Re: OT: fraudulent study exposed - responses

[Guest guest]

I am on this list because my husband has lymphoma (splenic marginal

zone lymphoma). We have an autistic daughter and we saw her

regressing after her childhood immunizations.

We think she has genetic predisposition to vaccine damage.

According to research (see below articles) genes involved in autism

are immune genes.....a kid with a dysregulated immune response

reacts badly to viruses and vaccines derived from living viruses.

It makes sense to me.

Carla

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor and autism spectrum disorders.

Grigorenko EL, Han SS, Yrigollen CM, Leng L, Mizue Y, GM, Mulder EJ, de

Bildt A, Minderaa RB, Volkmar FR, Chang JT, Bucala R.

Child Study Center, Department ofPsychology, Yale University, New Haven,

Connecticut 06519, USA. elena.grigorenko@...

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Autistic spectrum disorders are childhood neurodevelopmental

disorders characterized by social and communicative impairment and repetitive

and stereotypical behavior. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is an

upstream regulator of innate immunity that promotes

monocyte/macrophage-activation responses by increasing the expression of

Toll-like receptors and inhibiting activation-induced apoptosis. On the basis of

results of previous genetic linkage studies and reported altered innate immune

response in autism spectrum disorder, we hypothesized that MIF could represent a

candidate gene for autism spectrum disorder or its diagnostic components.

METHODS: Genetic association between autism spectrum disorder and MIF was

investigated in 2 independent sets of families of probands with autism spectrum

disorder, from the United States (527 participants from 152 families) and

Holland (532 participants from 183 families). Probands and their siblings, when

available, were evaluated with clinical instruments used for autism spectrum

disorder diagnoses. Genotyping was performed for 2 polymorphisms in the promoter

region of the MIF gene in both samples sequentially. In addition, MIF plasma

analyses were conducted in a subset of Dutch patients from whom plasma was

available.

RESULTS: There were genetic associations between known functional polymorphisms

in the promoter for MIF and autism spectrum disorder-related behaviors. Also,

probands with autism spectrum disorder exhibited higher circulating MIF levels

than did their unaffected siblings, and plasma MIF concentrations correlated

with the severity of multiple autism spectrum disorder symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS: These results identify MIF as a possible susceptibility gene for

autism spectrum disorder. Additional research is warranted on the precise

relationship between MIF and the behavioral components of autism spectrum

disorder, the mechanism by which MIF contributes to autism spectrum disorder

pathogenesis, and the clinical use of MIF genotyping.

PMID: 18676531 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Genome-wide expression studies in Autism spectrum disorder, Rett syndrome, and

Down syndrome.

Lintas C, Sacco R, Persico AM.

Abstract

Though different in their aetiology, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Rett

syndrome (RTT) and Down syndrome (DS) are three neurodevelopmental disorders

sharing significant clinical and neuropathological overlaps. Genome-wide

expression studies are reviewed and available datasets from post-mortem brains

reanalyzed to identify genes and gene pathways dysregulated in all three

disorders. Our results surprisingly converge upon immune, and not

neurodevelopmental genes, as the most consistently shared abnormality in

genome-wide expression patterns. A dysregulated immune response, accompanied by

enhanced oxidative stress and abnormal mitochondrial metabolism seemingly

represents the common molecular underpinning of these neurodevelopmental

disorders. This conclusion may be important for the definition of

pharmacological therapies able to ameliorate clinical symptoms across these

disorders

>

> We received two responses to the following query, copied further down. Many

> thanks!

>

>

>

> News item: On our local news, just after the piece, the station interviewed

> a mom who refuses to believe that the study showing that vaccines cause

> autism could be wrong. Her argument? " Why did so many parents see the same

> thing? Our children receiving vaccines, and the onset of autism in our

> children shortly afterwards. "

>

>

>

> Question: Is this a valid argument? How would you explain the limits of

> her observation?

>

>

>

> ==

>

> A couple of factors, I think. First, it's easy to confuse correlation with

> causation. Often, autism isn't able to be diagnosed until 12-18 months of

> age...which is when the MMR vaccine is administered. So there's a

> correlation between the two, because they both happen at roughly the same

> age, which makes it easy to make the leap that one causes the other: " Hey,

> my child didn't start showing signs of autism until he got that vaccine a

> few months ago. " The signs of autism, and resulting diagnosis, get tied to

> the vaccine--even though the truth is that signs of autism don't show up

> until that age regardless.

>

>

>

> Therefore, it becomes hard for people to let go of this notion: they've seen

> the relationship with their own eyes, which carries more weight with them

> than doctors crunching numbers in a medical journal.

>

>

>

> On top of that, on very personal matters such as the health of our children,

> I think it's easier and somehow more comforting to latch onto external

> factors as causes of problems. Something about " an MMR vaccine caused my

> child's autism " seems easier than " a genetic abnormality caused my child's

> autism. " Genetic defects are random, and that's scary because it's totally

> out of our control. On top of that, genetic defects are personal, because

> they are tied to our own bodies...and so random defects springing from our

> own physical characteristics are personal, and scary. Attaching blame to

> external factors--evil pharma corporations angling for world domination--is

> much easier and more comforting. When the woman interviewed is again

> confronted with the reality that her son's autism may be random and

> personal, it's hard to let go of that thought.

>

>

>

> Finally, let's face it: this is one of the classic conspiracy theories. Big

> pharma = world domination. The attraction of any conspiracy theory is: the

> more someone presents evidence against the theory, the more the theorists

> can say " This is more evidence the conspiracy is true. The conspirators are

> doing everything they can to disprove the theory; why would they try so hard

> if it weren't true in the first place? "

>

>

>

> I'm not saying the woman is unreasonable, or consciously thinking in those

> terms. But I am saying that many of our thoughts and decisions--maybe even

> most of our thoughts and decisions--are affected far more by emotion and

> hidden factors/triggers than they are by logic.

>

>

>

> We're all guilty of it, in different areas of our lives. I think most of us,

> after diagnosis, went through a period of " What caused this? " We wanted

> answers about what may have caused lymphoma. So we read about fertilizer.

> And we read about hair coloring products. And we read about Epstein-Barr

> virus. And we read about benzine. Something inside us wanted an explanation

> about what caused our bodies to turn against us. " We don't know what caused

> this " is an unacceptable answer for the human imagination, and this is a

> great thing. That need to describe, explain and solve everything is what has

> led to every advancement in civilization.

>

>

>

> From an emotional standpoint, however, " We don't know what caused this "

> pretty much sucks.

>

>

>

> TL H.

>

>

>

> ==

>

> You asked:

>

>

>

> 1. Is this a valid argument? - No; however a flawed argument, anecdotal

> evidence, or even a fraudulently-conducted study don't necessarily

> invalidate the premise they set out to prove; similarly,

> scientifically-proven " facts " have later turned out to be invalid. I don't

> mean to say that I believe the premise, and I do believe that vaccines writ

> large have done a lot of good; however, I won't say that I believe they are

> uncategorically and universally good and safe.

>

>

>

> 2. How would you explain the limits of her observation? - A mental

> scotoma; sometimes we see what we want to see, or fear to see. A person

> frequently will latch onto things that support or reinforce their

> preconceived notions that something is true despite overwhelming evidence to

> the contrary.

>

>

>

> Thanks for asking,

>

>

>

> T

>

> ==

>

> Re: even a fraudulently-conducted study don't necessarily invalidate the

> premise they set out to prove; similarly, scientifically-proven " facts " have

> later turned out to be invalid.

>

>

>

> I think that's true, but this was the only study (of many) showing a

> possible causal connection, which likely prompted the closer scrutiny.

>

>

>

> Similarly, FDA will do direct examinations of evidence that is not

> consistent with outcomes submitted by other centers in a multi-center

> clinical trial submitted for marketing approval.

>

>

>

> If vaccines were a causal factor leading to autism, the association would be

> seen in multiple studies that have sufficient power (ie, sufficient sample

> size) to detect it. When you get a result that deviates from the others,

> you have to examine the study for bias - such as methods of selecting the

> participants or how the outcomes was measured, or less often for fraud .

> that may have led to the discordant findings.

>

>

>

> Karl

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, I'm truly sorry for your personal experence with autism.

The research you cite seems one reason it was plausible to test the hypothesis

(that vaccines cause autism).

See also: Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388

All the best,

Karl

> >

> > We received two responses to the following query, copied further down. Many

> > thanks!

> >

> >

> >

> > News item: On our local news, just after the piece, the station interviewed

> > a mom who refuses to believe that the study showing that vaccines cause

> > autism could be wrong. Her argument? " Why did so many parents see the same

> > thing? Our children receiving vaccines, and the onset of autism in our

> > children shortly afterwards. "

> >

> >

> >

> > Question: Is this a valid argument? How would you explain the limits of

> > her observation?

> >

> >

> >

> > ==

> >

> > A couple of factors, I think. First, it's easy to confuse correlation with

> > causation. Often, autism isn't able to be diagnosed until 12-18 months of

> > age...which is when the MMR vaccine is administered. So there's a

> > correlation between the two, because they both happen at roughly the same

> > age, which makes it easy to make the leap that one causes the other: " Hey,

> > my child didn't start showing signs of autism until he got that vaccine a

> > few months ago. " The signs of autism, and resulting diagnosis, get tied to

> > the vaccine--even though the truth is that signs of autism don't show up

> > until that age regardless.

> >

> >

> >

> > Therefore, it becomes hard for people to let go of this notion: they've seen

> > the relationship with their own eyes, which carries more weight with them

> > than doctors crunching numbers in a medical journal.

> >

> >

> >

> > On top of that, on very personal matters such as the health of our children,

> > I think it's easier and somehow more comforting to latch onto external

> > factors as causes of problems. Something about " an MMR vaccine caused my

> > child's autism " seems easier than " a genetic abnormality caused my child's

> > autism. " Genetic defects are random, and that's scary because it's totally

> > out of our control. On top of that, genetic defects are personal, because

> > they are tied to our own bodies...and so random defects springing from our

> > own physical characteristics are personal, and scary. Attaching blame to

> > external factors--evil pharma corporations angling for world domination--is

> > much easier and more comforting. When the woman interviewed is again

> > confronted with the reality that her son's autism may be random and

> > personal, it's hard to let go of that thought.

> >

> >

> >

> > Finally, let's face it: this is one of the classic conspiracy theories. Big

> > pharma = world domination. The attraction of any conspiracy theory is: the

> > more someone presents evidence against the theory, the more the theorists

> > can say " This is more evidence the conspiracy is true. The conspirators are

> > doing everything they can to disprove the theory; why would they try so hard

> > if it weren't true in the first place? "

> >

> >

> >

> > I'm not saying the woman is unreasonable, or consciously thinking in those

> > terms. But I am saying that many of our thoughts and decisions--maybe even

> > most of our thoughts and decisions--are affected far more by emotion and

> > hidden factors/triggers than they are by logic.

> >

> >

> >

> > We're all guilty of it, in different areas of our lives. I think most of us,

> > after diagnosis, went through a period of " What caused this? " We wanted

> > answers about what may have caused lymphoma. So we read about fertilizer.

> > And we read about hair coloring products. And we read about Epstein-Barr

> > virus. And we read about benzine. Something inside us wanted an explanation

> > about what caused our bodies to turn against us. " We don't know what caused

> > this " is an unacceptable answer for the human imagination, and this is a

> > great thing. That need to describe, explain and solve everything is what has

> > led to every advancement in civilization.

> >

> >

> >

> > From an emotional standpoint, however, " We don't know what caused this "

> > pretty much sucks.

> >

> >

> >

> > TL H.

> >

> >

> >

> > ==

> >

> > You asked:

> >

> >

> >

> > 1. Is this a valid argument? - No; however a flawed argument, anecdotal

> > evidence, or even a fraudulently-conducted study don't necessarily

> > invalidate the premise they set out to prove; similarly,

> > scientifically-proven " facts " have later turned out to be invalid. I don't

> > mean to say that I believe the premise, and I do believe that vaccines writ

> > large have done a lot of good; however, I won't say that I believe they are

> > uncategorically and universally good and safe.

> >

> >

> >

> > 2. How would you explain the limits of her observation? - A mental

> > scotoma; sometimes we see what we want to see, or fear to see. A person

> > frequently will latch onto things that support or reinforce their

> > preconceived notions that something is true despite overwhelming evidence to

> > the contrary.

> >

> >

> >

> > Thanks for asking,

> >

> >

> >

> > T

> >

> > ==

> >

> > Re: even a fraudulently-conducted study don't necessarily invalidate the

> > premise they set out to prove; similarly, scientifically-proven " facts " have

> > later turned out to be invalid.

> >

> >

> >

> > I think that's true, but this was the only study (of many) showing a

> > possible causal connection, which likely prompted the closer scrutiny.

> >

> >

> >

> > Similarly, FDA will do direct examinations of evidence that is not

> > consistent with outcomes submitted by other centers in a multi-center

> > clinical trial submitted for marketing approval.

> >

> >

> >

> > If vaccines were a causal factor leading to autism, the association would be

> > seen in multiple studies that have sufficient power (ie, sufficient sample

> > size) to detect it. When you get a result that deviates from the others,

> > you have to examine the study for bias - such as methods of selecting the

> > participants or how the outcomes was measured, or less often for fraud .

> > that may have led to the discordant findings.

> >

> >

> >

> > Karl

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >