variety of treatments that alleviate the multiple components of autism.

[Clodfobble]

Also, I read the Orac article, and in my estimation it plays a whole ton of the "what if" game that you're so against, UT. It doesn't find fatal flaws in the study, it merely asks questions about the methodology (Did they account for this thing here? Did they use the same monkeys for study A as in study B?) and then proceeds with an assumption that the answer is negative.

[Undertoad]

We're ruling out the morons here, C - the morons think inflammation always leads to pain, but smart people like you know that inflammation and pain are two separate things.

For example, the only inflammation your chart points to is inflammation of the brain. As a very smart person, you know that inflammation of the brain is a neurological problem but pain is not one of its symptoms.

Again I ask, how certain are you about this pain theory? I mean, given that there's so many different paths to the behavior. When you said "the behavior is in fact an entirely normal response to being in constant, searing pain 24 hours a day and being unable to communicate about it", did you mean that:

- All autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?

- Most autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?

- Some autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?

- Some autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction, and some is the result of pain plus other, non-painful problems, neurological or otherwise?

- Both of your offspring's behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?

- One of your offspring's behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction?

- Something else entirely? (explain) (show all work)

Remember, I'm just trying to clarify your statement, so there's no need to get defensive or snippy about it.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Also, I read the Orac article, and in my estimation it plays a whole ton of the "what if" game that you're so against, UT. It doesn't find fatal flaws in the study, it merely asks questions about the methodology (Did they account for this thing here? Did they use the same monkeys for study A as in study B?) and then proceeds with an assumption that the answer is negative.

I'll re-read it for that, but in the meantime, we'll know if the monkey count is identical in your next email update. Promise to let me know?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

For example, the only inflammation your chart points to is inflammation of the brain.

Nitpick: it points to gut inflammation leading to inflammation of the brain.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

- Some autistic behavior is the result of pain, and not of a non-painful neurological dysfunction, and some is the result of pain plus other, non-painful problems, neurological or otherwise?

This one, plus 'some behaviors are a result of neurological dysfunction and not related to pain at all.' My mistake was in listing specific symptoms that can be a result of pain (head-banging, screaming, posturing) and forgetting that not everyone knows the entire set of symptoms and would understand this was merely a few of them.

One of my children has/had obvious gut pain. The other does not seem to, but I can't ask her because she doesn't talk. (Some autism mothers have also reported that their older children, even once they learned to talk, didn't tell anyone about their moderate levels of pain until much later because at some point they had decided it was normal, that everyone felt this way.) Both have neurological symptoms beyond the pain, which we are working to address through other known causes. It is possible we will never know all the causes of the neurological damage; or that we will, but be unable to totally repair the damage; or that we can repair it, but will only be able to maintain that level with a steady dose of drugs and supplements to address permanent underlying disorders. I don't know. The only thing I fundamentally do not believe is that this is a wholly genetic condition that they were born with from day one. The neurons were working, and then they stopped working.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'll re-read it for that, but in the meantime, we'll know if the monkey count is identical in your next email update. Promise to let me know?

Yeah, if they mention it. But I bet I won't see that kind of detail until the article is published, same time you will.

[Aliantha]

Inflamation of the brain doesn't cause pain in the brain itself, but it certainly causes pain in the head area because it restricts blood vessels etc. This is why people with brain tumours and concussion suffer from pain. It's not the brain itself that's hurting. It's all the other stuff up there.

[jinx]

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

Main results

Fifty-one studies with 294,159 observations were included. Sixteen RCTs and 18 cohort studies were included in the analysis of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. From RCTs, live vaccines showed an efficacy of 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71% to 89%) and an effectiveness of 33% (95% CI 28% to 38%) in children older than two compared with placebo or no intervention. Inactivated vaccines had a lower efficacy of 59% (95% CI 41% to 71%) than live vaccines but similar effectiveness: 36% (95% CI 24% to 46%). In children under two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo. Variability in study design and presentation of data was such that a meta-analysis of safety outcome data was not feasible. Extensive evidence of reporting bias of safety outcomes from trials of live attenuated vaccines impeded meaningful analysis.

Authors' conclusions

Influenza vaccines are efficacious in children older than two but little evidence is available for children under two. There was a marked difference between vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. No safety comparisons could be carried out, emphasizing the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.

[Flint]

Hello? They don't have to do a study because they already told us it's safe. What the hell is it with you conspiracy-spouting hippies and your infernal "what if" scenarios? How about this: "what if" you just shut up and do what you're told. Inject this shit into your baby for no reason.

[glatt]

Speaking of efficacy, did anyone else see the story yesterday about all the recalled H1N1 vaccine that had apparently lost its mojo.

lemme dig around. Here we go.

About 800,000 doses of swine flu vaccine for children are being recalled because tests found the strength of the shots had dropped since shipment, officials announced Tuesday.
....
Most of the vaccine, which was distributed nationwide in November, has probably already been used.

[Undertoad]

IOW, the live/weakened nasal flu vaccine was efficacious, because it prevented flu 82% of the time, but was not effective, because it only prevented "flu-like symptoms", from viruses other than influenza, 36% of the time. The dead, injected vaccine was only 59% efficacious, so the nasal, live/weakened version is better at combating flu.

[jinx]

Flu vacine efficacy is measure by antibody or titer response - beneficial results under ideal (lab) conditions. Effectiveness indicates the vaccines ability to work (ie. prevent flu) in real world conditions.

[Undertoad]

I'm going by what the Summary says:

The review authors found that in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus (82% of illnesses were prevented) than injected vaccines made from the killed virus (59%). Neither type was particularly good at preventing 'flu-like illness' caused by other types of viruses (33% and 36% respectively).