Misleading reports about autism data - Page 14

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

VICP has already compensated cases of autism under a different name, as posted previously as well.

There is evidence they are not safe, as also previously posted.

I don´t really feel like going around in circles anymore. you can have last word if you´d like, I don´t think either of us will budge, but your position is perhaps the more extreme, disallowing possibility, I am just questioning.

Your first assertion is up for debate. And no one has denied that there are risks. And no one has disallowed the possibility. I think some people are just looking at the issue of vaccines and autism from a different perspective than you and several others here. That doesn't mean they are closed minded but perhaps just asking different questions. Oddly enough, I kind of agree with some of you've had to say and some of what Rrrrrachel has had to say.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


It's not the pathogen load, except sometimes it is, when it's not aluminum or thimerosol or formaldehyde or or or.

I believe, it is never the pathogen load. Please do not assume you understand what I mean or what I think.

[Rrrrrachel]

I didn't realize you were the only person expressing anti vax position on this thread, let alone the world at large.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I didn't realize you were the only person expressing anti vax position on this thread, let alone the world at large.

for the record, I don't think most people here are "Anti-vax," I'm not telling anyone not to vaccinate, my DD is partially vaccinated, and I can understand value in vaccination... but there are a lot of problems too. I don't think it is responsible of pro-vax to gloss over these things, they should also be interested in more science, safer vaccines, more understanding of mechanism that predispose or cause reaction, more transparency in the industry, etc.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I didn't realize you were the only person expressing anti vax position on this thread, let alone the world at large.

I really have no idea what you mean by that statement.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

for the record, I don't think most people here are "Anti-vax," I'm not telling anyone not to vaccinate, my DD is partially vaccinated, and I can understand value in vaccination... but there are a lot of problems too. I don't think it is responsible of pro-vax to gloss over these things, they should also be interested in more science, safer vaccines, more understanding of mechanism that predispose or cause reaction, more transparency in the industry, etc.

Well, I am anti-vax (for me and mine) and proud of it. I really couldn't care less if people vax or not, not my business if they choose to do so. But I do agree with your bolded statement, if you are going to vax your children or yourself.

[Rrrrrachel]

Just that my other comment wasn't directed at you.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Well, I am anti-vax (for me and mine) and proud of it. I really couldn't care less if people vax or not, not my business if they choose to do so. But I do agree with your bolded statement, if you are going to vax your children or yourself.

I think there is a difference between non and anti vax. "Anti" to me would imply you are here trying to make all people not vaccinate for anything, ever.  That the whole vaccination program should be totally stopped and vax not used. Opposite to "pro" which more often than not assumes all people must be vaccinated for everything, and makes choice as difficult as possible. Non-vax to me just implies that you have made that choice for yourself personally. I don't know how to term someone who vaxes but doesn't put agenda on others? i guess that's usually called "pro" too.

[slmommy]

rrrrrachel, you never brought any research showing that Ratajczak's ideas about the possibility of DNA in vax being a possiblity in autism is impossible.

(post 204)

[Rrrrrachel]

I did bring some basic biology, though.  Dna is a fragile thing.  The DNA that's used to grow viruses is mostly destroyed in the process of growing the virus.  What's left is highly fragmented and cannot reform complete proteins or reinsert itself into the patient's DNA.  This is precisely why gene therapy hasn't been successful.

[slmommy]

Why would she, former senior researcher at pharma company, with a good grip on biology, assert this could be within realm of possibilities?

Quote:

The human DNA from the vaccine can be randomly inserted into the recipient’s genes by homologous recombination, a process that occurs spontaneously only within a species. Hot spots for DNA insertion are found on the X chromosome in eight autism-associated genes involved in nerve cell synapse formation, central nervous system development, and mitochondrial function (Deisher, 2010). This could provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease of boys. Taken together, these data support the hypothesis that residual human DNA in some vaccines might cause autism.

[Rrrrrachel]

The bottom of this page (Under "other causes of autism") explain some of the reasons why research points away from a vaccine autism connection.

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/hot-topics/autism.html

[slmommy]

If you read the Ratajczak article, you would know she also brings up various possibilities of genetic and environmental factors. 

I still would be interested in science proving that her assertions about DNA are impossible. 

Showing me other research suggesting there are genetic/environmental factors does not disprove the possibility of this one vax related issue. 

(and I am not asserting in any way shape or form that vax is the only possible cause of autism)

[Rrrrrachel]

There won't be any research on it because it is "not biologically plausible."  There's something like a trillionth of a gram of DNA in a vaccine, and it's not in any kind of state to do anything like she claims it will.

I have no idea why she's asserting it, but she's contradicted by pretty much everyone else.

[Rrrrrachel]

Oh sorry, that post with the CHOP link was unrelated, I just thought it was interesting.

What about the increasing large amount of research that points to symptoms of autism and changes in the brain happening as early as six months, well before the first MMR dose?

[slmommy]

Funny how they would allow it to be published in Journal of Immunotoxicology, and receive mainstream attention:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

Quote:

Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."

 

Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, "It does not matter...Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism." Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

What about the increasing large amount of research that points to symptoms of autism and changes in the brain happening as early as six months, well before the first MMR dose?

Like I said, I am in no way shape or form asserting that vax is the only factor in autism, personally I believe there are probably plenty of genetic and environmental issues, I am just arguing that vax causes, if there are any, have not been totally unproven. I don't think it ridiculous to admit that perhaps autism cases are due 99% of the time to other genetic, environmental factors, and that perhaps, maybe 1% of the time, possibily, vaccines in combo with other factors could be a role.

Personally, like stated before, I am more concerned about overall vax safety, adjuvant safety, possibility of auto-immune issues, etc., but this is an autism thread and we already went in circles about aluminum.

You said this before: "I don't hear many people say "there absolutely is no way vaccines cause autism," but I often hear people say "vaccines cause autism, I just know they do" or something like that." 

I am NOT saying vaccines cause all autism, but it does seem you are saying there is absolutely no way vaccines cause autism. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Typically we don't go about researching a disease by randomly proving what DOESN'T cause it.  Autism research isn't really pursuing the vaccine connection because their no biological plausibility to the hypothesis.  This is the same as if I went around demanding they prove epidurals don't cause autism.

The DNA thing is particularly ridiculous because that same DNA has been in vaccines for forty plus years, yet the "autism epidemic" didn't start until the 90's.  That's, again, setting aside the many many things that are wrong with the idea biologically.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

What about the increasing large amount of research that points to symptoms of autism and changes in the brain happening as early as six months, well before the first MMR dose?

First of all, nobody on this board has asserted that the first MMR dose is the sole cause of autism, nor has anyone even speculated that one must be inoculated with MMR in order to become autistic.

Which means that the increasingly large amount of research that points to autism symptoms and brain changes happening as early as 6 months in no way exonerates vaccines as a causal factor in autism.

Second of all, by 6 months, US babies have been given many vaccines. There has already been research posted here linking abnormal development,  brain abnormalities, and yes, the likelihood of autism diagnosis with birth-dose vaccines (hep B), number of vaccines, and cumulative amount of thimerosal.

[Rrrrrachel]

I was asked to respond to the study that was specific to the mmr vaccine, so I did,