Autism, mercury and...Meniere's?

Just for point of reference, when cows get into snakeroot, it doesn't cause dairy intolerance it makes the milk deadly poison and those who drink it die and whole communities in the past have lost many people to it. I do not know why it isn't a problem anymore. I use it somewhat facetiously and somewhat seriously. What about all those common things that can and have killed in the past? Are they still operating?

I will end with this thought. Just like when we convict a person who is innocent of a crime, the real criminal goes free to commit that crime again. This is true even if the guy we convicted is a bad guy who has done other bad things. Same thing with mercury. If we insist it is the cause of autism or anything else when the evidence is lacking we are letting the real cause go undiscovered and innocent people will continue to be afflicted. Mercury may cause some things and yet there may be another root cause to autism. Perhaps it is caused by having two many inoculations too close together which gets the immune system overloaded rather than what is in the inoculation. Perhaps it is due to the massive amount of energy coursing through the bodies of infants from electrical towers, cell phone towers, radio waves and so forth. Maybe immature brains just can't take that. Maybe it is something about the antibacterial agents put in everything to reassure us that our houses are clean. I'm just going off the top of my head with these thoughts, I don't have any evidence. But if it is something other than mercury, that other thing is going stay under the radar and to continue to afflict innocent children if the interested community is so fixated on mercury that their minds are not open to other possibilities. I agree that whenever there is a tug of war such as has happened over this that both sides tend to get harded in their positions. It's like a tug of war with my dog. The harder I pull the harder she pulls the other way and all that is left is the contest not the original investigation.

I appreciate your bringing some of these concerns to the forefront but I don't think we (the larger community) benefits from demonizing the other side (whether it is a person or a thing). Sure some of the people at those drug companies are bums. Ever worked for any big company? Or small one. People are generally out for themselves first but that doesn't mean mercury causes anything. They are two separate issues. I'll quit rambling but that is where I am coming from.

 

No! There are thousands of parents who have before-and-after video footage of the day before their child's vaccines, and the day after. This is true no with vaccines given anywhere from 12-36 months. When the MMR was given with other vaccines at 12 months, the regression happened THEN, not at "around 18 months." My sister-in-law's sister-in-law showed me one such video, of her severely affected son. She was actually able to convince her initially doubting pediatrician by showing him this video.

And a huge proportion of parents of autistic kids report that their child had a severe reaction to vaccines. Like me, most of them were brushed off by the pediatrician and told that it was a total coincidence, that vaccines can't or don't cause reactions. I was lucky that, much later, the pediatrician admitted that I was right, that my children DID have reactions. He had been taught that vaccine reactions were extremely rare--and they WERE extremely rare, back when there were only 5-7 vaccines given during childhood, as opposed to the 36+ they now receive in the first 2 years. Autism was extremely rare back then, too. And so was Meniere's. (Remember, I am NOT saying that vaccines are the only smoking gun here.)

Getting back to vaccine reactions, though--when it's YOUR seizing child that you hold within an hour of several vaccines, and that child has never before had a seizure, it's pretty lame to say that it's just coincidence, especially given the facts:
the use of multiple simultaneous vaccines has never been studied for safety
thimerosal has never been studied for safety
1297 cases of vaccine-induced brain damage have already been settled in vaccine court, including some cases of autism.

We're at an unpleasant place where there IS causation, but because
1) it was assumed and then taught that this couldn't happen and
2) the pharmaceutical corporations brought out tainted studies saying that it doesn't happen
we are therefore told that it didn't happen.

That's like someone with an allergic reaction to a peanut being told that studies on 2 billion children who weren't allergic to peanuts show that peanuts are perfectly safe, so it couldn't have been the peanut.

As for autism existing in children who did not have vaccines, the autism community has been begging for a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. There has been no such study. I know several women with ADD/ADHD kids who swear their sons never received any vaccines. But those kids were born in the same hospital as my son, where vaccines were administered the day of birth without parental consent or knowledge. And interestingly, NONE of those kids are considered autistic--but they all have fully vaccinated older siblings who are autistic.

I don't believe that there are genetic markers that "make it happen." Genetic predisposition--yes, that may be the answer, especially a genetic predisposition to being unable to excrete heavy metals, or a genetic predisposition to celiac.

If you have a baby with a genetic predisposition to celiac, that could affect the ability to excrete heavy metals if the baby has already developed celiac,and has intestinal malabsorption. (Most babies are given wheat starting at around a year.) The immune system is already attacking the body, and an assault of several vaccines at once, with viruses, mercury, aluminum, and other ingredients being injected directly into the body, and if the baby has been fed formula instead of mother's milk, yes, you've just created the perfect storm that can cause brain damage and autism.

The problem with food sensitivities is that there is such a huge range of reactions. There are some people who have NO intestinal symptoms, yet have skin reactions or neuro reactions (think migraine). So there might be many autistic kids who do have food sensitivities, but the parents assume they don't because there are no intestinal issues.

Even when there ARE intestinal issues, parents can be clueless. I remember one mom telling me that her son had digestive issues from day one. He was formula-fed, so I asked if the pediatrician had recommended changing formulas. She looked at me like I was from Mars, and said, "he's on SIMILAC, that should be fine." Years later, our younger kids were at the same school, and I had then learned about the gfcf diet for autistic kids, and suggested that she look into it. Her response: "my kid doesn't have food allergies."

In her defense, I think she is so overwhelmed with all the issues that come with a severely autistic child, I don't think she can think straight. And I know when I was faced with a gluten-free diet (not even casein-free!) just for myself, I cried for 2 days, and I really thought I couldn't do it. And I don't have the problems to deal with that she does.

Now, my kid didn't react to the MMR that I know of. But he did have terrible reactions to earlier vaccines. We did start cow's milk for the first time the same week (he was 12 months), and he had massive green diarrhea. And I immediately switched him to soy milk. AND I was still nursing him at the time. Babies who are breastfed longer than 6 months are significantly less likely to develop autism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16978397.

Since the majority of formula-fed babies are given cow's milk-based formula, this supports your cow theory, June! But I think it's the combination of genes, formula, vaccines, and other things that is the problem.

Now, we could just tell parents, "don't give formula! Breasfeed!"

But we could also stop injecting babies with unnecessary vaccines (like the flu shot, and hepatitis B, given the day of birth to all babies, whether or not they are at risk for this disease that is transferred via sexual contact and tainted needles), and stop preserving vaccines with toxic mercury.

 

Then they need to quit begging and make it happen. Yes they can. I just saw a story about a woman who almost single-handedly caused research to be done on the rare genetic disease that killed her sons. I can't remember the particulars but I will find them and post them, how she went about it. It took years but she was successful.

 

The FDA's official position is that they will not sanction such a study, because it would be unethical to not give vaccines to anyone.

They will, however, sanction all kinds of studies involving psych meds being given to autistic kids http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585372/

 

There are so many ideas as to what causes Autism but nobody knows. They say Autism is on the rise but when I worked in an Autism clinic I saw a case of one kid that was truely Autistic, the rest their teachers said had "Autism". The doctors I worked with explained that children can be diagnosed by their teachers as Autistic and that they usually miss the diagnosis. The kid might have another condition such as ADHD/ ADD or a learning disability. So it is overdiagnosed I believe because teachers can label it as Autism. They have that commercial that says 1/150 kids have Autism and it's because it's overdiagnosed.

There was a family on TLC who had 6 children with severe Autism and we're talking these kids destroyed their house. I think there would be a genetic predisposition right there if all 6 of their children have it. Congenital Rubella Syndromeare more prelevant in kids with Autism and Rubella can be prevented by getting a vaccination. I would be horrified if I passed on a preventable illness that is as serious as Rubella is. Just my two cents.

 

Taximom, there are other ways to do the study and other places. I think a problem might be, what if the study didn't show what you wanted it to show. Would you then claim the study was flawed or that the people running it were corrupt? Studies in the past that did not show a link are not accepted. Would you accept a new study ? Is the goal to find out what is causing autism or to PROVE that it is mercury in inoculations and the fda and drug companies are bad? There is a difference.

 

I saw that show too. Could be genetic predisposition (certainly comes to mind) but also could be an environmental exposure that the family is completely unaware of or combination of the two. Don't ask me what, I don't know.

I tend to think there is an environmental component of some sort because of the increased prevalence. I think even setting aside the teacher dx'd group, there is an increase in autistic individuals in the last quarter century. I am just going on my personal experience and observation in the number of people I know of various ages who clearly have - or don't have - this problem.

With ADD, I don't necessarily think there is any increase, we just changed the way we label people. It used to just be a trouble maker or kid who couldn't sit still, now it has a medical diagnosis. But autism, that I never saw growing up. It could be in part a change in the tendency to institutionalize people with such problems but I still think there is much more of it now. I also don't think a teacher can diagnose autism can they? Maybe for purposes of special services at school but they don't make a medical diagnosis.

 

I think there were kids with disabilities but they would just throw them in homes and people would never see them. People used to discriminate others with disabilities and make them feel worthless. Now days, parents cope with disabilities and schools work with parents/ families. Teacher's can diagnose Autism; my aunt's a special needs teacher and she can diagnose it. A lot of kiddos with Autism now are in mainstream classrooms, unless they have profound mental retardation or are really bothered by social interactions for example during lunchtime, kids with Autism would be overstimulated. ADHD/ ADD is a hard one, first off it's annoying I know that sounds mean but when I taught this ADHD child would disrupt the class everyday, use sexual innuendos, get in my face, and be extremely disrespectful. I think at 12, you should be able to know how to be respectful towards adults, ADHD or not. When I would remove him from the situation by putting him by himself, I could actually teach. And this kid was on ADHD reducing medication or what I like to call legalized crack. My cousin also has ADHD and is the same way, he was a huge brat growing up and I was the "bad one" because I don't put up with disrespectful bullshit. I was also a really mellow, calm kid. I do believe that ADD/ ADHD is a real condition but, it's not an excuse to treat others like crap or be disrespectful.

 

I totally agree with you. I think ADD/ADHD is real, but is totally over-diagnosed, either by parents looking for an excuse for their kids' being out of control, or by misguided psychiatrists.

I used to take care of a neighbor's child in the early mornings, before school, as his mother had to leave for work very early. This kid was one heckuva handful, always doing what he was told not to do, but that was because he never was given any consequences.

When I found him in the baby's room, after I had asked him not to go upstairs but to sit quietly watching TV (his mother's request), I told him he had to stay in our basement instead. There was no TV in our basement (though it was otherwise reasonably comfortable, and a finished basement).

I gave him plenty of books, paper, crayons, markers, etc.--and he was just fine. He occupied himself for a full hour before it was time to put him on the school bus.

A couple of months later, he was on ADHD medication, because his mom said that he was not capable of sitting still unless he was in front of the TV.

So now he would sit quietly--but not color, or read, or do dot-to-dot books. He just sat, with glazed eyes, until it was time to go to the bus.

This kid is unbelievably tiny--he was always kind of on the small side, but now he is smaller than my daughter, who is a full 4 years younger than he. ADHD meds inhibit the appetite. As far as I can tell, once he started on those meds, he literally stopped growing.

ADD/ADHD is linked with celiac disease, which, in younger children, often results in growth problems.

Check this out:

http://www.celiac.com/articles/711/1/MemoryLearning-Eating-to-Learn-How-Grains-Impact-on-Our-Ability-to-Focus-Comprehend-Remember-Predict-and-Survive-by-Ron-Hoggan/Page1.html

Research has identified ADHD in 66-70% of children with untreated celiac disease, which resolves on a gluten-free diet, and returns with a gluten challenge

http://members.cox.net/harold.kraus/gluten/anno_symptoms_files/ADHD.htm
Most if not almost all children with developmental disorders have at least one inflammatory bowel condition.

More than half of classic Celiacs have neurologic disorders.

 

I heard about Celiac in kids with ADD/ ADHD. I know that those meds inhibit the appetite pretty badly; the clinic where I worked had kids come in every 3 months to be weighed. Some parents were told to mix pudding with heavy cream so that these kids could gain weight. They also say coffee works the same as Ridailn in children with ADD/ADHD so what if kids drank coffee instead, seriously. Even if the kid woke up ate something and had say 4 oz of coffee with milk and then did the same thing at lunch, they'd only be having the same caffeine as 2 sodas which most kids consume anyways and might be way less disruptive. Just a thought. It isn't fair to the other kids without behavioral issues if one is causing a lot of trouble; they diserve to have a great education too.

 

Great idea (and sounds yummy!)--but if these kids have undiagnosed celiac, and/or dairy intolerance, that would backfire, big-time.

 

Oh yeah defiently; I think the place I shadowed they did a ton of tests. I was lactose intolerant as a kid it sucked. I'm okay now as an adult but I hate eating/ drinking non skim dairy.

 

As for mercury being a "cause for autism" studies have shown from many orginizations, from the World Health Org, to the FDA (whom I dont fully trust anyhow), the Amercian Academy of Pediatrics, the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Medicine,to private sources that it doesnt "cause" autism. a direct quote from a book in my autism library ("Helping Children with Autism Learn" by Bryna Siegel Ph.D) on page 19 " It has been known for a while - from before there was an MMR vaccine or the number of vaccines children recieve today - that about a third of children with autism start to develop language and then loose it, right around 18-32 months, the age when so many vaccines are given."

The rest of these kids are diagnosed due to the severrity of symptoms earlier on, or are diagnosed later when somone notices that they are not acting "normal". Like I said, it does not mean that vaccenes are 100% safe, but it does not mean that it causes Autism.

Most experts in the field believe that Autism is caused by a number of genetic differences that may vary from child to child as does the Autism Spectrum Disorders. These genetic mutations may make a child more likely to develop differently when exposed to the same things all other children are exposed to, or not depending on if and when those genetic markers are "on" or "off" so to speak.
There are a number of studies that believe that autism is exceptionally more prevliant now than say, 20 years ago. This is from several things: better screening, a larger domain of what is concidered to be an ASD, and yes, over diagnosis. The issue with over diagnosis is that some kids have learning issues and unless given a lable such as "Autism" they will not recieve the help they need to function normally. Some of these kids are borderline in several areas, but the magic word "autism" does get them the help they need to be sucessful where as "Learning Disibility" will not. Its a name game, and it sucks, but if it helps one kid, Im all for it.
Simon Baron-Cohen believes that stress to the mother before birth, and/or too much testsrone before birth is a major cause of ASD. He gave a number of really intresting studies to back up his "extreme male mind" theroy that included studies of mothers of children and the actual fluids from the ameno and their children. It was enough to make me go... Hummm. I wont quote his entire book, but "The Essential Difference" is worth the read. He also discussed the links between families and numerous autistic children.
Yet another expert on Autism, is from Australia. Dr. Tony Attwood discusses in his book "Asperger's Syndrome" A Guide for Parents and Professionals" on page 141 that Hans Asperger (for whom the syndrome is named) noticed simmilar characeeriscts in the parents (especally the fathers) of the children he studied. (*note: Hans Asperger was a german scientiest in the 1930s and 1940s during the rein of Hitler. He kept these children he studied from being "distroyed" by the nazis as were other mental "defectives" because he saw the genius in them and studied them. His research was fantastic) Later studies, according to Attwood, do further support similar features (of autism) in second and first degree relatives. Asperger's Syndrome is a "milder" form of autism that is marked by near to normal language development, "obsessions" with specific things (like train tables, cars, books, star charts, etc), and an almost handicapping lack of understanding of social skills and rules. He goes on to suggest that there are good studies to back the THEROY that pre birth or during birth damage is somehow done that causes some systems to function improperly. He quotes people other than Baron-Cohen here.
Another Dr, and the founder of Brain Ballance, Dr. Robert Melinllo, wrote a book about his VERY expensive albiet sucessful program. The book is "Disconnected Kids" and it is about how the brains of these kids are not ballanced between the hemospheres and how they "reset" this. His program includes extensive food allergy testing, and this, from what I understand, DOES help these kids, thats kids with LD, ASD and ADHD.
I will chime in on ADHD and likely tick a few people off when I do. TRUE ADHD is not as common as they say. I will say that many kids lack solid dicipline at home and have no boundries. Moms and dads often let them do what ever and they believe they can do the same elsewhere and mom and dad tell the teachers how mean they are when johnny wont sit still and he gets detention, and the kids never learn rules and consequences. Or mom and dad "enourage" the doc to medicate a normal kid because he is too "wild" when what Johnny really needs is time outside playing (or inside) physical games rather than sitting for hours watching TV or playing video games.
True ADHD does exist. I have seen it, and it does require medication, diet and/or occupational therepy to help the child beable to focus. Most of the kids I saw diagnosed with ADHD, however, were not really ADHD they are just kids being kids and need good firm boundries and physical activity.
Autism is a tricky thing. It produces geniuses and it produces non-functional people. It is a spectrum disorder and varies from child to child and age to age as each child develops.

 

The "studies" that purport to show that autism is not linked with vaccines are discussed at length here: www.fourteensutdies.org. Both the inherent flaws of the studies and the conflicts of interest (financial ties to the vaccine industry) are analyzed.

 

I will tick off the same people, because for the most part, I totally agree with you. I am not yet convinced that ADHD requires medication, but am not convinced that it doesn't, either.

 

There's a huge difference in the two scenarios, and it's not like the FDA is applying some arcane standard here. Neither medical ethics -- nor ethics, generally -- would find it permissible to risk human life and welfare for the sake of an experiment. Any doctor or scientist who does should lose his license.

 

In that case, then thimerosal, which was 'grandfathered in" and never subject to rigorous safety studies, should not be injected into children and pregnant women. In fact, according to http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228, "The FDA is continuing its efforts to reduce the exposure of infants, children, and pregnant women to mercury from various sources. "

Yet, pregnant women children as young as 6 months old are being given not one but 2 doses of thimerosal-preserved flu shots. There have been NO safety studies of the flu shot in pregnant mammals, and the package insert says that it is not recommended for pregnant women because of this. Isn't that risking human life and welfare? Isn't giving thimerosal-preserved flu shots to children and pregnant women counter-productive to the "effort of reducing mercury form various sources?" And since the flu shot has never been proven effective in pediatric and geriatric populations, or, according to the Cochrane collaboration, not effective, period (http://www.rhinelanderdailynews.com/articles/2010/12/28/news/doc4d1a028ef1855775813213.txt), how ethical is it for the government and for doctors to push it as necessary for all citizens?

 

I will reiterate, the two scenarios are not even comparable:

We know -- KNOW, not guess, think, speculate, conjecture, feel, etc -- that there are viruses out there that can be very, very bad and very, very harmful to a large segment of young children. We KNOW -- not guess, think, speculate, conjecture, feel, etc -- that vaccines are tremendously successful at preventing vulnerable segments of society from contracting horrible diseases. To withhold treatments from some kids because you just want to "see" if autism is related to vaccines -- while at the same time exposing them to death or grievous bodily harm -- is disgusting and despicable. That you don't see what's wrong with it is mind-blowing.

Now, a very small, but exceedingly VOCAL, minority keeps waving the flag that there is a correlation between vaccines and autism. This is not something they KNOW, but rather something they guess, think, speculate, conjecture and/or feel. They absolutely insist that there is a causal relationship. So what does the scientific community do? They look into it. No matter how many studies refute the link, the vocal minority continues to disparage it and sound the alarm. So what does the allegedly "arrogant" FDA do? They simply tell folks, "Look, we don't see any actual solid scientific evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism, and thimerosal has been around for a really, really long time. But in an abundance of caution, let's just limit exposure to it just in case." It's the same reason people believe it is a bad idea to mega-dose on L-lysine, bioflavanoids, etc, if you're pregnant. Not because we KNOW that they will cause a problem, but precisely because nobody knows (although most of the evidence "suggests" that there shouldn't be a problem).

And again, there has been ZERO study showing that ethylmercury has the same effects on the body as methylmercury. And for every Cochrane collaboration, there is another study suggesting that the flu shots do work. You cannot compare what is KNOWN to what is guessed at, and then treat the two situations the same.

 

As I already posted, ethylmercury has been shown to cross the blood-brain barrier more easily than methylmercury.So you're right, that's not the same effect as methylmercury--it's WORSE.

Please tell me what studies show that the flu shot works, as even the package insert of the flu shot says that effectiveness has NEVER (emphasis mine) been shown in pediatric and geriatric populations.

 

Oxygen crosses the blood-brain barrier, too. Does that make it worse than methylmercury? The study you cited ONLY shows that ethyl crosses the blood-brain barrier easier than methyl. It most CLEARLY did NOT conclude that it causes actual damage once it gets to the brain (unlike methyl).

In terms of effectiveness, the only time the flu shot doesn't work is if the dosage you take doesn't innoculate against a particular strain of flu. There is certainly some educated projection involved about the most common flus -- and most likey to strike -- during a given flu season, but no vaccine will work if it does not include the strain of what's going around. It's not that the vaccine doesn't work, it's that if you happen to contract a strain not contained in the vaccine you received it will not protect you from that one. But you are "most likely" going to be exposed to the more common strains.