NICHD explains why the NIH still funds vaccine-related autism research

[pnwmom]

Although many recent media reports on the Wakefield scandal left the impression that questions of vaccine safety and specifically, questions of a link between autism and vaccines, have been put to rest for all eternity, such is not the case. Below are excerpts from an interview with the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (one of the National Institutes of Health) explaining why they continue to fund such research, as well as research on the safety of vaccines in general.

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science_news/nichd_alexander_interview.php


Dr. Dawson: What is the mission of NICHD with respect to understanding the etiology of developmental disorders, including ASD? Does this include the role of environmental factors?
Dr. Alexander: . . . . Study of environmental factors as causes or ameliorations of developmental disorders is a major component of our research program. Part of this research goes beyond environmental factors acting alone to look at gene-environment factor interactions. In some cases virtually everyone has a genetic make-up that renders them susceptible to adverse consequences of a given environmental exposure, with only a few protected. In other instances a given environmental exposure may have an adverse effect only on a relatively few people who have a variant genetic constitution that leaves them susceptible to adverse consequences from an environmental exposure; these are difficult to detect, especially if only a few people have this genetic variant that makes them susceptible. In this instance, large numbers of individuals need to be studied to find enough people with the rare variant. This situation is where the National Children's Study (NCS) has a potentially valuable role to play. Of the 100,000 children being recruited, we expect 600 to 700 will be diagnosed with ASD by 3 years of age. We will be able to study the genetic constitution of the children with autism in relation to many environmental exposures (illness, home chemicals, medications, vaccines, and many others) and compare them to a control group in the sample without ASD on this whole range of exposures. If there are genetic variations linked to autism related to any of these exposures, this study should identify them if they are not too rare.

Dr. Dawson: What are examples of legitimate scientific questions that remain to be considered with respect to the role of vaccines as a cause or risk factor for ASD? Why is it important to address those questions?
Dr. Alexander: One question that still remains to be addressed in a study of adequate size and precision is the one described in the preceding response, which is whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination. We know that genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents. It is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines. No clear evidence yet exists to implicate a specific relationship, but questions persist about whether there may be subpopulations unable to remove mercury from the body as fast as others, some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component, a mitochondrial disorder increasing the adverse response to vaccine-associated fever, or other as-yet-unknown responses.

The history of vaccine use holds numerous examples of risk reductions made when research demonstrated vaccine-associated adverse events, even if they were uncommon or only hypothetical. These include stopping smallpox vaccination not long after the disease was eliminated, switching from live polio vaccine to the killed vaccine, shifting to purified antigen rather than whole organism pertussis vaccine, and many others, including removal of Thimerosal as a preservative from children's vaccines. All these changes came from continued research and the desire to maximize public safety even when the adverse events were rare (polio) or hypothetical (Thimerosal). There are still legitimate questions to ask about possible vaccine-associated events, and such questions need to be pursued in the interest of both public safety and maintaining public trust.

Dr. Dawson: What sort of findings from vaccine-related studies might be useful in terms of advancing prevention, diagnosis and treatment for ASD?
Dr. Alexander: Both vaccine- and environment-related studies hold out the possibility of breaking down the group of ASDs into different subgroups based on cause or response to different treatment approaches. Diagnosis can be used not just for autism overall but for the subtype within the spectrum. Knowing causes can permit research to develop different prevention/intervention/ treatment approaches that could personalize care and markedly improve outcomes.


SNIP

_____________________________________

Bottom line: "We know that genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents. It is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines."

[Th1onein]

1. K&R

nt

[trotsky]

2. Glad to see that you agree Wakefield was a fraud.

And of course vaccine safety isn't a settled issue. To my knowledge, no one here has EVER claimed it was. Or that vaccines were 100% safe for everybody. Those are strawmen put forth by the anti-vaccination movement.

The big problem comes when vaccination opponents take this little bit of wiggle room and try to ram in a blanket condemnation of vaccines - or insist that because they aren't 100% safe, they are a failure. Or leap to unjustified, unsupported conclusions. Or insist that because something happened AFTER a vaccination, it was therefore caused BY the vaccination. That is where the anti-vaxers will be, and should be, met with a well-deserved smackdown.

[pnwmom]

3. Wakefield was thoroughly discredited years ago.

But that doesn't discredit all researchers still working on vaccine safety, and on possible links between vaccination and the development of autism symptoms in some children.

I am glad to see you agree that vaccines may not be 100% safe for everybody. Many DUers claim that that there is no possible connection between vaccines and autism -- even in population subgroups . This is not a strawman. Here is an an example from today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=216622&mesg_id=216622

"The claim that vaccinations cause autism has been completely, totally debunked."

[trotsky]

4. ...

I am glad to see you agree that vaccines may not be 100% safe for everybody.

I have never stated otherwise. However, cars aren't 100% safe for everybody either. Hairdryers and microwaves aren't safe for everybody. It is likely that these things can NEVER be made 100% safe for everybody. Or that to accomplish that goal, the funding required would push ownership of such devices well beyond the reach of 99% of the population. There comes a point at which one must acknowledge that a population is very well-served by vaccines and that further work would be counter-productive and a waste of resources that could be spent on other issues.

Unless you want more studies on aspirin, since that kills a few people every year too. We have infinite money and infinite researchers, don't we?

[pnwmom]

5. Do you not support the NICHD in continuing research

on vaccine-autism links and vaccine safety?

[mzmolly]

9. .

:freak:

[LeftishBrit]

11. No to the first, yes to the second

I think that it has been demonstrated - insofar as anything can be demonstrated - that vaccines don't cause autism; and that continuing with this line of research would just impede research into the real causes of autism.

However, research should continue to be done into vaccine safety: for example, how to prevent vaccine contamination, or severe allergic reactions.

[pnwmom]

13. Then you apparently think you know more than the National Institutes of Health.

"One question that still remains to be addressed in a study of adequate size and precision is the one described in the preceding response, which is whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination. We know that genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents. It is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines. No clear evidence yet exists to implicate a specific relationship, but questions persist about whether there may be subpopulations unable to remove mercury from the body as fast as others, some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component, a mitochondrial disorder increasing the adverse response to vaccine-associated fever, or other as-yet-unknown responses."

I understand that Wakefield's fraudulent research has been thoroughly discredited. But that doesn't mean that all the other research on possible links between vaccines and autism, now and in the future, have been discredited -- any more than if a single researcher studying the risks of smoking and lung cancer had been discredited.

[LeftishBrit]

17. The issue is not just that Wakefield has been discredited...

The issue is that there have been many other studies looking at relationships between vaccines and autism, and they do not show a link. For example, the MMR was withdrawn and then reintroduced in Japan, and there was no change in autism rates.

As regards mercury, there was no change in autism rates after mercury was withdrawn from most childhood vaccines.

So it is not a question of 'a single researcher'. The point is that there is *no* evidence that vaccines as such cause autism. There is evidence that in a minority of people, some vaccines can lead to severe reactions - which is in itself a reason for further research on vaccine safety. I am not saying that no vaccine ever has dangerous side effects, or that work should not be done to improve their safety; I'm just saying that there isn't any demonstrated link to autism.

ETA: And (a) Duane Alexander isn't 'the National Institutes of Health'; he is one individual. And he is is not, at least in this excerpt, suggesting that research should be *mainly* on vaccines: he is stating that there should be more research on possible environmental factors in autism. Which would indeed be an excellent idea. I think that there has been far too little research for example on possible prenatal environmental factors, such as maternal exposure to infections or pollutants; and that this is partly *because* too much research attention has been diverted into the single issue of vaccines.

[mzmolly]

14. There is research that indicates vaccines are not THE cause of autism. And, there is also

research that suggests they may be an environmental contributor, in some cases.

[trotsky]

12. I do not think in terms of black and white.

Sorry. That's one of the reasons I have problems with the anti-vax movement.

It would depend on what the research is. So far, we don't even have a statistical basis for any autism-vaccine lins. There are autistic individuals who never received a vaccine of any kind. There are billions of people who have received vaccines and are NOT autistic. For as clear-cut as the anti-vax movement would have us believe an autism-vaccine link is, there should be UNDENIABLE and CLEAR evidence. But there is not. Unless there is some new data that comes to light, further research just saps money away from research that really could improve vaccines.

[mhatrw]

16. LOL. You certainly think in black and white on one issue. Whenever anyone questions

anything about any vaccine or vaccine ingredient, that person becomes part of an evil monolithic "anti-vax movement" in your estimation.

[trotsky]

18. You are absolutely wrong.

However, I am aware that's never stopped you before from making wild accusations and personal attacks.

[mhatrw]

19. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time.

That would be very refreshing.

[trotsky]

20. I have done so time and again.

If you bothered to actually read threads in here instead of just scream your biased agenda at everyone, I have said countless times that no vaccine is absolutely safe.

[mzmolly]

6. Dr. Alexander must be added to the list of "anti-vaccine nutters" promptly.

Study of environmental factors as causes or ameliorations of developmental disorders is a major component of our research program. Part of this research goes beyond environmental factors acting alone to look at gene-environment factor interactions. In some cases virtually everyone has a genetic make-up that renders them susceptible to adverse consequences of a given environmental exposure, with only a few protected. In other instances a given environmental exposure may have an adverse effect only on a relatively few people who have a variant genetic constitution that leaves them susceptible to adverse consequences from an environmental exposure; these are difficult to detect, especially if only a few people have this genetic variant that makes them susceptible. In this instance, large numbers of individuals need to be studied to find enough people with the rare variant. This situation is where the National Children's Study (NCS) has a potentially valuable role to play. Of the 100,000 children being recruited, we expect 600 to 700 will be diagnosed with ASD by 3 years of age. We will be able to study the genetic constitution of the children with autism in relation to many environmental exposures (illness, home chemicals, medications, vaccines, and many others) and compare them to a control group in the sample without ASD on this whole range of exposures. If there are genetic variations linked to autism related to any of these exposures, this study should identify them if they are not too rare.

Dr. Alexander: One question that still remains to be addressed in a study of adequate size and precision is the one described in the preceding response, which is whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination. We know that genetic variations exist that cause adverse reactions to specific foods, medications, or anesthetic agents. It is legitimate to ask whether a similar situation may exist for vaccines. No clear evidence yet exists to implicate a specific relationship, but questions persist about whether there may be subpopulations unable to remove mercury from the body as fast as others, some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component, a mitochondrial disorder increasing the adverse response to vaccine-associated fever, or other as-yet-unknown responses.

The history of vaccine use holds numerous examples of risk reductions made when research demonstrated vaccine-associated adverse events, even if they were uncommon or only hypothetical. These include stopping smallpox vaccination not long after the disease was eliminated, switching from live polio vaccine to the killed vaccine, shifting to purified antigen rather than whole organism pertussis vaccine, and many others, including removal of Thimerosal as a preservative from children's vaccines. All these changes came from continued research and the desire to maximize public safety even when the adverse events were rare (polio) or hypothetical (Thimerosal). There are still legitimate questions to ask about possible vaccine-associated events, and such questions need to be pursued in the interest of both public safety and maintaining public trust.

This is EXACTLY the kind of research many of us http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=97800&mesg_id=98288">"nutters" have been calling for.

Bravo!

K and R. :kick:

[mhatrw]

7. This man is a horrible individual!

How dare he alarm people with his anti-vax nonsense!

"The history of vaccine use holds numerous examples of risk reductions made when research demonstrated vaccine-associated adverse events, even if they were uncommon or only hypothetical. These include stopping smallpox vaccination not long after the disease was eliminated, switching from live polio vaccine to the killed vaccine, shifting to purified antigen rather than whole organism pertussis vaccine, and many others, including removal of Thimerosal as a preservative from children's vaccines. All these changes came from continued research and the desire to maximize public safety even when the adverse events were rare (polio) or hypothetical (Thimerosal). There are still legitimate questions to ask about possible vaccine-associated events, and such questions need to be pursued in the interest of both public safety and maintaining public trust."

He keeps moving the goalposts! Argumentum ad ignorantiam! He should go look at that graveyard sometime! How dare he suggest that there should be any more safety research on vaccines!

[mzmolly]

8. ROFL. Did you know that Maurice Hilleman was also an antivax nutter? Sure he developed 8 vaccines

but he dared to question vaccine related virus's like SV40 and their potential link to cancer. tsk tsk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Hilleman

[pnwmom]

10. I wonder how they solved the problem, given that the virus

was found in both vaccines?

"The contamination actually occurred in both vaccines at very low levels, and, because they were ingested rather than injected, did not result in infections or any harm."

The sentence above doesn't make sense, because both vaccines were NOT ingested -- only the oral vaccine was ingested, of course. I assume they've removed any simian contaminant from the current injected vaccine?

[mzmolly]

15. Here is some info from the CDC on this.

SV40 was completely removed from the seed strains of the vaccine viruses in the early 1960s. The polio vaccine currently used in the U.S. (inactivated polio vaccine, or IPV) is no longer prepared in primary rhesus monkey kidney cells. It is produced in human or African green monkey cell lines that have been extensively tested for contaminants, including SV40. The poliovirus used in IPV is killed with formaldehyde. This procedure also kills viral contaminants, such as SV40. Formaldehyde was also used in the SV40-contaminated vaccine, but in 1961 researchers found that the process killed 99.99% of SV40 and 1 in 10,000 SV40 particles survived (Hilleman, 1998). Today's testing methods are better. Any live SV40 would be detected by these methods.

One wonders what might happen if SV40 is detected? The word "live" is also curious. Is a killed version of the virus acceptable? I hope I'm reading too much into the careful wording ...

Here's more ~

Receiving contaminated vaccine is not the only way to become infected with SV40. Data suggest that SV40 has infected a small percentage of the human population independently of the polio vaccine. A study of German medical students found that 12% had SV40 antibodies in 1952, before the introduction of the polio vaccine (Geissler et al., 1985). Moreover, SV40 has been identified in people born in the 1980s and 1990s, well after the elimination of SV40 contamination from polio vaccines. This has led some to consider that the virus may spread from person-to-person. Some laboratory workers may have been exposed to SV40 (Horvath, 1965). It is not known whether people who live in countries with wild rhesus monkeys also could be exposed to SV40. Exactly how SV40 is transmitted among humans and how common it is among people in the U.S. population are unknown.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer.htm#3