HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » proverbialwisdom » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 62 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Feb 10, 2010, 12:12 PM
Number of posts: 3,758

Journal Archives

Overlook "Preface to the special issue of autism" by Dr. McDougle and Dr. Kong with affiliations?


July 2013 (Volume 6, Issue 3)

Preface to the special issue of autism

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the fastest-growing complex neurodevelopment disorder, continues to rise in its prevalence, now affecting up to 1 in 50 children in the USA, and averaging 1% globally, according to the latest CDC report. More children will be diagnosed with ASD this year than with AIDS, diabetes & cancer combined in the USA. ASD costs the nation $137 billion a year and this debt is expected to increase in the next decade. Hence, ASD has become a huge healthcare burden and global threat, categorized by the CDC as a national public health crisis.

ASD is characterized by social-communication impairment, and restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, which cause significant disability for those affected. With its etiology still largely unknown, and its pathophysiology poorly understood, ASD currently has no universally accepted therapy. ASD is affecting more and more families; unmet services and limited resources need to be addressed urgently. Researchers, clinicians, healthcare providers, social agencies and government need to coordinate efforts to develop more effective treatments and a satisfactory continuum of care, across the lifespan. Ultimately, a cure needs to be sought for the various subtypes of ASD that exist.

The current issue of North American Journal of Medicine and Science (NAJMS) represents a continuation of our previous two special issues on autism (NAJMS Vol. 5 Issue 3 and Vol. 4 Issue 3) published in July 2012 and July 2011, respectively. In this issue, we are honored to have another panel of expert researchers and clinicians on the frontlines of ASD research and treatment to present their newest research findings and views from different perspectives.

This issue of NAJMS consists of five original research articles, two comprehensive reviews, one case report and two commentary articles, covering topics in genetics, pathogenesis, metabolic disorder biomarkers of ASD, and a clinical study, that bring into focus our newest understanding and treatment strategies.


The data presented in Dr. Mumper’s review of the medical literature, suggests that ASD may be impacted by environmental toxicants, duration of breastfeeding, gut flora composition, nutritional status, acetaminophen use, vaccine practices and use of antibiotics and/or frequency of infections. In her current general pediatric practice (Advocates for Children), she has noted a modest trend toward a lower prevalence of ASD than in her previous pediatric practice or recent prevalence estimates from the CDC.


The final commentary was written by Dr. Herbert, who presents her paper entitled “Everyday Epigenetics from Molecular Intervention to Public Health and Lifestyle Medicine.” She asserts that it may well take a grass roots epigenetic/lifestyle medicine revolution to avert the worsening health trends we are facing in the setting of a progressively more toxic and endangered planet. She posits that everyday epigenetics can inform science of what is possible so that society can respond on an appropriate scale to the magnitude of the crisis we are facing.

We would like to thank all the contributors to this special issue of autism for offering their great expertise in this area, as well as all the peer reviewers for their valuable critiques, comments and precious time. We would like to thank our editorial colleagues for their dedication and collaborative team work with shared vision and spirit. With all our efforts together, we have made this important issue on advances in autism possible.

Finally, we would like to thank our family members for their continuous encouragement and support.

Xuejun Kong, MD
Editor-in-Chief, NAJMS

Department of Medicine
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Harvard Medical School

Christopher J. McDougle, MD
Guest Editor, NAJMS

Lurie Center for Autism Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School



Patient Selection
Inclusion criteria were: 1) all general pediatric patients born in 2005 or later; 2) presented for well child care prior to 2 months of birth and 3) followed until at least the age of 2 years and 2 months. Totally 294 patients qualified for the inclusion criteria and have been selected in the current research.

Data Collection
All the patients have been treated and examined utilizing the same well child procedures. The electronic records for all infants cared for in our general pediatrics practice since July 1, 2005 who visited our office from prior to 2 months of age (usually in the first 3-5 days after birth) to at least the age of 2 years and 2 months have been reviewed and examined, since the age range would provide ample opportunity to observe symptoms of autism. Their developmental milestones in the domains of gross and fine motor, speech and language, and social behaviors at each of 11 well child visits in the first 2 years of life have been recorded. The medical record is marked for any child who does not meet milestones. No new cases of autism in our general pediatric practice since it was established in 2000 have been recorded; the current research reports on the cohort born in 2005 or after. CDC prevalence disease data and other published data have been utilized in analysis of this research.

In the current research, there are no new cases of autism out of the 294 cases recognized and recorded, resulting in 0% prevalence of ASD. Based on the CDC background risk of autism of 1 in 50 for the cohort born around 2005 we would expect to have about 6 new cases of autism in our practice. We calculated our statistics using a Chi-squared test with 1 degree of freedom. Using the CDC autism rate of 1 in 50 reported in 2013 (but based on surveys of eight year old children), the expected rate for our 294 patients starting in 2005 would be 5.88 children with autism. Zero new cases of autism would occur by chance 1.4% of the time (p-value 0.014, significant at 0.05).
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Tue Feb 17, 2015, 12:08 PM (1 replies)

Let experts from the Lurie Center for Autism at Massachusetts General Hospital testify, too.

They might disagree with Dr. Anne Schuchat, a rear admiral for the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and the director for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. Is that allowed?

These Harvard-affiliated physicians, researchers and scientists are even Senator Warren's constituents, as residents of Massachusetts.

MORE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5667102

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Sun Feb 15, 2015, 03:05 PM (1 replies)

Nothing in your post is accurate, actually.

Please examine the evolution of the vaccine schedule. Please extrapolate future trends. Then carefully define your terms.


History of Vaccine Schedule
Reviewed by: Paul A. Offit, MD

Date: April 2013


A look at the late-stage vaccine pipeline
November 11, 2010 | By Maureen Martino

In 2009, the world market for preventive vaccines totaled $22.1 billion, up from $19.0 billion in 2008, and is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 9.7 percent to $35 billion in 2014. That's according to Kalorama Information, which has broken out a list of notable vaccines in late-stage development. Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer and Novartis combined control 83.9 percent of the world market, with GSK being the biggest vaccine seller.

As of mid-2010, Kalorama estimates there are more than 200 pediatric vaccines and many more adult preventative vaccines in development, although most are at the earliest stages of the testing process.

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:55 PM (1 replies)

No, check it out: (Page 30) "...JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBERG joins, dissenting."

CASE: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth

RECAP: The Supreme Court majority concluded that manufacturers could NOT be sued even for faulty product design because their products are categorized as "unavoidably unsafe" (rarely... for some).

Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg DISSENTED (28 pages).

NYT (link below): In a final footnote, Justice Sotomayor wrote that a concern about an asserted link “between certain vaccines and autism spectrum disorders” appeared to “underlie the majority and concurring opinions in this case.” <> In any event, she said, “Congress intended to leave the courthouse doors open for children who have suffered severe injuries from defectively designed vaccines.”


BEST: http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/02/we-lost-bruesewitz-v-wyeth-but-we-gained-sotomayor-and-ginsburg.html

Tea Party, baloney. That's not actually how people line up. Developing...
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:44 PM (0 replies)

The US government has paid $2.8 billion to vaccine-injured Americans since 1989.


Since the first National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP) claims were filed in 1989, 3,941 compensation awards have been made. More than $2.8 billion in compensation awards has been paid to petitioners and more than $121.6 million has been paid to cover attorneys' fees and other legal costs.

To date, 9,867 claims have been dismissed. Of those, 4,925 claimants were paid more than $65.3 million to cover attorneys’ fees and other legal costs.


Oversimplification is SPIN, regretably.
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Thu Feb 12, 2015, 01:46 PM (0 replies)

Dr. David Katz, Director of Yale Prevention Research Center, and Mark Blaxill debate on RT.

Is media misrepresenting ‘anti-vaxxers’?
Published on Feb 9, 2015

Public health officials have been squaring off with anti-vaccination advocates in the wake of the recent measles outbreak that sickened dozens of Disneyland visitors. To stem the disease’s spread, California lawmakers have introduced new legislation mandating vaccinations for young children, but so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’ believe the move is an infringement of their most basic freedoms. Dr. David Katz, Director of Yale Prevention Research Center, and Mark Blaxill of the Canary Party debate the real issues over MMR vaccines.

Posted by proverbialwisdom | Tue Feb 10, 2015, 03:28 PM (1 replies)

Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Jon Poling, and Dr. William W. Thompson are certainly not "anti-vax loons."

Please see additional posts on cited thread.
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Sun Feb 8, 2015, 03:44 PM (1 replies)


1. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/

2. Do a COMMAND F: Thompson (5 hits on the page)

3. http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/


Posey looking at whistleblower's CDC autism documents

Scott Powers, Central Florida Political Pulse
10:40 am, September 9, 2014

U.S. Rep. Bill Posey has been curious for a while about whether there's been enough research into alleged links between childhood immunizations and autism, and now his office has a cache of documents from a CDC scientist who said his research was tainted.

Posey's Congressional office is reviewing somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 documents, including research statistics, it obtained from Dr. William Thompson, who has complained that the CDC withheld some of his data that may have suggested a link.

Posey, R-Rockledge, has maintained an interest in the issue since being briefed on it by former Space Coast Congressman U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, who is a medical doctor.

Specifically, Thompson told several media outlets last month that he believes his research found some correlation between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines and an increased incidence of autism among African-American children, but that critical data from that research were manipulated to obscure the findings.

Officials in Posey's office wouldn't say what they expect to find, but they are examining Thompson's research papers.

The media no longer functions as an advocate for whistleblowers, so if you've never heard of Dr. William W Thompson, it's not surprising.

RELATED: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Wed Feb 4, 2015, 02:17 PM (2 replies)

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health, in 2008:



May 12, 2008, 5:09 PM

The "Open Question" On Vaccines and Autism

Perhaps the most puzzling thing about autism and ADD is that more than a decade into this public health crisis, our best, smartest government scientists and public health officials still say they have no idea what's causing it. Scary stuff, when parents having a child today realize there's at least an estimated 1 in 150 chance their child will have an autism disorder (1 in 90 if it's a boy).

While the government has been utterly unable to stop it, or even tell us what is causing it, they say they do know one thing: it's not vaccines. But today, in an exclusive interview with CBS News, Dr. Bernadine Healy becomes the most well-known medical voice yet to counter the government on that claim.

Healy's credentials couldn't be more "mainstream." After all, she once was a top government health official as head of the National Institutes of Health. She founded the first school of public health in Ohio, and then headed both the school of public health and the school of medicine at Ohio State University. She's an internist and cardiologist. And she's a member of the Institute of Medicine, the government advisory board that tried to put the vaccine-autism controversy to rest in 2004 by saying a link was not likely.

Click below to watch a Web-exclusive extended cut of Sharyl's interview with Dr. Healy: VIDEO AT LINK

According to Healy, when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.

The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer.

Why? Healy says some in the government make the mistake of treating vaccines as an all-or-nothing proposition. The argument goes something like this: everybody gets vaccinated at the same time with the same vaccines or nobody will get vaccinated and long-gone deadly diseases will re-emerge. (When I asked about cases of brain damage resulting in autism that have been quietly compensated by the government in vaccine court over the years, one government official recently told me that "it's still better overall to get vaccinated than not to get vaccinated.")

Healy says the argument need not be framed in those terms (vaccinate or don't vaccinate). Instead, she says, we should vaccinate, but work to do it in the safest manner possible based on what we know and what we can find out.

That's what the parents of autistic children have told me as well. If we can screen children to see which ones might be more susceptible to vaccine side effects, and vaccinate them on a more personalized schedule that is safer for them, why wouldn't we? If it's safer for all children to have their vaccinations spread out, why wouldn't we? Healy says it's called "personalized medicine" and is being done in virtually all areas of medicine today with the exception of vaccines. Yet the government continues to frame the conversation in all-or-nothing, "one-size-fits-all" terms.


PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: "This is the time when we do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, immunological issue that makes them more susceptible to vaccines, plural, or to one particular vaccine, or to one component of vaccines, like mercury. So we now, in these times have to take another look at that hypothesis; not deny it. I think we have the tools today that we didn’t have 10 years ago. That we didn’t have 20 years ago . . . to try and tease that out and find out if there is indeed that susceptible group. Why is that important? A susceptible group does not mean that vaccines aren’t good. What a susceptible group will tell us is that maybe there is a group of individuals or a group of children that shouldn’t have a particular vaccine or shouldn’t have vaccines on the same schedule. I do not believe that if we identified a susceptibility group, that if we identified a particular risk factor for vaccines; or if we found out that they should be spread out a little longer, I do not believe that the public would lose faith in vaccines . . . .

It is the job of the public health community and of physicians to be out there and to say, “Yes, we can make it safer because we are able to say, this is a subset and we’re going to deliver it in a way that we think is safer . . . .” I think the government or certain public health officials in the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick . . . . The public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational, without sufficient studies of causation. I think they have often been too quick to dismiss studies in the animal laboratory, either in mice, in primates, that do show some concerns with regard to certain vaccines and also to the mercury preservative in vaccines. The government has said in a report by the Institute of Medicine . . . in a report in 2004, it basically said, “Do not pursue susceptibility groups. Don’t look for those patients, those children who may be vulnerable.”

I really take issue with that conclusion. The reason they didn’t want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they were afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away. First of all, I think the public’s smarter than that; I think the public values vaccines, but more importantly I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show . . . If you read the 2004 report and converse with a few of my colleagues who believe this still to be the case, there is a completely expressed concern that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. I don’t believe the truth ever scares people and if it does have a certain edge to it, then that’s the obligation of those who are delivering those facts to do it in a responsible way so you don’t terrify the public.

One never should shy away from science; one should never shy away from getting causality information in a setting in which you can test it. Populations do not test causality; they test associations. You have to go into the laboratory, and you have to do designed research studies, in animals. What we’re seeing is in the bulk of the population vaccines are safe. Vaccines are safe. But there may be the susceptible group. The fact that there is concern that you don’t want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. If you turn your back on the notion that there’s a susceptible group that means that you are . . . what can I say? (13)
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Mon Feb 2, 2015, 06:02 AM (0 replies)

The valid point being missed is that "...even pro-vaccine parents have a threshold of compliance."

In Sweden the total number of recommended vaccines by age five is 11; in the US, it is 36. That's it, in a nutshell.

ASIDE: Comparing under 5 mortality rates between the two populations does not support the thesis that more is better either, by the way. Sweden is #2, the US is #34 in the important chart above. SOURCE: JB HANDLEY of GENERATION RESCUE and FOURTEEN STUDIES

The article cited in the OP touts the marvelous compliance of Swedish parents, as contrasted with Americans. That's a bogus apples to oranges comparison and unfair. "Even pro-vaccine parents have a threshold for compliance," as I recently read (with supporting data).

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141001455#post73

Related: http://www.fourteenstudies.org/question.html
Posted by proverbialwisdom | Sat Jan 31, 2015, 03:32 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 62 Next »