Immunization Theory Needs Booster

ELLENAUT ellenaut at
Fri Jan 26 09:54:12 EST 1996

In article <M_Doherty-2501961157550001 at>,
M_Doherty at (M. Doherty) writes:
>Actually, in some cases, a direct relationship CAN be proved - if there
>are cross-reactive (and clearly recently activated) T cells, together
>associated injury that would meet the standard of reasonable proof. 

This is very interesting to me.  I am not a medical professional (but have
tried my best to become educated) so forgive me if what I say next is
not relevant to what you are stating.  My son has an extremely elevated
titer specific for one of the antigens he was vaccinated against, that
with the onset of his autistic symptoms.  This titer was last measured
21 months after vaccination.  His titer is at least 200 times higher than
the GMT of "normal" children when compared to published results in
safety and immunogenicity studies (age & number of vaccine matched).
I can not tell you exactly what his titer is because his serum
exceeds the capacity of the ELISA panel and the laboratory is working
with serum dilutions.  (200 times higher is a very, very conservative
figure).  What does this mean?  I have been to dozens of doctors including
those at the Mayo Clinic and have received no explanation.  I have 
consistantly read that the main reason for an elevated titer is continued
antigenic stimulation although I do realize this antibody could be cross
reacting, perhaps with tissue in the practicing medical
I have brought my son to want to pursue this lead.  Why?  My son is
completely handicapped.  He has no speech, no social skills, no play life.  I can not prove that this high titer did not exist
prior to
the suspected vaccine.  No one I know runs titer levels prior to
in order to be able to prove that something went wrong. 
>While I can appreciate that severe autism is a tragedy for any parent, it
>is a well established fact that autism also occurrs in children who have
>not been vaccinated.  Indeed, I personally know one little boy of whom
>this is true.  So we can rule out a direct causal relationship. 

Yes, in this boy's case you can.  However, I do not see where that
rules out a causal relationship all together.  There are people that
lung cancer that never smoked -- that does not mean smoking does not
have a direct causal relationship in some cases of cancer.  The same
can be said about many, many conditions.

>> At the present time, very little is being done to research autism
>> from a medical point of view.
>As I commented above, this is because we don't really know what autism
>is.  Two "autistic" children may present with greatly differing times of
>diagnosis, totally different manifestations and so on.  As time goes on,
>the diagnosis of autism is broadened to include more people.  The problem
>is: where do you start, when even experts in the field can't agree on
>constitutes the condition?

While the experts can not agree on a lot of things regarding autism, the
number of medical studies that document metabolic abnormalities are
starting to form a clearer picture of the disorder.  Autistic children
an elevated level of Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein - this could be
by increased synaptic turn over.  Research at the synaptic level of the
autistic brain could provide answers - but there is no funding.  Autistics
have a significantly reduced phenolsulfotransferase enzyme level.  
Research could possible uncover if this is an actual enzyme deficency
or is the enzyme being depleated by a pathogen in the body - but there
is no funding.  Other documented abnormalities with no explanation
include elevated epinephrine & norepinephrine, depleated dopamine,
elevated organic acid metabolites in urine, elevated platelets, IgA
C4B deficency (this has been explored and found to be primarily due to
a null allele on the genetic level), seizure activity in the 

More information about the Immuno mailing list