Study Finds Vaccine Triggers Infant Seizures, But Concludes It's Okay

by Heidi Stevenson

22 May 2010

The discordance of pro-vaccine research has reached a new pinnacle of hypocrisy in a study that says seizures are triggered in babies by the pertussis vaccine, but it's no reason to "withhold" it from them. Significant flaws make the results highly questionable. That, though, is minor next to the implication that these babies are presumed to benefit from the vaccination that has caused the seizures.

The study, done by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, found that Dravet syndrome, a condition of severe epileptic seizures, is triggered earlier in children with mutations a gene called SCN1A. Without documentation of vaccine risks or benefits—merely the presumption of safety and efficacy—they concluded that such children benefit from the very thing that triggered their seizures.

The study is, on the surface, an attempt to place the blame for babies' seizures on the babies—for having the gall to be born with the wrong gene. Even if we accept that attitude, it is still seriously flawed.

The study did not look at any babies other than those who were known to have the Dravet syndrome gene. It compared only with other Dravet syndrome babies. It did not consider any babies without the Dravet gene who had vaccine-induced seizures—in spite of having previously done research documenting that it happens!

Read on to see how a little pseudo-science trompe l'oeil is fooling most of the medical profession.

The Study

The authors did a retrospective study comparing two groups of children with the SCN1A gene. They defined the subject group, which numbered 12, as having seizures that started the day of or the day after a DPT vaccination. The control group, which numbered 28, was defined as having seizures that started either before the vaccination or more than two days afterwards. It was only a presumption that the vaccine caused seizure onset—and it was only a presumption that seizures that started more than two days after the vaccination were not related.

The average age of Dravet seizure onset in the subject group was 18.4 weeks, and 26.2 weeks in the control group. The study found that there was no difference in "intellectual outcome, subsequent seizure type, or mutation type between the two groups".

The study found clear evidence that the DPT (diphteria, pertussis, and tetanus) vaccination brought about an earlier onset of Dravet syndrome, though it didn't result in a different outcome. Of course, they didn't stop there. They had to follow the party line on vaccines. This is the conclusion published by the authors:

Vaccination might trigger earlier onset of Dravet syndrome in children who, because of an SCN1A mutation, are destined to develop the disease. However, vaccination should not be withheld from children with SCN1A mutations because we found no evidence that vaccinations before or after disease onset affect outcome.

The Study's Flaws

The study looks only at children born with a particular genetic mutation known to cause epileptic seizures. It did not look at the rate of seizures overall in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. In fact,

Only 70-80% of children with Dravet syndrome are known to have the SCN1A gene. The study did not consider children without the gene, though their own prior research documented that 3 of 14 children who develop DPT vaccine-related encephalopathy associated with seizures did not have Dravet syndrome. These children were not considered in their conclusion to vaccinate.

The Money Trail

Whenever possible, one should follow the money trail. As ever, it provides insight into the authors' bias. Three of the authors have been paid consultants for Bionomics, a company licensed to test the SCN1A gene. Other ties include Athena Diagnostics, which sells a "Complete SNC1A Evaluation"; UCB, a pharmaceutical corporation with an interest in epilepsy seizures; and Janssen-Cilag, which sells topiramate, an epilepsy drug, and vaccines.

The authors are deep in the pockets of corporations that have a strong interest in the outcome of the study.

The Rush to Vaccinate, No Matter What the Evidence

In a now-common blame-the-patients-for-weak-genes approach to excuse study results that can't be evaded, the authors have narrowed the scope of the issue to the point of being virtually meaningless. In this instance, they've done so in the face of their own prior results documenting that the gene they're blaming is not the only instance of seizure onset induced by vaccines.

How can anyone look at this study as anything other than yet another attempt to white wash vaccinations and marginalize those who question their safety and effectiveness?

What do you think? Click here to comment!