So? Annul the Institutionalised Bias!

I feel like a DJ sampling sounds to play at a nightclub only here it’s voices sampled from the ether that is the internet. An interesting discussion arose out of the autism and statistics piece I quoted as “The Null Hypothesis”, recently. It developed as follows:

Me

Hi. As you say much of the debate between “the two sides” has been informed by epidemiological studies. Only “informed” is a poor descriptor to use – blinded might be better.

To disprove a connection between the MMR and development of autism a vast study looked at kids who had received the MMR and compared them to kids who had not been given that jab. They found no significant difference in numbers of cases arising in each group. Therefore, said the epidemiologists, and the medical establishment and the media and the politicians, the MMR does not cause autism.

How stupid do they have to be to believe that?

Look at 1940s kids – no autism. Look at never vaccinated kids – no autism.

And the animal studies have all been done – on a child, by child, by child, basis. That much is quite clear, too.

A scientist

Hi, Chris, thanks very much for your input. One thing I’d really like to stress is that it’s vitally important that controlled studies be performed investigating not only whether there is a true relationship between vaccinations and autism risk but, if there is, what are the specific underlying biological mechanisms through which this occurs. But in order to answer either of these things, we need to have controlled lab-based research.

That, unfortunately, will not be answered by looking at larger trends in human populations (though it’d be much easier if this were true!). As part of the point of the above post is to stress that such large, vague studies don’t offer us the specificity required to answer a disease-exposure relationship question; those answers it does give us are dubious and require more in-depth study.

I realize that non-scientists may have difficulty picturing why scientists can seem so anally-retentive about this, but I can promise you it’s from many, many years of combined experience investigating cause-effect relationships and seeing pitfall after statistical pitfall.

Looking at large population studies, even the kind you propose, are still untrustworthy– because there are so many variables that will inevitably pervert the results – which is why I’m calling for more lab-based science. Animal studies, cell culture, etc. With this design, there is far more control over all the variables so that if there is an effect, we will

  1. be more likely to catch it, and
  2. have a comparably easier time discerning potential causal relationships.

Again, the purpose of the post is to stress that we need to have better science, not just more of the same.

Me

Gosh, there’s a lot of follow up here so I’ll try to be brief.

I’m university genetics/immunology background and have 3 never vaccinated kids – that decision made in 1993, way before the MMR/Wakefield saga.

Aware of the might of the orthodoxy in pressing home “the need to be vaccinated” I’ve worked hard to develop as broad a picture of the sundry inputs to this debate.

I think lab animal studies can provide little information to clarify the picture – although our household, handed down dog is a severe case of vaccine damage. (Honestly – she practically died from it, and remains affected several years later.)

Powerful chemical cocktails introduced to the bloodstream of very immature human children obviously have a range of outcomes. A bit like a drone bomber, piloted by an agent 5000 miles away going after an insurgent in a busy market square.

We should start off with the onus of proof of functionality and non-toxicity placed upon the vaccinator. That case has never, ever been demonstrated.

Keep your thoughts refreshingly open,

Chris

PS – “Herd immunity” is another sacred cow that needs dispatching. Are you part of a herd?

https://bmeandothersciences.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/52

Me, next morning

This just came to my inbox, as a contribution to the discussion. How wrong:

 “Finally, I think that the context of *other* environmental, or genetic participation in autism should be considered; namely, that everything we see seems to be a low penetrant effect. *If* vaccines are playing a part (?), I would expect them to follow a similar profile, i.e., a small nudge as opposed to a massive force.”

Vaccines are, in a very clear manner, the spanner in the works and not a minor contributor to an overall trend. That there is a wide spread of outcomes is to be sorted out – and obviously the input varies from case to case for a range of reasons (diet, age, maternal immune status, breast feeding, home and lifestyle, other stresses. Even a genetic contribution!)

Autism was non existent in the 1940s and has grown on an increasingly exponential scale since then – matching the increased usage of vaccines.

I’m not saying QED but I am saying vaccines are an enormous elephant in this room – as per my blog!

Chris

Later again, Me 

Hi. This is an area I’ve covered before and feel understanding is openly or passively avoided by the scientific research community. I freely admit my role is as agitator because the inactivity frankly appalls me;

So from May 2011 there’s “If Wakefield were a bond trader…”

http://greencentre.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/if-wakefield-were-a-bond-trader/

but also, in a push to clarify things even further I just put this together – so, inspired not a little by this chat I can now offer you “The Annul Hypothesis”:

https://bmeandothersciences.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/the-annul-hypothesis/

A scientist 

Yes, I had read that this morning. [When I’d first posted it.] Thank you for the additional vote of confidence.

Me

Yes it is there, indeed – but please say you see my point.

A scientist 

I can certainly see cause for concern and reason for wanting more research. But I am pretty agnostic when it comes to tending one way or the other, though you’ve spent more time reviewing this issue than I have. From what I’ve read you seem to be leaning towards a vaccination-autism link. I can certainly understand your point and we both definitely agree on the need for more and better research. Though, as I say, I still want to see that research first before I take a stand on whether I think there is a true relationship or not. Hopefully you likewise can understand my ambiguity as much as I can understand your passion.

Me

Sure I understand scientific objectivity. That is my stronghold, “Deep in my DNA” as one might blushingly say, but it is fundamental to all my thought. As you correctly point out, the statistical analyses quoted do not and could not disprove an association between MMR use and physiological compromise, such as autism.

My point is that they are not even designed to, for they are conceived to demonstrate that the MMR is “a safe vaccine” and not to explore the far more relevant question as to whether vaccines generically are harmful. Should I write it loud? Vaccines GENERICALLY are harmful. Mm, that feels better.

It’s a conjuring trick, a diversion, sleight of hand and always ignores any attempt to explain the soaring rates of physiological abnormalities developed post vaccine administration to infants. It dates back right to the time of Jenner and continues today.

There’s obvious humanist and personal reasons for my concern but one of the deepest reasons is pure scientific because I detest the mis-use of this noble discipline. Deeply entrenched here, the cavalier mis-use is monstrous and the worst is that the scientific community is so cowed it does not shout loud the obvious. Yeah, that’s my passion.

A scientist 

I do understand your point. I suspect that, given the monies tied up in vaccinations, plus potential dangers of people foregoing vaccines, there have been inherent biases which have lead to seeking confirmation for minds already made up. Then again, those are only my suspicions. But it is the primary reason I wouldn’t trust the CDC or like organizations investigating this issue because I would be distrustful of that potential bias. With the epidemiological studies, we may well be seeing that.

Perhaps to some that may reek of governmental or big-business paranoia which has coloured our country’s history, but when it comes to capitalism I haven’t generally noticed such paranoia to be particularly unfounded.

Insurance companies allow people to die so they can save a buck (or billions of bucks); such companies also eagerly lobby our government in a bizarre yet legal means of bribery; and government in general seems more interested in their own personal lives as career politicians, living election by election, rather than in their responsibilities as civil servants.

I suspect, though, that the greatest roadblocks have not been due to deliberate deception but to bias. The problem of people, both sides, making up their minds before research was available. Admittedly, if I were a parent and my child displayed a rapid regression of skills immediately following vaccination, I’d probably be convinced myself. And actually it is those cases which I find most moving and which allow me to keep an open mind and not side necessarily with the majority of researchers and doctors.

Subtle regressions are difficult to be certain of, but from my understanding there have been enough cases of coinciding severe regression within the one or two weeks following vaccination which are difficult to argue with. At least I find them difficult to argue with. It’s those cases which stick out in my mind and which I wish were studied more intensively. I think they could be especially informative. [Interestingly, of course, it’s these kind of cases Andy Wakefield and friends were investigating – and we know what happened to them!]

Me

Oh, there’s no “ potential bias” in those statistics, they are deliberately obscurantist – they ask the wrong question because it does not challenge the actual outcome of the jab, just the outcome relative to other jabs.

OK – for regression read the history of the Guardian’s Charlotte Moore. Three boys she’s had. One and two are well chronicled – by her – regressive, stage by stage autistics. The third, last born, is not. Although she gave MMRs to the first two, the third remains unvaccinated and in normal good health. When I last read her she still insisted MMR had nothing to do with the autism, even tho’ the regressions were each just following a further jab. Hey, tho’, she got lots of copy from it…. What an odd career move.

Then go to Australian Dr Viera Scheibner – http://www.vierascheibner.org/

to read about the timing of infant reaction to vaccine challenge. Like clockwork! Very scientific work and clearly deeply worrying. I’ve met her and she’s accurate and honest.

For any benefit to vaccines I guess you need do your own research but bear in mind how well evolved and sensitive the immune system is (Like 4 billion years in the making) and how homeostasis and other physiological processes are non-linear and interlinked. To me, it seems we should not seek to hijack the system, as we do thro’ vaccines, but to enable optimal sensitivity – nutrition, lifestyle etc and accept that illness managed – measles, chicken pox etc – are natural strengthening of the system so a positive rather than a negative.

Finally the insurance issue. As well as the General Medical Council finding it impossible to admit to making such a profound and ongoing mistake and so deeply losing face, the issue of reparations for vaccine damage would bankrupt the Government, the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Medical practitioners. Just imagine the claims that could be made for life-long-care and damages. It would make today’s banking debts look quite small.

This also will sound trite but, clearly, the best cure for autism is to stop creating autistics. To return to the state of play circa 1940 when there were none.

PS. The solution for the ongoing cases of vaccine damage is also there but that’s another story. Another tea break, maybe!…..

A scientist 

Thanks for the additional info, although I would hazard some caution in word choice with this statement, “This also will sound trite but clearly the best cure for autism is to stop creating autistics. To return to the state of play circa 1940 when there were none.” It can really be taken the wrong way, even if written with the best of intentions.

Even though I am a scientist and truly do feel for the plight of families who are struggling just to survive day by day (which I would gladly make efforts to help), I am also very close to the online adult autistic community and can appreciate aspects of neurodiversity too. Many people do feel that severe cases of autism have little in common with higher-functioning people, but while there are obvious differences, I see them as differences partly of severity and not of kind.

Although, on the other hand, I believe there is a CONSIDERABLE amount of heterogeneity across the spectrum, which includes very heterogeneous aetiology of people with comparable levels of disability. So when it comes to autism and the behaviours, I’m a lumper, but when it comes to aetiology, I’m an excessive splitter– but in neither case do I find level of functioning to be a useful paradigm in understanding the science of the condition.

Sorry for the digression but I’m familiar with some of the criticisms that may follow my ties with camps like neurodiversity and just thought I’d address them before they’re asked. I don’t necessarily consider myself an ND proponent, though at one point I could’ve probably been described as such. But I’ve had the opportunity to traverse a number of different camps and find myself more prone to understanding the passion and positives of each one.

I see the value in not perpetually treating another human being as a disorder and attempting to normalize their behaviours solely for the sake of society, but then I see no point in failing to help improve quality of life for people who may be suffering.

Me

Don’t get me wrong, we cannot wind the clock back – I know that and would in no way propose it. But here my point is that in that era, pre nearly all jabs, autism was not known. That situation could be established today by removal of the causative factor – vaccines.

A PC aspect I have not toyed with but it’s a shaky ground to ignore the issue. “Let’s continue this practice because a low percentage of the recipients obtain enhanced, if rather tunnel vision, intelligence. The majority, of course, will continue to suffer lifelong physiological damage”.  I know some such taking PhDs, and they work with both dedication and application. But this proposal is an unnecessary Russian Roulette – for these intellects not impacted by artificial stimulus (vaccines) will still flower and maybe with greater strength, and also without any of the rest of the range of vaccine associated ailments, as well.

Always, the picture broadens but without that vision you cannot address the issue. In fact I rather feel that without the broader vision one’s impact can be negative and the problem compounded.

I thought the conversation over but then:

A second scientist (Natasha) 

Sullivan suggests: “We are now left with what I am admittedly simplifying to: “there is an immune component to some or much of autism. Vaccines affect the immune system. Therefore vaccines cause autism”.

Says who?? The facts are that there is an immune component to autism, and that vaccines affect the immune system, but of course those facts do not prove that vaccines cause autism. What they do prove is that we are in serious need of some serious biological science here. And as pD remarked, knowing what goes wrong and why on biological level will point to things that will help kids in the future.

Me

Oops, me again.

With Natasha I cannot but agree. The statement:

“there is an immune component to some or much of autism. Vaccines affect the immune system. Therefore vaccines cause autism”

is flagrantly absurd.

However, as I hope I have clearly demonstrated, the clearest evidence is already there in abundance to demonstrate the profound impacts of vaccines on infant physiologies and, possibly less overwhelmingly, on adults as well. We cannot now waste time in creating in vitro laboratory models to describe these complicated interactions, which can have at best marginal relevance to this globally widespread problem. What is required is honest, objective assessment of the evidence we have and then a rebuilding of the healthcare system to accommodate this clear reality.

Which was anther end point.

It brought to mind memories of my discussions with Professor Paul Shattock, a pharmacist who developed an interest in autism after his son developed the condition early in his life. Paul has worked in intensive and dedicated manner on the subject and has run a centre for research in Sunderland. We talked one day of the impacts of vaccine use and he was both torn and, so, equivocal. At my insistence that autistic outcomes were resultant from the whole process of vaccination he kept responding that we could only investigate detrimental outcomes on a jab by jab basis.

So, in looking at the MMR’s impact, one had to ignore all other vaccinations. It was beyond the pale to do otherwise. Although he clearly had strong sympathy for my position, his implication was that to take my position courted ridicule. I pinched myself then and demurred, now, some five years later, I most vehemently decry that attitude as preposterous and a direct and  institutionalised obfuscation!

But, as the above discussion demonstrates, even the most open minds cannot work in the absence of objectively presented data. The better will smell a rat, maybe, but still continue to follow prescribed direction, for that is as their roles are cast. I just spent a couple of hours drafting a précis of the chats but, really, I prefer to present the discussion in full. Just as the impact of vaccines on each recipient is different, for good, physiological and historical reasons, so each individual approaches the subject with a different set of pre-experience and information. Objectivity is a path we have to walk, and many just don’t.

Ho, hum, in jumped the Scientist, once more:

Anecdotal evidence is vitally important for informing the design of research studies in a case like this, but there are good reasons that decisions to drastically alter healthcare are based off of well-controlled science (ideally) and not anecdote. It’s also vitally important that such changes be carried out cautiously because, even though many people now would not remember it, inoculations do actually prevent other horrific diseases, some of them far worse than autism.

Ironically in fact, several rubella outbreaks in the 1960s– the very virus for which part of the MMR is vaccinating against– were closely linked with increases in autism, mental retardation, schizophrenia, not to mention the usual slew of conditions like blindness.

I am not advocating sudden change in healthcare protocol, which I hope the above article made clear enough, though there are probably some precautionary steps we can take like reducing the heavy vaccination load infants are given or even waiting to vaccinate until after 2 years. I am indeed advocating for the kind of research, Chris you feel we don’t have time for.

I understand the need for hurry, however I’ve also been around enough to know that, even though people may feel absolutely certain they know precisely what is occurring, they may well be wrong. And it’s that science that you are so fervent we don’t have time for while which would help to clarify that.

This is not an easy situation, and to go back to the days pre-inoculation when a person could expect that about half their children would die in the first few years of life due to one contagion or another… well, I’m not eager to head back in that direction either.

We talk about doing things “naturally” but humans have only been living in HUGE communities, e.g., cities, for the last couple thousand years. This is how contagions are bred, through close contact. So one could also argue that living in such close confines with one another is not “natural”– not to mention the means we have now of travel and spreading those diseases.

But it’s our current lot, so we must use the big brains we’ve been given to think up creative ways to reduce illness and fatalities which inevitably rise because of our way of life. One way is vaccination. But we need to learn our vaccine science better to figure out more accurately what are the risks versus the benefits.

So:

 Me, again!

Right. Now I do not propose retreat but progression. That’s what humans do.

There is not “anecdotal evidence” to inform the design of research studies. There is a vast mass of evidence built up over 200 years but oh so accelerated in the last forty which is dismissed by the Medico-Industrial Complex, MIC , out of hand. And yet you pick out an ironic anecdotal tale to point to the “dangers of German measles”. Just the same scare tactics the MIC themselves use. I would suggest in that case that there could have been a pre-potentiation by prior vaccines which transformed what is normally a very mild illness into one so damaging. There is a long record of such instances, and I reckon SSPE is another.

The twentieth century saw, for Europe, America and other more affluent areas, a steady and profound improvement in living standards – housing, cleanliness, diet etc. Concomitant with this, death rates of children from childhood illnesses fell dramatically. All this prior to vaccinations. [Smallpox , Jenner and subsequent government vaccination campaign disasters you can read up on. They form a very sorry saga.  See Leon Chaitow’s “Vaccination and Immunisation”.] At the time vaccines were introduced, death from these illnesses in such countries was rare and even those rates were still falling. I had measles, mumps, chicken pox and possibly whooping cough as a kid and loved time off school and lots of care and attention.

And so I developed strong, yes natural immunity for life and, yes, autism is for life too. Two weeks coddling versus a life sentence. Now which would one choose?

Anyway I’m not doing anything other than react to drastic changes in the “health care” protocol. All the current jabs have been foisted upon us with no evidence as to their efficacy or as to their lack of immediate, short term or long term physiological damage. My suggestion is that there should indeed be research but to provide meaningful, objective assessments of the existing masses of evidence. In around 1960 immunologist/developmental biologist Sir Peter Brian Medawar, OM CBE FRS, (my Dad’s tutor, in fact!) stated that we had all the evidence to cure cancer – we just had to sort out what we’d got and link it all together properly. I’m sure he was right and the same is true here.

Of course the mechanisms of immunogenesis are of deep, deep interest – individually, custom tailored DNA sequences and so much more cry out for further research. Ideally we must find out how we can maintain the natural sensitivities at optimal capacity. It’s no accident that illness often follows periods of great stress or intensive hard work.

Communal living in big groups was clearly a serious issue in Victorian slums. Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ “Love in the Time of Cholera” depicts the same in South America. Cholera hit during economic recession, when resistance was low. But modern living conditions are so much improved and both diet and cleanliness are vastly better. (As I said before, this has allowed other issues like diabetes and obesity. My, we are stupid!)

In fact I said that “We cannot now waste time in creating in vitro laboratory models to describe these complicated interactions, which can have at best marginal relevance to this globally widespread problem.” So we have models for optimal function and then for compromised. We demonstrate differences. We postulate mechanisms that could create the compromise.

This is good research, but it will not inform the solution to a problem resulting from a process invented by a 19th century charlatan (Jenner) and assumed since his time to be the fundamental prerequisite to enable the natural, four billion year developed immune system to function.

“We need to learn our vaccine science better”. Yes and these days you can take a degree in Vaccinology, I know. And “figure out what are the risks versus the benefits”. With methodologies such as used to test the MMR – by showing it had no worse an effect than other vaccines – there’s no chance this will be done. The MIC call the shots, find the money and tie it to the results which support their industry. It is naive to think otherwise.

We need our immune systems to be keen and alert for any problems and not compromised by saturating them with a small group of antigens isolated from a small group of sometimes pathogenic organisms often many years ago and kept in culture, evolving, ever since. The science we should study is immunogenesis and not vaccinology as this latter assumes only one mode to develop one’s immune defences. And that mode is fatally flawed.

The Scientist

I don’t believe in maintaining a status quo simply to avoid rocking the boat. Hopefully my post is some evidence of that. However, I also don’t believe in precipitous judgments when I can help it. I know you have read a LOT more on this topic than I have and I can only imagine what you’ve seen and what you’ve read have convinced you of your position. But so have the things I have seen and read in my lifetime. I am a cautious person. I don’t believe that vaccines should be done away with and see them as a greatly beneficial aspect of modern medicine. BUT I’m not so blind as to assume they are harmless under every circumstance. And those circumstances in which they may not be, I want those studied and well understood. This kind of understanding would help us apply them in moderation to avoid unwanted effects while maintaining their benefits, and at the same time aid in development of future vaccines (which are an inevitability, so they may as well be designed well and safely).

I can see that my lack of full-fledged agreement with you is frustrating. I’m genuinely sorry I can’t give you the support you’re seeking beyond what I’ve offered. But at the same time, I’m equally frustrated you sound like you’re missing my point. Not a criticism, just an occasion in which two people such as ourselves are talking “at” each other more than “with”. Do I disagree with your approach to solve this issue? Yes– although not quite as much as opponents of further investigation would be. But then you disagree with mine also, so I suppose we’re even and no need to get emotional nor take it personally.

Me

I don’t look for agreement, I look for openness and am impressed to find it when I do. Faith based science and faith based medicine I grew up thinking were long since gone. How naive!

When I see a flawed argument I challenge it and provide counter evidence. In replying to your writing here I have sought to highlight illogical assumptions and their resultant derivations and to place logical, evidence based alternatives. I have seen none of them countered at all.

It’s not personal – heaven forbid! But it is crucial for reasons of the Russian Roulette I outlined earlier (and that’s probably a good measure of the odds of damage here) but also because it has the mindset of removing responsibility for health maintenance from the individual. It’s all so archaic and voodoo. Not scientific at all!

The Scientist

I feel like I’m generally open and I’m waiting for science-based investigation to guide my opinions. I respect your opinion considering such practices medieval but I definitely do not. For me, they lie at the heart of good analysis and reliable data. So I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

Me

I know you keep an open mind – “Medieval”  is for your new chat about olde days illness (another blog post she’d made, elsewhere).

I do not call open, objective science medieval. For heavens sake, it’s what I do, so I could hardly slag it at the same time!

Archaic and voodoo is descriptor for vaccine medicine – a faith based malpractice.

Wow then even that didn’t see the end of the discussion. She came back with a letter containing so many points and questions that I answered direct into her screed and sent it by email. Only then did I realise she was not English but based in Kentucky, which put her in a different context!  Anyway:

Answers for the Scientist

Question – I’m just curious what you would specifically proffer in lieu of vaccinations though. If you bring up the topic of antibiotics, I’m right there with you and think that better alternatives are available, such as further investigations into utilizing antagonistic organisms to fight off other infections (e.g., combinations of yeast and lactobacilli to combat clostridium, etc.).

Answer – we already got there: good housing, diet, so nutrition, and clean water supply, life style, cleanliness, excellent emergency health care,

And while I can certainly fathom that vaccinations aren’t perfect

No vaccine has yet been proven to be either effective or safe

and it’s a real balancing act trying to make an effective inoculation meanwhile not harming the patient, they have still prevented many illnesses

Nope – just look at the pre-vaccine decline in fatalities in first half of 20th century

quite of few of which are potentially deadly. While I’m certainly a believer in not intervening with the job of the immune system unnecessarily, if the reaction is severe enough the immune system does kill people

Anaphylaxis you mean? Set off as potentiation to prior jabs

and some sort of preventative or treatment is ideal.

Adrenaline shots

It’s wonderful that you had mumps and didn’t have any apparent lasting effects, but not every person is as lucky.

Luck didn’t come into it – just normal good management – diet, warm cosy clean home

Same thing with a disease like rubella: there’s plenty of people who are asymptomatic, which is wonderful for them. But what about the infants born with CRS?

Congenital rubella syndrome? If the mums had had normal infection as kids their lifelong immunity would have meant no possibility of catching it whilst pregnant and they’d probably have had passive immunity to pass to their kids. Use of vaccines is creating more and more problems, you see.

Or the ones who aren’t born at all? People cry and scream over autism, but there are many more diseases than that.

Autism is not a disease as measles – it is a physiological state, akin to diabetes and still very hard to reverse to the prior non-autistic state.

And on that topic, while I can also fathom vaccinations playing a role in some individuals’ aetiology, there are a HUGE number of environmental effectors that, like another commenter had suggested, probably each play minor cumulative roles.

I dealt with this point before – the vaccine is the initiator of the problem, the spanner in the works, other factors are ameliorators or even accelerators

I don’t look for a Holy Grail of autism but look for an entire web of effectors, each web varying by individual.

A spanner is a spanner is a spanner.

Truthfully, I don’t like all-or-nothing solutions.

“Keep spanner out of works” is not a solution – it’s avoiding the problem in the first place

Vaccinations used in moderation, yes. Vaccines done away with entirely, no. Why? Because I’m not personally familiar with a better alternative.

See above

If you can give me one, aside from just letting people get deathly sick, do please. I’m very eager to learn. While I’ve seen some of the usefulness of antibiotics fighting off infection,

As the Chief Medical Officer noted today our overuse of antibiotics is running headlong into obviating their effectiveness. It’s a long time since I first wrote decrying their prophylactic use in animal husbandry – chicken, pigs, cattle – and subsequent transfer of resistance plasmids to hospital situations.

they’ve been horrifically overused but the wonderful thing is that alternatives are already being developed, utilizing the natural antagonism certain microbiota have with one another as the bacteriocidal means. But viruses? Not that I’m aware of. Letting the immune system just battle it out is not a better solution in my mind.

Not “Just battle it out”. We are so far better than that and, as I keep on repeating, the immune system is very, very sophisticated and well developed. I’d visualise developing generic immune system toning and reinforcement as opposed to the current system of hijacking and dedicating too great a part of the system in particular and artificial function.

For certain non-threatening illnesses, sure.

Illness is life threatening because of the sufferer’s physiology and not because of a particularly evil microbe. Mind you, we are doing our best to construct such in our hospitals “although hospital infections from bugs such as MRSA and C.difficile have fallen, they are being replaced by other bacteria such as E. coli and klebsiella” as the “i” newspaper say today.

But for illnesses which have high morbidity and mortality, no way.

Not much else left, though, is there?

Nature isn’t perfect, the immune system isn’t perfect

It isn’t?

and death is extremely common.

Happens to us all

Heritability makes up for it in numbers.

Not if we’re building up an enormous population of several generations weakened and compromised immune status, loss of materno-foetal transfer, loss of day to day adaptability and saturated with auto immune and allergic type problems. That’s where we’re heading. Most of us but luckily not everyone!

And then a repeat as she sent back another sortofalistysortofaquestionysortofaposting. I obliged

The scientist:

I’ve read through the pdf and I will think about it for awhile. I really would like to see research backing up claims. Hopefully you won’t think too harshly of me, being a silly scientist

Now, now – covered that one, too. I’m a scientist and so understand evidence collection and, indeed, viewing. In fact I expect it.

who revolves around that kind of stuff.

From my work and my understanding of autism, it is not a group of syndromes caused postnatally

There were no autistics before the 1940s. Where’ve they come from?

i.e., the time of most vaccinations excepting those given during pregnancy.

Vaccines to expectant mums is a very recent and deeply stupid development.

I’m a developmental biologist and I’m fairly familiar with how the central nervous system develops. There is a LOT of evidence which supports early effects in corticogenesis.

Like studies of foetal tissue??

This occurs within the first trimester. Now, this might not be all cases, but it’s a sizable portion. Specifically, there appears to be an increase in neocortical proliferation targeting the radial glia within the ventricular zone underlying the cortical plate. This zone is gone by the neonatal period. So if there are effectors targeting proliferation of these cells, it must be very early indeed.

Please don’t do the “Let’s blame the mums” thing for this. It is so cruel.

I see vaccines, should they prove to have some effect on etiology in cases of autism, as one player amongst many. Perhaps triggering an autoimmune reaction

Certainly vaccination establishes autoimmune capacity as a major example of its collateral damage to the recipient’s physiology.

which subsequently alters brain connectivity, triggering regression and more obvious signs of autism. Ultimately, autism = connectivity, though this is still only meagerly defined.

Or lack of connectivity!

But even if those individuals who regress following jabs show now signs of neocortical overproliferation, they are a minority.

It’s a whole body syndrome – not just the brain. Analogous again to diabetes but with severe and irresversible neurological impacts.

And a significant portion of autistics share a prenatal etiology,

Blame the mother’s diet? Hey, then again there are those jabs she’s getting nowadays. They must surely impact. But cross placental transfer? Dunno about that. Would have to look into it. Do you thing that Merck or GlaxoSmithKline might cough up the funding for such a study – and let you publish the results?

which I suspect is further complicated by other environmental effectors, like immune challenges

We’re built to react to these – it’s called the immune system.

steroidal agents, etc.

There is a lot in this industrialized world which wasn’t here several hundred years ago, agents which could prove powerful mutagens and teratogens.

From coffee to modern communication technology, sure, but when you examine the history the overwhelmingly clear initiator of autism and a range of other chronic syndromes is the archaic and never tested voodoo of vaccines.

And I think many such agents can fill those shoes (…she had ended).

And now so can I!

PS – There have to be footnotes:

  1. An analogy for the MMR epidemiology surveys: If you poisoned someone, say with Arsenic but were not sure whether the chemical caused the damage a comparison with a population fed on strychnine would tell that “Arsenic causes no increase in those suffering poison induced death”. This would be true but would not show up how both chemicals were causing death.
  2. Other vaccine induced malreactions fill a very long list – cot death, allergies, asthma, childhood leukaemia, eczema, ADHD, SSPE are a few of the more obvious.
  3. Must go through whole piece adding notes where appropriate.

Yes, this is still a raw screed and requires in depth footnotes and references. I think though that their absence at first does not detract from its relevance.

Advertisements

About greencentre

Non grant supported hence independent scientist, green activist, writer and forest planter.
This entry was posted in Autism, Infectious diseases, Medical industrial political complex, MMR, Scientific method, Statistics and their misuse in medicine, Vaccination, Vaccine damage. Bookmark the permalink.

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