Left Brain Right Brain

A few days ago, I posted an entry about Sharyl Attkisson’s breathless parroting of ‘facts’ regarding a case from 1991 based on a child born in 1974. This case was settled in favour of the child. It transpired (of course) that the Special Master had in fact said nothing about autism whatsoever.

However, an interesting comment was left by ‘M’ who said:

Dravet syndrome? It is a genetic disorder, de novo mutations of the sodium-channel gene SCN1A. Children with these mutations are seemingly normal until they have the first high fever episode (it could be post-vaccination fever as well) – then the syndrome manifests with epileptic syndrome and subsequent developmental delay (encephalopathy). The genetic diagnosis was not possible until recently – the mutation was first identified in 2001.

An intriguing possibility that I read and then with my usual stunning foresight, totally forgot about.

However, I got an email yesterday that raised the issue once more. I cannot share with you who its from, a fact that is rather annoying (but understandable, this person doesn’t want to expose themselves to the loving care of the mercury militia) but I assure you, you would recognise this name.

The writer assumes that this is a vaccine injury because the special master determined that this was a compensable case. However, this event occurred in 1974 and the hearing in 1990-91. Now, in 2008, it is obvious that the epilepsy and resultant developmental impairment and “autism” are not caused by DTP but, rather, are due to Dravet syndrome (or severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy), which is a genetic epilepsy with a mutation or change in the SCN1A gene. The evolution is typical of this disorder. It is a very temperature sensitive epilepsy (a 1 degree Celcius elevation is sufficient to trigger a seizure) and is not caused or aggravated by any immunization. Berkovic et al described this entity as a cause of vaccine encephalopathy in their Lancet Neurology 2006 paper.

I am concerned about the superficial investigatory actions of this writer (actually no real investigation was done – she assumes everything to be true). I thought I would share this information with you and let you use the information as you wish.

I can’t find a copy of the entire transcript, but from the parts Attkisson transcribed and quoted and comparing the evolution to the Dravert Syndrome home page, it certainly does look like a good match.

So what does that imply? Well, if its _not_ Dravert Syndrome then, nothings changed – still not autism though. If it _is_ Dravert Syndrome then it goes to show how little we know about genetic disorders and how careful we should be about rushing to judgements.