By now, most have heard about the three-part series BMJ is publishing about Andrew Wakefield's now-discredited Lancet study linking vaccines to autism. (From TortProfs Blog)
And so it goes, Dr. Wakefield's work has been discredited and therefore the entire vaccination safety issue seems to be proposed as settled - throwing the baby out with the bath water (so to speak) even as there are other ingredietns in the vaccination. There are autism affected children who have comorbid disorders that are associated with probability of damage from vaccination, and peer review does accept instances where vaccination is the cause for devastating neurological illness. That is why vaccination courts are in place - they allow families some recourse. There have been cases that have prevailed to do with vaccination injury that resulted in brain damage.
All that autism is right now - is a label; it is given based upon expert clinical observation and testing. Autism is NOT associated with known physical cause. The autism label defines a condition evidenced by clinically exhibited features, of deficits and excesses that are present - but without verifiable cause. Autism is many times accompanied by conditions that have a medically identifiable cause. An incomplete sample of the conditions are; mitochondrial disease or disorder, seizures, phenylkentonuria, congenital rubella, tuberous sclerosis, hypothyroidism, and hearing impairment.
Autism, in and of itself, IS a kind of missed-diagnosis because we DO NOT know exactly what causes exhibition of autistic features. Furthermore, the autism label seems to be - becoming the sole rally cry that those in much of the media and medical community use in too general a fashion, in order to deny the known risk of injury from vaccination. Even further, because the Wakefield debaucle has come to play, all peseverate on mercury as if it is the only ingredient in the vaccination. It is not.
There are risks involved in vaccination, albeit the medical community has made a choice to allow a few to fall into devastating illness so that the many might never be exposed to certain illnesses. It is the herd's overall wellness that is emphasized when insisting upon the good of vaccinations. Even as, for the herd - opting out of vaccinations has always been considered reasonable under conditions where known predispositions to increased risk are present.
There are almost 40 conditions that suggest contraindaction for various vaccinations according to the CDC and with that almost 60 notes for instructions to do with contraindications (link).
Some even proposed theoretical risks:
MMR does present known and theoretical risk. Contains albumin; theoretical risk of transmission of CJD and viral diseases. (link) The statement is on drugs.com. Other indications are given, as far as reasons for opting out of the MMR vaccination.
Some have considered the continuing alterations and manipulations of the cell lines being developed in order to produce vaccinations. Cell lines do utilize fetal material from abortion and thus, residual DNA from that fetal material is in vaccination cell lines. Designer Cells as Substrates for the Manufacture of Viral Vaccines, a report on designer cells utilized for development of vaccines (an FDA initiated report), considers overall productive infection as a risk consideration - not just infection that results in cancer.
...residual DNA has the potential, upon inoculation into the vaccine recipient, to produce infectious virus from this DNA and thus establish a productive infection.
Dementia is proposed to have a number of possible causes including infectious viruses, bacteria, disease-carrying parasites and fungi. Researchers have established a link between HIV and Creutzfeldt-Jakob (CJD) and the onset of dementia. The Center For Prions and Protein Folding Diseases in Alberta finds that... there may be common factors between prion diseases and other human diseases such as autism and Alzheimer’s. If one were allowed to consider all things in our PC world, is it reasonable to ask if vaccinations present increased risk of detrimental infection that results in neurological illness for some?
Current research with regard to neurological illness (in general) evidence many experts who are coming up with data which demonstrates that the various neurological illnesses might have a lot in common - even though the they are recognized by many differing names. We hardly know everything there is to know about neurological illnesses, and we certainly do not know everything about the implications behind vaccinations.
Whether it is reported in toto by media or not, risk assessment - with regard to the cell lines that are utilized in order to produce vaccinations - is at play behind the scenes. According to the aforementioned government initiated report, assessing risks of DNA residual presence in vaccines requires some absolute knowledge with regard to the amount of residual DNA being delivered via inoculation; that absolute number allows for understanding with regard to the probable amount of infectious agent being introduced. Keeping DNA residuals at 10ng or below is constantly emphasized in the already cited report, however what is also acknowledged is that there is no mechanism in place to enforce the standard - it is left to those who produce vaccines to practice diligence. What is not known, is if the manufacturers of vaccines have historically practiced due diligence by testing for amounts of residual DNA present in their products.
A most recent whistleblower story causes me to think that due dillegence is not always first and foremost on the minds of drug or vaccine manufacturers...(CBS)
(From CBS) There was reason to believe that some of the medications were contaminated with bacteria, others were mislabeled, and some were too strong or not strong enough. It's likely Glaxo would have gotten away with it had it not been for a company insider: a tip from Cheryl Eckard set off a major federal investigation.
Wakefield's current story and the lone (mercury) point hardly addresses the vaccination safety discussion in a comprehensive manner. In almost every case those who discredit vaccination safety concerns due to the recent findings on mercury based thimersal have not attempted to elucidate with regard to all of the existing known risks of vaccinations - and what those risks might imply.
How curious it is that so many experts perceive autism to be a neurological illness, but the medical community and even vaccine manufacturers can simply say they did not contribute at all to the (dramatic increase) in autism...and this doable only as long as medical diagnostics do not yet perceive the exact neurological deficits that contribute to the sole presentation of autistic features. Medical diagnostics obviously existed for the 1300 cases of vaccine related brain damage that were compensated for in court over the past two decades (link). Wonder how many of those cases involved children who, in addition to having conditions with known medical cause, also had the label of autism?
It appears that a kind of discriminatory thinking always prevails against those in the autism community. Media and the medical community seem to overwhelmingly apply different rules in assessing cause and effect for those in the autism spectrum - simply because the autistic individuals being considered have been given a psychiatric label; one that tells us nothing about cause. Is it any wonder that so many in the autism community simply check out of the mainstream given the fact that they are villified for simply asking relevant questions about obvious discrepancies that exist within what is being dished to the public by every special interest under the sun?
Individuals with autism have not, by volition, chosen to have the differences that they display. They have the differences because they have experienced atypical neurological development from the earliest stages of development. The autistic features that are displayed confirm neurological damage. The bias displayed against the autism community has been trained into the professionals who treat them - in learned halls. (This might be due to the early theories on autism that emphasize nurture as the cause of autism - making it totally psychiatric.)
From Rethinking Autism...Leary and Hill (1996) analyzed the literature on symptoms associated with established movement disorders and those associated with autism. The greatest difference among these disabilities was the interpretation of the symptoms. In Tourette syndrome, Parkinson's disorder and catatonia, there was a neurological interpretation of symptoms. A social rather than a neurological interpretation was applied if the person had a label of autism. That which is called a "tic" in a person with Tourette syndrome is most often assumed to be a 'behavior' (and often a conscious choice) in a person with autism.
I find it highly unlikely that a cause for autism will be identified soon. And this is partly because both mainstream media and medicine have such a powerful inflence - and simply opt to shut out (or shout down) those who dare to ask what continue to be relevant questions; questions that have yet to be completely answered. Most currently, Wakefield is the scandal that many perseverate upon in order to shut out relevant questions that continue to be worth both asking and answering.
I am just a mom who likes to write. I have a daughter who gives me lots to write about. Her biography is available at no cost on scribd. It is called Hello Dr. Wells. It is a chronicle, not a conclusion. We still don't know how it will end! In spite of how the biography ends - Sarah is doing pretty great at this point and soon it will be time to add to the story.