A follow up on febrile seizures

Anonymous pointed out in response to my last post that pediatricians by and large think febrile seizures are not a big deal, and that is certainly true. If you visit the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the National Institutes of Health, you will find this fact sheet on febrile seizures.

It is clearly designed to reassure the worried parent. Here's what it says:

"Are febrile seizures harmful?

Although they can be frightening to parents, the vast majority of febrile seizures are harmless. During a seizure, there is a small chance that the child may be injured by falling or may choke from food or saliva in the mouth. Using proper first aid for seizures can help avoid these hazards (see section entitled "What should be done for a child having a febrile seizure?").

There is no evidence that febrile seizures cause brain damage. Large studies have found that children with febrile seizures have normal school achievement and perform as well on intellectual tests as their siblings who don't have seizures. Even in the rare instances of very prolonged seizures (more than 1 hour), most children recover completely.

Between 95 and 98 percent of children who have experienced febrile seizures do not go on to develop epilepsy. However, although the absolute risk remains very small, certain children who have febrile seizures face an increased risk of developing epilepsy. These children include those who have febrile seizures that are lengthy, that affect only part of the body, or that recur within 24 hours, and children with cerebral palsy, delayed development, or other neurological abnormalities. Among children who don't have any of these risk factors, only one in 100 develops epilepsy after a febrile seizure."

Does this sound reassuring to you? I can see why it might. After all it prominently says that "the vast majority of febrile seizures are harmless." That would explain of course why a pediatrician will always be dismissive if your child has one. That's because doctors play by statistics. If they have seen 80 patients with X, and they all turned out fine, you can bet that when your child shows up with it they will not think there is a problem.

I, however, am not reassured by this discussion. You know why? 2 reasons: 1) I review and edit corporate disclosures for a living, and for that reason, I am less influenced by "spin" than other people. 2) My son has autism, which means 2 things: a) I have already learned that when there is a 1% chance of something, that means it really can happen to my child. b) my child is in the group that is clearly described in the last paragraph as being at increased risk of epilepsy.

So, just for fun, I have re-written the last paragraph in a way that highlights rather than downplays the risk. I feel pretty confident that I have not altered the actual content. See what you think:

"Between 2 and 5 percent of children who have experienced febrile seizures go on to develop epilepsy. Some children who have febrile seizures face an increased risk of developing epilepsy, althouh the risk is small. Children who are more likely to develop epilepsy include those who have febrile seizures that are lengthy, that affect only part of the body, or that recur within 24 hours. In addition, children with cerebral palsy, delayed development, or other neurological abnormalities are also more likely to develop epilepsy. Other children, who don't have any of the risk factors listed above -- have a one in 100 chance of developing epilepsy after a febrile seizure."

Still think that they're not a big deal? Then you might ask yourself why they are still researching ways to treat and prevent them:

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), sponsors research on all forms of febrile seizures in medical centers throughout the country. NINDS-supported scientists are exploring what environmental and genetic risk factors make children susceptible to febrile seizures. Some studies suggest that women who smoke or drink alcohol during their pregnancies are more likely to have children with febrile seizures, but more research needs to be done before this link can be clearly established. Scientists are also working to pinpoint factors that can help predict which children are likely to have recurrent or long-lasting febrile seizures.

Investigators continue to monitor the long-term impact that febrile seizures might have on intelligence, behavior, school achievement, and the development of epilepsy. For example, scientists conducting studies in animals are assessing the effects of seizures and anticonvulsant drugs on brain development.

Investigators also continue to explore which drugs can effectively treat or prevent febrile seizures and to check for side effects of these medicines."

Now, of course this correlation between febrile seizures and epilepsy does not mean that the seizures "caused" epilepsy. It could be, I suppose, that these children already "have" epilepsy.

But I don't personally find this very reassuring, because as far as I can tell, all seizures are caused by a disturbance to the balance between excitatory and inhibitory neurons. See this discussion, for example, which states:

The Neurobiology of Seizures
Seizures can be caused by multiple mechanisms, and often they appear so diverse that one would suspect that no common theme applies. However, one principle that is often discussed is that seizures arise when there is a disruption of mechanisms that normally create a balance between excitation and inhibition. Thus, normally there are controls that keep neurons from excessive action potential discharge, but there are also mechanisms that facilitate neuronal firing so the nervous system can function appropriately. Disrupting the mechanisms that inhibit firing or promoting the mechanisms that facilitate excitation can lead to seizures. Conversely, disrupting the mechanisms that bring neurons close to their firing threshold, or enhancing the ways neurons are inhibited, usually prevents seizure activity.

And I think I have pretty good reason to find this disturbing, since there is material all over the place about how autism is also caused by a disturbance in this same balance. For example, this review from the Simons Foundation describes a couple of recent studies from last year:

"Together, the papers add heft to the hypothesis that an imbalance between excitatory and inhibitory neurons underpins autism. The high prevalence of seizures in individuals with autism is seen an indicator that the balance between excitatory and inhibitory circuits has gone awry in people with the disorder.

"The possibility is emerging that subtle changes in the numbers and proportions of this category of interneurons may result in a range of neurodevelopmental disorders, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and autism," says Anthony-Samuel LaMantia, lead investigator on the PNAS study and a neuroscientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The studies also emphasize the essential role inhibitory interneurons play in the development of proper circuitry in the cortex. Restoring circuit balance may therefore be a plausible way to reverse autism, suggests Hensch, a neurobiologist at Harvard."

Now, again, let me point out that what this suggests is that autistic individuals are more likely to have seizures. It doesn't mean that a febrile seizure made them autistic.

But it is a rather far leap from there to conclude that febrile seizures do not harm an autistic person, either.

And how many studies have been done to ascertain the impact of a febrile seizure on an autistic person? I haven't seen anyone mention any. How would you design such a thing, I wonder? Who is your control group? Autistic children who didn't have one? How would you even know for sure who had had a seizure, since so many of them are undetectable? And how would you match them, given that autistic children have so many different levels of functioning, comorbid conditions, etc.?

So for me, I am back to common sense. I already have some pretty good reason to think that there is something wrong in my son's brain. And it is clear that he is at increased risk for febrile seizures.

And I dig deeper, and I find this from the CDC (emphasis added):

The 5%-7% of children who have either a personal history of convulsions or a parent or sibling with history of convulsions may be at increased risk for febrile convulsions after MMR vaccination (184). The precise risk has not been measured, but appears to be minimal. On the other hand, febrile seizures occur commonly among children in whom measles disease develops, and the risk for acquiring measles is substantial. Therefore, the benefits of administering MMR vaccine to children with a personal or family history of convulsions substantially outweigh the risks and these children should be vaccinated following the recommendations for children who have no contraindications.

This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. But this is NOT the same thing as saying there are no risks to the vaccine, or that it is perfectly safe.

I just can't see leaving this decision up to some stranger in Washington DC, or group of strangers, no matter how many degrees they have. I just can't understand how anyone could take this stuff lightly, I really don't.

MMR causes seizures??

It is kind of weird how no matter what I am actually trying to research, it always seems to lead me to something new and disturbing about vaccinations. I have to date stayed completely agnostic about vaccines, but I have to say I have really read some disturbing things. While trying to research more about fever and metabolism issues, I wound up at this CDC FAQs about the MMRV.

What is really creepy is this:

Does the MMR vaccine cause febrile seizures?

Children who receive the MMR vaccine are more likely to have febrile seizures 8-14 days after vaccination than children who are not vaccinated at all. 1 During the 8-10 days after vaccination, about one additional febrile seizure occurs among every 3,000-4,000 children who receive MMR vaccine, compared with children who do not receive any vaccines.

....

How serious is a febrile seizure?

Although febrile seizures can be frightening for the child's caregivers, most are harmless. The majority of children who have febrile seizures recover quickly and have no lasting effects. Up to half of children who have one febrile seizure will have at least one other febrile seizure. But children with simple febrile seizures--the most common form--have no greater chance of getting epilepsy or brain damage than children who do not have febrile seizures. A study 1 showed that children who have febrile seizures after receiving an MMR vaccine are no more likely to have more seizures, epilepsy, or learning or developmental problems than children who have febrile seizures that are not associated with a vaccine.

Good Lord! I do not recall hearing anyone say this before, although I do have a brain like swiss cheese, so maybe I have already been here before. I don't know.

But ... seizures?? Really? And somebody is actually doing studies to try to prove that having seizures is not harmful? You have got to be kidding me.

Wow, how impressive has modern science become! Now they can prove that really, seizures are no big deal.

Only a real ignoramus would dare to worry that her child had seizures.

Prednisone and inflammation and ... vaccines???

Well, my efforts to research whether prednisone really caused some remarkable improvement in my son and if so why have led me down a very strange and twisty path. I can't even remember how I got here, exactly. But I somehow found myself reading a very short article rather forcefully urging that vaccines do not cause autism by authors Jeffrey Gerber and Paul Offit. I guess everyone knows who Dr. Offit is by now, but if you don't, Wikipedia has a bio for him. The short version is he's a prominent pediatrician and vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, he's done work for the CDC, and he's quoted OFTEN about the whole vaccine issue. He definitely does NOT think there's any link between vaccines and autism.

Anyhow, this article, Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses, was fairly unremarkable to me, until I got to this:

Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune
diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no
evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions
in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current
data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry
that affects synaptic development might in part account
for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated
or inappropriate immune response to vaccination
precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific
data that address the pathogenesis of autism.

This is the part where I started tearing my hair out, because I just got done learning all about how autism is an immune mediated disease with an autoimmune component. Or at least I thought I had.

Frustrated by electronic searching, I had finally checked out what seemed like some "real" medical texts from the Emory University Health Sciences Library. One of them is called Autism: Current Theories and Evidence, and it was published in 2008. It's edited by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, who as far as I can tell is an extremely well-published, -credentialed, and -respected neurologist at Johns Hopkins and the Kennedy Krieger Institute. This text is part of a series called "Current Clinical Neurology," edited by another impressive sounding individual at the Harvard Medical School. Not exactly sketchy people.

Part IV is called Immunology, Maternal-Fetal Interaction, and Neuroinflammation. There are four different pieces in here on the immune system in autism and neuroinflammation! And on page 329, Dr. Pardo-Villamizar, a colleague of Dr. Zimmerman at Johns Hopkins, writes:

"Several studies showing peripheral immune abnormalities support immune hypotheses; however, until recently there has been no demonstration of immune abnormalities within the [central nervous system]. Recently, our laboratory demonstrated the presence of neuroglial and innate neuroimmune system activation in brain tissue and cerebrospinal fluid of patients with autism ...."

Wow, could there be a more direct conflict here? So I check the dates. The vaccine article by Drs. Gerber and Offit was received by the journal on August 25, 2008. But the research of Dr. Pardo (and Dr. Zimmerman) was published well before then. I found it in a 2005 article called "immunity, neuroglia and neuroinflammation in autism."

So I continue trying to puzzle this out: who's right, who's wrong, can these 2 things be reconciled? I pull footnote 38 from Dr. Offitt's article, the one that supports his statement that "there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism." And discover that Dr. Offitt's support is a 2004 report from the Instute of Health called "Immunization safety review: vaccines and autism." The first thing that went through my mind: really? The most recent citation you can find on this topic is from 2004? And not even a "but see" or "compare"? There's absolutely no suggestion here that maybe somebody else thinks there IS evidence of immune activation in the CNS of people with autism. It's just shocking to me, since I'm staring at it.

I pull the 2004 report. One of the first things that I notice about it and am a little disturbed by is that apparently, this was written by a committee, and it met only once to discuss this topic. At least, it appears that way. When I turned to page v to see who was on the committee I see this: "The following individuals are members of the Immunization Safety Review Committee but were unable to attend the meeting on the topic of this report." That certainly makes it sound like there was only one meeting, doesn't it?

I also notice that they had a large number of additional people review and comment on the report before publication, and interestingly one of those people is Dr. Zimmerman. However, the report expressly states that they didn't necessarily take all the comments from everyone, so it's possible Dr. Zimmerman didn't agree with the report. I can't tell.

But the real important part is what I found when looked at the report itself. There is an entire section on immune dysregulation, beginning on page 128. I found this shocking, because this section is full of citations to study after study after study showing weird things about the immune systems of autistic children. The committee doesn't seem to actually dispute these findings. And here, I will readily admit this material was over my head. But as far as I can tell, what the committee has actually done is this:

1) they critique the various theories and hypotheses that researchers have tried to come up with to explain the obvious immune anomalies that have been observed (without suggesting any of their own); and
2) state that it is irrelevant that autistic children have these immune anomalies, partly because they can't figure out how it could be relevant, and partly because (supposedly) autistic children don't seem to be more prone to allergies.

They start with the sentence: "A large number of studies have suggested that immune dysregulation occurs in autism." The first few weird findings they cite in this report:

* Decreased lymphocyte responsiveness in the lymphocyte blastogenesis assay to PHA, ConA, and Pokeweed mitogen
* significantly reduced natural killer (NK) cell activity (Warren et al., 1987);
* decreased proportion of IFN-gamma- and IL-2 (Th1 cytokine)-staining CD4+ T cells in the serum;
* significant increase in IL-4-(Th2 cytokine)-staining CD4+ T cells

I don't claim to know what all this stuff is, except that it all relates to the immune system. Interestingly, the IFN-gamma jumped out at me, because the medical textbook I picked up on asthma says that asthmatic children had reduced IFN-gamma, but that's not relevant here.

Anyway, there's more, some of which does seem to contradict the above:

*increased levels of plasma IFN-gamma and IL-2 (Th1 cytokines)
* Increased production of serum IL-12, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and IFN-gamma, and increased urinary neopterin
* PBMCs (peripheral blood mononuclear cells) from patients with autism, both at baseline and after stimulation with LPS (lipopolysaccharide) and PHA (phytohemagluttinin), secreted significantly more pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-alpha, IL-1beta, and IL-6) than those from healthy controls and normal siblings

Basically, they go on to review this bewildering array of findings after which I get the distinct impression that:

1) something is really weird about the immune system in autistic people; and
2) no one really knows why or what it means.

In other words, there is a problem and we are deeply ignorant about it. Their conclusion about these things is: "In summary, although several studies have reported abnormalities of components of the immune systems, they have often had contradictory results, making it difficult to achieve a consensus on any specific immune abnormality that might characterize autism. More fundamentally, it is not clear how these abnormalities might explain the CNS defects in autism or whether they could be secondary to GI or other complications of developmental disability."

But wait, there's more, because then I read:

"A large number of serum autoantibodies have been detected at a higher frequency in children with autism compared to controls. The antigens against which these autoantibodies are directed include a number of CNS antigens, such as myelin basic protein and neuron-axon filament protein, but they also include a whole host of other proteins, such as nerve growth factor, serotonin receptor, alpha-2-adrenergic receptor, tubulin, heat shock protein 90, and chondroitin sulfate."

Now, I've read some of this stuff before, but not in a government report. I am pretty astonished. I never really imagined there was anything like this in here. Especially since Dr. Offitt's report makes it sound as though there is no evidence of anything wrong with autistic individuals' immune systems, although perhaps I misread what he said. But wait,there is just so much more in here, I can't stop quoting it.

The report says: "This suggests that rather than there being a specific antibody response to [central nervous system] antigens, generalized hypergammaglobulinemia resulting from polyclonal B cell activation occurs in autism." I really don't know what they are talking about here, but doesn't it sound a lot like they are suggesting that somebody this "generalized hypergammaglobulinemia" is something to be unconcerned about? Doesn't it seem like it might be relevant to vaccinations? Ok, I'll grant you that maybe it's not. But they are just a little too dismissive for my tastes. They are dismissive of EVERYTHING, and that doesn't sound ... balanced and neutral.

Perhaps my favorite sentence is this one: "Of note in the abovementioned studies, these antibodies were all also found in the serum of healthy controls, albeit at lower levels—i.e., they were not specific to autism, making their pathogenic significance questionable." Well, I don't know about "pathogenic significance," but being just another stupid layperson, I am wondering why they seem to think that it doesn't matter that my son has antibodies at higher levels than everybody else. How can this be irrelevant?

it continued to cite all sorts of evidence of weird things involving the immune system in autistic kids, but they always managed to dismiss them in some way or another. There is an intersting reference to Wakefield, too, btw, but I am trying not to get too off-topic here, so I won't detail that, but you may want to read it for yourself.

I realize that they were focused on addressing one specific question, but in general, it felt a little rude and frankly insensitive to have them lay out all of these horrible sounding findings and then just sort of brush them aside as though they just didn't matter.

Some of their logic is hard for me to follow. Like: "As mentioned, autoantibodies to cerebral antigens, including MBP, have been found at higher titers in children with autism compared to controls. It is important to note, however, that these studies all evaluated serum and not CSF or brain tissue." Okay, so I'm not a doctor, and maybe this would make sense to me if I were, but why would there be autoantibodies to CEREBRAL antigens in your body but yet not in your brain? Am I the only one who thinks this sounds as though they are saying: "Well, sure, they have antibodies in their blood that are designed to attack brain tissue, but hey, no one has ever proven that any of these antibodies actually made it to the brain, so relax. they probably didn't."

And then I hit this: "Some investigators have tried immunotherapies, such as corticosteroids ...." THAT'S prednisone!! They go on to cite anecdotal evidence of both success and failure with this treatment. It is ironic that is what I am REALLY trying to research, but now I don't have time to read the references cited yet. It will have to wait to tomorrow.

I must say I am deeply troubled by this report. Whatever the Truth is about vaccines, there is clearly something up with the immune systems of autistic children, and it has been known for some time. I sort of knew this already, but it was only in a dim and hazy way. Not like this.

This report does not deny that something is up with the immune systems of autistic children. It concludes this section with the anticlimactic:

"By analogy to Rett’s syndrome, similar epigenetic mechanisms may be operating in autism that simultaneously lead to abnormal development in the immune and central nervous systems (Zimmerman, 2000). However, the deviations from expected levels in various in vitro laboratory assays in both these conditions may represent only a secondary effect of the developmental or behavioral abnormalities."

[Note the reference to Zimmerman? I assume that's the same Dr. Zimmerman who edited the book I've checked out, the one full of articles about neuroinflammation and immune dysfunction (among other things).]

So I am left with 2 questions:

1) Why does Dr. Offitt say "Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation ... in the CNS of people with autism," and why does he think that this report substantiates such a bold assertion? I grant you that the immune problems may go hand in hand with autism without "mediating" autism, but I do not get the impression that anyone understands enough to know for sure whether this is true or not.

2) Why didn't one of my son's doctors tell me ANY of this stuff??

OK, obviously I have more than 2 questions, and those are actually the least important ones. what I really want to know is:

1) what is wrong with my son's immune system?

2) how do I fix it?

What the FDA Says About Vaccines

I found this quite astonishing presentation on the FDA website that talks about "adjuvants" in vaccines. This presentation was created by a special panel full of MDs and PhDs. I reprint here slide 7 so you can just read it for yourself, in all its glory.

Adjuvants: Potential Concerns/Risks
– Potentially antigen specific or non-specific potent immune and inflammatory stimulation
– Increased reactogenicity, local +/-systemic inflammation
– Unclear which, if any, correlate with risk of rare SAEs – Potential role in autoimmunity, short or long term?
– Antigen specific (e.g. neural or cardiac antigens) – Auto-immune/inflamm disease, e.g. SLE, “idiopathic”
– Are there plausible risks to developing immune systems?
– Reassuring observations to date:
• Even strong TLR/PRR signaling likely similar to natural infection (caveat w/ recent UK CD28 agonist trial)
• No strong evidence to date of major problems with compounds being most actively considered – but limited numbers w/ controls, long term active follow-up, or in children

Compare this from the CDC:

Which childhood vaccines contain adjuvants?

The adjuvant aluminum is present in U.S. childhood vaccines that prevent hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP, Tdap) Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), human papillomavirus (HPV) and pneumococcus infection. This adjuvant has been used safely in vaccines for decades.

I think the CDC is just not telling us the whole story.

A thought about vaccines

I just want to go on the record as saying that I am extremely disappointed in what the scientific types are offering up on these topics lately. I guess it never occured to them that a parent might not be interested in taking everything they have to say at face value, and that I might be as skeptical of them as they suggest I should be of everyone else (and I am). Regarding vaccines, why does everyone seem to think that it is appropriate for "anti-vaxers," who are mostly parents working with personal observations, to proffer up some sort of scientifically sound theory as to HOW the causation works? This seems extremely silly to me.

It also seems that almost every person I ever see discuss this topic cannot resist trashing Jenny McCarthy, a person whom I know nothing about (nor do I care to, really). It's annoying because it's so irrelevant to my personal decisionmaking what she has said and she seems to be some sort of straw man for the "scientific" people, for lack of a better term.

I am not anti-vaccination, for the record, I'm just pro-my-son, and I sure wish I could find a balanced, reasoned, logical discussion about the risks of vaccines that is really honest and doesn't expect me to just assume that a bunch of guys in white coats have really got it all figured out and so I should just stop worrying MY pretty little head about it. Or God knows, I should just let these strangers inject my kid with God-knows-what (because I sure don't) or else I'm an unpatriotic idiot who's threatening herd immunity because I'm too stupid to trust some government bureaucrats and a bunch of academics. Yeah, we know THOSE people are never wrong.

You see, here's how I see it:

1. everyone agrees that autism = genes + environment
2. now call me stupid, but to me environment means, inter alia, the stuff in the needle that they are injecting into my child.


You know what? there are a lot of environmental variables. And you can bet that I pay attention to/worry about every single one of them, from the stress in my son's life to the air that he breathes to the food that he eats to the medicine he takes to the ... yeah, the shots.

Alright, I didn't do so well in science, but I would like someone to explain to me how this makes me irrational?

Now, it's true that measles, etc. is scary stuff. And yes, I plan to look up those statistics too. But after reading for about the 5oth time the statement that "the benefits outweigh the risks" of vaccines, I'm starting to get really p-- ... er, ticked off, that these patronizing people think that they don't have to lay out some kind of real case that this is true. Or explain whether the benefits to which they are referring are the benefits to my son or the benefits to society.

Vaccines are an amazing modern miracle, but they are also deliberately provoking my child's immune system. I have read enough to be pretty durn sure that none of these people understands nearly as much as they pretend to understand about how the immune system works. You know what, they just really don't. For that matter, I'm not convinced they know as much about the human body PERIOD as they pretend to, either.

And when it comes to my son's brain, it really p-- ... er, ticks me off when people pretend to know things that they don't really know. I don't care who they are.

I'm not playing games here, I have to get it right, people. What are all these people trying to accomplish anyway? One thing is for certain, I have yet to find a single person who really sounds like they give a rat's a-- about my son's neurological condition, or the fact that *I* have to get this one right. I can't just take their frakkin' word for it.

And no, I'm not impressed by their studies, either. They don't actually say zippo, as far as I can tell, about whether or not something in those vaccines could be hurting/could have hurt MY kiddo. Granted, I need to take a class in statistics. But I smell a lot of smoke and mirrors.

What it all boils down to is that all these people know is that MOST kids with autism don't GET autism from vaccines. that's it. that's all they know. Otherwise, they seem to expect that I should just toe their party line unless I can prove to them that vaccines are bad for my kid. Huh?

Sure, sure, down with the Jenny McCarthy fear-mongerers. But really. Boo hiss to the patronizing white-coat-worship-mongerers.

PS-- Er, if you happen to be my brilliant best friend who happens to be an MD doing a fellowship in infectious disease right now, and you know who you are, and you happen to read this post, I trust you know I am not talking about you. I'm just talking about the stuff I've been reading. YOU are awesome and if all of "these other people" (I know that's vague but I didn't keep good notes and I'm tired) -- anyhow, if only everyone in a white coat were like YOU, this post wouldn't exist.:)