Myth, Science, and a Trial: Vaccines and Autism
June 30, 2007 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Who do you believe? What do you believe? If you know some theory about autism, some “new treatment,” some educational program, is “supported by science” are you more likely to believe it; to trust it; to put your dollars, time, heart and soul into it? When what’s at stake is the development, the day-to-day functioning, the too-unknowable future, of your autistic child—who may be struggling to do everything, it seems—emotions (love especially) can color a parent’s view of what to do, of what one thinks, of what one sees. Two recent essays on the U.S. Vaccine Court by journalist Arthur Allen and by anthropologist Roy Richard Grinker explain why belief in theories of a vaccine-autism link persists, and why such beliefs pose potential risks to public health and (I will add) to our understanding of autism, and of how to help autistic persons.
Reading the coverage of the vaccine court—Autism Diva’s reviews of each day of the testimony and the different-tinged posts on the ACHAMP blog, Orac on real and crank scientists, Kevin Leitch on Andrew Wakefield and the MMR, not to mention numerous emails, blogs, email discussion lists, and the expected sort of postings from David Kirby—it seems more and more to me that there is a great divide in what the different sides believe. Parents, like Michael and Theresa Cedillo, are certain that their child—12-year-old Michelle—changed “overnight” from a “normal” child into an autistic on, with numerous symptoms of physical distress. Scientists cite research that shows that nothing in vaccines or in anything in vaccines suggests an actual link to autism. Parents, and some scientists, cite other research (including a phone survey done by a marketing research company).
The notion that vaccines or something, such as the mercury-based perservative thimerasol, causes autism has been called an urban myth and simply a myth. In the June 29th Slate, Arthur Allen writes about why there’s no dispelling this myth and I think his choice of “dispell” accurate: The possibility that there is some environmental agent, or some human-made thing that humans (that the government) knowingly gave to children and thus knowingly made them sick, has ready appeal for anyone inclined to conspiracy theories. Writes Allen in reviewing theories for why people believe in irrational beliefs:
In rational choice theory, what appear to be crazy choices are actually rational, in that they maximize an individual’s benefit—or at least make him or her feel good.
Blaming vaccines can promise benefits. Victory in a lawsuit is an obvious one, especially for middle-class parents struggling to care for and educate their unruly and unresponsive kids. Another apparent benefit is the notion, espoused by a network of alternative-medical practitioners and supplement pushers, that if vaccines are the cause, the damage can be repaired, the child made whole. In the homes of autistic children it is not unusual to find cabinets filled with 40 different vitamins and supplements, along with casein-free, gluten-free foods, antibiotics, and other drugs and potions. Each is designed to fix an aspect of the “damage” that vaccines or other “toxins” caused.
“Hope is a powerful drug,” says Jim Laidler, a Portland scientist and father of two autistic boys who jumped ship from the vaccine conspiracy a few years ago. In reality, autism has no cure, nor even a clearly defined cause. Science takes its time and often provides no definitive answers. That isn’t medicine that’s easy to swallow.
The belief that vaccines, or something in vaccines, is linked to autism provides a straightforward explanation of why one’s child has autism, as well as seeming to point to equally straightforward answers about how to “heal” one’s child: A toxin got in; the toxin must be gotten out. Allen notes the irrationality of these beliefs, even in the face of scientific facts. I have indeed heard many a parent proclaim, “how can he really know? he does not have an autistic child” in responding to Allen’s book, Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver, and his other writings. As Allen humanely notes,
It is difficult to challenge a mother’s knowledge of her own child. And also to fight off the staying power of the vaccines-cause-autism theory and other such notions that verge on the irrational.
In writing about autism, experience—especially first-person experience from someone who is themselves autistic, and first-person experience from a parent of an autistic child who has devoted everything to her or him—counts a lot. While theories about the causes of autism have been on trial for these past three weeks, more than a few parents—the Cedillos, I would hazard—feel that they are on trial; that their beliefs and the evidence of their eyes has been under scrutiny. And it is precisely for this reason that, whatever the verdict, people will go on thinking the same—-with potentially ill results for public health and, too, for understanding what autism is and how we can best help autistic children and autistic persons. It is not some scientist’s theory that is on trial, but the beliefs that some parents have organized their life, sacrificed their livelihood, around. Writes Roy Richard Grinker in Science on Trial in the June 30th Wall Street Journal:
Scientists hope that a decision against the plaintiffs will slow down the antivaccine movement, and parent groups hope that a decision for the plaintiffs will prove that the government’s vaccine program has poisoned a generation of children. My own view, as a parent of a child with autism, and as someone involved with epidemiological research on autism, is that neither vaccines nor anything ever contained in vaccines is related to autism or the increase in the prevalence of autism.
I base my opinion on scientific literature and no court decision is going to change it. Neither will a court decision change the minds of the antivaccine advocates. Two distinct communities have emerged, and though they both employ the language of science, their ideas are simply incommensurable. The two groups co-exist, like creationism and evolutionary biology, but they operate on such different premises that a true dialogue is nearly impossible. The plaintiffs, for example, are so convinced that the root of autism is to be found in mercury that they did not even call a single autism expert to the stand in a trial about autism.
Scientists are supported by an enormous network of publications and scientific agencies, but the antivaccine groups have their own support, mostly on the Internet. Spend just a few minutes browsing antivaccine chat groups and blogs and you will find widespread validation of the mercury-autism link, and a pronounced disdain for prestigious journals like Science, Nature and scientific peer review in general.
We should not expect too much out of this trial, or the next eight. The scientific community and antivaccine parent groups will each continue to look for clues under their own lampposts, because that is where the light is. But we should pay careful attention to this conflict. The antivaccine movement may be evidence that public confidence in science is eroding, which means that public health is at risk too.
Allen and Grinker highlight an impasse in discussions about autism, which can devolve into sharply worded exchanges regarding beliefs that espouse either one position or another: Biological or genetic. Anti-ABA or pro-ABA. Cure or acceptance. Epidemic or no epidemic. Such black-and-white thinking indeed makes, as Grinker writes, “a true dialogue….. nearly impossible.”
I do think there is need for rage and for exchanges that can sometimes be harsh and mud-slinging. What troubles me about these “dialogues” in which the parties have already made up their minds is that, while there is much talk about “autism” and its “causes,” there is little talk about autistic persons, about how to help autistic children in concrete and direct ways, about how to advance the idea that life with autism, rather than a modern tragedy brought on by modern medicine, is all about learning to look where the lamplight does not shine, to see that what seems dark is threaded through with seeds of light if we can turn our eyes aside for a moment. Finding the cause and a cure for autism may send visions of Nobel Prizes dancing in people’s heads—when it comes to matters of belief, learning to see through and beyond myths, to make sense of science, to behold my son as what he is and not what I wish he might be—or might have been: All these can test a person, can make a parent feel that they are in the witness stand testifying for the truth of their child.
But in reality, the only judge for me is my son, and all the evidence that he seeks to make his verdict is that I listen, and wait, and stand by him; that, over and above theories and notions and ideas that catch my ear and circulate, I believe in him.
Dang, Ma’am! I must go talk to my cat about this.
I’m serious!
(what you wrote is right heavy and chewy (ow))
Poetry. Mirabile lectu. Beautifully written.
Kristina – terrific blog, have been reading you for a couple of weeks now. As the parent of an autistic child, I think I’ve been through the rollercoaster like many others — though not as long as you have, since our child is younger. I consider myself agnostic on the biomed issue; like some of the other people who have posted here, I am convinced that I have seen improvements in my child’s health/focus/etc using approaches suggested by the “DAN” community, and have had enough positive contacts with some of the doctors in that “movement” to be hesitant to agree with those who dismiss the concept as quackery through-and-through. On the other hand, I also read Amanda Baggs’s writings and those of other neurodiversity advocates on a regular basis, and I am definitely convinced by their line of reasoning about the need for societal change and the importance of not defining autism as a “disease” that needs a “cure” (I am happy with the notion that our child has particular a type of neurological “wiring” and that this difference should be not only accepted but celebrated). I most heartily agree with you about the need for real dialogue and the necessity for the real, verifiable needs of both autistic adults and autistic children to be the central concern.
A quick comment on this post: you observed that “there is little talk about … about how to help autistic children in concrete and direct ways”, but I’d submit that the “cabinets filled with 40 different vitamins and supplements, along with casein-free, gluten-free foods, antibiotics, and other drugs and potions” that Allen appears to dismiss as hokum in the passage that you cite are indeed attempts by parents to help their children in “concrete and direct ways”. My sense is that some of these methods are effective for some children in some circumstances (by “effective” I don’t mean “curing autism”, which I think is as impossible as it is unnecessary, but rather something on the order of “relieving physical/mental distress”, which I think even a number of neurodiversity advocates acknowledge as a feature of autistic life). I think some parents are overeager to try new and unsanctioned methods — and therefore may expose their children to worse consequences than the distress they are seeking to alleviate. I also agree that there are individuals who are happy to think of themselves as paladins of healing, and who are too unscrupulous in suggesting potentially dangerous methodologies to parents who have been swept up into thinking of their child’s situation as “urgent and desperate” — I think your blog is a great, level-headed corrective to that kind of attitude.
However (and from the general tenor of your post I have the sense that you agree, at least in part) I am loath to dismiss the doctors who are proponents of biomedical approaches as uniformly wrongheaded and ill-intentioned. I think that in their own way, they’re also working in “concrete and direct ways” to alleviate what they see as distress; and while some have a track record of unscrupulousness, others appear more measured and cautious. I would like to think that there is a middle ground, where the notion of “curing autism” can be put aside and the notion of finding medical resources to alleviate forms of distress that may be (? or not?) especially prevalent in (some) autistic individuals could be a valid goal.
And of course, an (at least) equally valid goal IMHO would be the development and universal funding of therapeutic resources (such as speech therapy, sensory-integration therapy, ABA for those who respond to it well, etc) to assist autistic individuals in dealing with a neurotypical world…
… as well as resources to assist neurotypicals in acknowledging and treating autistic individuals as “full persons”, assisting autistic individuals in independent living, etc.
This has gone on too long, I guess I should start my own blog…
At any rate, I’ll concur that the hoopla over the “vaccine theory” has taken up too much airtime, and that other voices — especially the voices of adult autistics — need to be valued more highly in the community of parents of autistic children. I thank you for doing your part to steer discourse in that direction.
I think Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong”.
The one size fit all approach probably will not wear well for our kids and opinons and comments from aut adults are always greatly appreciated and valued.
My aut son gives me the sense that I’m always learning more and more about autism-not just reviewing information.
“My sense is that some of these methods are effective for some children in some circumstances (by “effective” I don’t mean “curing autism”, which I think is as impossible as it is unnecessary, but rather something on the order of “relieving physical/mental distress”, which I think even a number of neurodiversity advocates acknowledge as a feature of autistic life).”
Is that sense backed up by evidence or anecdotes?
Experimenting with children (i.e. pumping them full of vitamins and chelators) is not the same as doing something concrete to help them. Not by a long shot.
Many things have been believed to be helpful in autism (Secretin being perhaps the most notable) but upon further examination they have been found to be placebos at best – and possibly harmful instead. I know that some parents would try anything regardless, but for me at least considering potential risks is important.
Dr Chew, appears as though you’ve taken the “gloves off”.
Do you think most of us arent being real?
Dr Chew, appears as though you’ve taken the “gloves off”.
Do you think most of us are not being real?
Sorry for last post
Joseph, what about the pumping our children with drugs? I respect those parents who must go that route, but considering future risks are very important.
I’ll speak only for myself: I really wanted to believe that changing Charlie’s diet, or giving him DMG and Culturelle, or Brainchild vitamins, would help. I put on the latex gloves and took the samples from the toilet, and had it written into his IEP: no wheat (means no PlayDoh), no dairy, no corn, no soy, no sugar……. I said no way to a long time to medication; I’m the one who insists on keeping the doses as low as possible (especially keeping in mind that Charlie is not a small child anymore).
I thought I saw something different, but it is hard to sort it all out; Charlie was simultaneously receiving lots of educational, speech, and OT services. I’m glad we tried everything we did (including the cranial-sacral chiropractor—he was a very nice man, and Charlie got a kick out of lying on his massage table, but he charged us a bit for a box of “special” DMG).
I don’t think I could not have tried so many things and I think parents have to try the things that make their day to day lives better. But a child still has to go to school and learn to be in a classroom and, as much as I would have liked a “magic pill” that I could give Charlie—just to stop hitting his head, for one thing—-what has gotten that behavior under control has been two years of careful, structured teaching at home and at school. The reality for us has been that the teachers and therapists who have sat on the floor with Charlie—-across from Charlie in an unair-conditioned bathroom for two days of a Midwest summer, to toilet train him—-opposite Charlie at his blue plastic table, with a bowl of his favorite Holgrain crackers, and a big smile as they taught him to imitate a simple motion with their elbow, Charlie’s first word—a sign for “cracker”——they have had the longest lasting effects.
I guess I may have to write another post about all this…..M’s Dad, I’m still reflecting on what you wrote, thanks for too much “food for thought”!: You can’t know if you don’t try it, and then comes the hard part of assessing results.
“Joseph, what about the pumping our children with drugs?”
Oh, I’m completely against that as well, of course.
Thanks for your reply Jospeh! Great to see thoughtful read thoughtful posts.
This is a tough topic because in the end it’s really about results and results sometimes vary depending on where your loved one is on the spectrum, resources, support, finances and many other numerous factors.
I feel a good blog for “us” to check out is “Ballastexistenz’s Blog”. His blog is a very sophisticated and sincere attempt to show autism through his lens. As a dad, I would be honored to have him as a son and he serves as a role model for young people everywhere, aut and nonaut.
Maybe more conversation should be directed towards this notion of what’s “normal”? I do think it’s very very challenging raising a child who is “different”, but it’s not impossible. Should add that when a child experiences self injurious behaviors, it changes everything.
I know two methods of thinking clearly about complex issues: one is to carefully MindMap all sides without prejudice; another is Six Hat Thinking. Both of these methods have a wide following as some of us like graphic maps and others like words.
I have heard of “Getting to Yes” and have experienced dealing with the question of chelation by “Putting it on the Back Burner till I understood it” after reading a report from the Dental University of Umjiden, Nederlands, explaining that patients who underwent chelation and recovered from Hg toxicity symptoms: then regressed within 4 to 8 months. That was 12 years ago, before I had learnt to think. (Spelling?)
Learning to think clearly is NOT impossible; it just seems so while all the battles of civilized life rage around us.
mysonsdad, Ballastexistenz by Amanda Baggs is essential reading.
I know what you mean about the SIBs. After Charlie is asleep, Jim and I often look at each other and, whatever else is going on, note that it’s been another day without head-banging, and that’s enough.
What answer provides the golden mean between superstition and incredulity? What evidence is good evidence? Who do you believe? People have splintered off and worshiped their different gods since time immemorial, so why should things be different now? Intolerance of the others’ views, righteous assertion that one’s belief is the unquestioned correct way, how long have these issues been around? How many wars have been fought for such beliefs? Fervent devotion to the truth versus firmly held false belief is in the eye of the beholder. How easy is it to convert a radical devotee of a cause towards a more “rational view”? If someone finds that answer, they could settle the mercury debate, bring peace to the Middle East and foster unity between Yankees and Red Sox fans.
I constantly read or hear of “success stories” arising from diets, drugs, creams, laying on of hands, etc. wherein a child shows “dramatic improvement after _x_ was implemented”, and I always wonder: how much of the improvement was the condition just running its course, the brain evolving naturally, the child getting older, or just the child’s place on “the spectrum” in that some kids come along quicker than others? If these parents gave their kids cherry Pop Tarts and Gatorade over the same time frame, would the same “improvement” have resulted? If the child was concurrently receiving ABA, which area was affecting the improvement? Such is the obvious problem with anecdotal versus case-controlled results. However, the lack of statistically proven methods leaves every parent in the same dilemma: what if _x_ really works, and I’m not getting in on the ground floor? I’ve just robbed my child of a critical chance during his/her “window of opportunity”. This is where the horrible uncertainty lies, which is tormenting. I wish there were a “right answer”. This is where individual choices come into play. There’s a lot of thinking and theory out there that I truly disagree with, but when it comes down to it, who am I to cast aspersions on someone else’s methodology which gives them a sense of accomplishment, as long as no real harm could come out of it (read: chelation). What I detest is the hucksters who would prey on that insecurity, and they are our there. Well, I detest trial lawyers too, but I just had to get that in for general principle.
I also been followed the vaccine litigation hearings. The abrupt onset of symptoms following MMR vaccine clearly indicates a preexisting abnormality. The extension of symptoms is also consistent with an underlying illness distinct from either measles infection or mercury toxicity.
I attended the hearing where Dr. Wakefield initially presented his findings to Congressmen Burton. The data were unconvincing for three reasons that I privately communicated to Dr. Wakefield. First, lymphoid hyperplastic bowel disease occurs in many children without neurological symptoms; second, the histochemical identification of measles antigen within lymphoid follicles simply identified antigen presenting dendritic cells that showed no cytopathic effects; and third, there was no measles virus in cerebrospinal fluid. Dr. Wakefield did not offer any scientific rebuttal.
I then asked a major promoter of Dr. Wakefield’s appearance, “why not discuss stealth-adapted viruses?” I had previously provided extensive data on these viruses to him and to Beth Clay, senior administrative aide to Congressmen Burton. I recall his saying “We’re not ready for you yet, John.” I inferred that my data would not help accomplish his real goals.
Unfortunately, patient advocacy groups have largely been directed by individuals wanting simple answers to promote their efforts at fundraising and ego boosting. Clinicians and researchers in league with many of these groups have been content to offer naive and commonly contradictory opinions at parents’ funded conferences. More than once, I have overheard discussions among clinicians and entrepreneurs of kickbacks, illegal billings and potentially lucrative franchising opportunities.
The Government is also hesitant to acknowledge stealth adapted viruses. This is due, in part, to the origin of some of these viruses from simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV) contaminants of polio vaccines.
Hopefully, an outcome of the present litigation will be a reassessment of autism as a congenitally acquired infection with stealth adapted viruses. Additional information can be found in the Medical News and Commentary Section at http://www.s3support.com
Kind regards,
W. John Martin, MD, PhD.
Dr. Martin makes some excellent observations, but I must quibble with a few of his contentions. First, “patient advocacy” shouldn’t be ascribed to one group over the other – both groups can claim this motivation (misguided or not, depending on one’s perspective). Second, the theory of stealth adapted viruses, while intriguing, still maintains an association with vaccination, this time polio. The epidemiology, to my knowledge, does not play this out. Dr. Grinker’s work (for one), which is cited in the main blog above, maintains that autism has existed well before organized vaccination campaigns, and I find no *conclusive* data to the contrary. Moreover, I’ve not seen *peer reviewed* articles citing empirical evidence that simian CMV (or any other “stealth virus”) is a causative agent in autism, but I am open to references to the contrary. If this infection is congenital (i.e. acquired from birth or in utero), how would the polio vaccine (which is post partum by a few months) be the source? Is it from the mother? And if so, can this virus also be isolated from non-affected children? And if this is the case, wouldn’t this be an “innocent bystander”? Is there evidence-based data to support these contentions? Such would be illuminating.
Regarding the “horrible uncertainty” in trying to figure out the best thing to do to help one’s child: Being an autism parent can be said to put one in a constant state of epistemological quandary and (for me) self-questioning.
Doc Chew, your last post in right on point!
I was pleased to see a response from BrstPathDoc to my earlier posting. “Stealth adaptation” is simply a generic process that allows cell damaging (cytopathic) viruses to evade effective cellular immune recognition. An underappreciated finding is that even with large complex viruses, such as cytomegaloviruses (CMV), the cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) response is essentially targeted to only a few critical viral antigens. Thus, in the case of human CMV, over 60% of the anti-CMV CTL are directed against an antigen designated UL83 (unique long region component number 83). Another 25% of the CTL are directed against UL55 and at least 10% are directed against UL123. Altogether, human CMV has well over 150 components coded by a unique long and adjoining unique short region. such viruses can lose their critical antigenic targets while retaining cell damaging (cytopathic) activities.
An analogy to stealth adaptation is that of a terrorist who does not display any military insignia so as to help avoid Homeland Security. Stealth adaptation can potentially occur with any conventional virus but was first seen recorded in a CMV of unequivocal origin from an African green monkey simian CMV (SCMV). African green monkeys were widely used for the production of live polio virus vaccines and as long ago as 1972, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was aware of SCMV infection in kidney cell cultures obtained from monkeys being used for polio vaccine production.
Infections with stealth adapted viruses are now common within the community with documented examples of direct person to person transfer, as well as congenital transmission. A percentage of these individuals display impaired neurological and/or psychiatric manifestations that can vary in severity from mild chronic fatiguing-like illnesses to devastating psychotic and encephalopathic conditions. The brain is particularly susceptible to stealth adapted viruses because, unlike other organs, the brain carries out a myriad of functions within its various regions such that even limited localized damage cannot be easily compensated by heightened activity elsewhere within the brain.
A powerful argument against stealth viruses being innocent bystanders is the devastating effect that an SCMV-derived stealth adapted virus had on inoculated animals in studies performed within a university setting. There are also numerous clinical examples of apparent person to person and, unfortunately, mother to child transmission.
The most encouraging aspect of the research on stealth adapted viruses is the realization that the body is not totally dependent upon the immune system for its anti-viral defenses. An alternative cellular energy (ACE) pathway has been defined that can provide for the repair of both stealth adapted and conventional cell damaging viruses. Clinical trials are needed to help optimize such therapies. In the interim, the government should be persuaded to address the known contamination of previously licensed polio vaccines with SCMV. I trust this information is helpful and I would be pleased to address any further inquiries via this column or by e-mail to s3support@mail.com
Kind regards,
W. John Martin, MD, PhD.
Stealth adapted viruses look like a useful concept to add to the range of factors involved in getting autism. Bringing them under control might be a therapy that works for many patients, too.
I can’t see that stealth adapted viruses are the only or most important factor without experiments that eliminate them and evidence of the results. Some anti-viral agents may do this already until the viruses become resistant after a few months. Some researchers, McCandless, have tried rotating antivirals… Of course government funded agencies will not look in this direction until all of us are dead and they can’t get sued or lose their jobs.
The mutations that viruses undergo in a selenium deficient mammal are interesting. Might stealth adaptation be part of that: taking advantage of an immune deficient population?
To George Wade,
By definition, stealth adapted viruses do not need to take advantage of an immune deficient population. They can essentially bypass the cellular immune defenses. The theme of stealth viruses and autism is also included in the following posting.
“Stealth Adapted Cytomegalovirus Infections as a Cause of Autism”
The spate of publicity concerning human papillomavirus (HPV) infections coincides with the commercialization of an anti-HPV vaccine. Many more serious illnesses are not given public limelight because they do not yet provide highly profitable sources of income. A notable example is the high prevalence and seriousness of congenital infections caused by cytomegalovirus (CMV). Up to 1% of children acquire CMV from their mothers during pregnancy with clinical illness developing in approximately 1 in 1,000 live births. Virus damage is most notable as impaired hearing, vision and/or intellectual performance. Congenital CMV is a known cause of autism.
The severity of congenital illness is highest in children of mothers who acquire a CMV infection either during pregnancy or the preceding 1-2 years. Yet where is the Public Health advisory that uninfected young women should either avoid high risk occupations, such as providing nursery care, or to take added precautions while working in such occupations within 2 years of anticipating becoming pregnant?
More importantly, where is the Public Health program to screen the community for variant forms of CMV that lack the few critical components required for effective immune recognition? Some of the so called “stealth adapted cytomegaloviruses” arose from contaminants of live polio virus vaccines produced in cultures of kidney cells obtained from African green monkeys. Indeed, DNA of African green monkey simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV) was identified in 3 of 8 tested licensed polio virus vaccines released to the public in the 1970’s. Stealth adapted viruses have been cultured from patients with various neurological diseases, including many autistic children. Tissue culture studies indicate that these viruses may be activated by live virus vaccines and that the cell damaging (cytopathic) activity can be aggravated by environmental toxins, such as thimerosal.
Pursuing such premises should help reconcile much of the current controversy regarding the increasing prevalence of autism and childhood behavioral and learning disorders. Knowing that a mother is stealth virus infected may assist in preventative measures such as avoiding pregnancy or making exceptional efforts to develop cognitive interactive skills in one’s child during critical learning periods. Ongoing research is also being aimed at methods of enhancing an alternative cellular energy (ACE) pathway shown to be capable of suppressing stealth adapted viruses. Additional information is available in the Medical News and Commentary Section at http://www.s3support.com
W. John Martin, MD, PhD.
Institute of Progressive Medicine
John Martin writes:
_”I trust this information is helpful …”_
John:
At this point and since you’ve been putting forth this premise for nearly a decade, I am no longer finding this information terribly useful, especially without any substantial peer-reviewed corroborating evidence.
I grow weary hearing about how the “[g]overnment is also hesitant to acknowledge stealth adapted viruses … due, in part, to the origin of some of these viruses from simian cytomegalovirus (SCMV) contaminants of polio vaccines.”
Initially, years back, I could perhaps understand some hesitancy, but now too long of a time has passed for other governments not to have researched this matter and found solid evidence of such; for older, US govt. insiders not to have come forward with corroborating evidence; for a group of ethical scientists not to have blown the whistle on such a potentially impactful public health matter. Or is it just a few of you alone in this quest?
This subject is far from news to me, as I have been treated for CMV and other viruses that appeared to cluster in certain patients with immune-related issues. But, I have found your premise to be lacking, as well as the premises of the Wakefields; the McCandlesses; the Herberts. This group of “maverick researchers” has had long enough to put forth some valid, replicable science. Instead, all I hear about lately is cover-ups from the government and big pharma.
The kids who’ve been labeled as “poisoned, toxic train-wrecks” by said “maverick researchers” are old enough to understand what some are saying about them for all to hear (and fear).
Are you certain John, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the “abrupt onset of symptoms following MMR vaccine clearly indicates a preexisting abnormality [and that the] extension of symptoms is also consistent with an underlying illness distinct from either measles infection or mercury toxicity?”
Are you certain enough of this premise, as a clinician, to inform a young person on the spectrum that this is what happened to them?
And how does the stealth-virus premise — in respect to ASDs — explain the superior skill set (cf. Mottron; Dawson) which many autists possess?
Thanking you in advance for your time.
Dr. Martin is gracious in providing a postulate for stealth virus infection and an impressively elaborated pathway, and I commend his efforts. I was involved in a similar area of medicine in elaborating another atypical organism and its potential pathogenesis for a common ailment. Chlamydia pneumoniae (not the sexually transmitted disease, but a distant cousin) has, in the past, been implicated in atherosclerotic disease (heart disease, vascular disease, etc.), with a somewhat similar pathogenesis as the stealth virus that Dr. Martin describes above. This organism, an atypical bacteria, similarly evades the immune system and exerts its ill effects on many cells in the body (I won’t go into a detailed explanation, which would be beyond the scope of this blog). Despite the promising associations of this organism with heart disease (and multiple sclerosis, and chronic fatigue syndrome, and cancer, and many others which are maintained by the faithful who study this esoteric bug), the data has never really played out, at least not to my knowledge. This, I fear, is a corollary to Dr. Martin’s theory – a very sophisticated and elegant postulate, but without the necessary reproducibility. Moreover, the contaminated polio vaccine theory doesn’t account for the presence of autism in a significant patient population (again, refer to epidemiologic evidence cited by Grinker, et al) in children before organized vaccination campaigns. I commend Dr. Martin and his theory, which is impressively elaborated and quite feasible. Maybe a sub population of children are susceptible to this pathogen, but I can’t generalize it to the autism community as a whole.
To: BrstPathDoc,
I appreciate your comments and would like to clarify what seems to be a source of misunderstanding. Stealth adaptation is considered a generic process not necessarily restricted to CMV or to any particular vaccine. Autism is not necessary the result of polio vaccine being previously administered to the mothers of autistic children. Autism as a syndrome, therefore, can certainly predate polio vaccination.
Even originally vaccine-derived stealth adapted viruses can subsequently be passed directly through human to human and, as shown previously, human to animal transmission.
I am aware of many mothers of autistic children who on detailed questioning will reveal symptoms suggestive of an underlying clinical disorder. Even Dr. Kanner’s original description of the autistic children mothers, could have been interpreted as an indication of a family-wide illness consistent with an infectious origin.
The issue of independent reproducibility of the culture findings is an understandable concern. I can assure you, however, that it is not that I have not tried to engage CDC and other researchers. I will add a copy of a typical unanswered e-mail that I previously sent to Dr. Philip Pellett, at the time he was Head of the Herpesvirus Branch of CDC. It refers to DNA sequence data on the prototype SCMV-derived stealth adapted virus. I have provided in aggregate well over 100,000 nucleotide sequence data to GenBank. No one could argue that the virus is not of SCMV origin. I have also presented information to CDC on a patient and his father who both tested positive for SCMV in an independent laboratory using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Truthfully, CDC does not want to pursue this topic and I have been challenged at CDC for wanting to be a masochist.
Nor is the typical psychologists well qualified to address the issue of atypical viruses. Some virologists are beginning to speak of “virus escape mutants,” although this term can also be applied to acquired resistance to chemotherapy.
Thanks again for your interest. Here is the e-mail from August 2000.
Dear Phil,
Thank you for the discussion during the last evening of the International Herpesvirus Workshop. You were willing to talk bluntly, yet in a constructive manner, regarding CDC shunning of my research. As you said, CDC administrators look to you for scientific judgment on matters relating to herpesviruses. Without your support, there is little chance of any response to my requests that CDC pursue what I perceive to be a serious Public Health problem. As I recall, the major points of our discussion were as follows:
You spent approximately 45 minutes at my poster and came away with the impression that some of the sequence data must be incorrect. You were concerned that sequence homology matchings should be more uniform and not differ along a stretch of nucleotides. You asked if all of the sequencing had been fully double-stranded and whether I had reviewed all of the primary data. I indicated that most of the extended sequencing had been performed by Lark Technologies, at Houston Texas. Although there was some internal overlapping, the sequences were primarily derived from one-way reactions. While, there is, therefore, the possibility of an occasional nucleotide error, this would have had no effect on the conclusions that I was drawing from the data. I understand that you hold your own sequence-related studies up to a particularly rigorous standard, but this has more to do with the types of conclusions that you are trying to draw, rather than justifying dismissing any sequences that are not verified by double-stranded confirmation. Most of the sequences that I have obtained have been on GenBank for a long time and can be reviewed directly by anyone who’s interested. The irregular matching that you noted is indeed interesting. It goes along with an earlier publication on the genetic instability of the virus.
You also suggested that real science ought to be obvious to any intelligent scientist and that it was my responsibility to present the work so that it would be more widely accepted. Again I disagree. Most scientists are pretty fixed in their belief system, and historically any shift in a prevailing paradigm has been met with resistance. The average scientists can not be expected to plow through loads of someone else’s raw data, or as you said “interpret my data for me.” The CDC is something of an exception, however, since its mission is to be vigilant for possible threats of emerging infections. The poster provided a good opportunity for a scientific discussion, but you chose to view it in my absence. I, therefore, do not know if you fully understood and appreciated the significance of what was being presented.
I was surprised by your suggestion that I sought a chance to discuss my work at CDC as a “cheap” way of claiming CDC recognition. I view my challenge as primarily to get CDC to listen and to take some action. I hope you will continue to provide some assistance by engaging in more meaningful discussions of actual sequence data and patients’ histories. In particular, I would like to know you responses to the following issues that I have raised.
1. Do you doubt that the virus for which I have extensive sequence data was derived from an African green monkey simian cytomegalovirus.
2. Do you doubt that the virus most probably originated in a live poliovirus vaccine; or that it came from a patient (who is still living); or that it can induce severe illness when inoculated into cats.
3. Are you convinced that the virus has some unusual sequences that at least qualifies it as being an atypically structured virus.
4. Do you feel the apparent absence of UL83 and UL55 related genes could provide the virus a way of evading recognition by the cellular immune system.
5. Are you willing to accept that the virus has recombined with cellular sequences, including the CXC chemokine coding gene, melanoma growth stimulatory activity, a potential oncogene.
6. Do you see any significance in the apparent amplification of the US28 chemokine receptor coding gene.
7. Do you accept the presence of bacteria-derived sequences within the viral genome.
8. Are you aware of the high proportion of patients with unexplained encephalitis-like illnesses, including cases in which brain biopsies have been submitted to CDC for review.
9. Given our positive tissue culture findings in several such patients, can you dismiss the probability of widespread infections with atypically structured viruses.
10. Don’t you think we owe it to those responsible for the Nation’s Public Health to have some of these topics more openly discussed?
Enough questions for now. Most of the papers dealing with stealth-adapted viruses are on the web site http://www.ccid.org I hope we will continue to dialogue and thanks again for the time provided in Portland.
Kind regards, W. John Martin, M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Martin, thank you for your reply and clarification. Your theories are, indeed, fascinating. I wish you the best in your endeavors. After all, the concept of bacteria causing gastric ulcers was initially viewed with healthy skepticism, and now we look for Helicobacter routinely on gastric biopsies.
I’d like to underscore the need to keep in mind research on the existence of autism prior to “organized vaccination campaigns” and of how the definition of, and our understanding of, autism have affected the rise in the prevalence rate (as in this earlier post).
It is instructive to see BrstPathDoc’s post: that accepts possibilities, rather than doing the primitive, medieval jousting or Star Chamber Inquisition routine. Thus we all get the opportunity to think through our own perspectives.
I can imagine people suffering from cocktails of pollution; from malnutrition or, in our modern miraculous world, both at once: becoming prey to stealth virus infections that did not seem to bother them before.
Then stealth viruses have the opportunity to pick up other gene sequences; the best of which will multiply nicely and be capable of infecting the rest of the surrounding population of animals, including pets and owners whose lives they control.
Without imagining that I have got this right, yet, it does open up options to try out in a system of therapy. When we get too critical logical, trying one therapy at a time: one concept alone may not have the synergy that the stealth viruses have developed. That is just one way that autism continues to defeat careful logical processes.
Kristina –
Have you had your son tested for yeast metabolites? Even without high levels of metabolites, your son could have a yeast infection. Our son’s head banging went from forty times a day to once a week when we started anti yeast agents and digestive enzymes.
We were there, right with you in thinking that any day without head banging was a good one. Except we were never seeing those days. Within a month of starting anti fungals, we were asking ourselves, ‘when was the last time he banged his head?’.
This result was predicted by our physician and many others from online support groups. I’m sure that some will claim that it was simply a random occurrence. However, as someone who watched his child injure himself every single day, then suddenly stop, I can tell you, it was no coincidence.
Nystatin is very safe, and you will know very quickly if you are having an impact. If your son does have a yeast infection, you will see an impressive display of bad behavior for a few days. There are remedies available for this, namely activated charcoal.
Take care.
-pD
Thanks, pD—Charlie was tested for yeast when he was about 2 1/2 and did a course of Nystatin and culturelle for years. The head-banging became a big problem when he was about 6-9 years old—-we tried biomedical, we tried medication; we went back to a Lovaas ABA program and have been slowing teaching him how to identify when he is anxious, before he gets that way, and to have him ask for a break. I have connected some bouts of anxiety, crying, and the like to stomach trouble.
Hope your son continues to do well with this—it was a hard thing to live through.
This website comments on Dr. Martin who mentioned “stealth viruses” as a cause of autism.
http://www.ncf-net.org/forum/Johnmartin.html
I found the above mentioned page on Dr John Martin to be extraordinarily negative. It did not help me make up my mind at all. I just noted deep distrust; smiled at the swipe at CDC, too; and moved on.
Originally John’s work was greeted with a measure of trust. It’s only as time went on that, with a myriad of issues swirling around, even supporters of the premise began to shake their heads in dismay.
http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2006/06/28/midweek-cuckoo-w-john-martin/
I did follow a medical protocol based on Martin’s premises, as did my child. I’ll write more about that later.
Thanks, CFSer, for the link and for sharing any experiences.
i think all you who believe vccines are safe should read the warning label of possible side effects. this epidemic is man made. now lets see, what could that be that has all the symptoms of heavy metal posioning aka(autism) lets shoot everyone up with mercury especially very young new-borns with a developing immune system and see what happens. old saying “if it walks like a duck then it is a duck. the drug companies have billions of dollars and mucho lobbying power. there is a special place in hell for the people that are behind this coverup.
First we ought to be a bit more careful in using the phrase “epidemic of autism.”
Pretty lame argument, my friend. Aspirin has side effects, too. Are you going after Bayer now? An epidemic of Reye’s syndrome? I think you’ve missed the “old saying” by a bit: if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s not mercury.