Subscribe
Previous Post
According to an April 22nd Scientific American piece about the case of Hannah Poling—the 9-year-old Georgia girl whose “pre-existing mitochondrial disorder…. was ‘aggravated’ by her shots” according to a concession by the federal government and who was awarded a settlement:
“….. scientifically, from the documents presented in the vaccine court, the Polings did not make a case that deserved compensation.”
Here’s why their case did not deserve compensation, as noted by Nikhil Swaminathan in Scientific American:
Hannah’s disorder is likely due to a rare mutation in her DNA. Most of the DNA responsible for mitochondria is inherited from mothers, because mitochondrial genes are carried in the egg but not sperm. Salvatore DiMauro, a mitochondria expert at Columbia University, notes that the point mutation mentioned in Poling’s case history–published in the Journal of Child Neurology–would imply that both she and her mother carried the genetic variation in all their tissues. So, he says, “you would expect to see the same results” in both the mother and the daughter. But Poling’s mother, Terry, who is an attorney and a registered nurse, is not autistic.
That suggests the genetic defect responsible for Poling’s condition is part of her nuclear DNA, which is separate from the mitochondrial variety, says DiMauro. This means that, scientifically, from the documents presented in the vaccine court, the Polings did not make a case that deserved compensation. (Attempts to contact Jon Poling about DiMauro’s concern went unanswered; however, he agreed that his daughter’s causative genetic defect was likely not in her mitochondrial DNA in an open letter on the blog NeuroLogica.) [my emphasis]
Mitochondria are often called the “power plants” of cells because they convert sugar into energy. Found in all of the body’s tissues and organs, “when they do not work properly they can cause or worsen diseases from diabetes to brain disorders.” But, according to Swaminathan, Hannah Poling’s “genetic defect” was not caused by her mitochondrial DNA, but is a part of her nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents.
Dr. John Shoffner, a neurologist, geneticist, and mitochondrial disease expert, agrees with this conclusion:
…. In a study of 40 patients with autism—including Poling, he found that two thirds had muscle weakness. If muscle weakness is seen early on in children, it may be a tip-off to an underlying mitochondrial disorder that could cause autism, because muscles are heavily dependent on mitochondria as an energy source. He also believes that the new work—he presented preliminary results last week at the American Academy of Neurology Conference in Chicago—will help explain why some children, such as Poling, experience worsening symptoms as a result of a fever.
He notes that the route from the vaccine to the child’s autism was by no means direct. Hannah’s mitochondria were already underperforming, so when she developed a fever from her vaccine, the increased energy requirements likely pushed them past their thresholds. A fever caused by an ear infection or the flu would likely have triggered the autism symptoms if they occurred before or between the ages of 24 and 36 months, he says, which is when classic, regressive autism, which affects one third of sufferers, usually appears.[my emphasis]
Shoffner notes that parents and advocates looking to impugn vaccines as triggers for autism—or mitochondrial disease—need direct, not just circumstantial, evidence……..
Jon Poling, says Shoffner, has been “muddying the waters” with some of his comments. “There is no precedent for that type of thinking and no data for that type of thinking,” Shoffner says.
What’s not “direct,” Dr. Shoffner notes, is how vaccines may have “caused” autism in Hannah Poling whose mitocondria were “already underperforming” when she received her vaccinations. And isn’t the alleged role of vaccines in “triggering” autism in Hannah precisely why this case has received so much attention? And what if the role of vaccines in “causing” autism in Hannah is, as Scientific American suggests, as “direct” as it has been made to seem?
1472 days ago
[...] the Federal government’s admission that vaccines had triggered autism in a little girl named Hannah Poling,” Kirby’s focus has become mitochondrial [...]
1474 days ago
[...] The Case of Hannah Poling Again From the April 22 Scientific American: ““….. scientifically, from the documents presented in the vaccine court, the Polings did not make a case that deserved compensation.” [...]
I’m going to have to link to you again on my blog! :) I’ve got so much on mito, I have to add this too. I’m glad to hear Shoffner speaking out, I was hoping he would (& really wondered his perspective, having met him previously). I think this says it all:
“There is no precedent for that type of thinking and no data for that type of thinking,” Shoffner says.
Thanks for writing on this, I had missed this one!
In the absence of nitrifying bacteria, ammonia has no where to go and accumulates to toxic levels. It is virtually impossible to run an aquarium without nitrification going on without killing everything with ammonia build-up. I presume that would hold in soil too.
Nitrifiers are somewhat resistant to bleach. Salmonella is the usual bacteria of concern in turtles and they are more sensitive to bleach than are nitrifiers.
Embryonic turtles could accumulate ammonia as urea. But if a few eggs died, the ammonia from them could conceivably kill the whole nest.
We used heat-sterilized perlite or vermiculite, so no natural soil for our eggs. That’s not to say that they didn’t pick up bacteria on their way out–undoubtedly, they did. But I always noticed that there was a lot of bleach around at the commerical suppliers where we picked up our eggs. However, that said, we ourselves put a lot of ethanol on them–it was our solvent–and presumably, that would kill quite a few of the microbes. We also managed typically to get predicted sex ratios out of our eggs, based on whichever temperature we were using (e.g. 100% females at 31 C; 100% males at 26 C). It was rare to get anything outside of these predicted outcomes at the 100% extremes. The wild, of course, is completely different.
I wasn’t able to find a study where they had used sterilized substrate, but then I haven’t looked that carefully.
There have been no studies that looked specifically for these bacteria during egg incubation and I have found them on the surface of a turtle in a large enough concentration that NO level from the surface of the turtle was increased by spraying a NH4Cl solution on it. It would be difficult to avoid innoculation of the eggs while they are being laid.
In alligators, the nest is a big pile of stuff that actually heats up due to bacterial action. The environment the developing eggs are exposed to is a complex mix of temperatures, O2 levels, CO2 levels, humidity, and levels of bacterial metabolites.
Even if there is an effect of xenobiotics in sterile media, in “the wild”, there is no sterile media and the loss of these bacteria might be part of the variability in the results that have been reported. The bacteria have different susceptibility to different xenobiotic agents and that may relate to whole organism effects of xenobiotic agents.
Hi, Daedalus–
That would work, except that we get the same results with the contaminants using sterilized substrate, and our eggs are not laid in soil.
Actually I think that some of the endocrine disruption observed in wild animals due to xenobiotic chemicals in the environment may be due to disruption of natural biofilms of the bacteria I am working with. Many reptiles have their gender determined by the temperature at which their eggs incubate. The eggs are buried in the soil, where the bacteria I am working with are abundant, as the developing eggs release ammonia due to deamination of amino acids, where does the ammonia go? If it is oxidized by these bacteria, that will affect steroid metabolism.
If the bacteria are inhibited, by antibiotics, by nitrification inhibitors, by atrazine, by alkylbenzene sulfonate detergents (toxic to them at ppm levels), steroid physiology will be different in the developing reptile (or amphibian) eggs.
Daedalus, we’ve talked about your ideas, and I find them very interesting. If I hadn’t sworn off what I consider to be largely unnecessary research involving vertebrate animals, I’d probably be in there, poking around on this one.
It was one of Emily’s earlier papers that was instrumental in my formulation of my understanding that a change in the basal level of NO affects all NO mediated pathways with no threshold.
When a compound is used as a signaling control parameter, it is already in the “active range”. A change in the level changes the output of that control loop. Emily’s paper was about steroids and endocrine disruption, but the same concept holds for any signaling molecule.
As far as endocrine disruption goes, all steroids are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 enzymes which are regulated by NO. A change in the basal level of NO will affect the output of each pathway mediated by the cytochrome P450 enzymes, including steroid pathways.
A change in the basal NO level will cause endocrine disruption (not might, will). Physiology can’t compensate because it is the compensatory pathways themselves that are affected.
Emily, I got 20 hits with your name! Very impressive research you are doing.
Mike, when did you get your medical degree? Admitting to treating and curing patients could get you into some hot water without a medical license. And how many publications do you have?
While you’re at it, Mike, please feel free to search me in the PubMed database. Cheers.
Hi, Mike. How about if you Google ME, and then get back to me about what I’m not getting about environmental contaminants. I didn’t actually mention 1 ppm, I mentioned FIVE HUNDRED ppm. And a 40-year-old study is just that: 40 years old.
Irony much?
Emily J. Willingham
@Maya M,
“it is never too late to learn new things”—
Yes for sure—I’ve learned more than I can say from everyone here. Thank you!
NEVER presume in an argument that someone “doesn’t get it”, just like that, and especially then in the same breath ask someone to Google something, especially when they essentially claim that they have looked through materials related to the subject (by implication).
Oh, and fluoride, from what I found, was considered to be naturally occurring in water…
Cliff
stopautismquackery, I’d be happy to tell you how much my new website is making. It cost me $5000 to build and so far the sales (1 month) have been around $5000. My air purifier and ozone business however makes me $50,000 a month. The main reason for my interest in Autism, I have a 2 and 4 yr old and my best friends 5 yr old just developed autism after a slew of shots. They’re suing the doctor for administering so many shots at once (he was behind, had to get them for school). Hence, I’m helping them by providing their kid with supplements that are helping him. I am 100% sure I will be able to cure his child and bring him back the smart, happy go lucky kid that payed with my 4 yr old. I could post info on how I’ve helped, what I’ve given him to sell product, but to me, that would be unethical, so I never will. I don’t even mention it on the website except for a general page on “helping with autism symptoms”. The more I learn, the more I’ll be able to protect my children. I already know we don’t have any genetic reasons for them to develop autism, but then again, neither did my friend. My attention is not focused on preventing them from getting any fluoride into their system (even though I did that before, but not to the extent I do now) I don’t allow them to drink any juices, drinks, NOTHING except the distilled water I make with maybe some liquid vitamins added for good measure. They don’t drink milk. They don’t eat refined foods that might be made with fluoride any more. They don’t get any fish that might have Mercury. They the sure the heck won’t ever get vaccinated again. The air in our home is clean room clean. I damn near want to pull a Michael Jackson and cover their mouth and nose with a mask when they go outside but I’m not that crazy. Besides, I know the detox products I give them help them flush all the crap they get in their system from the environment anyway.
No on to Emily. Keep studying the subject. Obviously you’re not “getting it” as most studies suggest 1PPM (including a gov study) causes cancer and all kinds of other diseases due to the fact fluoride even at 1PPM (the amount they put in water) destroys enzymes needed for good health. Also, please answer this question after you do some more research. Yes or no, is fluoride more toxic than lead? How is fluoride eliminated from the body? Where does the body store this toxin? Google fluoride cancer, fluoride danger and tell me what you learn. Tell me how fluoride got into our water system and provide me with ONE article that suggests it’s safe. Just one, that’s all I ask. Even the tobacco companies were able to find corrupt doctors and scientists who would swear their product was safe and thus produced mountains of literature and studies to support that claim. Find me one study on the safety of fluoride consuming this product, more toxic than lead, into our systems and more importantly, in the bodies of infants and young children with weak immune systems.
Fluoride is a scared cow? Now I’m just confused.
Anyway, I looked at some of the more recent abstracts. 500 ppm? Damn. That’s a LOT of fluoride. Looks like China has a little cottage industry of fluoride studies going. Unfortunately, I see only one study that specifically mentions mitochondria. It’s about chickens.
Mike: Why don’t you post a P&L statement. I’d be interested in how much you’re making off this venture.
There are hundreds of studies, most in Chine from what I’ve seen. That’s the problem; why not in the US? Why is fluoride a scared cow? Here is a link to many studies: http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
Here are a few recent studies to A single ingestion of as little as 3 mg of fluoride, in carefully controlled clinical trials, has been found to produce damage to the gastric mucosa in healthy adult volunteers. No research has yet been conducted to determine the effect of lower doses with repeated exposure. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/gi/#clinical1
That one-part-per-million mouse study is 40 years old. Are there any recent publications on this? The table on the link you provided shows that there were chromosomal damage effects close to 20% even in water with zero parts per million fluoride.