[kidg]

First of all, this thread was started out of simple curiosity and not intended to presume a basis in scientific fact. Second, one cannot attack alternate theories as "laughable" when the theory that they vehemently cling to (ie. genetics) is no more valid than any other (i.e. viral). In fact, the scientific community still has no definitive explanation for what causes Type 1 diabetes. Many believe that BOTH genetics and environment play a role. Where one must inherit the "pre-disposition" to become diabetic and then have an environmental "trigger" cause the onset. It has never been determined that genetics alone can make you diabetic.

What is still very unclear is what these suspected "triggers" actually are. However, one of the suspects is viral or bacterial vaccinations. (namely MMR). Hence the years of research devoted to this specifically.

While some types of vaccines do use "deactived" viruses, the MMR vaccine uses a live, weakend strain of a virus that is intended to trigger a specific immunological response. Hence the theory that these weakend strains COULD lie dormant for years until one day, given the right conditions (ie. weakend immune system), act as a trigger for Type 1 diabetes. I don't know which flavor or science would presume that diabetes would assuredly present "in a matter of months" if vaccinations were indeed a contributing factor.

Again, I'm not making any claims to the validity of this theory. I just happen to find it interesting and I can see how it could apply to my own case. If this concept piques your curiosity as well, I would like to hear about it. If, on the other hand, a "viral link" theory simply make you angry, well, I'm sorry for the offense...

[DeusXM]

So, in the eons prior to coming up with an effective therapy, diabetes didn't breed itself out of the population?

T1 diabetes presented people with a survival advantage in the Ice Age. Higher blood sugars mean the body is more able to deal with extremes of cold. So the mutation that caused T1 survived to be widely dispersed amongst the gene pool. Over the last 10,000 years this has mitigated itself into arriving through carriers - by and large, people who develop full blown T1 before the age of 14 are unlikely to ever have offspring, however those who did not develop it until after puberty could possibly have been able to have children, thus passing on the gene which could then be recessive in the child's genes.

By the time we come to the C20th, there are still a large number of carriers, Learning how to treat and manage diabetes results in an exponential growth of both carriers and those with the condition - a pattern that is set to continue until gene therapy is sufficiently advanced enough to correct the T1 geneotype.

How many T1s here have kids that are also diabetics?

All the kids they have will be carriers of the genotype. If the other parent is also a carrier, there's a reasonable chance that their children will have T1 diabetes.

I know the "genetics" crowd will soon post this data about recessive genes and how the precise combination of mom's and dad's genes eff'd each of us over...but where the rubber meets the pavement, I wonder how vertically and horizontally for as far as any relative can remember, I am the ONLY Type 1 in my family.

And now you're showing you don't understand how genetics works. Just because you don't know how it works doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Your mother was a carrier of the T1 gene and so was your father. Neither of them had to have diabetes to be a carrier. The specific gamete combination that made you was one whereby both gamete carried the T1 genotype. Whether or not anyone else in your family has or had T1 is immaterial.

Going back into the early 1800's on three continents.

So in other words, a wide gene pool with a huge number of opportunities for at least one of your ancestors being a carrier.

So are aborigines in Australia or tribesman in Africa living healthier because they lack AC, particle filtration and hand sanitizers?

Aboriginies in Australia recieve the same vaccinations as their white counterparts. Those who live on 'reservations' tend to have lower rates of asthma and other autoimmune conditions despite recieving the same vaccinations. They do suffer from a great deal more alcohol-caused illnesses because the most common genotype amongst Aboriginies is one that isn't able to deal with alcohol.

But I still wonder how there are not more 30 and 40 year old autistics running around in the world, esp. now that we can identify them better?

Mostly because people of that age aren't so likely to go to the doctors looking to find something medically wrong with them on purpose. I'm sure if you forced a load of adults into a doctors' surgery and besieged them with a load of tests, you'd find plenty with asthma, autism, ADHD and any other complaint that has apparently only appeared in the last 20 years.

It's an interesting and scary thing to consider why this is happening...

Indeed it is. Quite what it has to do with vaccines is beyond me though. You cannot say that because one thing increased at the same time as another that there is direct correlation. More people bought their own home in the 80s, therefore home ownership causes autoimmune disease.

Seriously, unless you can actually present a compelling link between vaccination and autoimmune conditions that isn't just 'they both happened in the 80s', you can't make a case.

Nah, there's more to a vaccine, and you don't have to be a scientist to understand that things like Mercury and Aluminum are bad for you:

But you'd have to be one to tell me how on earth that causes diabetes.

I suppose you'd probably also say that phosphoric acid and sodium benzoate shouldn't be put into the human body either. I hope you don't like Coke because that's mostly what you're drinking.

If you are born with the genes for T1, why do some of us present with this disease at 11 months, others at 17.5 years, and others well into adulthood?

I was under the impression that most people with T1 develop the condition between the ages of 8 and 15, ages which rather too neatly coincide with puberty and massive hormonal changes in the body.

What is still very unclear is what these suspected "triggers" actually are. However, one of the suspects is viral or bacterial vaccinations. (namely MMR). Hence the years of research devoted to this specifically.

In which case it's point blank bad logic to say 'vaccines cause T1'. You might as well say 'aspartame makes you die' because a small proportion of people have a genetic inability to process it. If you've got the genes that predispose you to T1, you're going to get it. I'd like to see anyone last 80 years without sustaining some major infection - and ironically enough, without vaccines you certainly would sustain a major infection.

If, on the other hand, a "viral link" theory simply make you angry, well, I'm sorry for the offense...

No, what annoys me is the persistant attitude that 'oh, no-one else in my family ever had T1. Therefore evil scientists and the pharmaceutical companies must have given it to me'. It's just another conspiracy theory predicated on a lack of understanding of how genetics work. I don't mean to be rude but don't they teach you about this stuff in the States?

[duck]

Originally Posted by kidg

First of all, this thread was started out of simple curiosity and not intended to presume a basis in scientific fact. Second, one cannot attack alternate theories as "laughable" when the theory that they vehemently cling to (ie. genetics) is no more valid than any other (i.e. viral). In fact, the scientific community still has no definitive explanation for what causes Type 1 diabetes. Many believe that BOTH genetics and environment play a role. Where one must inherit the "pre-disposition" to become diabetic and then have an environmental "trigger" cause the onset. It has never been determined that genetics alone can make you diabetic.

What is still very unclear is what these suspected "triggers" actually are. However, one of the suspects is viral or bacterial vaccinations. (namely MMR). Hence the years of research devoted to this specifically.

While some types of vaccines do use "deactived" viruses, the MMR vaccine uses a live, weakend strain of a virus that is intended to trigger a specific immunological response. Hence the theory that these weakend strains COULD lie dormant for years until one day, given the right conditions (ie. weakend immune system), act as a trigger for Type 1 diabetes. I don't know which flavor or science would presume that diabetes would assuredly present "in a matter of months" if vaccinations were indeed a contributing factor.

Again, I'm not making any claims to the validity of this theory. I just happen to find it interesting and I can see how it could apply to my own case. If this concept piques your curiosity as well, I would like to hear about it. If, on the other hand, a "viral link" theory simply make you angry, well, I'm sorry for the offense...

Don't worry, Deus and I do this all the time. If I ever meet him, I'll buy him a beer...As a matter of fact, as cute as he is, I may even have to give him a smooch.

[duck]

Originally Posted by DeusXM

No, what annoys me is the persistant attitude that 'oh, no-one else in my family ever had T1. Therefore evil scientists and the pharmaceutical companies must have given it to me'. It's just another conspiracy theory predicated on a lack of understanding of how genetics work. I don't mean to be rude but don't they teach you about this stuff in the States?

Negative, Ghostrider, I never blamed a pharmaceutical company for giving me diabetes...I have a lot of posts here, all searchable. I never said a shot of something gave ME diabetes (as far as I can tell, I never got MMR either, but I'm not 100% sure if that vaccine was even available when I was a kid). I am beholden to the fact that in my family, I am an absolute original in this regard. Here's my issue with "genetics": EVERY malady is caused by genetics nowadays, isn't it? You already alluded to alcoholism. There are those who say you tend to be a thief because of your genes. Or you tend to be a liar. Or you tend to be a pervert. How about the possibility that parents tended to be poor parents? That someone has no morals? Let's take the blame off of the individual and blame something we have no control over, ie our genes, which we have forced upon us through no choice of our own (at least, as far as my United States education taught me...Maybe there is evidence in the UK that we have a choice in the matter?).

I had a lot of training in genetics...my issue with it now is that it is becoming a massive crutch as described above. I'm not an idiot, and here at work (and at other places I have worked), I work with smart people. Every now and then we get hit with an issue that is just mind-boggling...that makes no sense based upon our understanding of computer technologies and networking infrastructure. But literally, once an issue is hammered out, we can write an explanation on why/how, and what is done to prevent it. I know it's not so easy with disease issues, but I cannot get my mind around how in a massive gene pool, of the hundreds of family members I alone can account for, I'm an oddity. And of the thousands of members here on this forum, how many say the same thing as me? Yeah, yeah, yeah, alleles this and recessive that, carrier here and carrier there...I can find smart people (two seperate endos of mine now) who completely disagree on how diabetes is passed on through the gene pool.

You know what "informed professionals" who try to explain to me how I am a genetic anamoly come across to me? My car has a check engine light on...I'm not a mechanic, so I take it to one and say "what's up". They look at it, get this confused look on their faces. Hmmm, it will need tests. Okay, I leave it for a couple days. They call back, nothing can be found, but the light is off, come and get it. Basically, they can't fix what they can't find broken. So I ask for an explanation, and the next thing I know I get stuff like "the crank-angle sensor probably caused the CEL. It's possible the crank-angle sensor misread the position of the cam and caused a slight misfire on pistons 1 and 3, and the CEL comes on as a result of that..."

WTF? Speak to me in English.

Oh, we're not sure what it was, but we were hoping if we confused you well enough, you'd leave it alone. <--Genetics and the duck's diabetes. In other words, there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

Back to the topic at hand, we are too aggressive with the vaccination schedule today. Even if a real link were found between a vaccine or a number of vaccines and the probability a child develops a disease, it will never see the light of day because companies will go out of business. This in and of itself would cause widespread damage as needed medicines will become in short supply. My only thing is, vet the process better...we're talking kids with their entire lives ahead of them, it would be a real tragedy to give them a ****ed disease because we were trying to prevent another.

[DeusXM]

Here's my issue with "genetics": EVERY malady is caused by genetics nowadays, isn't it? You already alluded to alcoholism. There are those who say you tend to be a thief because of your genes. Or you tend to be a liar. Or you tend to be a pervert. How about the possibility that parents tended to be poor parents? That someone has no morals? Let's take the blame off of the individual and blame something we have no control over, ie our genes, which we have forced upon us through no choice of our own (at least, as far as my United States education taught me...Maybe there is evidence in the UK that we have a choice in the matter?).

That's still not a compelling reason to take issue with T1 being genetically caused. DNA tells your body how to synthesise proteins. It's a 'simple' case of the DNA code for your islets to constructed in such a way to draw the attention of your immune system.

Propensity to lie may also be genetic - it's been demonstrated that habitual liars have a different neural set-up to honest people, which may be genetic or may be environmentally caused. As for alcoholism, that's a classic example of genes and natural selection. People descended from Europeans tend to have far greater tolerance to alcohol than native Americans, Chinese and Australian aboriginies. The reason for this is very simple and is to do with fluid intake. In Europe, people primarily sterilised their liquid supply by drinking alcoholic beverages - the alcohol kills off parasites and bacteria present in the water. As a result, the European genotype enables the body to produce chemicals that process alcohol - because the people who survived were the ones able to drink alcohol, and thus not die of cholera and the like. In China, water was sterilised by boiling. Thus the gene required to synthesise the chemical needed to process alcohol simply isn't as widespread in Chinese populations as it is in European ones. Similarly, neither native Americans nor aboriginies had access to alcohol prior to arrival by European settlers - so again, the genes required to enable them to tolerate alcohol simply weren't and still aren't prevelent.

As for whether this lets you 'off the hook'...my own personal opinion is 'so what if your genes predispose you to something?' Personally my genes have predisposed me to an early death through DKA and I'm doing everything I can to beat my genes. As a result, I don't see why other people shouldn't make a similar effort.

I've already explained why you have diabetes and no-one else in your family does. Both your parents were carriers, and you won the genetic lottery. It's highly probably that others in your family are also carriers but their children simply haven't rolled up with the right combination. The fact that you 'cannot get your head around' the idea isn't a good argument. I can't get my head around the exact way insulin works or how they make it. Doesn't change the fact that it does and they do. Diabetes is not something like hair colour or eye colour or other things people associate with heredetics. These sorts of things don't impact your ability to survive and reproduce (unless you're ginger) and so they end up more likely to be dispersed.

I'm in the same boat as you, I'm the only person in my family with T1. Yet I developed the condition long before I had the MMR jab and indeed I'm somewhat behind on my vaccinations. So it seems much more likely that I'm genetically predisposed to having diabetes, and puberty triggered off the autoimmune response.

[kidg]

Originally Posted by DeusXM

So it seems much more likely that I'm genetically predisposed to having diabetes, and puberty triggered off the autoimmune response.

Then it seems that you do feel that genetics contributes to a "predisposition for" rather than a "guarantee of" Type 1 diabetes. And that it's onset may be triggered by an environmental cause. Why then, is it so hard to accept that a vaccine COULD act as that trigger and, instead, casually attribute it to some amorphous period of time referred to as "puberty"?

I wasn't anticipating this thread turning into a "Ford vs. Chevy" debate. I really just wanted to hear from other "Ford owners" who shared a similar experience to mine. I promise that I am not collecting data to present at a seminar or publish in the book. Nor am I looking for something to blame for my condition while I wallow in self-pity and shirk responsibility for my health. I simply have one of those "inquiring minds".

From you profile, Deus, I'm guessing that someone may be in posession of a shiny, new science degree. I, too, thought that I knew everything when I was in college...despite my sub-standard US education.

[DeusXM]

Nope, I'm not in possession of a nice new science degree. I actually graduated in English, so go figure. However, for my GCSEs we did cover genetics and heredetics pretty thoroughly - elsewhere on the board I've used this knowledge to demonstrate exactly how T1 can 'magically' appear from a family with no history of the condition. Terminology such as recessive alleles, genotypes and phenotypes isn't really high level stuff at all.

Then it seems that you do feel that genetics contributes to a "predisposition for" rather than a "guarantee of" Type 1 diabetes. And that it's onset may be triggered by an environmental cause. Why then, is it so hard to accept that a vaccine COULD act as that trigger and, instead, casually attribute it to some amorphous period of time referred to as "puberty"?

Simple. If you're genetically predisposed to diabetes and it's triggered by an illness, you're going to get that illness and trigger your diabetes whatever you do.You can't survive an entire lifetime without sustaining at least one significant illness. Even if you could somehow prove that in some cases a vaccine triggered the diabetes, you couldn't say it caused it - it just merely nudged a very, very loose 'on' button. The reason T1 predominantly appears in the under-30s is because that's a reasonable timescale for all sorts of triggers to happen, based on probability. You've got your infants who develop it soon after they're born, presumably because their genes are so compromised that their immune system goes straight for the pancreas the moment they're born. Then you've got the ones during puberty, and then finally you've got adults, who potentially have endured some kind of trauma or pregnancy.

If we actually researched this matter thoroughly and found that vaccines potentially can trigger the onset of T1 in those genetically predisposed, it wouldn't make a difference at all. The vaccine would still be administered and you'd probably have some genetic test to determine whether or not the patient was predisposed to T1. If they are, then you don't give them the vaccine, wait a couple of years until inevitably they develop T1 anyway (and hope it's not from anything you could have vaccined against), and then give the vaccine.

And of course, you could indeed fund that research. But frankly I'd much rather fund looking into a cure.

[HelenM]

Do I want to jump in? Perhaps.

There are so many possible variables in the mix that we all tend to see and further research those which apply to us. Sometimes only seeing part of the picture as a whole. We shouldn't personalise but we do (and I will!)

When I was diagnosed I came across a paper that suggested exposure to a simple 'childhood' virus could cause an autoimmune response in those susceptable, some peoples response was less strong than others but repeated exposure could eventually cause too much beta cell destruction and hence diabetes. This fitted in well for me as I was a primary school teacher an environment in which exposure to childhood viruses is a daily hazard and it explained why I have had periods of feeling less well during my life. Consequently I've looked for more evidence to back up that hypothesis. Unscientific but human.

If I read that the MMR vacine was a trigger, I would probably not look further as I am far too old and had measles, mumps and rubella as a child.

Again with family medical histories we often don't see the whole picture... and cannot know what illnesses our ancestors suffered from. One of my 19th century predecessors died of 'exhaustion' who knows what that really was. Five years ago I knew of no autoimmune disease in the family yet recently my 76 year old mother has had a diagnosis of hypothyroidism and a cousin I have never met has also developed LADA.

Before responding to this post I did a little searching, there are literally thousands of arcticles and papers about possible causes but I did find one
Diabetes: Molecular, cellular and CLinical immunology which was quite an interesting (though difficult)summary. I have to say it dismisses the vaccination theory quite quickly with reference to studies that have found no association.http://www.uchsc.edu/misc/diabetes/oxch9.html

Another interesting summary from my point of view was Age dependent influences on the Origins of Autoimmune diabetes which surveys possible influences on childhood diabetes in order to tease out possible influences on those who develop the disease later (but doesn't really do more than pose questions)http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...ull/53/12/3033

[jen_slc]

Have we forgotten about the millions of people in the world who have received these vaccinations and have not developed diabetes? We always have to consider the denominator.

And just to throw another variable into the mix...

When we're talking about vaccines being a causal factor in diabetes etiology, are we talking about the immune response-inducing component of the vaccine (the attenuated or killed virus or bacterium) or are we talking about the preservative component of the vaccine (the chemicals)?

Let's say we're talking about the former and, let's pretend for a moment, that an association between T1 diabetes and a certain vaccination has been found (in reality, no association with any vaccination has been found). By that logic, infection with the real virus would also be a causal factor in the development of diabetes. So you do want to get mumps and then develop diabetes or do you want to get a mumps vaccination and then diabetes? You'd be screwed either way.

[Will]

Originally Posted by kidg

I'm sure that many of you on this forum have heard about the suspected link between viral vaccinations and the onset of Type 1 diabetes.

While there is no concrete proof, many years of study have led some researchers to suspect that viral and bacterial vaccines (rubella, mumps, measles) may play a role in weakening the immune system of those who are already pre-disposed to Type 1. Basically the study finds a correllation between an increase in vaccination programs and an increase in cases of Type 1 diabetes among juveniles. I know that my un-scientific summary probably will cause many to say, "huh?". So here is an article that does a better job at explaining than I do.

http://www.909shot.com/diseases/juvenilediabetes.htm

Okay, I'm sorry for rambling but this leads me to my question. I'm wondering if anyone here can recall (if they were old enough to recall things), being vaccinated for any of these things shortly before being diagnosed with diabetes?

The reason that I'm curious is because, in my case, before I was allowed to register for college enrollment, the university that I attended required that I be vaccinated for rubella. (My medical record showed that this had never been done when I was younger and the university required it of all new students). The thing is that I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes shortly after graduating (4 years later). Since I have absolutely no family history of diabetes, I could never figure out why I "got so lucky".

While I can't sit here and definitively put the blame on the rubella vaccination, I do find the possibility of a link very interesting. And, as an amateur scientist, I am simply wondering if anyone else can point to a similar vaccination before being diagnosed with Type 1 or if I've just been reading too much science fiction...

Thanks guys

I am VERY glad the topic came up. Myself and my mother have believed for years that my vaccinations caused the onset of my diabetes. When I was a baby, getting my second set of shots, I had a HORRIBLE reaction and I vomited for days. The doctors told my mother that I should never get any vaccinations ever again.

After that point I became more and more sick, it would come and go and this went on for years. My mother thought I was diabetic, but the doctors literally told her she was crazy, and accused her of abuse. I was finally diagnosed with Type 1 when I was almost 7. For years I was sick, and the doctors did nothing but tell my mother she was crazy and that she needed to stop bringing me in.

[Will]

I want to add one other thing. I reacted so badly to my vaccines, that I was declared exempt for life, I have never had a vaccination for grade school, high school, college, or anything else, since I was a baby.

[JediSkipdogg]

Originally Posted by Will

I want to add one other thing. I reacted so badly to my vaccines, that I was declared exempt for life, I have never had a vaccination for grade school, high school, college, or anything else, since I was a baby.

There's a such thing as "exemp for life"? So does that mean you don't have to meet state and federal guidelines for vaccinations at certain ages/grades? Is that an official item?

[duck]

Originally Posted by Will

I want to add one other thing. I reacted so badly to my vaccines, that I was declared exempt for life, I have never had a vaccination for grade school, high school, college, or anything else, since I was a baby.

I'm curious: Did your parents or doctors report your adverse reactions to VAERS? I am told it is a tedious process, and many times the end result is "why did I bother?"

[Will]

Originally Posted by duck

I'm curious: Did your parents or doctors report your adverse reactions to VAERS? I am told it is a tedious process, and many times the end result is "why did I bother?"

I doubt it, I dont even know what VAERS is? I do know I have exemption papers that I have made copys of for all my schools.

EDIT: im looking into the "Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System" now...

[Will]

Originally Posted by JediSkipdogg

There's a such thing as "exemp for life"? So does that mean you don't have to meet state and federal guidelines for vaccinations at certain ages/grades? Is that an official item?

I have papers from 19 years ago that say I am exempt for life. Every school has excepted them with no problem, I usually just provide the school with copys.