Autism Changes Molecular Structure of the Brain

ScienceDaily (May 25, 2011) — For decades, autism researchers have faced a baffling riddle: how to unravel a disorder that leaves no known physical trace as it develops in the brain.

Now a UCLA study is the first to reveal how the disorder makes its mark at the molecular level, resulting in an autistic brain that differs dramatically in structure from a healthy one. Published May 25 in the advance online edition of Nature, the findings provide new insight into how genes and proteins go awry in autism to alter the mind.

The discovery also identifies a new line of attack for researchers, who currently face a vast array of potential fronts for tackling the neurological disease and identifying its diverse causes.

"If you randomly pick 20 people with autism, the cause of each person's disease will be unique," said principal investigator Dr. Daniel Geschwind, the Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Chair in Human Genetics and a professor of neurology and psychiatry at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "Yet when we examined how genes and proteins interact in autistic people's brains, we saw well-defined shared patterns. This common thread could hold the key to pinpointing the disorder's origins."

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525131701.htm

which is why it is been so difficult to tease out the cause of autism -- there isn't a single cause.

This is interesting:

"Two other clear-cut patterns emerged when the scientists compared the autistic and healthy brains. First, the autistic brain showed a drop in the levels of genes responsible for neuron function and communication. Second, the autistic brain displayed a jump in the levels of genes involved in immune function and inflammatory response."

Immune function and inflammatory response. This is why Hannah Poling's vaccine reaction triggered her autism syndrome -- she had an immune system disorder. Immune system disorders appear to be one of the things that, often in combination with other risk factors, can increase the risk of autism syndrome.

and a great deal of other research into the many causes of autism. Different people have different biological and genetic factors that factored in the development of their autism.

You might ask yourself: why is it so important to you to cling to the idea, in defiance of the vast preponderance of research, that autism is caused purely by genetic factors?

Oh well, if you need to exploit a child to perpetuate a lie who am I to stop you.

A syndrome is a collection of symptoms. She had the collection of symptoms and therefore had autism syndrome.

I am not exploiting a child; I am repeating what her own father, a physician, had to say about her autism.



http://www.earlysignsofautism.com/why-is-it-called-auti... /


Why is it Called Autism Syndrome?

Autism is a complex disorder for which no medically-based diagnosis exists. Because autism is diagnosed based on observation of symptoms, the group of symptoms that characterize autism is referred to as a syndrome.

A syndrome, in pathological or psychiatric terms, is defined as a group of related symptoms that characterize a condition. For autism, or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), diagnosis is based on observation of symptoms. Two children with an autism diagnosis may exhibit different, but related symptoms, so defining autism as a syndrome makes sense: diagnosis comes from observing the presence of several of a group of symptoms that are specific to the disorder.

But you knew that already.

As for her father, he didn't start saying she had autism until after their vaccine court settlement. In court, the Polings argued that Hannah's vaccination aggravated an existing mitochondrial disorder, leading to encephalopathy with features similar to an autism-spectrum disorder.

In an interview the Polings gave after the court decision, they said that they weren't 'supposed' to say it was autism in court, meaning they couldn't prove it. This is really interesting because the Government (defendant/respondent in the case) wasn't interested in contesting anything the Polings claimed. It's really easy to prove a medical condition in court in those circumstances--all you need is a diagnosis.

An attending physician could have easily made that diagnosis. Also, if her father suspected autism, he would have suggested it and an attending physician would have looked into it. After all, why would an attending physician not consider the opinion of a neurologist concerning a neurological problem? The court decision doesn't even mention in passing that autism was even a suspected diagnosis.

Once they won, they started denying the mitochondrial disorder and saying that vaccination gave her autism.

But let's be fair, what are the some of the main symptoms of encephalopathy? Progressive loss of cognitive ability and personality changes. Nah, there's no way that those symptoms could be described as similar to autism. Her father, a neurologist, should also know that many developmental disorders have some similar features and that neurological diseases can also have similar symptoms as developmental disorders.

I'd be interested in reading it.

I have never seen them denying the mitochondrial disorder. What they've said all along is that she had an underlying genetic susceptibility to a mitochondrial disorder -- which hadn't caused her mother any problems, though she had the same genetic propensity -- and the multiple vaccines Hannah received one day triggered that disorder and resulted in symptoms of autism -- which is the same as autism, since all autism IS is a collection of symptoms. (And hers are quite severe, by the way. She's not a high-functioning Asperger's person.)


But all that aside, you appear to be conceding that the vaccines she had that day led to her encephalopathy and "features" of autism. Isn't that the bottom line? That her vaccinations caused her permanent damage with autism symptoms? What difference could it possibly make to any family or child whether the diagnosis is autism or autism syndrome or encephalopathy causing "features similar to an autism-spectrum disorder." The point is that the vaccines caused devastating life-long damage and she went from being a healthy child to a child with severe autism symptoms. Why all the hair-splitting?

It was a TV interview, here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Ru-Tp27AM

The host asks about the somewhat convoluted explanation--how in court the Polings argued that an aggravation of Hannah's mitochondrial disorder led to encephalopathy, but after the case closed, they claimed it was autism. Pa Polling then said that Hannah was "perfectly normal" and her vaccination gave her autism.

If Hannah was autistic, she would have been diagnosed as such, and the Polings would have mentioned it at some point during the trial. Since they didn't, it can only be concluded that she wasn't diagnosed with autism.

Here's a link to the court decision: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELL-SMITH.POLING041008.pdf

Notice that the respondent in the case (the Government) didn't contest anything the Polings claimed. They had every opportunity to claim that Hannah developed autism as a result of her vaccination, yet they didn't even make that claim. In the interview, they said that their lawyer didn't want them to claim autism. The only reason why a lawyer in a medical dispute would advise a client to not claim something is if it isn't supported by a diagnosis.

Now, you seem to have missed the fact that there are symptoms which cover both autism and encephalopathy. The diagnosis was encephalopathy, not autism. If Hannah was autistic, the diagnosis wouldn't have been encephalopathy.

:hi:

See the video that was posted about 1 minute in. Polling's father, a neurologist clarifies her condition, stating clearly that she has autism.

Watch the video that was posted, again, beginning at three minutes in. Once again, Poling states -

"Our daughter was born normal ... no signs of any disorder ... she was vaccinated, she became ill, that illness eventually led to A DIAGNOSIS OF *AUTISM, then later *seizures. I think that's the bottom line. And, that vaccines were related to her *illness."

Here is another interview with Mr. Polling where he addresses the spin and clarifies that he's a solid supporter of vaccination. Where he differs with the official recommendations, is that he feels Doctors should individualize vaccine recommendations. I agree with him, as I expect you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxfgqsZ8BV0

Dr. Poling also believes (as I do) that there are multiple avenues to an autism diagnosis in genetically vulnerable children. You too have shared this opinion. And this is what the science, to date, would indicate as well.

with autism. And you should have known that ... already.

The remainder of your post is just as inaccurate as your initial statement.

:hi:

Why the made up story about the Pollings?

Skinner's made it very clear that all someone has to do to be banned is ask.

Skinner knows what our conversation entailed. I'll share a recap if you like? Skinner indicated that while he and I disagreed on vaccination, I'm free to share my perspective here. So, I shall.

Sure sounds like a request to be banned. :eyes:

why I made my request and he replied with a characterization of his position. He clarified his response to the foot-stomping about free speech, in the ask the admin forum. I clarified my original request, by indicating I'd be taking a break. I did.

I guess you weren't serious about leaving. That's ok, this forum hasn't had a regular anti-vax poster since you left, so I guess you could say your old job is still open.

Cheers! :hi:

That "anti-vaccine" label sure comes in handy for you *pharma-fundie types, doesn't it?

*Pharma-fundie is my new phrase for people with your mentality. I think it has a nice ring. :hi:

1. Claiming to be “pro-safe vaccine” while being unrelentingly critical about vaccines
2. The “vaccines don’t work” gambit
3. The “vaccines are dangerous” gambit
4. Preferring anecdotes over science and epidemiology
5. Cherry picking and misrepresenting the evidence
6. The copious use of logical fallacies in arguing
7. Conspiracy mongering
8. Trying to silence criticism, rather than responding to it

You're 6 for 8. If you try a little harder, you could be the archetype for anti-vaccination.

I see that you plucked that definition out to refer to another here recently, as well. This would imply that I'm not the only person you slap with the "anti-vaccine" label, in spite of your recent claim that I am. Again, it's quite handy given it helps you avoid actually discussing the issues.

Regarding the specific nonsensical straw man Orac has suggested defines anyone who says things like "remove formaldehyde from vaccines" - I'll address the characteristics you assign to me, below.

1. I'm critical of carcinogens and neurotoxins, they just happen to be used in vaccines. I don't use http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/pdffiles/LawnFactSheet10.pdf">carcinogens on my lawn, either. I'm not anti-grass.

3. I maintain that vaccines are safe for the vast majority of the populace. So are pesticides, when used according to direction, for that matter.

4. I refer to the science, repeatedly. The science says that formaldehyde likely causes cancer in humans, and heavy metals can lead to brain damage.

5. Cherry picking and misrepresenting the evidence - would apply to those who suggest that known carcinogens and neurotoxins are no longer harmful if they are used to make vaccines. And, it would apply to those who appear to believe that vaccinating babies is the end all, while overlooking the need for continued boosters in the adult population, in order to achieve so called herd immunity.

6. The copious use of logical fallacies in arguing - applies to those who trot out the "anti-vaccine" label.

7. Conspiracy mongering - is part of the pharma fundie paranoia which suggests that anyone with a legit concern, wants to end vaccination.

Here is my assessment of the pharma fundies. I've made a few changes to Orac's list, attempting to describe people who he feels should never question anything about vaccination.

1. Claiming to be “pro-save lives” while refusing to ask questions about why vaccines can and do harm some
2. The “vaccines don't cause any harm” gambit - asserting that acknowledging harm in a few, means one is opposed to vaccination
3. The “vaccines are never un-safe for anyone” gambit
4. Preferring to trot out the tired staw man suggesting that opponents believe vaccines cause X, vs. vaccines contribute to X in a small segment of the populace
5. Cherry picking and misrepresenting the evidence, while pretending that vaccinating children is the only method of disease prevention
6. The copious use of logical fallacies in arguing
7. Conspiracy mongering - suggesting there is a secret conspiracy to end vaccination
8. Trying to silence criticism, rather than responding to it by engaging in personal attacks, like calling others "anti-vaccine"

I'll probably take a break again soon as I'd rather give others an opportunity to discuss this issue. But, I wanted to stop by and point out that your assertions about Hannah Poling were flat out wrong. Do you remember where you got the misinformation on Poling? Offit and Orac, I presume?

It seems that at no point in your time away did you learn that the dose makes the poison. I've noticed that this foundation of toxicology is lost on most anti-vaxers, yourself included. Specifically, it addresses most of your 'responses' to Orac's description of your posting habits.

1: The dose makes the poison.
3: Which is why you're unrelentingly critical of vaccination and frequently refer to them as unsafe or dangerous.
4: See #1
5: See #1
6: As evidenced by your straw man arguments (see below)?
7: I see, you're really pro-vaccine, which is why you consistently argue that they're unsafe, and that unvaccinated children don't contribute to the spread of disease.

Also, most of your 'revised' list is a straw man, adding more support to the charge that you make "copious use of logical fallacies in arguing."

"I'll probably take a break again soon as I'd rather give others an opportunity to discuss this issue."

I didn't realize that your posting is an impediment to others joining a discussion. In that case, you really should take a break--I wouldn't want you to get banned for preventing discussion.

Finally, my statements about Hannah Poling are taken from the vaccine court decision, her father's words in interviews you gave me the links for, an understanding of how the legal system works in medical disputes, and an ability to understand that a diagnosis of "X with features similar to Y" doesn't mean "X and Y" or simply "Y."

Here's one - http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4593/216.abstract ... formaldehyde could exert its mutagenic and carcinogenic effects by both damaging DNA and inhibiting DNA repair.

I'm willing to look at the data on what constitutes a "safe" dose of free formaldehyde. Please provide your sources on this matter. In all seriousness, I've been trying to reassure myself on this particular issue for years, and would love any assistance you could provide.

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/search?fulltext=formaldehyde&submit=yes&x=0&y=0

Your statements about Polling's diagnosis are not taken from the court record. I've read the ruling.

I didn't realize that your posting is an impediment to others joining a discussion. Good, because that's not what I stated.

Off to have a bonfire. Have a lovely weekend L. :hi:

I''m not too interested in getting into this argument with you for a third time, so have your desperately needed last word.

have a nice evening.

"extraordinary," but, hey it's just a word. Ordinary is normal which has been generally correlated with "healthy." And some with autism truly are sub-healthy, some are savants with both super-healthy and sub-healthy, and some manage pretty darn well and have primarily the super-healthy aspects; annoying perhaps to most socially, but in most other ways head and shoulders above. So, I agree that healthy isn't the best term, but I'm not offended per se.

If a person is on the end where you can't communicate at all, or learn to use the toilet, much less ever have a job, then that person does have a severe disability. If this disability was caused by an interaction of a toxin with a biological susceptibility, then that person may be said to have an unhealthy body/brain. If that person has a brain filled with inflammation, then it is an unhealthy brain.

I'm the parent of an autistic teenager but honestly I've learned never take part in any of the discussions on the threads because they are so contentious. Still, I have gotten some interesting info here and appreciate the OP.

caused purely by fixed genetic factors and is part of normal human genetic variation.

Others think that autism is a combination of genetic, biological (such as viruses), and environmental factors (including toxins) which may vary in different people -- and which, with research and in some cases, might turn out to be preventable or treatable.

not why they are so intent on arguing about it in such an aggressive way, rather than discussing.

Wakefield falsified data to create a panic about vaccines for personal gain.

Some people bought his lies hook, line, and sinker and even though every single part of his alleged vaccine-autism link has been disproven, the faithful still cling to their belief and shift the goalposts.

My children and I are all fully vaccinated, except for the single vaccination (pertussis) that my pediatrician decided to stop after my son had seizures.

On the other hand, my sister died after developing encephalitis from the old DTP vaccine. I'm happy that they finally developed a safer DTP vaccine; and I support ongoing research into making all vaccines safer through research into which children might be susceptible to side effects from the various vaccines.

There is nobody even saying that and yet that same attitude is present. If people do have issues with vaccinations they should be able to explain that viewpoint without getting attacked.

Did I call you out as anti-vax? No. Yet here you are, insisting that you aren't anti-vax.

What would make you jump in and insist that you aren't what you don't stand accused of?

caused some conflict, and I replied that there were no anti-vax people on the thread. And I gave myself as an example, since I was the first person you argued with in the thread above. If it wasn't me, who ARE you implying was anti-vax here?

But I know you falsely consider me "anti-vax" because you've made the same claim in the past. You are unable to distinguish being pro-safe-vaccines and being anti-vax. Apparently you are pro-unsafe-vaccines.

:shrug:

:eyes:

Interesting how you insist to be pro-vaccine but use anti-vaxer straw men...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/what-does-anti-vaccine-really-mean/
So far, you've used five of these in this thread alone. Not to mention jumping in and insisting that you aren't anti-vaccine when no one was accusing you of it.

It makes you look like a fool.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/4/667.extract

PNEUMOGRAPHIC FINDINGS IN THE INFANTILE AUTISM SYNDROME

http://www.earlysignsofautism.com/why-is-it-called-autism-syndrome/


Why is it Called Autism Syndrome?

Autism is a complex disorder for which no medically-based diagnosis exists. Because autism is diagnosed based on observation of symptoms, the group of symptoms that characterize autism is referred to as a syndrome.

A syndrome, in pathological or psychiatric terms, is defined as a group of related symptoms that characterize a condition. For autism, or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), diagnosis is based on observation of symptoms. Two children with an autism diagnosis may exhibit different, but related symptoms, so defining autism as a syndrome makes sense: diagnosis comes from observing the presence of several of a group of symptoms that are specific to the disorder.