Gov't: Girl’s Autism-Like Symptoms Linked to Vaccines

Federal Officials Say Vaccines Worsened Condition That Led to Autism Spectrum Disorder in Georgia Girl

Federal officials say a Georgia girl is entitled to compensation from a federal vaccine injury fund because she developed autism-like symptoms after receiving childhood vaccines in 2000.

Hannah's father, Jon, tells WebMD he was not surprised by the compensation decision.

"When you are talking about the courtroom versus science, the burden of proof is different," Poling says. "(But) we showed there was a plausible mechanism. We showed that an injury occurred shortly after her vaccination. Her growth curve went flat for months."

The government has not said that childhood vaccines cause autism; rather, officials conclude that the vaccines given to the girl in 2000 aggravated a pre-existing condition -- a mitochondrial disorder -- that then manifested as a regressive neurological disease with some symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.

Those who believe there is a vaccine-autism link call the decision a victory, but those who see no link worry that parents will once again shy away from childhood vaccines.

"Nothing of this situation should be generalized to the risk of vaccines for normal children," CDC Director Julie Gerberding, MD, said at a news conference. "None of this is going to change any of our recommendations stating the importance of vaccination for every child."

(Are you changing your child's vaccine schedule because of autism fears? Tell us what you're thinking on WebMD's Autism Support Group message board.)

The Back Story Autism and autism spectrum disorders begin before the age of 3, according to the CDC, and include a group of developmental disabilities marked by great difficulty in social interaction and communication. Difficulties on the spectrum range from mild to severe...

What? This is common knowledge;...

Only among folks obviously dedicated to the subject or virologists involved in their making. As a family practice doc, egg allergy and the fact that most vaccines are still made with the help of chicken eggs is more practical to remember.

Someone has a pro-life ping list and probably could list articles, I’ll spend a few minutes on it, it’s 11 pm.

I got the impression that you were signing off. That was quite a mistake. Thanks for the links. Tracing the history of WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts, I found this:

MORAL REFLECTIONS ON VACCINES PREPARED FROM CELLS DERIVED FROM ABORTED HUMAN FOETUSES

Here are some excerpts:

To date, there are two human diploid cell lines which were originally prepared from tissues of aborted foetuses ( in 1964 and 1970) and are used for the preparation of vaccines based on live attenuated virus: the first one is the WI-38 line (Winstar[Wistar is the correction needed. It's not Winstar.] Institute 38), with human diploid lung fibroblasts, coming from a female foetus that was aborted because the family felt they had too many children (G. Sven et al., 1969). It was prepared and developed by Leonard Hayflick in 1964 (L. Hayflick, 1965; G. Sven et al., 1969)3 and bears the ATCC number CCL-75. WI-38 has been used for the preparation of the historical vaccine RA 27/3 against rubella (S.A. Plotkin et al, 1965)4. The second human cell line is MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) (human, lung, embryonic) (ATCC number CCL-171), with human lung fibroblasts coming from a 14 week male foetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" from a 27 year old woman in the UK. MRC-5 was prepared and developed by J.P. Jacobs in 1966 (J.P. Jacobs et al, 1970)5. Other human cell lines have been developed for pharmaceutical needs, but are not involved in the vaccines actually available6.

The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:7

"A) Live vaccines against rubella8 :

- the monovalent vaccines against rubella Meruvax®!! (Merck) (U.S.), Rudivax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Ervevax® (RA 27/3) (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium);

- the combined vaccine MR against rubella and measles, commercialized with the name of M-R-VAX® (Merck, US) and Rudi-Rouvax® (AVP, France);

- the combined vaccine against rubella and mumps marketed under the name of Biavax®!! (Merck, U.S.),

- the combined vaccine MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) against rubella, mumps and measles, marketed under the name of M-M-R® II (Merck, US), R.O.R.®, Trimovax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Priorix® (GlaxoSmithKline UK).

B) Other vaccines, also prepared using human cell lines from aborted foetuses:

- two vaccines against hepatitis A, one produced by Merck (VAQTA), the other one produced by GlaxoSmithKline (HAVRIX), both of them being prepared using MRC-5;

- one vaccine against chicken pox, Varivax®, produced by Merck using WI-38 and MRC-5;

- one vaccine against poliomyelitis, the inactivated polio virus vaccine Poliovax® (Aventis-Pasteur, Fr.) using MRC-5;

- one vaccine against rabies, Imovax®, produced by Aventis Pasteur, harvested from infected human diploid cells, MRC-5 strain;

- one vaccine against smallpox, AC AM 1000, prepared by Acambis using MRC-5, still on trial.

They still have two cell lines from one therapeutic and another one elective abortion since about 40 years ago.

--Snip--

Moreover, we find, in such a case, a. proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles15.

IMHO, you can only take a pass on Hepatitis A and chicken pox vaccines. They are self limiting diseases, the former avoided by common hygiene regulations and the latter justified only by parents staying home with a sick kid.

Coleus, this this a courtesy ping for the Vatican link.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.