Parts Of The United States Recently Had Lower Inoculation Rates Some Of The Poorest Areas In Africa

[Kalitaur]

How exactly did her condition "result" in encephalopathy?

Patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficits are susceptible to encephalopathy. I'm not sure how else to phrase it for you, unless perhaps I am misunderstanding your question. However, "whereas it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations."

Perhaps it was the vaccination which reportedly preceded her deterioration?

I think you need to be a bit more specific. Are you arguing that a component of the vaccine directly caused this patient's deterioration? (i.e. are you going down the thimerosol rabbit hole?) Or are you arguing that the well-documented immune response (in the form of fever) to the vaccine is what resulted in this patient's deterioration? If it is the former, I need a source from you on that claim. If it is the latter, it has been well documented that fever is a known potential side effect of MMR vaccination. On that note, would you agree that any insult resulting in a fever could have resulted in encephalopathy and subsequent developmental deterioration in this patient? I ask because this is an important distinction to be made, primarily because this child had significant comorbidities that would have predisposed her to fevers, and also because fever in the setting of mitochondrial disorders has been linked to autistic regression. What are your thoughts in light of this?

Can you please elaborate on this point, I don't quite understand? Are you saying they couldn't prove it WASNT the vaccinations that Hannah received prior to her deterioration? This could be said of nearly all cases of injury post vaccination, as this is the line of reasoning I hear regularly from provaxxers to dismiss even close temporal associations. To me, this sounds like a slimy /legalise way of admitting guilt without actually taking on liability for the 1000's of cases that were in the pipeline at the vaccine court.

Certainly. Perhaps a little historical perspective will help (I apologize for the long read, but I think it helps clarify my earlier point):

Spoiler

"The Poling case is best understood in the context of the decision-making process of this unusual vaccine court. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, American lawyers successfully sued pharmaceutical companies claiming that vaccines caused a variety of illnesses, including unexplained coma, sudden infant death syndrome, Reye's syndrome, transverse myelitis, mental retardation, and epilepsy. By 1986, all but one manufacturer of the diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis vaccine had left the market. The federal government stepped in, passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which included the creation of the VICP. Funded by a federal excise tax on each dose of vaccine, the VICP compiled a list of compensable injuries. If scientific studies supported the notion that vaccines caused an adverse event — such as thrombocytopenia after receipt of measles-containing vaccine or paralysis after receipt of oral polio vaccine — children and their families were compensated quickly, generously, and fairly. The number of lawsuits against vaccine makers decreased dramatically.

Unfortunately, in recent years the VICP seems to have turned its back on science. In 2005, Margaret Althen successfully claimed that a tetanus vaccine had caused her optic neuritis. Although there was no evidence to support her claim, the VICP ruled that if a petitioner proposed a biologically plausible mechanism by which a vaccine could cause harm, as well as a logical sequence of cause and effect, an award should be granted. The door opened by this and other rulings allowed petitioners to claim successfully that the MMR vaccine caused fibromyalgia and epilepsy, the hepatitis B vaccine caused Guillain–Barré syndrome and chronic demyelinating polyneuropathy, and the Hib vaccine caused transverse myelitis.

No case, however, represented a greater deviation from the VICP's original standards than that of Dorothy Werderitsh, who in 2006 successfully claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine had caused her multiple sclerosis. By the time of the ruling, several studies had shown that hepatitis B vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated the disease, and the Institute of Medicine had concluded that “evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis.”2 But the VICP was less impressed with the scientific literature than it was with an expert's proposal of a mechanism by which hepatitis B vaccine could induce autoimmunity (an ironic conclusion, given that Dorothy Werderitsh never had a detectable immune response to the vaccine)."

Ever wonder why almost everyone who actually researches the topic becomes a skeptic?

Sure. Its called confirmation bias. And I would caution you about using the word "researches" to describe it.

The vaccination program as implemented in the US is profoundly unscientific, largely because nobody wants to actually look at adverse outcomes.

Profoundly unscientific? That's a bit of a broad stroke, no?. Perhaps you can provide a source or two for this claim?

Regarding Autism/MMR, I agree that there is not strong evidence currently to support causation, or even correlation.

Excellent!

That being said, it's not too hard to miss something you're not looking for

Are you insinuating that the number of studies done on this to date has been inadequate?

So a person can have 4 of 5 diagnostic criteria and found to NOT have autism and viola! Vaccines don't cause autism!

Do you have a source for the article or journal that has come to this precise conclusion?

According to independent researchers (the Cochrane Collabration) research into adverse events and MMR is "Largely inadequate." I'm assuming you understand what that means... What is even more concerning is that Cochrane came to this conclusion AFTER the MMR Autism scare which led to a sharp increase in the research, unfortunately that research (along with prior research) was lacking scientific strength and is largely useless if one actually wants to determine risk vs benefit.

I thought this sounded familiar. We have already had this discussion in an earlier thread. I am assuming you are referring to this article, correct? My argument was:

I am assuming that you have access to the full papers and not just the abstracts. My main criticism is that the review was originally done in 2005 and their conclusions at the time were that the design and reporting of safety outcomes were "inadequate" based on presence or absence of various forms of bias (selection, reporting, detection, etc.) without ever fully defining what an acceptable outcome of "adequate" was (and often without justifying their assessment of bias). Then, in 2012, they apparently decided to repeat the study and basically came to the same conclusions, again with no true definition of "adequate" to speak of. Based on their conclusions, I have to wonder if their metric for "adequate" is "completely bias-free", which is a tall order for literally any scientific study. And because studies with positive results tend to be published far more frequently, various forms of bias are unfortunately going to be found in nearly anything that lands in a journal, but you already know that. These articles basically said, "We feel this article has some form of bias, so it's shit. We feel this other article also has some form of bias, so its shit too. We offer no potential remedies for these perceived shortcomings. We demand perfection or nothing. Here is a summary of the side effects of the MMR vaccine." The one saving grace is their denouncement of Wakefield, and that's about it. That doesn't concern you at all?

...to which you responded in agreement:

Please review the full document which I believe will alleviate some of your well-founded concerns. I will also admit that Cochrane is not the end-all-be-all, however, they are independent and have high standards for research quality, which IMO is preferable to shoddy science… particularly if that science is going to be used to expose vulnerable individuals to risk and/or remove their right to informed consent.

Also, you are exactly right, bias is INHERENT in all research (to some degree)... therefore, putting full faith in the science stating vaccines are "safe" requires more scrutiny, particularly in the context of conflicts of interest...

I don't think anything else really needs to be said on that, other than that if you continue to insist that any scientific study with any form of bias should be considered "shoddy science", I really don't know how we could possibly continue to have any type of productive dialogue, for the reasons you yourself have outlined.

 

[PhitePhan]

Patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficits are susceptible to encephalopathy. I'm not sure how else to phrase it for you, unless perhaps I am misunderstanding your question. However, "whereas it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations."

Your citation is an op ed by one of the loudest provaxxers out there, which is ironic considering your apparent disdain for the Cochrane Collaborative who's reviews of the MMR you deemed to be and "op ed," in our previous discussion. On top of that, the author of your article (Paul Offit) also provides no citations for his very strong claims. Interestingly enough, Offit also seems to negate his own point (the part you quoted) by referencing that Hannah suffered from prior health difficulties and likely experienced several "febrile events" which for some reason did not previously lead to deterioration until after vaccination.

"She had frequent episodes of fever and otitis media, eventually necessitating placement of bilateral polyethylene tubes. Nor is such a medical history unusual. Children typically have four to six febrile illnesses each year during their first few years of life."

So, fever causes regression, Hannah experienced 4-6 febrile events per year (per Offits estimation) yet she deteriorated AFTER vaccination but not any of her prior febrile events? And that exonerates vaccination how?

I think you need to be a bit more specific. Are you arguing that a component of the vaccine directly caused this patient's deterioration? (i.e. are you going down the thimerosol rabbit hole?) Or are you arguing that the well-documented immune response (in the form of fever) to the vaccine is what resulted in this patient's deterioration? If it is the former, I need a source from you on that claim. If it is the latter, it has been well documented that fever is a known potential side effect of MMR vaccination. On that note, would you agree that any insult resulting in a fever could have resulted in encephalopathy and subsequent developmental deterioration in this patient? I ask because this is an important distinction to be made, primarily because this child had significant comorbidities that would have predisposed her to fevers, and also because fever in the setting of mitochondrial disorders has been linked to autistic regression. What are your thoughts in light of this?

My initial thought is that your using a study from 2010 that had less than 30 subjects. The article also did not claim a "link" to regression, it instead had to use a qualifier "may," which makes all the difference in the world. It also referenced a "subgroup," without any definition.

"a subgroup of patients with mitochondrial disease may be at risk of autistic regression with fever.."

Have any other research supporting this possible link?

Perhaps a little historical perspective will help (I apologize for the long read, but I think it helps clarify my earlier point):

You posted a rant by Offit that has little relevance to our discussion. He does basically shit on the vaccine court, which is nice considering the fact that shielding vax manufacturers from liability is complete BS. However, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He cited "fair" compensation in some cases, but then claims that outcomes wit which he disagrees are "poorly reasoned."

Notably, Hannah's father, who himself is a medical doctor and PhD, called Offit to task in response to this op ed:

"In his Perspective article on a possible connection between vaccines and autism, Offit (May 15 issue)1 speculates about my daughter, Hannah, and repeats inaccuracies from a March New York Times opinion piece that was officially corrected by the Times and our April 5 letter.

By omitting critical information from my March 6, 2008, statement, Offit misrepresents my position... Offit's remarks about Hannah's case are not evidence-based. He has no access to my daughter's personal medical records, legal documents, or affidavits. In contrast, physicians from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) who studied this information recommended that the government concede Hannah's case. The clinical history Offit presents contains significant inaccuracies, and the resulting conclusions are consequently flawed... Offit confuses issues by comparing Hannah's case with unrelated decisions in “vaccine court.” The Office of the Secretary of DHHS, through the Department of Justice, conceded Hannah's case. There was no courtroom hearing and no decision from the “unusual vaccine court.”

Offit is frequently cited regarding the “biologically plausible” theory that simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines is safe. His opinion is unsupported by clinical trials, much less investigations in potentially susceptible subpopulations.

Despite the high frequency of mitochondrial dysfunction in autistic children,2 studies have not established primary or secondary roles. To explore this question, we need an immunization database for children with metabolic disorders to establish safety guidelines3 and improve vaccine safety for minority subgroups of children."

Profoundly unscientific? That's a bit of a broad stroke, no?. Perhaps you can provide a source or two for this claim?

Simple. Post marketing research wasn't even started until the 1990's, and since that time we have relied almost solely on a passive reporting system known to capture only a fraction of adverse events. Clinical trials do not use an actual placebo and they often fail to use a genuine control group. Negative study outcomes are hidden away while it is well known that funding bias is a major problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias

I hope that clears things up for you.

Are you insinuating that the number of studies done on this to date has been inadequate?

No, I'm saying the quality of research on the topic is poor, or as the Cochrane review found, "largely inadequate."

Do you have a source for the article or journal that has come to this precise conclusion?

A journal that has come to the precise conclusion that a diagnosis of autism requires a certain number of criteria are met? I'm afraid I don't follow?

Regarding the Cochrane systematic review (not an "article" or "op ed" as you've referred to it now and in the past for some reason), I'm afraid you are wrong that we are in agreement, particularly when your critique rings so hollow. You don't trust their methods but apprently refuse to actually read beyond the abstract where they describe their methods, criteria for ascertaining bias, and the limitations of their own study.

I again implore you to actually read the study before summarily dismissing it, particularly as you have yet to provide any alternative sources for this important information.

https://www.princeton.edu/~sswang/demicheli_pietrantonj12_cochrane_report_MMR

I don't think anything else really needs to be said on that, other than that if you continue to insist that any scientific study with any form of bias should be considered "shoddy science."

And here in lies your problem, you keep setting up straw men arguments for some reason. At no time did I insist that "Any scientific study with any form of bias should be considered shoddy science." This really seems like an ad hom attacks and cop out so that you can pretend I'm unreasonable therefore justifying your non-answer.