or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New Study: More autism in kids who got mercury in DTaP and Hep B vaccines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Study: More autism in kids who got mercury in DTaP and Hep B vaccines - Page 2

post #21 of 40
I think only children with carefully diagnosed cases of precocious puberty should be treated with Lupron after informed consent of its risks and benefits. Call me whacky.
post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Your reference to Lupron being studied to treat Alzheimer's in a population of post menopausal women is relevant to giving it to prepubescent and pubescent autistic children how?
https://www.mbp.state.md.us/bpqapp/Orders/D2425004.271.PDF
Reference: the Maryland medical board order of suspension. The cases are really, really awful. I think if I had an autistic child I would feel worse! As it is, I'm a mother and a human being with an instinct to protect vulnerable people from exploitation. There was a terrible betrayal of trust there.

So no. I am not inclined to read their "study" with an open mind. They're just trying to keep a foot in their industry.

 

I am not going to go too deep into Geier - I have not bothered to read the links, beyond seeing that he was not liscensed to practice medicine.
 
I need to ask, though…when a parent turns to someone who is not licensed or has other controversial methods going on- why do they do it?  
 
I give science and medicine a D- when it comes to preventing, curing or even treating autism*. The whole thing is a shambles.   Is it any wonder people look elsewhere?
 
(oh, and pre-emptive caveat before someone says  "you just hate medicine and doctors!"  Nope.  Love antibiotics when used appropriately, love c-sections when used appropriately and if I get into a serious car accident, please bring me to a hospital.  There are things medicine does really well - autism is not one of them) 

Edited by kathymuggle - 1/22/14 at 12:13pm
post #23 of 40

It's taking me a while to go through the order for summary suspension.  It looks like there is a lot more going on there than what they write, on both sides of the issue.  I'm only part way through, but it doesn't look like the parents were complaining; on the contrary, some (Lisa Sykes, for example) are crediting the Lupron for major helpful changes.  Clearly, many of these kids WERE appropriately diagnosed with precocious puberty, and I think it's equally clear that this IS a major problem for a subgroup of autistic kids.

 

There may or may not be major problems from the Geiers' end of things, too, but it's very difficult to discern the truth, even in court proceedings.


This smells WAY too similar to the Wakefield witch hunt,  Remember?  Two DECADES of doctors and researchers insisting that autistic children do not have intestinal problems?  Not just insisting that measles virus and MMR vaccine are unrelated to intestinal problems , but INSISTING THAT AUTISTIC CHILDREN DIDIN'T HAVE INTESTINAL PROBLEMS.

 

And we now know that that a significant subgroup have MAJOR intestinal problems that greatly contribute to their autistic symptoms.  There are even a few documented cases of celiac disease causing symptoms consistent with autism.

 

Don't you see the similarity?  It sure looks like any doctor who successfully identifies and attempts to treat a valid medical issue in subgroups of autistic children is witch-hunted by the same medical establishment who insisted that such children don't exist.

 

Yes, of course we should be troubled by reports of "chemical castration."  That's a very alarming term.  But we should look further to see what is really going on, and question the ethics and truthfulness on both sides.  "Chemical poisoning" is just as alarming a term, and it applies to those who have severe adverse reactions to vaccines and other medications.

 

As the parent of a child who was diagnosed with a vaccine-induced seizure, celiac disease, precocious puberty, and autism, I obviously have a very different perspective than you do.  

 

And like other such parents, I am very frustrated by people who know nothing whatsoever about children like mine, or their medical issues, but rush to judge the doctors who identify and attempt to treat those issues.

post #24 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

The Geiers are a father-son team.  The father is the one with the medical degree, and was licensed to practice medicine in 11 states.  My understanding is that only the state of Maryland took action against him.  

According to Wikipedia, "The Geiers have been granted access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink records,[20] but the National Immunization Program found that "during the first visit the researchers conducted unapproved analysis on their datasets and on the second visit attempted to carry out unapproved analyses but did not complete this attempt."

So the National Immunization program gets to approve who does analysis, and what kind of analysis is done on the Vaccine Safety Datalink records?

 

Geeze, no wonder they went after the Geiers.

post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

The Geiers are a father-son team.  The father is the one with the medical degree, and was licensed to practice medicine in 11 states.  My understanding is that only the state of Maryland took action against him.

 

All states in which Mark Geier was licensed to practice medicine have either suspended or revoked his license.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geier

post #26 of 40
It's quite a work up to be diagnosed with precocious puberty, Taxi. What studies did they do? Was your son seen by a pediatric endocrinologist?
post #27 of 40
You know Kathy, it seems to me that medicine being helpless to prevent, treat, or cure a disease doesn't mean that if your kid has that disease, you should run around letting whoever seems nicest inject them with experimental drugs.
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

All states in which Mark Geier was licensed to practice medicine have either suspended or revoked his license.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geier

 

"On April 27, 2011, the Maryland State Board of Physicians suspended Mark Geier's medical license as an "emergency action", saying he "endangers autistic children and exploits their parents by administering to the children a treatment protocol that has a known substantial risk of serious harm and which is neither consistent with evidence-based medicine nor generally accepted in the relevant scientific community."[30] The board ruled that Geier misdiagnosed patients, diagnosed patients without sufficient tests, and recommended risky treatments without fully explaining the risks to the parents. 

 

Geier's licenses to practice medicine in the states of Washington,[34] Virginia [35] and California [36] were suspended as well. In June 2012, Geier was charged with violation of the Maryland suspension by continuing to practice medicine without a license.[37] In August 2012, Geier's license was formally revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians.[38] On 5 November 2012, the Missouri Medical board and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation revoked Geier’s license, both citing action taken by the Maryland State Board of Physicians.[39] On April 12, 2013, Geier's last medical license in the United States was revoked by the state medical board of Hawaii.[40]"

 

He sure sounds like a peach! :thumb

post #29 of 40

Also his son David was convicted and fined $10,000 for practicing medicine without a license in Maryland.  He has a BA and was involved in giving lupron to children!

 

And the datalink breaches were serious.  of course they limit who has access to the data and what can be done with it.  The data contains confidential information (medical records).  The breaches included Mark Geier trying to rename files, and remove files from the secure location which was a clear breach of confidentiality.  Confidentiality is a pretty basic component to doing research.  He also tried to have an IRB review that was actually conducted by his wife, employees and his son.  

 

The study in question are all people who are involved in litigation that requires this finding.  They are also all closely connected to Mark Geier working for his companies or using him as an expert in their lawsuits.  

post #30 of 40

My nephew was given Risperdol for autism while it was off-label.  

 

It seems to me Lupron is not so much experimental as off-label.  

 

It seems there are two issues here:

 

Are the Geiers credible?  No idea. I have not researched it very much.  I don't think practicing medicine without a license is a great idea (although some midwives do it in some places and that is acceptable to some).  

 

Is Lupron a good idea for some kids with autism?  Maybe.

 

I thought this article was pretty good, with the following quote:

 

http://drbradstreet.org/2011/05/12/a-reluctant-discussion-of-lupron-and-autism/

 

"But there is another scenario where steroids get trickier and that is puberty which IS under the control of GnRH (the brain messenger and target for Lupron).  There are cases where sexual behavior and sexual obsessions are extremely difficult to regulate in puberty due to the underlying cognitive impairments in ASD.  In these cases there may be appropriate justification to reduce hormone levels to below the normal range and this may be safer than other psychotropic medications to control behavior.  These are not simple or easy choices to make.  

This is not a defense of either Mark Geier, MD or David Geier and their conduct. And clearly we differ in our views of the hormonal issues in ASD and the definition of precocious puberty.  Nor do I agree with their Lupron protocol as I understand it. However, I do not want to see the appropriate scientific discussion of hormones in autism discarded by their legal issues."

I will  add that things like masturbating in public, something teens with moderate-severe ASD often do, can get them kicked out of activities and make them unwelcome places, leading to further isolation.  This is not a small deal, and it would not surprise me at all if a number parents were a-Ok with medication to stem this type of behavior.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 1/22/14 at 5:45pm
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

It's quite a work up to be diagnosed with precocious puberty, Taxi. What studies did they do? Was your son seen by a pediatric endocrinologist?

Yes it is - do you know many parents of autistic children that have faced this?

 

Katti -Do you have any idea the numbers of girls that are autistic and have had uterine embolisation, go on to  later have hysterectomies after years of being on medication including birth control pills to treat their issues? I have a friend who has as autistic daughter who started precocious puberty at eight, she had an embolisation recently done. The OB stated to this mother it is very common for autistic precocious girls, she did some checking and found other parents that also faced this with their precocious/autistic children but could find really nothing on line except that other also can not find this information but deal with it in real life.     

post #32 of 40
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

It's quite a work up to be diagnosed with precocious puberty, Taxi. What studies did they do? Was your son seen by a pediatric endocrinologist?

Our pediatrician was very concerned at his well-child checkup, and sent us to the pediatric endocrinologist at the local children's hospital.  The endocrinologist ordered blood and urine tests, and a bone scan of the wrist, after which he diagnosed precocious puberty. He also suggested an MRI of the brain, but we declined.  He offered medication, which we also declined.  He also sent us to a pediatric geneticist, who did not find any genetic reason for his precocious puberty.

post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

 

 

I thought this article was pretty good, with the following quote:

 

http://drbradstreet.org/2011/05/12/a-reluctant-discussion-of-lupron-and-autism/

 

"But there is another scenario where steroids get trickier and that is puberty which IS under the control of GnRH (the brain messenger and target for Lupron).  There are cases where sexual behavior and sexual obsessions are extremely difficult to regulate in puberty due to the underlying cognitive impairments in ASD.  In these cases there may be appropriate justification to reduce hormone levels to below the normal range and this may be safer than other psychotropic medications to control behavior.  These are not simple or easy choices to make.  

This is not a defense of either Mark Geier, MD or David Geier and their conduct. And clearly we differ in our views of the hormonal issues in ASD and the definition of precocious puberty.  Nor do I agree with their Lupron protocol as I understand it. However, I do not want to see the appropriate scientific discussion of hormones in autism discarded by their legal issues."

I will  add that things like masturbating in public, things teens with moderate-severe ASD often do, can get them kicked out of activities and make them unwelcome places, leading to further isolation.  This is not a small deal, and it would not surprise me at all if a number parents were a-Ok with medication to stem this type of behavior.  

 

Excellent point, kathy, and thank you for posting that link. I had not seen it before.  

I think this is key:
"There is nothing “illegal” about using Lupron for out of control behavior. The off-label use of many medications is completely common in the US. We docs can use any medication we think appropriate to the needs of our patients – even if the FDA did not approve of the use. What is illegal is telling the insurance company the patient has something that they don’t have in order to get it paid for. That is insurance fraud and plenty of doctors have lost their license or gone to jail over that process."

 

 Katie, as I see it, the Geiers were doing basically the same thing that the vast majority of psychiatrists and even primary care providers do: they were prescribing a medication that they believed would help their patients.  If you look at the side effects of most antidepressants, and you look at how psychiatrists stretch the definition of "depression" to include anyone who feels a bit sad, you could argue that what the Geiers did was far, far less problematic than the over-medicating perfectly normal, healthy people.

 

I think a very big problem with both the Geiers and Andrew Wakefield is, they all seem to believe that they can both stretch the pharmaceutical/medical rules AND take on the pharmaceutical/medical industry.  Very, very foolish of them.

post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 Katie, as I see it, the Geiers were doing basically the same thing that the vast majority of psychiatrists and even primary care providers do: they were prescribing a medication that they believed would help their patients

 

At least one of the Geiers should not have been prescribing ANYTHING since he was not a medical professional.  That's not "stretching" the rules, it's trampling them.

post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

At least one of the Geiers should not have been prescribing ANYTHING since he was not a medical professional.  That's not "stretching" the rules, it's trampling them.

 

I completely agree with you.  

 

I would, however, like to know what his defense--if he had any--was, or if he denies having done so in the first place.

post #36 of 40
post #37 of 40

Did any of the Geiers' patients complain? It would make a difference to me whether their patients complained of wrongdoing and harm, or if the medical boards decided they were doing something wrong for whatever reason. If the Geiers were harming people, then they deserved the punishment. However, I wonder if we could find out the charges brought by the different boards. I don't trust the integrity of state medical boards, so I would want to know more about this before I judge the Geiers.

 

Quote:
 neither consistent with evidence-based medicine nor generally accepted in the relevant scientific community."[30] The board ruled that Geier misdiagnosed patients, diagnosed patients without sufficient tests, and recommended risky treatments without fully explaining the risks to the parents.

So, he did not follow the rules. Is there any evidence of harming patients? Or, did the board just dislike this renegade doctor? (ex. Dr. Burzynski vs. Texas State Medical Board) I do not know much about the Geiers, so if anyone knows the answers to my questions, that would be great! I have to go, so I can't research this tonight anyway.

post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Did any of the Geiers' patients complain? It would make a difference to me whether their patients complained of wrongdoing and harm, or if the medical boards decided they were doing something wrong for whatever reason. If the Geiers were harming people, then they deserved the punishment. However, I wonder if we could find out the charges brought by the different boards. I don't trust the integrity of state medical boards, so I would want to know more about this before I judge the Geiers.

 

So, he did not follow the rules. Is there any evidence of harming patients? Or, did the board just dislike this renegade doctor? (ex. Dr. Burzynski vs. Texas State Medical Board) I do not know much about the Geiers, so if anyone knows the answers to my questions, that would be great! I have to go, so I can't research this tonight anyway.

 

Good question.  I don't know if we can ever really learn the facts.  The news media isn't exactly honest and impartial, either, especially when it's financially supported by pharmaceutical advertising.

 

Remember, Brian Deer's "expose" of Andrew Wakefield supposedly quoted disgruntled parents of Wakefield's patients--but those parents have gone on record as supporting Wakefield, and accusing Deer of misquoting them, and of outright lying.  In addition, he published their medical records without their permission.

post #39 of 40
Thread Starter 

The 1999 research paper by Thomas Verstraeten was recently revealed by the CDC following an oversights request by Congress. It highlights just how secretive and deceitful the CDC is. They knew thimerosal was harming babies, but hid it from the public. Verstraeten is not the Geiers, so can we focus on the data not the messengers?

 

http://www.safeminds.org/blog/2014/01/23/new-disclosures-vaccine-safety-datalink-vsd/

 

According to the newly released document, CDC epidemiologic surveillance officers utilized the Vaccine Safety Datalink (a large linked database from four health maintenance organizations in Washington, Oregon, and California) containing demographic, medical and immunization data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997 to conduct the investigation.  The data was categorized according to cumulative exposure to ethylmercury (thimerosal) after the first month of life and the subsequent risk of the infant developing degenerative, neurologic or renal disorders. In the paper the authors found an elevated relative risk (RR) for the following disorders: Autism 7.6, nonorganic sleep disorders 5.0 and speech disorders 2.1.  In a court of law, a relative risk of 2.0 typically implies cause and effect.

 

This early run of the data occurred prior to the CDC changing the entrance criteria for the study making it mandatory that all children in the study to have received at least two polio vaccines the first year of life as a proxy for being fully vaccinated. Altering the entrance criteria by adding this new requirement essentially removed the control group of infants who had not been vaccinated. This would be the same as studying the incidence of lung cancer in two pack a day smokers and a three pack a day smokers and not including any non-smokers.

 

Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in first month of life. 

 

ETA: Now of course we are giving fetuses thimerosal in their mothers' flu vax.

post #40 of 40
Thread Starter 

If you have read the above document, you would have noticed another name on the paper, that of F DeStefano. Frank DeStefano is director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC and has published papers on how vaccines do not cause autism.

 

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/fulltext

 

(thank you to Contaiminated Vaccines facebook page for pointing this out)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New Study: More autism in kids who got mercury in DTaP and Hep B vaccines