Did you think that was it? More MMR bull arrives

25 Feb

The recent decision by the Special Masters in the Autism Omnibus case that MMR/thiomersal can’t cause autism according to evidence presented by HHS and lack of evidence presented by Master et al hit the mercury militia hard. They genuinely thought they were going to win.

But, of course, there was a ‘Plan B’ ready just in case. Today we see its co-ordinated unveiling. In part one, that scientific heavyweight Jenny McCarthy, together with her partner Jim Carrey released a press release:

Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey’s Los Angeles-based non-profit autism organization, today announced that the United States Government has once again conceded that vaccines cause autism…

Both the inference and the statement of fact are in error here. The United States Government has _never_ conceded that vaccines cause autism. I challenge McCarthy and Carrey to show the statement that contradicts me. Team McCarrey’s announcement today also fails to establish that the US government have conceded vaccines cause autism.

Of course, the historical reference is to Hannah Poling. As has been discussed numerous times, Hannah Poling’s autism has not been shown to have been caused by vaccines. I have asked various people, including David Kirby numerous times to provide back up to their belief the government have said vaccines caused ehr autism. They cannot. They have not. In point of fact, only three of Hannah Poling’s symptoms that were described by both HHS and a scientific case study co-authored by her father as those being caused by vaccines, tally with the DSM (IV) criteria for ASD.

The case of Hannah Poling is a red herring.

As we shall see, so is this ‘new’ case.

Team McCarrey go on:

The announcement comes on the heels of the *recently unsealed* court case of Bailey Banks vs. HHS

If by ‘recent’ one means July 2007 then they may have a point. But I don’t think ‘recent’ can really apply to a case which has had open access to it (Kathleen blogged about it in May 2008) for about a year and a half. So why lie? To add to the drama, whip up mystery and confusion of course.

But now we get to the meat of it – the actual ruling. In Part II of today’s coordinated attack, RFK Jr and David Kirby blogged about this case.

Kennedy jumps straight in:

…last week, the parents of yet another child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for autism services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute brain damage that led to his autism spectrum disorder.

Whereas David is a tad more circumspect:

Is vaccine-induced ADEM (and similar disorders) a neurological gateway for a subset of children to go on and develop an ASD? That question will now become subject to debate…Special Master Abell had no trouble linking MMR to ADEM in Bailey Banks’ case. But linking his ADEM to PDD/ASD was more difficult.

So, lets rewind a little. Bailey was awarded a payment because he was found to have suffered vaccine induced damage. Cool. Thats the system working as it should – a child is damaged by a vaccine, they get compensated. What the MMR vaccine was established to have done in Bailey’s case was cause something called ADEM. What McCarthy, Carrey, Kennedy and David are now all claiming is that this ADEM resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

They rest their case on the conclusion of Special Master Abell:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

On the fact of it, it looks like they are right. But they aren’t.

Bailey has a diagnosis of PDD-NOS (Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified) which is indeed a subtype of ASD.

However, whilst PDD-NOS is a subtype of ASD (alongside autism etc). ASD is in turn a subtype of PDD. As the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities notes, the term PDD actually refers to a category of disorders and is not a diagnostic label. So when Abell refers to Bailey’s vaccine induced ADEM as leading to PDD he is not referring to ASD. He is referring to PDD. Not PDD-NOS, which _is_ a subtype of ASD but PDD, of which ASD itself is a subtype. Or, to quote Wikipedia:

PDD-NOS is often incorrectly referred to as simply “PDD.” The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs.

Abell made something of a worrying statement in his conclusion. I’ll quote from David Kirby:

Abell also chided MacDonald for his assertion that “all the medical literature is negative” in regards to an ADEM-PDD link. “However, soon thereafter, he corrected this statement by clarifying, ‘I can find no literature relating ADEM to autism or [PDD],'” Abell wrote. “It may be that Respondent’s research reveals a dearth of evidence linking ADEM to PDD, but that is not the same as positive proof that the two are unrelated, something Respondent was unable to produce. Therefore, the statement that ‘all the medical literature is negative’ is incorrect.”

Was any evidence that there _is_ a link between ADEM and PDD produced? I’ll have to read through more carefully. Its worrying that the SM is reduced to ‘chiding’ a witness for such a thing as a clarification of terms. Wasn’t he more worried that there was an extreme lack of evidence linking ADEM to PDD at all? Did Petitioners produce _any_ evidence that there was a link? A quick search of PubMed reveals nothing for ‘ADEM autism’ or ‘ADEM PDD’. I don’t want to second guess a Special Master but it does make me worried that maybe he simply didn’t get some of the science.

David also lists some of the symptoms of ADEM:

Symptoms usually appear within a few days to a couple of weeks. They include: headache, delirium, lethargy, seizures, stiff neck, fever, ataxia (incoordination), optic nerve damage, nausea, vomiting, weight loss, irritability and changes in mental status.

None of these say autism to me. I also did fine one ADEM paper in PubMed together with measles:

We report a seven year old male with measles associated acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) despite having received measles vaccination in infancy. The diagnosis was based on serum antimeasles antibodies and MRI brain. The patient was managed with high dose corticosteroids along with supportive measures. There was a complete neurologically and physica recovery.

There was a complete mental and physical recovery. This doesn’t seem to indicate causation or autism.

In my opinion based on what I’ve read so far here we have a little boy who either already had or was on the cusp of PDD-NOS. He was also vaccine damaged resulting in ADEM….and thats where the link breaks down. It might be enough for 50% and a feather but the fact that PDD is not PDD-NOS, together with the total lack of any evidence I can see to link ADEM to PDD, let alone PDD-NOS speaks volumes.

About these ads

28 Responses to “Did you think that was it? More MMR bull arrives”

  1. Joseph February 25, 2009 at 22:28 #

    This is an interesting case, in that it illustrates how the vaccine court works. Clearly, the Special Masters are not out to “protect the vaccine manufacturers” or any such nonsense. They rule based on plausibility and preponderance of evidence.

    You will note there’s no reliable evidence that vaccines can cause ADEM, and no evidence whatsoever that ADEM is associated with PDD. You can look in PubMed. At one point the Special Master admits that the petitioner’s burden would probably not meet a Daubert standard. And yet, the petitioner wins, based on the preponderance of the expert testimony.

    As this case illustrates, the vaccine court is clearly not biased against petitioners. If anything, it’s too quick to rule in favor of petitioners.

  2. RJ February 25, 2009 at 22:37 #

    It’s just sad. They are so hell-bent on proving to everyone they are right, regardless of the facts.

    The GR headline on their ad: “Court again concedes vaccines cause autism”, not “Court conceded MMR vaccination contributed to a child’s PDD”.

    It’s not that a child has a legitimate grievance that involved one of the mandated pediatric vaccines. No! It’s (all) vaccines cause (not caused) autism (not PDD).

    I would ask, who do they think they are fooling? But judging by the Huffington Post article by RFKjr and Kirby, there are quite a few suckers.

    Here we go again.
    Make a sweeping generality out of a specific example.

  3. Broken Link February 25, 2009 at 23:05 #

    I’m glad the court does rule for the children in some cases. But in this case, the very title of the ruling includes the phrase: “Non-autistic developmental delay”. Doesn’t sound like autism to me.

  4. Anne February 26, 2009 at 02:03 #

    Broken Link, I don’t think Special Master Abell cared if it was autism or not. He did analyze the issue of whether an ASD diagnosis was inconsistent with a diagnosis of neurological sequelae of ADEM, and he concluded there was no inconsistency because diagnoses under the DSM are made without regard to etiology. I think his conclusion was that a vaccine-induced episode of ADEM resulting in developmental delay was compensable regardless of whether the developmental delay supported a diagnosis of PDD-NOS.

  5. Harold L Doherty February 26, 2009 at 02:14 #

    “I don’t want to second guess a Special Master”

    But you will if he reaches a conclusion at odds with your opinions.

  6. MJ February 26, 2009 at 02:51 #

    Are you really still denying that Hannah Polling has as diagnosis of autism? Her parents have said exactly that many times. Calling it autism-like-symptoms or whatever exact weasel words were used does not change what the diagnosis is. Neither does you armchair remote re-diagnosis.

    And while you might be wanting to split hairs about the difference between PDD and PDD-NOS the terms are commonly used to interchangeably.

    The PDD category is made of the following sub types:

    Autism
    Rett’s Disorder
    Childhood Disintegrative Disorder
    Aspeger’s Disorder
    PDD-NOS

    Did I miss any? So when the label of PDD is used it means one of these. Three of them are considered autism and one of them has known genetic cause. CDD isn’t as clear but is very unlikely to be called ‘PDD’.

    I very much doubt that the special master would call Rett’s or CDD by a label of ‘PDD’ or grant relief for either condition.

    So while you may want to play word games and say that PDD is not being used to refer to the actual diagnosis of PDD-NOS (what else could it be referring to?) that does not change the reality of the case.

  7. Jeanette February 26, 2009 at 04:50 #

    Oh C’mon…
    Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey aren’t smart enough to do anything but read a poorly written script and act. They are puppets.
    I am sick to death of all of the propaganda this week about Autism and vaccines.
    What are these people going to do when their children become adults with Autism?
    I will tell you.
    First they will whine about it and then they will complain there are no services for adults with autism.
    That is what our focus should be…services for Adults with autism…duh !!!!

  8. Kev February 26, 2009 at 07:17 #

    Are you really still denying that Hannah Polling has as diagnosis of autism?

    Uh, no. I never have done. What I’m saying is that its obvious based on the science presented that her vaccines didn’t cause her autism. Further more, no one outside the autism antivax community says they did.

    And while you might be wanting to split hairs about the difference between PDD and PDD-NOS the terms are commonly used to interchangeably.

    Are they? By who? Other than this Special Master. And if they are, they are being used incorrectly.

    MJ – as Broken Link has noted above, the clue is in the title “Non-autistic developmental delay”. Could it be any clearer?

  9. alyric February 26, 2009 at 20:41 #

    Nice of you to join us Harold. For those who aren’t aware, Harold is now a vocal member of the yahoo EOH mailing group, home to the biggest collection of anti-vax proponents on the net.

  10. suzie February 26, 2009 at 21:53 #

    i am amazed with people. do any of the people commenting here have a medical degree???

    I doubt it.

    do you not think the pharm. cos and the Govt use “spin”?

    everyone uses words to bend it a little i n their direction.

    i think it is great that generation rescue (not jenny and jim – but a foundation they started and help with respectively) is trying to help children.

    i know it is hard to believe that the US govt and the big companies would LIE….oh my god, can you imagine, if they lied?

    i mean come on people…have you see what is happening on wall street lately?

    our country does lie and spin things and i am not saying that EVERYONE does, but SOME do….see the case with the tobacco industry in early 90’s…you probably would have been flapping your traps in defense of the govt and the tobacco companies then….because you are ignoranct and quick to judge.

    it is sad…well i hope your next child doesnt suffer from developmental delays or autism or any flippin thing due to a vaccine…now wouldnt that be ironic.

  11. MJ February 27, 2009 at 03:47 #

    What I’m saying is that its obvious based on the science presented that her vaccines didn’t cause her autism.

    Ah, obvious. Which part of the hearing about her case are you referring to? Because from the use of the word “presented” it is clear you are talking about there being an opportunity for science to be presented. And I was not aware of ‘science’ presentation – or even any hearings on the evidence for that matter.

    Further more, no one outside the autism antivax community says they did.

    So you have taken a poll of the rest of the world and determined that they are all in agreement with you? That didn’t take you long.

    Are they? By who? Other than this Special Master. And if they are, they are being used incorrectly.

    I notice that even when provided a list of exactly what types of PDD exist you neglected to point out which PDD that you feel the special master was referring to.

    The diagnosis the child has is PDD-NOS. The special master can entitle the document “Non-autistic developmental delay” all they want but PDD-NOS will still be a spectrum diagnosis.

    Since that is the diagnosis it is apparent that when the term PDD is used in relation to the child that it is referring to the diagnosis of PDD-NOS. Or are you suggesting that he has multiple forms of PDD? Which incidentally would be possible under the DSM-IV since PDD-NOS is the label used when non of the others fit.

    Your attempts to redefine the basic terms to twist the outcomes to fit into your world view is getting funnier each time you do it. Next you will be trying to redefine the word ‘is’.

  12. MJ February 27, 2009 at 03:56 #

    What I’m saying is that its obvious based on the science presented that her vaccines didn’t cause her autism.

    Ah, obvious. Which part of the hearing about her case are you referring to? Because from the use of the word “presented” it is clear you are talking about there being an opportunity for science to be presented. And I was not aware of ‘science’ presentation – or even any hearings on the evidence for that matter.

    Further more, no one outside the autism antivax community says they did.

    So you have taken a poll of the rest of the world and determined that they are all in agreement with you? That didn’t take you long.

    Are they? By who? Other than this Special Master. And if they are, they are being used incorrectly.

    I notice that even when provided a list of exactly what types of PDD exist you neglected to point out which PDD that you feel the special master was referring to.

    The diagnosis the child has is PDD-NOS. The special master can entitle the document “Non-autistic developmental delay” all they want but PDD-NOS will still be a spectrum diagnosis.

    Since that is the diagnosis it is apparent that when the term PDD is used in relation to the child that it is referring to the diagnosis of PDD-NOS. Or are you suggesting that he has multiple forms of PDD? Which incidentally would be possible under the DSM-IV since PDD-NOS is the label used when non of the others fit.

    Your attempts to redefine the basic terms to twist the outcomes to fit into your world view is getting funnier each time you do it. Next you will be trying to redefine the word is.

  13. Rpger February 27, 2009 at 05:29 #

    MJ on February 26th, 2009 02:51:20

    Are you really still denying that Hannah Polling has as diagnosis of autism? Her parents have said exactly that many times. Calling it autism-like-symptoms or whatever exact weasel words were used does not change what the diagnosis is. Neither does you armchair remote re-diagnosis.

    This has been hashed and rehashed here time and again.Hannah Poling has mitochondrial disease.This is a preexisting mutation of the DNA,that is there in the womb.It is aggravated by immune stressors,in those who have the mutation,as it was with me,when I had meningitis at the age of five months.

    Hannah Poling was not a previously healthy child.

    To understand Hannah’s case, it is important to understand mitochondria, which act like batteries in our cells to produce energy critical for normal function. Because the government’s concession hinged on the presence of Hannah’s underlying medical condition, mitochondrial dysfunction, some claim the decision is relevant to very few other children with autism. As a neurologist, scientist and father, I disagree.

    Emerging evidence suggests that mitochondrial dysfunction may not be rare at all among children with autism. In the only population-based study of its kind, Portuguese researchers confirmed that at least 7.2 percent, and perhaps as many as 20 percent, of autistic children exhibit mitochondrial dysfunction. While we do not yet know a precise U.S. rate, 7.2 percent to 20 percent of children does not qualify as “rare.” In fact, mitochondrial dysfunction may be the most common medical condition associated with autism.

    Jon Poling

  14. MJ February 27, 2009 at 05:41 #

    (OK, trying to post this again, I don’t think your site likes my comment for some reason.)

    What I’m saying is that its obvious based on the science presented that her vaccines didn’t cause her autism.

    Ah, obvious. Which part of the hearing about her case are you referring to? Because from the use of the word “presented” it is clear you are talking about there being an opportunity for science to be presented. And I was not aware of science presentation – or even any hearings on the evidence for that matter.

    Further more, no one outside the autism antivax community says they did.

    So you have taken a poll of the rest of the world and determined that they are all in agreement with you? That didn’t take you long.

    Are they? By who? Other than this Special Master. And if they are, they are being used incorrectly.

    I notice that even when provided a list of exactly what types of PDD exist you neglected to point out which PDD that you feel the special master was referring to.

    The diagnosis the child has is PDD-NOS. The special master can entitle the document “Non-autistic developmental delay” all they want but PDD-NOS will still be a spectrum diagnosis.

    Since that is the diagnosis it is apparent that when the term PDD is used in relation to the child that it is referring to the diagnosis of PDD-NOS. Or are you suggesting that he has multiple forms of PDD? Which incidentally would be possible under the DSM-IV since PDD-NOS is the label used when non of the others fit.

    Your attempts to redefine the basic terms to twist the outcomes to fit into your world view is getting funnier each time you do it. Next you will be trying to redefine the word is.

  15. MJ February 27, 2009 at 05:47 #

    Well, I tried to post a response several different ways but your spam filter seems to find all of my comments very tasty. I would just refer you to the footnote 4 on page 2 of the decision for the definition of PDD and leave it at that.

  16. Sullivan February 27, 2009 at 06:44 #

    MJ,

    I just went through the spam-trap and knocked a bunch of comments loose.

    Sorry for the delay.

  17. Sullivan February 27, 2009 at 06:47 #

    Emerging evidence suggests that mitochondrial dysfunction may not be rare at all among children with autism. In the only population-based study of its kind, Portuguese researchers confirmed that at least 7.2 percent, and perhaps as many as 20 percent, of autistic children exhibit mitochondrial dysfunction. While we do not yet know a precise U.S. rate, 7.2 percent to 20 percent of children does not qualify as “rare.” In fact, mitochondrial dysfunction may be the most common medical condition associated with autism.

    A very interesting fact from that study–only one of the children studied underwent regression.

    Mitochondrial disease/dysfunction does not mean regression or vaccine injury.

    That’s a minor factoid that David Kirby conveniently neglects to mention.

  18. Sullivan February 27, 2009 at 06:49 #

    i am amazed with people. do any of the people commenting here have a medical degree???

    I doubt it.

    do you not think the pharm. cos and the Govt use “spin”?

    everyone uses words to bend it a little i n their direction.

    i think it is great that generation rescue (not jenny and jim – but a foundation they started and help with respectively) is trying to help children.

    Just for consistency sake, shouldn’t “jenny and jim” have a medical degree? Or is it just the people with whom you disagree that need medical degrees?

  19. Janice Miller February 27, 2009 at 18:59 #

    PDD-NOS= Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. It is on the Autism Spectrum along with Autism and Aspergers. Could it be that the huge increase in the diagnosis of Autism could really be ADEM associated with vaccines? Could so many children be MISdiagnosed as having autism when really they have a condition that resulted from a fever not genetics?

  20. Kev February 27, 2009 at 20:07 #

    Ah, obvious. Which part of the hearing about her case are you referring to? Because from the use of the word “presented” it is clear you are talking about there being an opportunity for science to be presented. And I was not aware of science presentation – or even any hearings on the evidence for that matter.

    Are you joking? I’m talking about the case report co-authored by her father. By presented I mean ‘put forward’ by anyone.

    So you have taken a poll of the rest of the world and determined that they are all in agreement with you? That didn’t take you long.

    WTF are you talking about? Are you aware of anyone outside the antivax community that does?

    MJ – I’m afraid its you whos twisting the words. PDD is not interchangeable with Pdd-NOS. I once again point you to the title of the SM’s ruling. “Non-autistic developmental delay” I mean, what is it you’re not getting in that?

  21. Kev February 27, 2009 at 20:08 #

    Suzie – I own this blog. My daughter is autistic. Vaccines don’t cause autism.

  22. Sullivan February 27, 2009 at 20:45 #

    PDD-NOS= Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. It is on the Autism Spectrum along with Autism and Aspergers. Could it be that the huge increase in the diagnosis of Autism could really be ADEM associated with vaccines? Could so many children be MISdiagnosed as having autism when really they have a condition that resulted from a fever not genetics?

    Except that people have performed epidemiology on the MMR vaccine looking for an increase in autism and haven’t found it.

    Except that ADEM is detectable by MRI.

    “T2-weighted, proton-density, or echo-planar trace diffusion MRI techniques disclose high-signal lesions in more than 80-90% of cases of ADEM.”

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1147044-diagnosis

    Unless there are a lot of kids out there with misinterpreted MRI scans, I’d say that the chances that ADEM is behind the “epidemic” are slim.

  23. alyric February 27, 2009 at 21:08 #

    “Could so many children be MISdiagnosed as having autism when really they have a condition that resulted from a fever not genetics?”

    No because ADEM is too rare to put a blip in autism prevalence. What do you think a rate of 1-2 per million is going to do?

    The pathetic thing about this full page ad the GR bought was they had to lie in it. You can see it quite prominently, where they had to add [autism] to the words of the decision. PDD really is just that – a global developmental delay and is not an ASD diagnostic category. That had to hurt, one lie already. But they really lied to the American public twice more. No where did they mention the rarity of ADEM and why it’s so irrelevant to autism. That’s misleading to the point of telling very big fibs. Finally, they did not say that ADEM has a very unique MRI profile, which is not shared in the slightest by autism. That is more serious misrepresentation of the facts.

    So, that’s a lot of lies for one ad. I thought there were laws in the US regarding truth in advertising?

  24. MJ February 28, 2009 at 02:54 #

    WTF are you talking about? Are you aware of anyone outside the antivax community that does?

    Yes, many people. Not everyone who questions the safety of vaccinations is “antivax”.

    I’m afraid its you whos twisting the words. PDD is not interchangeable with Pdd-NOS. I once again point you to the title of the SM’s ruling. “Non-autistic developmental delay” I mean, what is it you’re not getting in that?

    From the ruling, page 2, footnote 4:

    Pervasive Developmental Delay describes a class of conditions, and it is apparent from the record that the parties and the medical records are referring to Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (“PDDNOS”) … In the interest of consistency, the Court will follow the convention adhered to by the medical records and by the parties in this case, and this condition will be referred to herein as “PDD”.

    So when the special master uses the term PDD he is referring to PDD-NOS.

    PDD-NOS is a diagnosis of autism (unless it is being used in reference to either Rett’s or CDD, which does not seem to be the case).

    If you actually read the ruling the title may be “Non-autistic developmental delay” but the diagnosis is still PDD-NOS. The special master says on page 27 that the petitioner has met the burden of proof.

    One of these things is not like the other.

    Do you think that there is a non-autistic form of PDD-NOS? Or do you believe, as the special master seems to be imply, that since the cause is known we are no longer talking about autism? Or is it still the general form of PDD that does not refer to any one its subtypes yet is still PDD?

  25. Kurt April 18, 2011 at 21:23 #

    Lets see…

    The court ruled that the vaccine caused ADEM-Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis, translated: sudden(acute) wide-spread(disseminated) brain/spinal cord inflammation(encephalomyelitis).

    So what is autism? The answer is, no one really knows. No one knows the cause and it is considered “a developmental disorder that appears in the first 3 years of life, and affects the brain’s normal development of social and communication skills.”

    The above paragraph is taken from Pubmed Health. Also, when searching for ADEM no results were returned. The closest result returned for ADEM (a very vague medical term as shown above) was encephalitis or simply brain inflammation. When severe, “the brain tissue swells (cerebral edema), which may destroy nerve cells, cause bleeding in the brain (intracerebral hemorrhage), and brain damage.” Labeled as “Other causes include” on such cause is “allergic reaction to vaccinations.”

    The bickering of whether vaccines cause autism or not is really silly. The fact is we don’t really know what autism is. Vaccines are a listed cause of encephalitis and when encephalitis is severe enough it can possibly cause lasting brain damage. I think it is safe to assume that brain damage caused by encephalitis MAY present as “autism-like”. It of course depends on the severity and location of the brain inflammation.

    The debate should be whether vaccines can cause brain damage or not. The answer to this is a resounding yes! And absolutely the chances are very very RARE, but the chance DOES exist.

    I have never had kids so I don’t know the discussion that goes on between the parent and doctor beforehand. But I hope somewhere in the informed consent that discussed that the mention of brain damage may occur in rare instances.

    • Sullivan April 18, 2011 at 21:41 #

      Kurt,

      no one denies that vaccines have adverse reactions. In the end, the main question: whether vaccines are the cause of the large increase in autism prevalence is pretty clear. The answer is no. Without the “epidemic”, there is very little evidence to support vaccine causation at all.

      “It of course depends on the severity and location of the brain inflammation.”

      If we don’t know what causes autism, how is the above “of course”? One, you assume that autism is caused by brain inflammation. While inflammation has been observed, it isn’t known if it is a cause, an effect or something else in relationship to whatever is behind autism.

      There is too much time spent on the “whether it happens at all in very rare cases” question. If there is evidence, follow it. Thimerosal doesn’t have evidence. MMR doesn’t have the evidence. The only other cause out there is that in very rare situations vaccine-induced fevers could cause a mitochondrial crisis and result in lasting harm. That is, I believe, being studied.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Antivaccine Hail Mary! « SCIENCE-BASED PARENTING - February 26, 2009

    [...] year, it was public knowledge that Bailey Banks, a 10 year old with “non autistic pervasive development delay” was awarded compensation [...]

  2. Science-Based Medicine » The incredible shrinking vaccine-autism hypothesis shrinks some more - March 2, 2009

    [...] is about pervasive developmental delay (PDD). The difference is more than a matter of semantics, as Kev points out. PDD is not the same thing as PDD-NOS. In fact, the ruling itself makes this point very, [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,048 other followers

%d bloggers like this: