New Study: More autism in kids who got mercury in DTaP and Hep B vaccines - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
1  2
Vaccinations > New Study: More autism in kids who got mercury in DTaP and Hep B vaccines
serenbat's Avatar serenbat 06:17 PM 01-22-2014
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.     



Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 06:23 PM 01-22-2014
 
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.


Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 06:51 PM 01-22-2014
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.


chickabiddy's Avatar chickabiddy 07:05 PM 01-22-2014
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.


Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 07:36 PM 01-22-2014
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.


chickabiddy's Avatar chickabiddy 08:02 PM 01-22-2014
beckybird's Avatar beckybird 09:26 PM 01-22-2014

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.


Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 09:36 PM 01-22-2014
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.


Mirzam's Avatar Mirzam 02:07 PM 01-23-2014

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.


Mirzam's Avatar Mirzam 05:16 PM 01-23-2014

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)


1  2

Up