The Washington Independent » dna

Vaccine researcher to bring anti-abortion advocacy to Minnesota House hearing

admin — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:19:10 +0000

On Thursday, the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee will hear a presentation on vaccine safety by a researcher who asserts that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine may not be safe for children — and part of the basis for the concern appears to stem from her religious opposition to the use of human cells in the vaccine. The testimony of Dr. Theresa Deisher is part of an official informational hearing, but Deisher’s assertions regarding autism and vaccines have been debunked by many researchers. Deisher — who is the hearing’s only testifier — has earned praise for her work from both the anti-vaccine and anti–abortion rights movements.

Deisher will present her findings at a hearing called, “Presentation on Vaccine Safety: New Considerations, Concerns and Insights.” According to her press release, she will present “a continuation of her public efforts to shed light on key elements regarding vaccine safety, specifically as regards the likely adverse affects of human DNA residuals in many widely utilized vaccines.” No one else is scheduled to testify.

Deisher contends that the MMR vaccine may cause autism in young children. She doesn’t assert that it does, only that it may and that she feels more research should be done. And her lab is soliciting money to do that research.

In 2008 testimony to the President’s Commission on Bioethics under President George W. Bush, Deisher proposed that DNA from human cell cultures used to make the MMR vaccine may be causing autism in America’s children.

“How might the human DNA contaminated vaccines contribute to human disease? First, there is the potential for the contaminating DNA to be mixed with our own genes by a process called homologous recombination,” she said. “We do not yet know if this occurs with the contaminating human DNA found in some of our vaccines, and if so, to what extent. Imagine the potential consequences of human DNA from a vaccine, a vaccine that is given to children at an average age of 15 months, being incorporated into a child’s developing brain. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that this potential has to be studied.”

The Minnesota Independent contacted several leading vaccine researchers who say Diesher’s claims are far from accurate.

Dr. Paul A. Offit, MD, is the head of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of Vaccinology and Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, as well as the author of the book “Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure.”

“I don’t know where that comes from,” he told the Minnesota Independent of Deisher’s claim.

In the 1970s, vaccine producers switched from using animal cells for the rubella vaccine — a component of MMR — to human cells. Researchers derived those cells in 1961 from embryonic lung tissue, a bit similar to the embryonic stem cell lines used today to study and develop cures for chronic diseases. That 1961 line is still used today for vaccine production, and manufacturers list DNA from those cell lines as ingredients in the MMR vaccine.

Offit says that the amount of DNA in a vaccine is extremely small and unlikely to cause any problems: “We are talking picogram levels, or one trillionth of a gram.”

“There’s very little chance that a DNA fragment could cross the blood-brain barrier and insert itself into brain cells,” he said. “This would be the best news for gene therapy,” a process that seeks to use fragments of DNA to cure disease.

If incorporating DNA into cells — let alone brain cells — were as easy as Diesher says it is, Offit says it could revolutionize gene therapy research.

He says that the trivial quantities from vaccines make no difference. “You are injecting foreign DNA all the time” from the food we eat. “Look, if it worked that way, after eating at McDonald’s, we’d all turn into cows.”

The bottom line, he says, is that the science is confusing and people become skeptical. “It’s easy to take advantage of the fact that most people don’t understand vaccine science.”

Dr. Neal Halsey, professor of International Health and director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, concurred.

“This claim has no merit,” he said. “The scientific data is now overwhelming that MMR is not a cause of autism.”

He added, “There is no evidence that small residual amounts of DNA from any source contribute to the development of autism.”

Dr. Halsey said that past research on links between autism and vaccines has been debunked.

“As I’m certain you know, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was the originator of the hypothesis that MMR causes autism,” he told the Minnesota Independent. “We have known for more than 10 years that the science behind his studies was seriously flawed. We now know through recent publications, that the studies were based upon fraudulent evidence.”

Earlier this year, British authorities found Wakefield’s research unethical, noting four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts abuse of autistic children through invasive and unnecessary testing.

But, the skepticism raised by Wakefield — and now Deisher — has had consequences beyond bad science.

So far this year in Minnesota, eight children have been hospitalized after contracting measles, and in at least some cases, parents of those children have followed Wakefield’s skepticism. Measles can be fatal in young children.

Does the MMR vaccine cause autism? “The answer could not be clearer and that answer is ‘no,’” said Offit. He said the vaccine has been researched in 12 large studies on three continents, and findings show the risk for autism after vaccination is no greater than for those children who have not been vaccinated.

Deisher: “Our pro-life work is our top responsibility”

Deisher’s questioning of the MMR vaccine seems to come from two related sources: religion and opposition to abortion.

In an interview in 2008, when she first opened AVM Biotechnology, LLC — the acronym stands for “Ave Maria” — Deisher said, “It is our goal to develop human therapeutics that are morally acceptable and compatible with the magisterium of the Catholic Church.”

Her ties to the church remain close; last year, the Archbishop of Seattle, Alexander J. Brunett, conducted a blessing of Deisher’s lab — complete with holy water and solemnization.

Deisher’s original focus was on embryonic stem cell research, and she successfully filed suit against the Obama Administration in 2010. The suit halted funding for embryonic stem cell research for a period in August of last year before an appeal was filed and a stay issued to continue the funding.

Now, the focus appears to be on vaccines, and an embryo that was killed in 1961 to create cell cultures that assist in the production of vaccines. That embryo was donated to research and was not aborted specifically for vaccine production.

“Many vaccines in the U.S. are contaminated with aborted fetal tissue,” she said. “There are no ethical alternatives, putting parents,
physicians and pharmacists in a moral dilemma.”

Further, Deisher has said using research that involved embryonic stem cell research or fetuses would be akin to Nazism.

“It would be like using the research results on hypothermia from Nazi Germany that involved murdering people,” she said.

Diesher’s zeal in opposing human cell cultured vaccines and embryonic stem cell research has achieved for her star status in the anti-abortion movement.

“We are clearly unique in that we are open and upfront about our pro-life mission,” Deisher said in an interview with Xcomony Seattle. “Our pro-life work is our top responsibility. For most companies, fiduciary return is the top priority. We hope our investors will make lots of money, but that’s not our first objective. We won’t compromise our pro-life mission for economic returns.”

While it’s unclear who invited Deisher to testify at Thursday’s hearing, the committee is chaired by Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, the cosponsor of several abortion-related bills, including one that would criminalize embryonic stem cell research and another that would direct taxpayer funds to anti-abortion groups through sales of “Choose Life” license plates.

New Mexico Senate amends ‘Katie’s Law’ expansion

admin — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:07:44 +0000

The Senate amended another of Gov. Susana Martinez’s legislative priorities on Saturday, this time a law that would have required all those arrested for felonies to have their DNA put into a crime database. The amending of the expansion of an already existing law, known was “Katie’s Law,” shows another rift between the governor’s desires and that of the state Senate.

The current law allows police to take DNA from all those arrested for violent felonies. A version of the legislation already passed in the House, which has not yet been heard by the Senate, would have extended this to those arrested for all felonies.

The Senate, however, amended the bill on the floor to require probable cause from the police in order to take DNA from potential felons. The second amendment to the bill by the Senate would expunge the arrest record of those found not guilty.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, said the Senate’s version of the legislation strengthens the law.

“Law enforcement officials will continue to utilize DNA technology in investigating felonies,” Sanchez said in a statement. “They will continue to have access to DNA evidence and will continue to convict those persons found guilty of the crimes for which the evidence supports a finding of guilt”

Martinez disagreed and called for a “clean” version of the legislation to pass.

“The bill passed by the Senate this evening would not only fail to give law enforcement expanded tools to catch and convict criminals, it would strip them of the tools provided by the original version of Katie’s Law that they have been using for years,” Martinez said. “A clean version of the bill that has already passed the House is absolutely necessary as we work to make New Mexico’s communities safer.”

Critics of Katie’s Law and similar laws across the country claim that it is in conflict with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Proponents of the law say it’s necessary and puts criminals behind bars.

As the Santa Fe New Mexican’s Steve Terrell wrote in a column Friday, before the Katie’s Law expansion hit the Senate floor, it is the latest bout in the long history of disagreement between the governor and the Senate — no matter who is governor.

Bad vibes. Veto threats. A counterpunch from a Senate leader, who says the governor is just playing politics.

Al-Qaeda Claims Responsibility for Airline Attack; Prosecutors Cancel Court Hearing

Daphne Eviatar — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:45:45 +0000

Prosecutors today unexpectedly canceled the first court hearing scheduled for the “underpants bomber” — the Nigerian man suspected of trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet en route to Detroit on Friday.

The Justice Department was expected to seek a warrant to take a DNA sample from Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,, who reportedly told the FBI that he was planning to set off an explosive on the plane, and had been trained by al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. He’s also said that more such attacks are planned. The criminal complaint against Abdulmutallab can be found here (PDF).

Interestingly, while the 23-year-old Nigerian says he’s associated with al-Qaeda, the Obama administration did not hesitate to treat him as a civilian criminal, rather than as an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” although arguably the attempt to blow up a civilian plane as a terrorist attack on U.S. soil could have been characterized as an act of war, as the 9/11 terror attacks were for years.

CNN reports today that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is claiming responsibility for the Christmas Day attack.

Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman, would not comment on the decision to charge Abdulmutallab in a civilian court, saying: “At this time, we have no comment on the ongoing investigation or any prosecutorial deliberations — beyond the public charging documents that have been filed in the case.”

Those public documents indicate that the Nigerian man was charged with attempting to destroy the aircraft. He’s been charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, along with the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

His arraignment was held in the hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan where he is now being treated. Instead of blowing up the plane, Abdulmutallab reportedly set only his crotch and legs and seat 19A of the aircraft on fire.

Why Justice Souter Will Be Missed

Daphne Eviatar — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:08:03 +0000

When the Supreme Court ruled last week in a controversial 5-4 decision that prisoners have no constitutional right to obtain available DNA evidence that could prove their innocence, retiring Justice David Souter wrote an eloquent dissent.

This excerpt below (I’ve omitted the citations) explains how the majority’s “conservatism” in this case became just a form of backwardness:

There is no denying that the Court is correct when it notes that a claim of right to DNA testing, post-trial at that, is a novel one, but that only reflects the relative novelty of testing DNA, and in any event is not a sufficient reason alone to reject the right asserted. Tradition is of course one serious consideration in judging whether a challenged rule or practice, or the failure to provide a new one, should be seen as violating the guarantee of substantive due process as being arbitrary, or as falling wholly outside the realm of reasonable governmental action. We recognize the value and lessons of continuity with the past, but as Justice Harlan pointed out, society finds reasons to modify some of its traditional practices, and the accumulation of new empirical knowledge can turn yesterday’s reasonable range of the government’s options into a due process anomaly over time.

It’s been said that Souter’s influence on the court has been limited because he doesn’t espouse grand theories or writing particularly memorable, quoteworthy passages. But that’s also been his strength, as it’s allowed him to convey clearly and simply what he believes the constitution requires, unclouded by the desire to impress or advance an ideological agenda.

Although these things are always hard to predict, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor would appear to be a similar sort of justice — not particularly ideological, not flashy, but careful and open to the notion that interpretations of the constitution must progress along with advances in science and ethical mores.

To be sure, she’s been criticized for having denied a prisoner, Mark Descovic, the right to test DNA evidence after he was wrongly convicted of rape and murder, simply because his lawyer’s request came four days late. Not the most “empathetic” ruling, but then, the jury already knew Descovic’s DNA didn’t match that of the semen found in the victim; he was convicted based on his apparently coerced confession. He was eventually freed in 2006.

That’s the sort of ruling that could disappoint liberals who might think that fairness ought to have taken precedence over finality. As I’ve noted, Sotomayor’s prosecutorial background sometimes makes her a stickler for following the letter of the law rather than its spirit.

Still, one would hope that she, or any new justice, would be prepared to balance the values of continuity with progress in much the same way that Souter did — or tried to — last week. To tip the balance on the court, however, that new justice will also have to be extraordinarily persuasive.

Ideology in Your DNA? Not Quite.

Aaron Wiener — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:16:55 +0000

A story today in the The Los Angeles Times on a study about biology and politics starts with: “Die-hard liberals and conservatives aren’t made; they’re born. It’s literally in their DNA.”

Intrigued, I called the study’s head researcher, Douglas Oxley of the University of Nebraska, to see if he agreed with this conclusion.

“In some ways [the study has] been misinterpreted,” said Oxley. He said that his study didn’t find a link between DNA and political leanings. “We could have things happen to us in the womb or later in life that could cause” physiological and ideological differences.

The study, released yesterday, tested the physiological responses of 46 participants to various threatening images, like bloody faces. It found that people who self-identified as “in favor of socially protective policies” responded much more strongly to the stimuli than people who held more liberal views on such issues as welfare, abortion, immigration, gay rights and school prayer.

The researchers concluded that people of different ideological persuasions have divergent physiological reactions, and that people with socially conservative views tend to be more shocked by potentially threatening stimuli.

“Some people have said that we’re calling conservatives ‘frightened’ or something along those lines,” Oxley said. “And we’re not. All we’re suggesting is that there’s a physiological difference between people who hold one set of political beliefs and people who hold another set of political beliefs.”

The study had its limitations — the sample size was small and all of the subjects were white Nebraskans — but it’s still a small step toward a greater understanding our ever-increasing ideological divide, even if the answer doesn’t lie in our genes.