Leaky gut aka intestinal permeability

18 Aug

Leaky Gut syndrome is a hypothesis associated with autism by people who believe that toxins (particularly those caused by vaccines – notably the MMR) weakens the lining of the bowel letting various rubbish thorough (undigested food, toxins, whatever) and triggering an immune response and/or leading to Wakefield’s much-hyped but never backed up Autistic Enterocolitis.

This unverified condition has (of course) been found by any number of Wakefield supporters and yet, curiously, no researchers external to Wakefield’s peers have found any evidence for it and the phrase exists as a diagnosis within that AltMed community.

In fact, its not curious at all as the only groups that _did_ find evidence for ‘Autistic Enterocolitis’ used the now discredited Unigentics lab run by John O’Leary.

Anyway, in Feb of this year a team from the University of Calgary published a Pilot study into the ‘leaky gut’ (posh name: ‘intestinal permeability’) issue.

They enrolled 14 autistic kids (all of whom had parents who reported gastric issues), 7 NT siblings of these kids, and 8 NT non-related controls.

In the ‘leaky gut’ opioid-excess theory, it is proposed that increased intestinal permeability in children allows for increased absorption of dietary peptides, which ultimately leads to disruption of neuroregulatory mechanisms and normal brain development.

The reason for choosing autistic kids who were reported by parents to have gastric issues is that the researchers reasoned that these kids would be more likely to have ‘abnormal gastrointestinal tests’.

In this population, the researchers found:

we neither demonstrate abnormal small intestinal permeability, nor abnormal postprandial responses of the enteroendocrine peptide GLP-2.

…..

It has been suggested that increased permeability may be causally related to the onset of the inflammatory bowel disease and not just a consequence of inflammation. Our data does not support a similar hypothesis in autism.

…..

Our study did not detect differences in the functional gastrointestinal parameters measured in a group of children with autism. Although there may be a subset of children with autism with a specific gastrointestinal abnormality there is no firm evidence yet of a role for gastrointestinal dysfunction in
the etiology of autism.

One of the things the authors reported that struck me was:

The subtle endoscopic and histological findings of lymphonodular hyperplasia in the colon and ileum previously described in ‘‘autistic enterocolitis’’ (Wakefield et al. 1998, 2005) are also seen in normally developing children with similar gastrointestinal symptoms (Furlano et al. 2001).

This is only a pilot study of course so not too much can be read into the results but if the study is expanded upon and replicated then the results would be interesting to see. Its certainly a smallish spanner in the works of the ‘autistic enterocolitis’ believers.

45 Responses to “Leaky gut aka intestinal permeability”

  1. farmwifetwo August 18, 2008 at 13:01 #

    You can toss a small spanner into the works anytime 🙂 But I’m still not going to feed my eldest dairy anytime soon. Been 6yrs now and still too scared to try it. I watched it, live in and in living colour, what happens when I do… once in this lifetime is sufficient.

    But yes, they are more than correct, it doesn’t effect everyone. Also, if it isn’t “instant” (dairy, gluten withdrawl takes longer), ie within 48hrs the symptoms we were trying to stop were gone. Within one hour, one week later, a tiny bit of butter made him ill (playpen, screaming, headslamming), then IMO… the changes you are seeing, is a maturing child undergoing therapy.

    B/c see… it did nothing, except create lactose intolerance… in the severe, non-verbal one. It was the mild one, the one with the nightmares/terrors (both, daily and after naps) and daily nasty diahhrea.

    I think the true subgroup is very small. It’s by no means a cure, it just made him feel better and he stopped tripping over things (and not putting his hands out so he’d land face first), and was just more “there”. Trust me.. he may appear “normal” to an outsider at nearly 9, but he’s not. He’s had private Speech therapy, tutoring, homeschooling on top of regular schooling, Scouts, Karate, Library programs… etc…. an education.

    He, also, had a gluten test that came back “normal” and has a family history if IBS.

    I think you need a family history, true consistant upset (sleeping/stomach), to make it work and then you are only treating the symptoms, not CURING the child. The part I find amazing is that it’s well documented in NORMAL children, and in Adults the correlation btwn foods and illness. But put a child with Autism in the mix and it’s – No, can’t be…. “Some children with autism are like that” to quote our first Dev Ped. Why not, why would you not treat other symptoms. Had he been “normal” the first thing that we would have been told is “figure out which foods are upsetting his stomach”, not “can’t be, he has Autism”.

    That… has me the most annoyed.

    S.

  2. Maddy August 18, 2008 at 15:36 #

    Our family certainly experiences intestinal issues. Whether they’re ‘severe’ or not is difficult to fathom as we seem to have lost a good / fair comparison point.

    However, I would say that since many children have such limited or restricted diets, it’s difficult to determine which is the chicken and which is the egg [although neither of those items are currently on the menu around here]
    Cheers

  3. Kev August 18, 2008 at 16:32 #

    Its a tricky one, I agree. Can autistic kids have gastric issues? Of course. Do they have them in numbers over and above the NT population? This pilot says ‘no’. This study really needs to be expanded on.

  4. Ringside Seat August 18, 2008 at 17:45 #

    The peptide stuff was looked into. I think the results were published in the Archives about six months ago. Zilch.

  5. Schwartz August 18, 2008 at 21:47 #

    Kev,

    There are a lot of different things in your article here. I think (not positive) that you’re mixing up the order of events in the hypothesis a bit.

    “Leaky Gut syndrome is a hypothesis associated with autism by people who believe that toxins (particularly those caused by vaccines – notably the MMR) weakens the lining of the bowel letting various rubbish thorough (undigested food, toxins, whatever) and triggering an immune response and/or leading to Wakefield’s much-hyped but never backed up Autistic Enterocolitis.”

    I understood the hypothesis to be that persistent measles infection in the gut would lead to autistic entercolitis and then leaky gut syndrome. I didn’t think it was the toxins, but the measles virus itself which was implicated in the hypothesis. That’s why the PCR test results are so heavily debated because they could validate or invalidate that portion of the hypothesis.

    Leaky gut would then result in toxins from the bowels reaching the brain eventually resulting in Autistic regression.

    The results of the study you quoted are interesting in that they point to a weakness in the latter half of they hypothesis: Once we see symptoms of Autistic Entercolitis, do we have leaky gut syndrome. My understanding from your post, is that we don’t see any leaky gut.

    That would effectively invalidate the hypothesized causative mechanism between the GI issues and the regressive Autism (leaky gut).

    “In fact, its not curious at all as the only groups that did find evidence for ‘Autistic Enterocolitis’ used the now discredited Unigentics lab run by John O’Leary.”

    This statement is not correct. O’Leary’s tests found Measles DNA samples in tissues, they did not validate Autistic Enterocolitis. Autistic Entercolitis is a pattern of observed symptoms in the gut, not something that needed verification from O’Leary.

    Also, this study you quoted appears to validate the pattern of symptoms (called Autistic Enterocolitis), because they found them in both Autistic and NT children with the specific GI symptoms, so that pretty much validates the pattern of symptoms that were observed. However, Autistic enterocolitis would appear to be a poor choice in naming if indeed it can be found in non-autistic populations.

    In fact, this study sounds like it pretty much validates the findings of Wakefield’s original study which if you read it, is primarily based on investigating these patterns GI symptoms and their presentation. The whole MMR/Autism connection was a hypothesis based on the observed pattern.

    Of course we now know of a mechanism where a strong immune response to any vaccine or illness (including MMR) can trigger Autistic regression in susceptible children without any gut interaction.

    But to my knowledge, this still leaves us without a good biological hypothesis as to why the gut issues appear to be related to children with Autism.

  6. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 00:35 #

    Ringside Seat,

    Are you saying that leaky gut didn’t result in Neuropeptide effects?

    The neuropeptide/Autism hypothesis wasn’t conceived by Wakefield. If you read Wakefield’s study it was proposed in 1979 by Panksepp (A neurochemical theory of Autism) and later by Shattock (Shattock P, Kennedy A, Rowell F, Berney TP. Role of neuropeptides in autism and their relationships with classical neurotransmitters. Brain Dysfunction 1991; 3: 328–45.) and Reichelt KL, Hole K, Hamberger A, et al. Biologically active peptidecontaining fractions in schizophrenia and childhood autism. Adv Biochem Psychopharmacol 1993; 28: 627–43.

    The Neuropeptide/Autism hypothesis has nothing to do Autistic Enterocolitis.

  7. Ms. Clark August 19, 2008 at 00:44 #

    The O’Leary lab claimed all kinds of stuff, it’s just that their lab was such an unholy mess that it couldn’t legitimately claim anything. It would be like people sending me gut biopsies and me pouring whatever I have in my kitchen and bathroom on it and then declaring that my test showed one thing or another.

    Some of the O’Leary lab sloppiness was exposed by research funded by the UCD MIND Institute and the MIND apparently refused to publish the data (perhaps because it made Wakefield and Rollens look bad). That all came out in Cedillo or maybe it was in Hazlehurst.

    There is no such thing as “autistic enterocolitis”. And autistics aren’t autistic because they are stoned on opiods and autism is NOT reversible with diet, though kids do occasionally need a new diet in order to feel better, but that’s all kids not just autistic kids.

    Also, there’s some new evidence that people with overactive bladders have lower IQ or poorer results on some kind of test. The researchers indicated that it seemed to be the fact that the sufferers are constantly distracted by a bladder problem caused some significant impairment in their ability to function. The same could be true with any kid and any problem that constantly absorbs their attention (a headache, a bellyache, anything).

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19926664.300-overactive-bladders-play-with-the-mind.html

    Everyone wants to go for something exotic and that impicates some hidden bad forces or conspiracy, they also want someone to sue. And they want to blame something takes a huge amount of money to cure, instead of starting with the obvious.

    And of course, the flaming antivaxers want to implicate vaccines in EVERYTHING. They suffer from the use of Occam’s duct tape (As I understand the meaning of Occam’s duct tape, that is, when in doubt blame every problem on one idea that one is obsessing on, i.e. pollution is caused by communists, child abuse is caused by communists, drug abuse is caused by communists, fluoride in water is cause by communists, rock and roll is caused by communists… and rock and roll leads to child abuse, drug abuse and fluoride in the water…)

  8. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 00:52 #

    Ms. Clark,

    Where is that whole rant did you demonstrate that O’Leary had anything to do with Autistic Enterocolitis? The O’Leary labs were used to do PCR tests for DNA fragments of Measles vaccine virus from Gut Biopsies.

    That had absolutely nothing to do with the specific set of enterocolitis symptoms which are determined a variety of other gastroenterological assessment. They never even did PCR tests or Measles tests in that first study. O’Leary isn’t listed in that original study.

  9. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 00:57 #

    Kev,

    “Do they have them in numbers over and above the NT population? This pilot says ‘no’. ”

    I would be very surprised if they could make any sort of prevalence conclusions based on a study group of 8 children.

    Your statement implies that GI problems are just as prevalent in the normal population as they are in Autistic children. That doesn’t sound correct at all.

    What I read is that the display of symptoms is very similar between Autistic children and NT children who have similar GI problems. That’s quite different from what you said.

  10. Sullivan August 19, 2008 at 01:34 #

    Of course we now know of a mechanism where a strong immune response to any vaccine or illness (including MMR) can trigger Autistic regression in susceptible children without any gut interaction.

    Riiight.

    Presumably, you are referencing the Hannah Poling case.

    If so, your statement is not accurate. If not, it would be interesting to see what data you think backs that up.

  11. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 02:09 #

    Sullivan,

    “If such dysfunction is present at the time of infections and immunizations in young children, the added oxidative stresses from immune activation on cellular energy metabolism are likely to be especially critical for the central nervous system, which is highly dependent on mitochondrial function. Young children who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.”

    Journal of Child Neurology / Volume 21, Number 2, February 2006, page 172

  12. Ms. Clark August 19, 2008 at 02:14 #

    Schwartz,
    You’re the one who referred to autistic enterocolitis as if it exists. It does not exist.
    You referred to the O’Leary lab as if it ever produced anything of use. It did not. It added nothing to known science any more than I have added to knowledge about autism by doing experiments in my kitchen.

    There is evidence that any child with a developmental problem with tend to have constipation. Constipation can cause the illeal lymphoid hyperplasia that Wakers tried to make all scary and unique to autism.

    You don’t have an autistic kid, so why are you trying to imply that you know something about their guts? I have to say, that though you have the right to an opinion, it bugs me that you think your opinion carries any weight with parents of autistic kids.

  13. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 02:19 #

    Ms.Clark,

    The study about which this blog entry is written used the term Autistic Enterocolitis so if you have an issue with it, I suggest you take it up with those scientists. I’m referring to it as it’s used in the study.

    I am not referring to the O’Leary lab at all. You are the one somehow trying to associate it to this study or the leaky gut hypothesis. In both cases, it does not apply.

    If you really want to have a debate, why don’t you stick to one of the points in the article or something that I’m actually talking about?

  14. Ms. Clark August 19, 2008 at 02:25 #

    You did refer to the O’Leary lab deary.

    “This statement is not correct. O’Leary’s tests found Measles DNA samples in tissues, they did not validate Autistic Enterocolitis. Autistic Entercolitis is a pattern of observed symptoms in the gut, not something that needed verification from O’Leary.”

    The O’Leary lab found nothing. You used “autistic enterocolitis” in your sentence as if it is a real thing. It is not.

    There is no increased intestinal permeability in autism. Autistic kids are not stoned on opiods. Autism is not reversible by diet. That’s what all this is about.

  15. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 03:00 #

    Ms. Clark,

    The O’Leary lab results (correct or incorrect) have no bearing on the definition of Autistic Enterocolitis as used by the authors of this study or Wakefield and his colleagues. That is the definition being referenced here. It’s pretty simple. I’m not arguing for or against the actual definition. I’m stating that the O’leary lab had no bearing on the definition or findings related to “Autistic Enterocolitis” as stated incorrectly by Kevin in the blog.

    “There is no increased intestinal permeability in autism. Autistic kids are not stoned on opiods. Autism is not reversible by diet. That’s what all this is about.”

    Please show where I stated otherwise? I should right now, but I’ll pass to keep on topic.

  16. Ms. Clark August 19, 2008 at 03:08 #

    Have you seen Wakefield on video explaining “autistic enterocolitis”????

    I guess you have not. You don’t know how Wakefield was working with and depending on the O’Leary lab, apparently.

    There would be no discussion now of special autistic “guts” if it weren’t for Wakefield’s claims which are bizarre and unfounded in reality, except for maybe in the reality of his desire to sell his own measles “vaccine” to say the least.

  17. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 03:27 #

    Ms. Clark,

    Read the first study where the pattern of symptoms is described (and the study that is referenced by this discussion). There is no need for any O’Leary testing.

    O’Leary testing IS required for the MMR causation hypothesis in order to try to show that measles was the factor causing the “Autistic Enterocolitis”.

    However, that is separate from the Leaky Gut hypothesis that says that leaky gut can cause Autism. Apparently, there is this study, and others that throw doubt on that hypothesis — not one created by Wakefield BTW.

    The original Wakefield Hypothesis has several steps as I understand it:

    1) MMR vaccine causes persistent Measles infection in Gut
    2) Gut symptoms result in a presentation of “Autistic Enterocolitis”
    3) Autistic Enterocolitis results in Leaky Gut
    4) Leaky gut leaks toxins that find their way to the brain causing Autism.

    #1) O’Leary tests this to confirm/disprove link to vaccine Measles (I’m not saying any tests here are credible)
    #2) These symptoms were observed and documented in quite a bit of detail by Wakefield and apparently the scientists in the study here also observed them in both Autistic and NT children.
    #3) This is just a hypothesis by Wakefield trying to identify the pattern he and his colleagues observed. This study indicates that #3 is not true.
    #4) This was proposed by Shattuck and others as a causitive relationship between leaky gut and Autism. This was not tested by the study here.

    This study certainly knocks a hole in Wakefield’s initial hypothesis because it shows that #3 does not appear to occur.

    But it has nothing to do with Step #1 which is where O’Leary’s results come in. It also has nothing to do with #4 which is what Ringside was talking about and which Wakefield didn’t create.

    #1 can be discredited, #3 can be proven wrong, even #4 can be wrong, but #2 can still exist on it’s own as it is just the definition of an observed pattern of disease.

  18. Ms. Clark August 19, 2008 at 03:34 #

    There is no evidence now and there never was that there is a particular kind of autistic “gut”. Wakefield invented “autistic enterocolitis” and said normal illeal lymphoid hyperplasia caused by measles.

  19. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 03:48 #

    Ms. Clark,

    It’s just a definition:

    “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”

    Like I said, the authors of the study being discussed here used the term and you should take up your objection of it with them.

    As you can see the definition has nothing to do with PCR tests of Measles DNA.

  20. Ms. Clark August 19, 2008 at 03:55 #

    Wakefield didn’t identify anything special in autistic kids. He wasn’t even treating kids. He was a researcher bent on pinning something on measles virus, but apparently without proper knowledge of measles, even. I believe the authors put “autistic enterocolitis” in quotation marks didn’t they, as in scare quotes, or indicating that it doesn’t exist?

    Like I could say my (fictional) cousin who has a delusional disorder keeps a “unicorn” in her bathtub.

  21. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 04:11 #

    Ms. Clark,

    I believe the authors put “autistic enterocolitis” in quotation marks didn’t they, as in scare quotes, or indicating that it doesn’t exist?

    If it makes you feel better I’ll even put it in quotes when referring to it as well. Either way, it doesn’t change my points.

  22. Ms. Clark August 19, 2008 at 04:15 #

    “OK” “As” “long” “as” “we’re” “at” “it” “how” “about” “if” “you” “put” “your” “points” “on” “sites” “where” “I” “am” “unlikely” “to” “ever” “see” “them””?” “:-/”

  23. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 04:27 #

    Ms. Clark,

    No appologies for that. If Kev wants me to go, he just has to ask. Actually he doesn’t even have to ask.

  24. Ms. Clark August 19, 2008 at 04:37 #

    Not to worry Schwartz. Kev likes your comments. 🙂 I was just seeing how accommodating you were willing to be to my wishes.

  25. Regan August 19, 2008 at 05:56 #

    I recalled that Kev had blogged awhile back on “autistic enterocolitis”

    How to create a disease
    Mar 25 2008
    https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=754

  26. Ringside Seat August 19, 2008 at 07:25 #

    Hilary Cass and colleagues fully answered the peptides thing. The team included a number of the early proponents of the theory, and they found nothing in it. It was another of those things that was made up for the MMR litigation in the UK.

    http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/adc.2006.114389v1

  27. Kev August 19, 2008 at 08:58 #

    Schwartz – the idea of ‘leaky gut’ is not confined to autism, that’s why I didn’t give solely the autism variant on the theme. It is claimed in AltMed circles to be associated with a massive variety of things – including autism.

    I like your claim this study backs up Wakefield by the way, that did make me laugh 🙂

    The overall ‘arc’ of leaky gut/Autistic Enterocolitis remains the same however. Thats assuming of course there is such a thing as Autistic Enterocolitis which there clearly isn’t.

    Personally, I think the O’Leary lab results do have a substantial bearing on the issue. They are tied in with the whole ‘credibility’ of the MMR/autism hypothesis of which other constituent parts are leaky gut etc etc. I don’t think I was suggesting Unigenetics was claiming to have established leaky gut syndrome.

  28. Kev August 19, 2008 at 09:05 #

    _”I would be very surprised if they could make any sort of prevalence conclusions based on a study group of 8 children.”_

    Which is why its a pilot study feller 🙂

    _”Your statement implies that GI problems are just as prevalent in the normal population as they are in Autistic children. That doesn’t sound correct at all._

    _What I read is that the display of symptoms is very similar between Autistic children and NT children who have similar GI problems. That’s quite different from what you said._

    Whereas what I read is that there’s no difference in the numbers – unless you saw something in the study conclusions I didn’t?

  29. Schwartz August 19, 2008 at 14:53 #

    Ringside Seat:

    “It was another of those things that was made up for the MMR litigation in the UK.”

    I won’t argue that it’s been shown to be false, but your assertion that it was created for litigation is hard to believe given that the references by Wakefield to the hypothesis were from 1979, 1991, and 1993.

  30. M August 19, 2008 at 17:59 #

    At this time, Wakefield hypothezised the association between Crohn’s disease and measles virus in the gut, not autism and MMR.

  31. alyric August 19, 2008 at 21:19 #

    Schwartz flubbery 101:

    “I understood the hypothesis to be that persistent measles infection in the gut would lead to autistic entercolitis and then leaky gut syndrome.”

    Persisten measles infection doesn’t lead anywhere but death. Didn’t you read the Omnibus transcripts?

    “I didn’t think it was the toxins, but the measles virus itself which was implicated in the hypothesis. That’s why the PCR test results are so heavily debated because they could validate or invalidate that portion of the hypothesis.”

    Back to the Omnibus – Chadwick – all of Wakefield’s measles in the gut detections were false positives and he told Wakefield before the publication of the Lancet paper. What does that tell you about Wakefield’s honesty morals and ethics?

    “Once we see symptoms of Autistic Entercolitis, do we have leaky gut syndrome.”

    There is no such entity as autistic enterocolitis. Inventing things does not confer instant validation.

    “This statement is not correct. O’Leary’s tests found Measles DNA samples in tissues, they did not validate Autistic Enterocolitis.”

    Back to the Omnibus – Bustin – the nucleic acid detected was indeed DNA. Measles is an RNA virus so there is no such thing as Measles DNA. Bustin’s conclusion was that the whole lab was contaminated with DNA – source probably human.

    “Of course we now know of a mechanism where a strong immune response to any vaccine or illness (including MMR) can trigger Autistic regression in susceptible children without any gut interaction.”

    Classic woo stuff – look at the “autistic regression” triggered by either a vaccine or an illness. Either will do apparently. Who wrote that piece? Another point from the Omnibus – Lord and Fombonne – highly unlikely that there is such a thing as autistic regression.

  32. Prometheus August 19, 2008 at 22:06 #

    The problem with the whole “persistent measles infection” hypothesis of Wakefield’s – whether for Crohn’s disease (his first MMR-related hypothesis) or autism – is that nobody has yet shown the presence of measles virus in any of the GI biopsy samples.

    Wakefield’s first attempt – if memory serves – was to use immuno-gold labeling of the tissue samples. The only problem here is that they did not control for non-specific antibody binding.

    Then, they tried to amplify the measles genes. This is a bit more complicated, since you first have to convert the measles RNA genome into cDNA (complementary DNA) through the use of reverse transcriptase.

    This step is often problematic, because the majority of RNA in any tissue sample will be mRNA, rRNA and tRNA from the host (i.e. human).

    After converting the RNA in the sample to cDNA, the next step is to amplify the measles cDNA through polymerase chain reaction (PCR). As anyone who has ever done this will tell you, the PCR process is part art and part science. If you run enough cycles, you will eventually get something to amplify.

    The Wakefield study – when it was finally brought into the light – had serious problems. When the lab ran controls without the reverse transcriptase step (the step that converts measles RNA into cDNA that can be amplified by PCR), they got “positive” results. That suggested that one or more of the reagents was contaminated with measles cDNA (or other DNA that would amplify with the same primers).

    In addition, the sequence (and, I believe, the length) of the resulting amplified product was incorrect, indicating that the primers were not specific enough.

    I looked through one of the O’Leary in situ PCR papers on measles in the gut samples and checked the primers they used – they were an identical match to a stretch of mitochondrial DNA. This means that the results that Wakefield interpreted as “measles in the gut” probably just meant “mitochondria in the gut” – something we already knew.

    Either Dr. Wakefield wasn’t paying attention to all of the data coming out of the lab OR he was ignoring some pretty unambiguous signs that the data was spurious (baloney).

    Prometheus

  33. Schwartz August 20, 2008 at 00:11 #

    Alyric,

    “Persisten measles infection doesn’t lead anywhere but death. Didn’t you read the Omnibus transcripts?”

    Sorry to break it to you but we’re talking about Wakefield’s hypothesis. Did you miss the point of the post? Since you missed it earlier, I’m not stating my position, just clarifying that of Wakefield’s original hypothesis which I clearly pointed out has numerous issues.

    “Back to the Omnibus – Chadwick – all of Wakefield’s measles in the gut detections were false positives and he told Wakefield before the publication of the Lancet paper. What does that tell you about Wakefield’s honesty morals and ethics?”

    Yeah, same comment as before, you need to read more carefully. Who are you arguing with? But to be sure, I’m eagerly awaiting Chadwick’s testimony in the GMC trial where Wakefield can actually defend himself against the allegations.

    “There is no such entity as autistic enterocolitis. Inventing things does not confer instant validation.”

    More reading problems I see. As explained in detail above, I’m referencing the same term used by Kev and the study authors. If it makes you feel better I’ll add the quotes for you and Ms. Clark.

    “Back to the Omnibus – Bustin – the nucleic acid detected was indeed DNA. Measles is an RNA virus so there is no such thing as Measles DNA. Bustin’s conclusion was that the whole lab was contaminated with DNA – source probably human.”

    How exactly does that change my point? Ah, I forgot you didn’t get any of the points did you?

    “Classic woo stuff – look at the “autistic regression” triggered by either a vaccine or an illness. Either will do apparently. Who wrote that piece? Another point from the Omnibus – Lord and Fombonne – highly unlikely that there is such a thing as autistic regression.”

    I guess you missed my peer-reviewed reference. Classic false logic argument applied by someone who reads Orac. Maybe I should rename it Argumentum ad Orac.

  34. Schwartz August 20, 2008 at 00:16 #

    Prometheus,

    God forbid, but I agree with most of what you wrote. 🙂

    The in depth PCR discussions that resulted from the Omnibus and online discussions was very enlightening. I now view any PCR results with a good deal of skepticism.

    Just to be clear though, it was the second Wakefield study that did the PCR tests. The first only looked at standard GI assessments.

  35. Sullivan August 20, 2008 at 01:41 #

    I’m sure somewhere in the past Scwhartz gave a good account of how Dr. Wakefield’s obvious conflicts of interest don’t come into play in discussing his work.

    Prometheus,

    God forbid, but I agree with most of what you wrote. 🙂

    Good call. He understands this on a level much higher than the vast majority of people discussing this (yes, I include myself and you in that).

    As to your responses to Alyric, you are trying to be much more cute than your ability and understanding would warrant.

    Give that in science and medicine Orac, like Prometheus, is talking from a level of understanding beyond you (and, yes, me), your little attempts at insolence are, well, not respectful since they are not statements of fact.

    I guess I could mimic you and attempt a cute little name for what you are doing, but unfunny and not accurate seem to fit best.

  36. alyric August 20, 2008 at 02:25 #

    Schwartz, meu bem, I have no idea what your central point is – something to do with Wacker’s initial description of ‘autistic enterocolitis’, an entity so non specific as to be meaningless. Who cares, but that does not excuse your continuous production of erroneous statements. If you could stick to the facts, whatever it is you are arguing, it would be much appreciated.

  37. Schwartz August 20, 2008 at 04:03 #

    Sullivan,

    If you that Alyric didn’t completely miss the point, then point it out.

    Otherwise your words are pure rhetoric.

  38. Schwartz August 20, 2008 at 04:17 #

    “Schwartz, meu bem, I have no idea what your central point is – something to do with Wacker’s initial description of ‘autistic enterocolitis’, an entity so non specific as to be meaningless. ”

    Pointless drivel.

    “Who cares, but that does not excuse your continuous production of erroneous statements. If you could stick to the facts, whatever it is you are arguing, it would be much appreciated.”

    Please show me why those statments — which were describing someone else’s hypothesis if you read the post — were incorrect? That means you have to show that their hypothesis was different from what I described.

    Showing everyone that the portions of the hypothesis itself were wrong is not proving any of my statements incorrect, since I wasn’t supporting the hypothesis only describing it. So you want to try again?

  39. Sullivan August 20, 2008 at 04:28 #

    If you that Alyric didn’t completely miss the point, then point it out.

    Otherwise your words are pure rhetoric.

    And how could anyone possibly miss your points when you present them so clearly (see above).

    As to “completely missing the point”, I hope the view is good from within your glass house.

  40. Ms. Clark August 20, 2008 at 09:36 #

    Since I’m such an omnibus autism transcript geek that I have all (or maybe most of) the audio recordings of all the hearings so far on my iPod and since I was in a mood to go back and listen to Snyder day 4 again… because it has a good beat and I can dance to it (perhaps arcane American Bandstand reference) I was listening to Dr. Rima talk about what he found in the O’Leary lab.

    Ah, good times. Dr. Rima is from the Netherlands but works in the UK and is a famous measles expert. He’s talking about reports that came out of the O’Leary lab. This was just one of the problems he found with the O’Leary lab. So the DoJ lawyers not only had Chadwick, but Bustin and Rima who decimated, no obliterated the data coming out of the O’Leary lab and other work done by Wakers re: measles.

    Dr. Rima, virologist:

    To say that is a high number is based on a very simple sort of calculation. I’ve already given the Court the sort of guesstimate that we work with in molecular biology that a cell is not doing 1,000 copies of messenger RNA, but in an acute infection, if I set up one of my best growing viruses, measles viruses, in one of my easiest to grow cells like the vero cell, I can get about 3,000 copies of measles F gene per messenger RNA per cell. That’s the best I can get, okay?
    So if you get to figures like 3 times 10^6 (to the sixth) per nanogram, that means that you have three times 10^4 (to the fourth) copies of that particular RNA per cell, and that is three times 10^4 (to the fourth) would be 30,000, okay? So any figure at that level I immediately suspect as completely and utterly wrong in the sense that that is very implausible biologically because it would indicate that that cell would be stuffed with measles F.
    And as Dr. Kennedy rightly pointed out, that would have also in order for that to be biologically correct would have also meant that there will probably be 10 times more copies of the measles F, about 80 percent of that figure, measles P, another 80 percent of that with measles M, et cetera, because we have this great and convenient impression that he was scratched by another child, which I don’t know, we don’t absolutely know from this.
    So if you get to figures of that order of
    magnitude, you know that it would have indicated that every cell would be stuffed with measles virus, okay?

    (there’s more along these lines, it’s around page 884 of the transcript)

  41. Schwartz August 20, 2008 at 14:32 #

    Ms. Clark,

    “Since I’m such an omnibus autism transcript geek that I have all (or maybe most of) the audio recordings of all the hearings so far on my iPod and since I was in a mood to go back and listen to Snyder day 4 again”

    I remember, I started reading the Omnibus proceeding discussions on your site. 🙂

  42. Navi August 20, 2008 at 23:48 #

    got lost in the back and forth and didn’t read it all. I like the first comment’s pov.

    I’ve been pondering what causes my son’s issues – removing dairy made it worse, whole grain products improve it – so it’s not gluten, either… A nurse friend commented that he mouthed things often, which would possibly cause him to salivate more, and which maybe could cause him to have more intestinal issues, as he swallows the extra saliva. makes sense to me. Yogurt seems to help, too…

  43. daedalus2u August 21, 2008 at 01:02 #

    Maybe try green leafy vegetables in his diet.

    Green leafy vegetables have a lot of nitrate in them, nitrate is well absorbed and concentrated in saliva ~10x where on the tongue it is reduced to nitrite by commensal bacteria that live there. When that nitrite is swallowed, it makes nitric oxide in the stomach.

    Dairy has xanthine oxidoreductase which under some conditions reduces nitrate and nitrite to nitric oxide also.

    Not sure if that would help or not.

  44. Schwartz August 21, 2008 at 04:55 #

    Sullivan,

    “As to “completely missing the point”, I hope the view is good from within your glass house.”

    Thanks for coming out as usual.

  45. Ringside Seat August 21, 2008 at 21:03 #

    Autistic enterocolitis was a great idea, with just two flaws. It wasn’t particular to autism and didn’t involve enterocolitis.

    Otherwise, it was perfect.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: