More vaccine doubts

[Pippy]

I know we just went over this, but here is a strong paper about concerns with vaccine health. This isn't fear mongering, but legitimate, educated concern. I would like to see what you guys think about this angle. Thank you.

http://www.generationrescue.org/wakefiel...ment2.html
http://www.generationrescue.org/wakefiel...ment2.html

[Rev. Rye]

I'll keep this brief, since I'm about to go to bed soon. There is virtually no evidence to suggest that autism is in any way caused by environmental factors.

The fact is that, ever since the Lancet study, several followups have tried to look further into the link between vaccines and autism and found nothing. Here's the results of just one.

[Tiberius]

I know we just went over this, but here is a strong paper about concerns with vaccine health. This isn't fear mongering, but legitimate, educated concern. I would like to see what you guys think about this angle. Thank you.

http://www.generationrescue.org/wakefiel...ment2.html
http://www.generationrescue.org/wakefiel...ment2.html

I wasn't aware Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey had degrees in the subject. Oh wait...they don't. Knock it off Pippy...that was fear-mongering. If it was an educational piece, it would have referenced a new study showing the connection between vaccines and autism. Instead, it talked at length about a study involving primates and a completely different vaccine, the results of which have not been released yet, nor has the study gone through peer review, nor have the results been verified or repeated. This is science we are talking about. You don't just go along with whatever someone in a white lab coat says...you have to publish a study that can be tested repeatedly and come up with the same results.

All that report is, is an attempt to discredit the trial of Andrew Wakefield, who was found in violation of ethics laws earlier this year. They are running to the defence of the only study that supported their claims about vaccines, even though this study has been rejected by the scientific community, retracted from The Lancet, and numerous other follow-up studies failed to find the same connection that Wakefield claims he did.

The only "censorship" that happens in science is when someone writes a paper that has a number of falsehoods in it, and these falsehoods are revealed by further studies. There is no point continuing support of a paper that isn't scientifically true, so it is rejected by the scientific community. If anything, this is censorship of wrong information, which, when such information could lead to a lot of people's death, is a good thing imo.

[Pippy]

did you read the paper at the HERE hyperlink? It wasn't by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. In fact, the list of researchers is as follows:
Laura Hewitson a,c,*, Lisa A. Houser a, Carol Stott c, Gene Sackett b, Jaime L. Tomko a,
David Atwood d, Lisa Blue d, E. Railey White d, Andrew J. Wakefield c
a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States
b Washington National Primate Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States
c Thoughtful House Center for Children, Austin, TX 78746, United States
d Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, United States

Where are the film stars? Are the UofK and UofPittMed schools of quackery? I just thought this was an example of a concerned effort, not to scare people into not taking medication, but to try to figure out if there are any risks or unintended consequences from the medicines in question. And the point was well made that the average child in the States gets 36 vaccinations as an infant. 36. Is it possible that any of them are less than necessary? Or do the Drug companies only have our best interests in mind?

Thanks.
"I'll keep this brief, since I'm about to go to bed soon. There is virtually no evidence to suggest that autism is in any way caused by environmental factors."
Well it almost has to be caused by some environmental factor. Where does this one study as an example fall into the "virtually no evidence" paradigm? The "virtually" part?

[Tiberius]

Pippy, you put down two links to the same article. That article was written by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. Do not deny that.

I mentioned the paper in the article in my response. I said it hadn't been published yet, nor had it been peer-reviewed, nor had it been subjected to testing. I then said:

This is science we are talking about. You don't just go along with whatever someone in a white lab coat says...you have to publish a study that can be tested repeatedly and come up with the same results.

The facts are, Pippy, that there is currently no evidence to suggest that any vaccines have harmful effects on children. The current vaccines we administer (yes, all 36) are the result of years of efforts in studies to create safe ways of immunising people against disease. If there was an accurate study that was published and peer-reviewed that showed some of the vaccines were dangerous, steps would be taken to investigate further threats. However, as it stands currently, no such paper has been published.

The article hints that this latest paper of Dr Wakefield is going to be censored, but then provides absolutely no evidence to suggest this. All it does is go on about how he was tried and found guilty of ethics violations, and then calls the court that convicted him a "kangaroo court". Well, I don't care to speculate upon that, but did you read about the kinds of things he did? Paying children at his son's 5th birthday party £5 in return for a blood sample? What on earth was he thinking?!?

All Dr Wakefield has shown is that he doesn't know how to perform a basic fair trial in science, and anything else he publishes should be scrutinised and tested in a rigorous manner that is expected of all scientific studies.

As for mentioning the UofK and UofPittMed, you might be interested to know that 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors of his original paper issued a retraction one they realised that their data was inconclusive, and the paper should not have been published. They were from top universities as well. People make mistakes; the honest ones correct them.

Like I've said, I have no problems if this new paper is peer-reviewed, tested, and verified. What I have a problem with is people like yourself and Jenny McCarthy jumping the gun and claiming some sort of victory when nothing has even been published yet.

[Rev. Rye]

And for that matter, it's unlikely that thimerosal in vaccines is causing autism for the following reason: the level of thimerosal in vaccines (in the ones in which it is used) is roughly .1 mg. The lowest lethal dose for thimerosal is 60 mg/kg. To put this into proportion, a lethal dose in a newborn is about 204 mg. This basically means that it would have to take 2040 vaccines to kill a newborn (naturally, the number needed only increases with age). So, even if all 36 vaccines are given immediately after being born, that's still less than 2% of the lethal dose.

And for that matter, thiomerosal isn't even used in all vaccines, and for that matter, it seems that the only reason that it is even still used is that there aren't that many other options for safer preservatives that are easily mass-produced yet.

[Pippy]

That's fucked, I didn't see that part telling me the first article was written by friggin movie stars. Oh well, I stand by the fact the it seems to be a strong study about the neurotoxicity of modern vaccines, and maybe of thimerisol of heavy metal based adjuvants.

"We were unable to identify pre-clinical or prospective neurotoxicity studies that assessed the
safety of this policy."

Where are the studies that the FDA and other watchdogs had to require before approving these vaccines? Why could these doctors not find the saftey testing that should have existed before this idea (of heavy metal laced vaccines to improve shelf life) was ever approved? Did they do any neurotoxicity tests, and these doctors can't find it? Was it misplaced?

I am not sold on Thimerisol either. I know that most people have the ability to leech heavy metals out (through the tubes of our hair, seriously) and so may be able to remove thimerisol from their own selves. But there are people who are unable to do this well enough, and they are the ones who react badly to 36 vaccines and get early stage heavy metal poisoning, which is a large portion of the so called "autism spectrum" problem. The question is whether or not using mercury based adjuvants is the best option for the makers. Is there a way we can administer Vaccines that poses no risk of neurotoxic effect? Or even a significantly reduced risk? Can these companies be taken to task if we feel that they have made a shoddy and poor quality product that may have saftey concerns if forced on children?

I just like to question things, but you guys please feel free to trust blindly. Thank you.

[theVOID]

That's fucked, I didn't see that part telling me the first article was written by friggin movie stars. Oh well, I stand by the fact the it seems to be a strong study about the neurotoxicity of modern vaccines, and maybe of thimerisol of heavy metal based adjuvants.

"We were unable to identify pre-clinical or prospective neurotoxicity studies that assessed the
safety of this policy."

The Wakefield MMR paper is a benchmark for bullshit agenda-driven science.

1) He lied about the source of the patients in the study, he had claimed that they were routine clinical referrals but they were pre-screened and selected by him because they were statistically rare cases supporting his agenda - No clinical trials dealing with the efficacy of medicine and it' potential harms EVER does this.

2) The 12 Children were bizarrely given several totally irrelevant invasive procedures throughout the study, such as colonoscopies, lumbar punctures and meals laced with radioactive Barium.

3) He never submitted his methodology and research goals to the ethical standards board, there was no scrutiny of his standards, this allowed him to essentially experiment on children for his own interests.

4) The only results he managed to produce in the end were anecdotes, there was no demonstrable link what-so-ever to support the idea that vaccines were related to autism. A sample size of 12 patients pre-selected because of their confirming anecdotes prior to the study is not even close to a good methodology.

5) Most of the collaborators to the study withdrew their support after they discovered the disgraceful and very intentional methodological bias. They did not support the conclusions.

6) The study was never peer reviewed and all evaluations of the study done after it was published dismissed it as flawed and inaccurate

7) Every study conducted since into the link between Vaccines and Autism has concluded that there is absolutely no relationship. These studies are all methodologically sound and used sample sizes of hundreds of people as opposed to 12 specifically selected ones.

Where are the studies that the FDA and other watchdogs had to require before approving these vaccines? Why could these doctors not find the saftey testing that should have existed before this idea (of heavy metal laced vaccines to improve shelf life) was ever approved? Did they do any neurotoxicity tests, and these doctors can't find it? Was it misplaced?

Sources?

I am not sold on Thimerisol either. I know that most people have the ability to leech heavy metals out (through the tubes of our hair, seriously) and so may be able to remove thimerisol from their own selves. But there are people who are unable to do this well enough, and they are the ones who react badly to 36 vaccines and get early stage heavy metal poisoning, which is a large portion of the so called "autism spectrum" problem. The question is whether or not using mercury based adjuvants is the best option for the makers. Is there a way we can administer Vaccines that poses no risk of neurotoxic effect? Or even a significantly reduced risk? Can these companies be taken to task if we feel that they have made a shoddy and poor quality product that may have saftey concerns if forced on children?

You ingest more heavy metals from a fresh salmon than all 36 vaccines combined.

Also, heavy metal poisoning has NOTHING to do with Autism. Autism is a genetically based neurological disease, you can inject any fucking thing you can think of into your body and i will guarantee that you will NEVER develop autism.

I just like to question things, but you guys please feel free to trust blindly. Thank you.

You're saying WE trust blindly yet you are the one linking to an article by Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy just because it confirms your presuppositions? You didn't even check who wrote the article, what does that say about the effort you put into verifying your positions? Not only that but you linked to one of the most widely discredited studies in medical history, the single most discredited one in terms of vaccines.

You might ask a lot of questions, but it is becoming more and more obvious that you aren't actually interested in the answers, you just want to cherry pick what backs up your existing ideas.

[Rev. Rye]

And here's the results of another study which illustrates my point that there is a very heavy genetic contribution which almost certainly is more important to the onset of Autism than any amount of Thimerosal.

The study, which gathered information from 277 twin pairs in which at least one had an autistic disorder, found that when one identical twin developed an autistic disorder, the other one also did 88 percent of the time.

That compared with 31 percent among fraternal twins. Unlike identical twins, fraternal twins are no more genetically similar than non-twin siblings.

What's more, researchers found, identical twins also had greater similarities in the form of autism that they developed, their level of day-to-day functioning and the risk of intellectual impairment.

The findings, reported in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, confirm the importance of genes in autism development.

Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) include several developmental brain disorders that hinder a person's ability to communicate and interact socially. ASDs range from the more-severe cases of "classic" autism to Asperger's syndrome -- where a person has normal intelligence and verbal skills, but difficulty socializing and understanding subtler forms of communication, like body language and vocal tone.

"Autism research has been guided by one important observation for the past several decades - that autism has a large genetic component," Dr. Paul Law, of the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore, told Reuters Health in an email. "That observation was made through twin studies."

This new study confirms those findings using a much larger sample of twins, according to Law. The data come from an online registry called the Interactive Autism Network, which Kennedy Krieger set up two years ago to connect parents of children with autism with researchers.

Of the twin pairs in the current study, 67 were identical and 210 were fraternal. Among identical twins, all females had been diagnosed with an ASD, whereas the "concordance" was 86 percent among males.

The pattern was different among fraternal twins. Among pairs in which at least one was female, when one sibling developed an ASD, the other did 20 percent of the time. That figure was 40 percent when both twins were male.

The findings also go beyond confirming concordance in identical twins' odds of developing an ASD, Law pointed out.

"We show that important characteristics of ASD, such as the type of ASD, level of functioning and presence of other psychiatric disorders are more similar...among identical twins," he said. "Thus not only are they more concordant overall, but the pattern of their disease is more concordant."

The researchers also found that among identical twins, the second sibling was unlikely to be diagnosed with an ASD once a year had passed since the first sibling's diagnosis.

"Basically," Law said, "our data suggests that parents of identical twins can stop worrying after about 12 months have passed since the diagnosis of their first twin."

In contrast, he said, fraternal twins still seem to have "some degree of risk" as much as four years after the first twin is diagnosed.

While experts generally agree that genetics plays a major role in autism spectrum disorders, they also believe that environmental factors conspire with genes to make certain children vulnerable. Researchers are still trying to figure out what those environmental factors are.

SOURCE: Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, October 2009.

And I took some further research, and I found that of all the routine vaccinations the average child goes through before the age of six, only inactivated influenza vaccines even contain that .1 mg of thimerosal.

But don't take my word for it, look into the what the FDA says about it.

I just like to question things, but you guys please feel free to trust blindly. Thank you.

We ask questions, too, but when we do so, we actually listen, as opposed to latching on to the first hopeful thing we hear, as in the case of Jenny and Jim above.

[Pippy]

Hey,

The Wakefield MMR paper is a benchmark for bullshit agenda-driven science.

Oh. I did not realize when i stumbled onto it that this was the famous Lancet case... I realize now the incredulity, and double face palms I incurred. I apologize for sticking my foot in my mouth, and thank you for taking the time to show me how to remove it lest I star chewing...

You ingest more heavy metals from a fresh salmon than all 36 vaccines combined.

But let us not split hairs. I have already argued with you before about my problems with the pollution issue, and I tend to think these salmon do not naturally produce heavy metals in the levels they now carry. The fact that the salmon is neurotoxic does not make the vaccines safe or unsafe, it is kind of a red herring... get it?

Also, heavy metal poisoning has NOTHING to do with Autism. Autism is a genetically based neurological disease, you can inject any fucking thing you can think of into your body and i will guarantee that you will NEVER develop autism.

Oh, I also am fully aware of that. It is that some suspect that the landslide endemic of children getting disorders in the so-called "autism spectrum" (including Aspergers, which is troubling but not disabling) may be misdiagnoses of heavy metal poisoning, or some other early stage neurotoxic reaction to some part of the medical regimen. I know they don't literally develop autism from anything beside genetics and chance mutation. But the Thimerisol and autism argument is a small part of a lrger argument about vaccine saftey and health concerns. If it turns out that Thimerisol does have no effect, than we must keep trying to find what is causing these problems. We are not Luddites trying to scare people into not taking medicine, but active citizens asking questions and concerned for our own saftey...

So I acknowledge that heavy metal poisoning doesn't give you autism, but that I still have concerns with seeming cost-cutting in the name of profit over maximum efficacy and saftey...

Not only that but you linked to one of the most widely discredited studies in medical history, the single most discredited one in terms of vaccines.

You might ask a lot of questions, but it is becoming more and more obvious that you aren't actually interested in the answers, you just want to cherry pick what backs up your existing ideas.

I again apologize, and am red faced. I kind of wish I hadn't done that, but hey water under the bridge... I certainly am interested in answers, and I have to defend myself form your accusations. I never said "Here is what two silly film stars (shudder) have to say, see I'm right, I'm right". I said ""Here is something, what do you guys think?" The response: That is the famous discredited report. Oh. Shit. Thanks for pointing that out. I am not latching on to anything, and realize that I should cast scorn at the news site that put that up there. You guys were kind enough to point out my glaring error, and I think you for it and learn from it. I assure you that if I modify reality to fit my head, it is only accidentally and as all humans must inevitably. But I try my very best to see things as they are. Thank you for taking the time.

The Thimerisol/Autism thing may even be distractionary, that people with legitimate concern and worry about the actions of modern Pharma Corps, and the health consequences will get caught up in it. It would not be the first time such strong disinformation has been cast.

Thanks again, and again I apologize for wasting all of ours time.