View Full Version : Type 1 and Vaccinations
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
JediSkipdogg
06-29-2006, 04:20 PM
Well, if the above has any truth, then I'm an outcast. I was diagnosed type 1 before I had many of the vaccinations that children get and way before any of the other vaccinations one receives in life. I was diagnosed at 11 months old. I'm not a parent yet, but do children even get vaccinations before 11 months? If the answer is no, then obviously that doesn't apply to me at all.
Well, if the above has any truth, then I'm an outcast. I was diagnosed type 1 before I had many of the vaccinations that children get and way before any of the other vaccinations one receives in life. I was diagnosed at 11 months old. I'm not a parent yet, but do children even get vaccinations before 11 months? If the answer is no, then obviously that doesn't apply to me at all.
Oh yeah, Jedi. They like to load you up before you are 1 year old:
http://www.immunize.org/cdc/child-schedule.pdf
Unless you are a bad parent like me, and follow a more lax schedule.
JediSkipdogg
06-29-2006, 05:01 PM
Oh yeah, Jedi. They like to load you up before you are 1 year old:
http://www.immunize.org/cdc/child-schedule.pdf
Unless you are a bad parent like me, and follow a more lax schedule.
****, and 1-2 years old they load you up with more. No wonder why so many people are druggies in this country, they start you out young. :laugh:
seacomp
06-29-2006, 05:16 PM
the university that I attended required that I be vaccinated for rubella. ... 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".
If you are anything like most people there are very many things you did either for the first time, or to excess, during the college years. Why not examine them as possible causes?
grace girl
06-29-2006, 05:18 PM
I've thought about all of that before after a conversation that I had with the doctor who originally told me that I was type 1. I was diagnosed at age 32, well past vaccination age. He asked me a ton of questions about myself from the time I was a child until then. He came to the conclussion that there had been signs of diabetes going on with me since I was in my late teens.
At age 17 I received another dose of the MMR because the year that I recieved the first vaccination in childhood was considered not to be strong enough. (I was born in '68, don't know what year I had that first set)
Another fact about that....when my first child was born when I was 22, from the routine tests they do at birth they thought he had been exposed to measles while I was pregnant because of a huge number of anitbodies in his system. They finally traced this back to that second MMR I had at 17.
I would not be suprised at all if they found a serious link there.
Now that's the kind of response that I was hoping for by bringing up this topic.
Thank you, grace girl
If you are anything like most people there are very many things you did either for the first time, or to excess, during the college years. Why not examine them as possible causes?
Well, for me I had diabetes by the time I was 17 (before college) and two, I never did anything to excess...at that point.
poodlebone
06-29-2006, 06:23 PM
I have no clue what vaccinations I got as a kid. I know I got the one that left a mark on my upper arm, a circular scar, but don't remember what vaccine that is. In freshman year of high school (when I was 14) the school told me that I needed a booster of some vaccine, which they gave, but again I don't know what it was. In college I needed yet some other booster. I went with my sister when she took my niece to the pediatrician and got it there. I was diagnosed with diabetes when I was 19, in college. I'm pretty sure that it was after that last vaccine but I'm not 100% sure.
I have five older siblings and they all got the same childhood vaccinations as me and none have diabetes.
I've thought about all of that before after a conversation that I had with the doctor who originally told me that I was type 1. I was diagnosed at age 32, well past vaccination age. He asked me a ton of questions about myself from the time I was a child until then. He came to the conclussion that there had been signs of diabetes going on with me since I was in my late teens.
At age 17 I received another dose of the MMR because the year that I recieved the first vaccination in childhood was considered not to be strong enough. (I was born in '68, don't know what year I had that first set)
Another fact about that....when my first child was born when I was 22, from the routine tests they do at birth they thought he had been exposed to measles while I was pregnant because of a huge number of anitbodies in his system. They finally traced this back to that second MMR I had at 17.
I would not be suprised at all if they found a serious link there.
Don't count on it. I'm too tired to get into it, but for mere avoidance of liability issues, a "link" will never be found. Imagine the lawsuits if just one parent proved their kid was made sick by one vaccine...
DeusXM
06-30-2006, 02:34 AM
Laughable. Sorry, but it's just laughable. If it was true that a vaccination helped spark off diabetes, then the majority of people would have diabetes. You're also showing a lack of understanding of how genetics works. Just because no-one in your family has had diabetes before doesn't mean you won't get it. If people in your family are carriers of the bad gene then they can pass that on, and if they have children with another carrier, there is a risk that the children will have both the faulty gene sequences necessary.
The reason T1 diabetes rates have increased are for a few simple reasons:
1 - better doctors. The condition is actually being diagnosed now.
2 - survivors with diabetes having children.
3 - reduced breastfeeding throughout the general population.
4 - low exposure to infectious conditions.
I'm sorry but the idea that vaccinations cause diabetes is laughable at best. You might as well say they cause cancer or asthma or allergies or any one of about a billion other conditions that have increased in the last 50 years. In fact, you might as well say vaccinations are responsible for any negative phenomena you care to mention, like tigers becoming endangered or 9/11
I'll tell you exactly why you have T1 diabetes. It's because you've got a faulty gene sequence that you inherited from your parents which means your immune system attacks your islets of Langerhans. No offense but your source is using phenomenally bad science. If you're able to present a source that isn't a rabid 'WE HATE VACCINES' site then I'd be more inclined to take it seriously.
Oh, and I've never had the MMR vaccine. Apparently that vaccine also causes autism, which is frankly hilarious, as if a vaccine could change the genetic wiring of the brain.
If we lived in less clean environments, our immune systems would have real threats to deal with and wouldn't get 'bored' and attack the internal systems.
Laughable. Sorry, but it's just laughable. If it was true that a vaccination helped spark off diabetes, then the majority of people would have diabetes. You're also showing a lack of understanding of how genetics works. Just because no-one in your family has had diabetes before doesn't mean you won't get it. If people in your family are carriers of the bad gene then they can pass that on, and if they have children with another carrier, there is a risk that the children will have both the faulty gene sequences necessary.
The reason T1 diabetes rates have increased are for a few simple reasons:
1 - better doctors. The condition is actually being diagnosed now.
So when people died from diabetes in the past, the terrible doctors we had in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's weren't qualified to diagnose that cause of death?
2 - survivors with diabetes having children.
It's not like diabetics were dying in their teens and twenties. We have members here who have had this disease long enough to be our grand parents.
3 - reduced breastfeeding throughout the general population.
I'll have to double-check, but I think I read somewhere that breastfeeding in the US is on the uptick...Certainly I can attest right now it is happening in my household. I have no idea what the breastfeeding rates are in Europe or Australia or Asia, but diabetes is becoming a common malady in those areas as well.
4 - low exposure to infectious conditions.
I completely disagree with this line of thought. Basically, if it were correct, people in the middle ages would have been living healthier lifestyles than those that are living in the space and internet ages. But I guess when you die in your teens from plague, you miss out on your chances of developing diabetes, so maybe it's a correct line of thought.
I'm sorry but the idea that vaccinations cause diabetes is laughable at best. You might as well say they cause cancer or asthma or allergies or any one of about a billion other conditions that have increased in the last 50 years. In fact, you might as well say vaccinations are responsible for any negative phenomena you care to mention, like tigers becoming endangered or 9/11
That's kinda the point as well, deus. Look at the numbers: Asthma, autism, diabetes are exploding in the populations of the "western world", an increase that began in the mid-80's. Here in the US, many things have been considered as the culprit(s); Increases in the ingestion of highly processed foods, addition of MTBE to the gasoline supply, power lines (yeah, I know), and a remarkable change in the timing of childhood vaccination schedules all occured in the early 80's. Well, the power lines have been around a while (yeah, I know. But I still wouldn't build a house near anything that buzzes or makes your hairs stand on end when you are in close proximity).
I'll offer this as well: When you start having kids, put your money where your mouth is...it kinda makes you question everything you ever believed. "Vaccines are good for you...", but they do make some kids sick. Well, how sick? Fever, convulsions. Oh, convulsions, well, that's not bad in a child who is only six months old. :dong: Are there other side effects? Yeah, but not that often. "Not that often"? I guess playing roulette with my baby's health is an interesting game, sure...:dong: :dong:
I'll tell you exactly why you have T1 diabetes. It's because you've got a faulty gene sequence that you inherited from your parents which means your immune system attacks your islets of Langerhans. No offense but your source is using phenomenally bad science. If you're able to present a source that isn't a rabid 'WE HATE VACCINES' site then I'd be more inclined to take it seriously.
Oh, and I've never had the MMR vaccine. Apparently that vaccine also causes autism, which is frankly hilarious, as if a vaccine could change the genetic wiring of the brain.
If we lived in less clean environments, our immune systems would have real threats to deal with and wouldn't get 'bored' and attack the internal systems.
DeusXM
06-30-2006, 07:20 AM
So when people died from diabetes in the past, the terrible doctors we had in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's weren't qualified to diagnose that cause of death?
No, I'm talking prior to that era.
It's not like diabetics were dying in their teens and twenties. We have members here who have had this disease long enough to be our grand parents.
It was 80 years ago. It's a trickle down effect. More people from the 1940s onwards survive with the condition to have children, which results in a massively increased number of carriers. This will inevitably result in an exponential increase in the cases of T1 from the 60s onwards. There are simply more people out there with the bad genes that contribute to T1 reproducing.
I'll have to double-check, but I think I read somewhere that breastfeeding in the US is on the uptick...Certainly I can attest right now it is happening in my household. I have no idea what the breastfeeding rates are in Europe or Australia or Asia, but diabetes is becoming a common malady in those areas as well.
So? That doesn't outweigh the damage done by the drop in them between the 60s and 90s. And it doesn't really do a lot to offset the massive increase in T1 genes now present in the population.
I completely disagree with this line of thought. Basically, if it were correct, people in the middle ages would have been living healthier lifestyles than those that are living in the space and internet ages. But I guess when you die in your teens from plague, you miss out on your chances of developing diabetes, so maybe it's a correct line of thought.
Only if you totally fail to apply logic to the matter. Put it this way...do people in their 50s and 60s tend to have as many allergies or chronic conditions as kids today? No, they don't. The 'Hygeine Hypothesis' makes good scientific sense, has been documented quite throughly in the British Medical Journal and is supported by independent research - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/dumc-wvl061406.php
Look at the numbers: Asthma, autism, diabetes are exploding in the populations of the "western world", an increase that began in the mid-80's.
Actually, it's been going on since the 1950s. So maybe it was that pesky smallpox vaccine that set it off. Or, as is more likely, the huge increase in hygeine that has happened in the last 60 years.
I'll offer this as well: When you start having kids, put your money where your mouth is...it kinda makes you question everything you ever believed.
Unfortunately, it doesn't make you a better scientist. By all means, question things, but if you're unable to present any actual scientific evidence from an unbiased source, taking the moral high ground doesn't suddenly make you more an authority than scientists, most of whom are presumably parents too.
The fact is that T1 is a genetic condition. Vaccines don't change your genes. Vaccines do not go in and dramatically remove chunks from your DNA. The reason T1 cases are on the increase is because there's a wider dispersal of T1 genes in the human gene pool world wide, combined with hyperactive immune systems caused by low exposure to threats. Look, a vaccine is just a bunch of deactived disease-causing cells. The idea that it somehow changes your genetic composition is bad science.
This is part of a long line of frankly ridiculous 'scares' that the general public buy into. Aspartame causes cancer. MMR causes autism. Mobile phones cause cancer. Every time something new comes along, someone somewhere makes some outrageous claim, point blank fails to back it up with rigarous evidence, and then people latch on to it. And of course, you'll then get all this stuff about magical herbs that cure such and such. It's just an extension of snake oil.
If vaccines did truly cause diabetes, the stimulation of the immune system they cause would mean you would develop diabetes in a matter of months after the vaccine. Not years afterwards. I'm sorry but it's just bad science that would get laughed out by any competant biologist.
No, I'm talking prior to that era.
It was 80 years ago. It's a trickle down effect. More people from the 1940s onwards survive with the condition to have children, which results in a massively increased number of carriers. This will inevitably result in an exponential increase in the cases of T1 from the 60s onwards. There are simply more people out there with the bad genes that contribute to T1 reproducing.
So, in the eons prior to coming up with an effective therapy, diabetes didn't breed itself out of the population? How many T1s here have kids that are also diabetics? How many T1s here have a parent(s) who is/are diabetic? 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. Going back into the early 1800's on three continents. But I digress...In the back of my mind, I will shuffle away the possibility that therapies are allowing disease carriers to live longer and propogate their disease.
So? That doesn't outweigh the damage done by the drop in them between the 60s and 90s. And it doesn't really do a lot to offset the massive increase in T1 genes now present in the population.
Only if you totally fail to apply logic to the matter. Put it this way...do people in their 50s and 60s tend to have as many allergies or chronic conditions as kids today? No, they don't. The 'Hygeine Hypothesis' makes good scientific sense, has been documented quite throughly in the British Medical Journal and is supported by independent research - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/dumc-wvl061406.php
So are aborigines in Australia or tribesman in Africa living healthier because they lack AC, particle filtration and hand sanitizers?
Actually, it's been going on since the 1950s. So maybe it was that pesky smallpox vaccine that set it off. Or, as is more likely, the huge increase in hygeine that has happened in the last 60 years.
I'd be curious to see some sources on that. We've posted links before here regarding the explosion of autism in the western world beginning in the 1980's. I have not ruled out the possibility that autism is "exploding" in society because of better recognition of the disorder. 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? Diabetes and asthma rates are increasing as well, and starting at about the same time in the early 80's (I'll get a link when I get home). It's an interesting and scary thing to consider why this is happening...
Unfortunately, it doesn't make you a better scientist. By all means, question things, but if you're unable to present any actual scientific evidence from an unbiased source, taking the moral high ground doesn't suddenly make you more an authority than scientists, most of whom are presumably parents too.
The fact is that T1 is a genetic condition. Vaccines don't change your genes. Vaccines do not go in and dramatically remove chunks from your DNA. The reason T1 cases are on the increase is because there's a wider dispersal of T1 genes in the human gene pool world wide, combined with hyperactive immune systems caused by low exposure to threats. Look, a vaccine is just a bunch of deactived disease-causing cells. The idea that it somehow changes your genetic composition is bad science.
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:
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vaccine/components/additives.htm
That scare-tactic site makes it quite clear they are more concerned with the many additives added to vaccines than they actual muted disease cells.
The body can deal with trace amounts of formaldehyde, I know this. But the thought of injecting a trace amount of formaldehyde worries me, and the thought of injecting it into a six-month old is beyond worrisome.
This is part of a long line of frankly ridiculous 'scares' that the general public buy into. Aspartame causes cancer. MMR causes autism. Mobile phones cause cancer. Every time something new comes along, someone somewhere makes some outrageous claim, point blank fails to back it up with rigarous evidence, and then people latch on to it. And of course, you'll then get all this stuff about magical herbs that cure such and such. It's just an extension of snake oil.
You forgot to mention bovine milk as the elixir of evil...
If vaccines did truly cause diabetes, the stimulation of the immune system they cause would mean you would develop diabetes in a matter of months after the vaccine. Not years afterwards. I'm sorry but it's just bad science that would get laughed out by any competant biologist.
Says who? 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? Ask a competent biologist/geneticist to explain that to us, maybe we can laugh at them as well.
grace girl
06-30-2006, 09:15 AM
In response to all of this I would have to say that I'm not against vaccines even with my suspicions. All of my children had all of theirs, and I don't suggest that people avoid them. I wouldn't say that I think that vaccines are the ONLY cause, either. I just suspect there is some link there with some people. (Just like some children DIE from vaccines, while most survive just fine.)
Also, I was breastfed. :proud:
I had a mysterious illness at age 4 (right after the last round of vaccines) that had me in and out of hospitals for a year. I was the physical size of a 2 year old. They tested me for everything under the sun, and tested me for diabetes repeatedly. They finally decided my tonsils were the cuprit, and removed them. Over the next year the "mysterious" illness slowly disappeared. When I was diagnosed as type 1 four years ago, all my mother could think about was that illness all those years ago.
I truly believe that somewhere in all of that is a link to why I have this now. Vaccine? Viral? I don't know. There have been no people on either side of my family with type 1 as far back as anyone can look.
I don't know that liability is so much the issue, as finding the reason.
About 10 years ago when they first developed the chicken pox vaccine my very level-headed pediatrician told me, "You children are healthy as horses. No need to make them sick." I can imagine that statement might bring on horrific looks from many people, but I understood his point.
I don't believe in coincidiences. When things like this come up, and come up, and come up....good science means giving it an honest look. On that chance that it might save ONE person from getting this....it would be worth every cent and every minute.
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
06-30-2006, 12:12 PM
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?
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.
:laugh:
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
06-30-2006, 01:55 PM
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.
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
07-01-2006, 01:32 AM
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
07-01-2006, 02:20 AM
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/cgi/content/full/53/12/3033
jen_slc
07-02-2006, 06:37 PM
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.
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.
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
07-02-2006, 07:59 PM
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?
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?"
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...
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.
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?
You'd be suprised at how easy it is to opt out of the vaccine schedule. I know we all think you have to have this and that vaccine to go here and there in the USA, but you don't. Here's Virginia's exemption form:
http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/formfeed/VDH67.PDF
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CERTIFICATE OF RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION
Name ____________________________________ Birth Date _______________________
Student I.D. Number __________________________________
The administration of immunizing agents conflicts with the above named
student's/my religious tenets or practices. I understand, that in the occurrence of an
outbreak, potential epidemic or epidemic of a vaccine-preventable disease in my/my
child's school, the State Health Commissioner may order my/my child's exclusion
from school, for my/my child's own protection, until the danger has passed.
_______________________________________________ ___________________________
Signature of parent/guardian/student Date
I hereby affirm that this affidavit was signed in my presence on
This ____________________________________________ Day of _____________________
Notary Public Seal
Form CRE-1; Rev. 00/92
So, what religion do you have to have to exempt your child? The answer: Who cares, no one can ask.
So, what religion do you have to have to exempt your child? The answer: Who cares, no one can ask.
Thats pretty funny, I didnt even know it was that easy.
This is another thing that changed my thinking on vaccinations. My first son was born a few months after I read this...I hadn't really decided to alter his vaccination schedule based on this article, but put yourself in this woman's shoes.
I'm posting the whole thing because washingtonpost.com forces you to join to read the archives.
A Child's Severe Reaction to a Vaccine Alters Life
Something was wrong with Porter
By Sarah Bridges
Sunday, August 3, 2003; Page W12
This is the lesson you don't get in the parenting books: Sometimes bad things happen from doing the right thing for your baby.
Porter's high-pitched scream woke us at midnight. When I ran to the nursery and picked him up, his sleeper was damp and his head flopped to the side. My husband grabbed the phone and punched in the number for the pediatrician.
"Hurry," I yelled, even though Brian was dialing as fast as he could. He reached for Porter, then handed me the phone. "It's the nurses' line," he said.
"What's the problem?" a voice on the other end asked calmly.
"Our baby has a fever and is listless. He was fine today," I said. "The doctor said he was perfectly healthy at his well-baby appointment this afternoon."
"Did he get his vaccines?"
"Yes."
"It's probably the shots -- fevers are typical after the DPT."
"But he isn't waking up."
Her voice changed. "Get to the emergency room -- I'll tell them you are on your way."
Brian pulled Porter's 2-year-old sister, Tyler, out of her bed and strapped her, still sleeping, into her car seat. The freeway was empty as we barreled to the hospital, the windows in the car opened for air. Porter lay on my lap with his eyes closed, and my legs felt hot under his body. We turned past the bar with the sign that read, "THE BEST TIME OF YOUR LIFE."
A nurse met us at the emergency room entrance and carried Porter to an examining room. Within minutes of arriving, Porter began a 90-minute grand mal seizure. Watching helplessly, I was pressed against the wall as a doctor jammed a breathing tube down my son's throat. Porter, just 4 months old, lurched on the table while nurses stuck syringes of Valium into his arms.
After a minute, the doctor turned to me and said, "Don't worry, we'll stop it. I'm sure about that. It's just that we may need to sedate him to the point that he'll quit breathing." In that instant, in that one sentence, everything I took for granted vanished.
At first, the doctors thought Porter would be fine. They said it was a bad reaction -- a rare side effect to the pertussis vaccine, which can cause seizures in some children and brain injury in others -- but that brain damage was so rare we shouldn't think much about it. Of course, I couldn't think of anything else but the worst-case scenario. When Porter awoke in one piece, he seemed alert, but beyond that we were guessing. The day after his seizure the pediatrician asked, "Does he still do the same things he did before the reaction?" My mind went blank as I struggled to recall what exactly a 4-month-old did.
After 72 hours in the hospital Porter was smiling again, and by the end of the day he was allowed to go home. Porter seemed fine, and I told everyone who asked about him how lucky we were.
And then two weeks later he stopped breathing.
I was home alone getting ready for work and drying my hair as Porter lay beside me on a blanket. When I smiled down at him, Porter's eyes were frozen and his lips were blue. I screamed and put my cheek against his mouth to check if he was breathing. I didn't feel anything. I grabbed the phone and punched in 911, tapping my foot through two slow rings.
"Emergency, can I help you?"
"My baby stopped breathing."
"Tell me what he looks like."
I screamed, "His face is blue!" as I clutched Porter in my arms.
She said loudly, "You need to stop yelling so I can help you." I forced myself to concentrate as she guided me through baby CPR, and I did the two-fingered presses until I heard the rescue truck pull up outside. We lived a block from the station, so the firefighters came first, tromping up the stairs in blue coveralls and boots. A case like a tackle box banged the wall beside me as they circled around Porter and then moved me out of the way. A man dropped to his knees and took over for me until Porter started breathing -- one quick little gasp.
We scrambled into the ambulance and the paramedic tucked a bear onto the stretcher beside Porter, saying, "The church ladies make these." I watched the numbers on the oxygen gauge flash every few seconds -- holding my breath, fixated on the monitor.
Once at the hospital we learned that the original seizure wasn't a fluke but the first in what would become an intractable seizure disorder. This time Porter had stopped breathing, as people sometimes do, in the midst of an intense episode. As they hooked Porter to a breathing monitor we would later take home, a doctor in clogs pulled me aside. I recognized him immediately -- he had treated Porter during his first hospitalization.
"I filed a report with the CDC about Porter's reaction to the pertussis shot. Do you know about the National Vaccine Injury Act?" I shook my head. "It's a program set up by Congress to compensate for the medical needs of children injured by vaccines. I think you might want to look into it." With that he handed me a phone number and turned down the hall to answer a page. I tucked the paper into my pocket, reassuring myself that it wasn't that bad. After all, they said Porter just had epilepsy -- and I knew that could be treated.
Following the second hospitalization, Porter began taking phenobarbital. I cringed at the thought of giving my 5-month-old a barbiturate. The readings I had done on it studying for my PhD in experimental psychology suggested that it could impair a child's intelligence. Porter's neurologist put these fears in perspective when he said, "The New England Journal of Medicine just did a big study of the drug and found that it may lower IQ by five points. I don't think that small a drop is even noticeable." I mixed the crushed pills into jam that night and fed them to Porter.
While I understood that the majority of people with a seizure disorder respond to medication, Porter's seizures continued unabated. By the end of his second year he'd been hospitalized 14 times to stop seizures -- some of which went on for hours. Though Porter received no definitive diagnosis during this time, the early language and behavior problems he was experiencing indicated he might have autism -- something we gradually came to believe was true.
After 12 different medications, two more years and no change in the seizures, I came to stop investing hope in traditional medicine. Reading broadly on the subject of health, I came across the books of Andrew Weil and decided a natural approach to eating might make a difference. One morning I stripped the processed food out of the pantry, bought organic, got a water filter and threw out the microwave. We added vitamins to Porter's diet, scrapped the Froot Loops, stopped eating meat and stocked up on tofu.
The whole family got into the act, and it soon became clear that the new diet was affecting Porter's sister, Tyler -- more than we guessed. One day, while Tyler was eating tofu pups, our babysitter told me, "The minute you went out this morning Tyler pulled me over to the freezer."
"What did she want?"
"She didn't say anything at first, she just opened the door and pointed. After looking around she said, 'Quick, Mom's gone, can we have some bacon?' "
Despite giving up meat for tofu, the change was worth it. The natural diet seemed to be working. For 24 days straight Porter went without a seizure. I gave the doctor weekly updates, and he encouraged me, saying, "I'd love it if you find something that works for Porter. It's obvious I can't figure it out."
But just as quickly, the diet stopped working. The first time Porter had a seizure after we began the diet, I blamed it on something else (he was sick or tired), and carried on as if nothing had happened. But then he had another seizure that night, and it was impossible to deny.
I saw the doctor the next day, and again he raised the medications, saying, "They can always go higher." Giving Porter an extra dose controlled the seizures for several weeks with one drawback: The medication revved him up, and his activity level soon eclipsed the original problem. Additionally, as a good-sized 4-year-old, he was capable of significant destruction. At least beforehand there was time to take a breath after a seizure. Now I dreaded the unstructured time of weekends. One particular Saturday was typical of the way our days were taking shape: By 9 a.m. Porter had microwaved a fork and scribbled on the walls. Then I heard clapping and ran into the bathroom to find that he'd stuffed the toilet with toothbrushes and Kleenex. He giggled and said, "Don't touch knives," as the bowl overflowed.
As I sopped up the water with towels, Porter darted past me and threw kibble around the living room, yelling, "EAT DOG."
We needed to get out of the house, so I loaded the kids into the car to drive to an indoor park while Brian unclogged the toilet. Upon arrival, we piled our coats on a metal bench and lined up for the slide.
At the top of the slide steps, a boy Porter's age asked him, "Do you want to go first or should I?" Porter flapped his hands and jumped up and down. Then he turned around and bolted down the steps, knocking over a toddler.
I set her back on her feet and said, "Slow down, Porter."
He looked at me and answered, "Hi, Porter."
"Right -- slow down."
Porter climbed on the platform behind him, grabbed the fire pole, and jumped. He hung there, stuck, unable to figure out how to slide to the ground, until I lifted him down.
"Don't do that," I told him. A minute later he was dangling on the pole again. We repeated this four more times until I was distracted taking a drink of water. I looked back just in time to see a hearty woman in snow boots falling on her back with Porter on top of her. The only warning she had was when Porter yelled, "Jump!"
"I am sorry," I said, as I pulled the woman to her feet.
She looked dazed. "He's much faster than he looks."
I grabbed our coats and called Tyler to go.
She walked over slowly. "But we just got here."
"I know, but Porter's getting in trouble."
"We never stay at the park."
"Come on -- we need to go."
While unlocking the car, I told Porter to stay by my side, but a moment later he declared, "Home," and headed off across a snowy field. He marched toward a frozen lake and I raced to catch up to him, then led him back to the car and buckled him into the booster seat.
As we made our way out of the parking lot, Tyler asked, "On my birthday can I stay at the park for at least 10 minutes?"
Family life wasn't the only area affected by Porter's behavior. When his day-care providers told us that they could no longer watch him due to his hyperactivity, our social worker recommended a specialist, a professor in my psychology doctoral program and an expert in managing difficult children. He arrived at our house after dinner and sat on the floor to observe our family. Within moments, he laid out his straightforward approach: "Ignoring unwanted behavior is your best weapon."
Porter threw a block and hit him in the back of the head.
"What about tantrums?" I asked.
"Especially tantrums."
"Even in the grocery store?"
"Yes, stay detached -- just pick up any food he throws." I tried to picture doing this. "But, if he does cross the border of appropriateness, you'll need to act."
"What then?"
"You need to save the nuclear weapon for that -- the basket hold." This technique involves pinning your child's arms to his side and carrying him away.
I tried the doctor's advice the very next time we were at the Discovery Zone, when Porter saw a party and ran over to grab a piece of pizza from the birthday boy's hands. The psychologist's advice seemed great until I realized that I'm not good at ignoring screaming. And I'm terrible at tuning out the stares of other parents -- the ones who never carry their children through the produce aisle in a basket hold. Instead, I scooped up Porter, one arm and one leg, and carried him around the kids in the birthday hats and toward the parking lot. Walking past one 5-year-old boy in the group, I heard him ask, "Can I have an airplane ride when he's done?"
Another seizure, another hospitalization. I knew from our last hospital stay that the drugs would make Porter sleep for a day. We watched him anyway until lunchtime, sitting in his ICU room, Tyler stretched out on the floor building a tower out of tongue depressors. When we finally went to the parents' lounge to eat takeout pizza, Tyler skipped ahead of us navigating the way, still in her feety pajamas from the night before.
As we finished our meal, Brian sighed and said, "The screen door at home is ripped -- animals are going to get into the porch."
"We'll fix it later." I said it too loudly, and the family next to us stopped chewing and stared.
"When?" he asked. "We never have time to get anything done."
"It's not even that cold yet."
"I've got over 40 finals to correct -- I'm constantly behind."
"I can't handle thinking about anything right now," I snapped.
"It's not as if everything else in our lives stops." The woman next to us beckoned Tyler over and gave her a fortune cookie.
I heard her say, "Look out, they're stale," as Tyler pulled up a chair at her table.
"Let's talk about it later, Brian."
"You always get so cool and practical," he said.
"And you always sound depressed."
"I've already missed two weeks at work -- I only have two more sick days."
"They'll understand," I said.
"It's not that easy -- you always want to make it sound simple."
"We have to get through this, and then we can figure it out."
We both stood and cleared our plates, leaving our extra napkins under the note about prayer services.
Shortly after this, Brian and I nearly split up. But before giving in we tried marriage counseling and made a commitment to work harder. As we looked forward to what lay ahead, we decided to have another baby. I'd always hoped to have at least three children, and we believed it would be good for Tyler to have a sibling she could truly talk to.
But there was more to it than that. I secretly wanted a chance to make up for what had happened to Porter. I didn't blame myself -- I knew rationally that I hadn't done anything wrong. But on some level, being unable to help him year after year was equally bad. For this reason, I was determined to do everything exactly right for the next baby. It started with my pregnancy diet -- when Brian stopped at the grocery store on the way home from work, I gave him my list: "Spinach, lean meat, fruits, and cheese. NO JUNK FOOD."
Brian glanced at it and said, "What's this?"
"I'm off sugar. And can you get those eggs from the chickens who listen to classical music and run free?"
Our focus continued after our baby, Jackson, arrived. We carried him everywhere, and I nursed him for a full year. The day he turned 5 months old, I watched him as he lay across my lap, smiling. It struck me then: Jackson had brought something good and light to the family.
But it still didn't make up for what had happened to Porter.
Brian took a sabbatical from his teaching job to be home with the baby, though it was Porter who received most of the attention that year. His behavior became increasingly impulsive and required minute-to-minute supervision. And despite more medications, the seizures continued anytime, anywhere.
Soon after, I learned about a magic bullet -- a way to feed your child that kept him seizure-free and off medication. I was introduced to the "ketogenic diet" a month before Porter was 4, when a mother in my seizure support group played a clip from "20/20" profiling a doctor who was using high-fat meals to control epilepsy. This was an about-face. No more Newman's Own Organics -- now the focus was on 90 percent saturated fat entrees.
I called our neurologist the next morning, and he agreed that the diet was worth a try, though he warned us from the start that he didn't have high hopes. But there was one catch to the ketogenic diet: You need to starve the patient for a few days to kick-start the ketosis -- the state in which your body is burning its own fat for fuel. This requires hospitalization as a precaution. We checked into the hospital on a Thursday morning and began watching videos on a wheeled-in VCR. Over and over I answered Porter's pleas for food with, "We'll eat in a little while." After 24 hours Porter became docile, rolling over only occasionally to grab my arm and ask quietly, "Bagel?" By the 48-hour point they began serving 1/3-size meals, and Porter was ecstatic. When the tray arrived and I pulled the cover off to reveal four tiny piles, I was startled. There was a teaspoon of applesauce, a tablespoon of whipping cream, a bite of scrambled egg and a glob of margarine on a saucer. Porter ate it all in seconds, wiping his mouth with the back of his hand and looking for more. We stayed at the hospital for another two days, eating butter and cream and watching for seizures.
..........
Once we got home the excitement over this new approach began to dim as we fed Porter mayonnaise while everyone else ate lasagna and French bread. He was agreeable initially, lying on the living room floor next to a boombox listening to music with his face in his hands. He held a blanket and ran his fingertips over the edges, staring at us as he did it, a hundred miles away.
We held out on Porter's high-fat diet until the first seizure happened nine days later. When several followed, he went back on multiple medications.
Throughout this time we tried testing -- testing his behavior, his coordination, his speech, his urine, his enzymes, his liver, his metabolism and his brain as 5-year-old Porter's other difficulties became more apparent. While other kids his age played T-ball and learned the alphabet, and had long since been toilet-trained, Porter was stalled at the level of a 2-year-old. Most obvious was the strange way he communicated.
When I got Porter ready to leave the house, he would hold a foot out to me and say, "Tie your shoe." More irritating was the way he became locked into phrases -- repeating them over and over like a record skipping.
He'd say, "That's funny. That's funny. That's funny. That's funny."
As I was running one morning with Porter in the baby jogger, he started in, "Stupid head, stupid head, stupid head," in a monotone voice. I tried to ignore it, jogging faster, hoping the runner's high would kick in. But 20 minutes later he was still at it. "Stupid head," I heard from below me.
Finally I'd had enough. I stopped the jogger, got down on one knee, and leaned in close to him. "Stop saying that, Porter, it isn't nice." There was a pause as I stood back up and started running again.
A minute later I heard below me, "Dummy head."
After years of daily seizures, canceled vacations and midnight trips to the hospital, my marriage broke up. Brian moved out, and we began an arrangement of equal-time shared custody of the children.
It was during one of my weeks with the kids that Porter was hit by a car. I'd taken them grocery shopping and had just buckled Porter into his seat. As I turned to load groceries he wriggled out, slipped through my arms and dashed into the street. I called his name, and it seemed to hang in the air, and in the next moment I heard brakes squeal and Porter scream.
An old man's voice yelled, "Oh my God!"
I dropped the groceries and ran around the car, asking the man, "Was he hit?" Porter was crumpled on the street. Cars stopped and people gathered around us as I knelt on the wet pavement holding him in my arms.
A woman bent down and said in my ear, "An ambulance is on its way, hang in there."
"Mama," Porter whimpered. I took off the helmet he now wore to protect his head in the event of a seizure. People pulled blankets out of their cars. Porter clutched his foot and cried. The police arrived first, then the ambulance. An officer stood over us and jotted down information in a tiny notebook. He asked, "How did it happen?"
I answered, "He's autistic and hyperactive."
He closed his pad and said, "It was an accident, then."
The initial examination indicated that his foot was broken, but otherwise he would be all right.
A month after Porter's accident, we summarized all of his medical records as we filed his vaccine injury with the special governmental court in charge of these cases. Despite the interventions, his seizures were intractable and his other disabilities unchanged. Results from his special education testing confirmed what we'd suspected for a long time -- Porter was severely retarded. The government received our petition and immediately conceded. A vaccine injury had caused permanent brain damage. As part of the settlement the government set up a trust to provide for all of Porter's medical needs. In support of the case, Porter's doctors wrote letters sharing what they saw for his future: All three agreed he would never hold a job or live independently.
Here's a part of the story I wish I could leave out: the day I realized that I could no longer take care of Porter alone. The morning I first considered it, I'd called in sick to work because Porter had been up much of the night prowling the house. Shortly before breakfast, he'd had a seizure, which made it impossible for him to go to his special education class. By lunchtime he was back on his feet, and I'd taken Jackson and him to the park before picking up Tyler at school. After a few minutes in the sand, Porter got bored and climbed the jungle gym. As I lifted Jackson out of the baby swing I saw Porter hanging from the top of the slide. His pants had come unbuttoned and hung around his ankles as he swung there grinning in his helmet. A minute later he had a seizure, falling off the platform and landing in the sand below. I ran to him and held him on my lap until the shaking stopped, trying to figure out what to do. I attempted to pick him up, but as a large 5-year-old, he was getting more difficult to carry. He was also in no shape to be moved, so we sat under the slide for 45 minutes waiting for him to wake up.
I looked at my watch and realized I was late to get Tyler -- and had no way to reach the school and tell them what had happened. Jackson whined beside me and pulled on my shirt to be held. I decided we had to go, hoisted Porter over a shoulder, and balanced Jackson on a hip. With stops and starts we made it to the car, only to realize I'd left my purse with the key in it back at the park.
I flagged a woman over and asked if she would go to the playground and find my bag. She stared at us for a moment -- Porter in his diaper passed out on my lap, Jackson on the ground with a blanket over his face -- before nodding and running back to the park. Then I sat on the curb and watched the other families walk to the park in their flip-flops.
A mother turned to her son and said, "Keep up, honey, you always walk so slowly." The boy skipped along, kicking a beach ball ahead of him. I strained to watch them until they disappeared over the hill -- I could still hear him laughing even after he was gone.
A few nights later, I invited our social worker over for dinner to ask her advice.
After an evening with the family, she said, "There is a woman in town that specializes in taking care of autistic children. She's done amazing things with some of the kids and is the best there is. Let me speak with her." What I didn't know at the time was that this woman, Ramona, had recently decided to stop taking new children. Each placement represented a potential 10- to 15-year commitment, and she thought it might be a good time to take a break from such care. But our social worker persisted, and Ramona agreed to meet.
Months later, when I asked Ramona what changed her mind about taking a new child, she said simply, "I met Porter." On the day of our first visit, Ramona greeted me at the door of her three-story Victorian, barefoot, with a warm smile, holding back the two dogs yapping behind her. She invited me in and sat down to talk, not stopping until the sunlight had faded outside.
I visited Ramona again a week later and spent an afternoon with her. As we talked, she told me about another child she cared for.
"He was 5 when he moved in here and never spoke," she said. "The doctors thought he wasn't able to because of abuse he'd suffered. We worked at it for quite a while and I was able to get him to open up." Ramona leaned forward. "What the doctors don't know is how he first started talking."
"How?" I asked.
"I was driving with him and heard a siren behind us, which I pointed to and said, 'Oh look -- there's a police car.' He smiled sweetly and turned to look. As the squad car passed us he stuck his head out the window and yelled, 'Motherf -- ing pigs!' That was my clue that he could talk if he wanted to."
As we spoke, Jacob, who lived with Ramona, walked into the room and snuggled next to her on the couch. "I have had good luck with some of the kids -- you know I helped Jacob get toilet-trained when he was 11. But it's because I'm not his mother that I can do a lot of it. Ignoring a tantrum doesn't rip my heart out."
After Porter and Brian met Ramona, Brian and I agreed that it was best for everyone to have Porter move in with her. But I saw that it wasn't that simple: While I knew in my heart that we were doing the right thing, I had never felt so guilty in my life.
Porter had his first trial overnight three weeks later. Ramona picked him up, and he yelled, "Bye, Mommy," as she led him by the hand to the driveway. I saw his helmet through the back window of the car as she drove off.
I sat on the couch after they left, holding a sweat shirt of his and crying, not moving until my legs were stiff. When the sun was completely down I called Ramona.
"How is he doing?" I asked.
"I know this is hard to hear, Sarah," she said, "but he hasn't asked for you at all. It's not like it would be for one of your other kids being away from home. You have to believe me when I say that it's good he is responding this way."
Porter moved in with Ramona soon after that, visiting us on weekends.
The following summer Ramona and I took Porter and Tyler and Jackson to a rented cabin. After a day of swimming we put Porter in the tub, and I sat on the floor next to Ramona as we gave him his bath. I trickled water on his head and washed his hair while Ramona scrubbed his feet one at a time. Porter clapped his hands as we did it and said, "Hi, Mommy."
In unison, we both said hello back.
Sarah Bridges is a psychologist and writer living in Minneapolis.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10020-2003Jul31?language=printer
Listen, I know this doesn't happen to most kids. But as a parent, you kinda worry. And this isn't an article from a "scare tactic" site, this is the Post.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by
vBSEO 3.0.1