Skip to content

Proud parents of unvaccinated children have a tenuous grip on reality

September 7, 2011

This is an actual conversation going on right now over on Facebook, at the Proud Parents of Unvaccinated Children group.

My Father mentioned last night that there’s a whooping cough outbreak in WA. I couldn’t find any current info on this. Is it true? I said yeah and probably most the kids were vaccinated for it. He said two kids that died were not vaccinated. I almost started second guessing my decision to not vaccinate. I have a partially vaxxed 3 yr old & a 5 month old I breastfeed. I do worry bout the youngest getting something his little body can’t handle. Any advice or input?

In response to this woman, who seems to be waking out of a stupor in the face of a pertussis epidemic, the anti-vaxers come out from under their rocks to encourage her to avoid vaccination at all costs! Some choice posts:

Argentina Coy I sometimes wonder if this is something that breastfeeding would keep away…. Either way, I think the ingredients in vaccines are things baby’s bodies can’t handle. Adult bodies either, but new bodies are, well, new! I say keep nursing nursing nursing :D

Start crying for me, Argentina. You say nurse, I say cocoon your infant by having your entire family vaccinated, and keep her safe from this deadly disease. I’m sure your breasts are fantastic but they are not superheroes who can save your child from rampant disease. I like the smiley at the end of the sentence though; it adds just the right gravitas to your post. Next up, we have Jennifer, who thinks that only the weak die of pertussis.

Jennifer Steelsmith im in WA too, i wonder if those kids had underlying problems or other health issues as well..sometimes the media like to leave that part out.. im interested in knowing the TRUTH…bleh

Well Jennifer, the TRUTH is that  until very recently, Washington had the highest vaccination exemption rates in the United States due to shamefully lax laws. Studies have shown that the easier it is to get a vaccine exemption, the more likely it is that pertussis will soon be raging through a neighborhood near you.  Fortunately for the health of the entire Pacific Northwest, your governor just blew that shit up by signing a new law that will require you to see a real physician who will give you real information about how safe and effective vaccines are. You can read about the phenomenon of personal belief exemptions and the disease outbreaks they cause in that fishwrap we scientists like to call the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA  (Omer et al., October 11, 2006, vol. 296, pp.1757-1763).

Next on the menu, one Katherine Tomsich turns the crazy up to 11.

Katherine Tomsich I doubt that there were two kids who died, never mind that they were clean of vaccines. This sounds like a fake story- but of course it is possible. Since the vaccine doesn’t protect from disease,there will be more vaccinated kids falling ill and even dying than unvaccinated- if only because most kids get the shot. Everyone who contemplates vaccinating or compelling others to do so should read up and realize that ALL diseases vaccinated against were on the decline before mass vaccinations were mandated.

I know, I know reader. I look exactly the same as you do right now:

Ahh, yes, Katherine brings us that oft-quoted chestnut about how these diseases would have gone away anyway if we all just washed our damned hands! Why is it then that after controlling for other factors, it’s the unvaccinated who drop like flies when a disease does rear its ugly head?  Check out another article in JAMA if you want to know how effective vaccines are (Feikin DR et al., December 27, 2000, volume 284, pp. 3145-50) I know, I know, you cannot BELIEVE your eyes, so here is the link:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Proud-Parents-Of-Unvaccinated-Children/302370145808

If I see any more insanity, I will be sure to share it with you, my lonely reader. Until next time…

From → Uncategorized

273 Comments
  1. rosebud permalink

    Smart one, the vaccine does not protect you from getting, or passing pertussis around. Try to actually research before condemning those who do. If it actually stopped the spread you would have a valid point. As it does not, neither do you.
    All the vaccine does is to reduce your symptoms. So, you guessed it, people go mis or undiagnosed. Which makes them MORE likely to spread it…. To the infants it can be deadly to.
    Not saying no one should get the shot though – unlike you, I am in favor of people making educated decisions and having options. For some children, such as who have low immune systems or parents in a medical field like a hospital, it’s a good choice.

    • Rosebud, please provide data showing that the pertussis vaccine does not protect you from getting pertussis. And please review this paper, which clearly demonstrates an increased risk of pertussis in vaccine refusers.

      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.full

      • For treatment efficacy there has to be a placebo control group and a clinical endpoint. is there any such study for a pertussis vaccine? I didn’t see it. Case-control studies are not scientific evidence, my friend.

        Also, the case study you provide is diagnosing pertussis “infection” by serology alone, ot clinical pictures. The presence or lack of symptoms is immaterial for the authors, but for children it’s the exact opposite: if they have the bug but not the disease it means they are in health, but if the bug is lacking but they have “pertussis-like” disease – such as an allergic reaction to the vaccine – then they are ill..

        So in the end the authors are bypassing clinical reality and looking only at the evidecnce that best suits their views, not the presence or absence of health as should be.

        • Case-control studies are not scientific evidence? Wow, that’s a new one. Please explain why you think this is so. And you seem to be indicating that the authors somehow gamed the results of the study by incorrectly diagnosing pertussis, which is an outrageous assertion, and wholly false to boot.

        • Ti might be new to you, but case studies are not repeatable – a requirement for science – and have no in-built mechanism for bias removal.

          B. pertussis is a bug capable of subclinical infections in a large part of the population:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subclinical_infection#List_of_subclinical_infections

          this means its mere presence is not a diagnosis of pertussis. A patient sublcinically infected with B. pertussis my present pertussis like symptoms caused of a different etiology, such as vaccine allergy
          ( coughing, sneezing and wheezing, see http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/dc/Immunization/immunmanual/sec04.pdf )
          and therfore be wrongly diagnosed as pertussis for relying upon the serology too much.

          Life is not white and black, as vaccine supporters like to believe.

        • Could you please focus on a single point for more than one minute? You are now performing the classic “moving the goalposts” maneuver of anti-vaxxers when one your points is found to be invalid. A case-control study is not a case study. Case-control studies are most certainly repeatable, unless your requirements for replication of a study are that the population of the second study must be the exact one as the first study.

      • InformedChoice permalink

        CDC data shows 84 percent of children under the age of three have received at least FOUR DTaP shots—which is the acellular pertussis vaccine that was approved in the United States in 1996—yet, despite this high vaccination rate, whooping cough still keeps circulating among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. More likely than not, the vaccine provides very little if any protection. Here’s the source of this info: [crappy, uninformative link to Mercola’s website snipped by admin].

        • Informed Choice, have you ever heard of the phrase “Consider the source?”

        • Sadly, I am nearly certain that IC considers Mercola to be an excellent source.

        • feebletinker permalink

          Oh good, Mercola. Definitely an unbiased and scientific source….oh wait….

        • Exactly. Why people worship at the altar of Mercola is beyond me.

        • Informed Choice, I do not allow links to sites that peddle dangerous misinformation to be posted here. Mercola’s site fits that criterion. Now, if you can cough up some peer-reviewed scientific articles demonstrating that “the vaccine provides very little if any protection”, you are welcome to direct our attention towards that. Thanks.

      • Bryan permalink

        “The increase in pertussis incidence was higher among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons of all ages. This resulted in lower estimates of vaccine effectiveness. The proportion of pertussis infections resulting in recognizable symptoms may have increased among vaccinated persons because of a mismatch of the vaccine strain and circulating Bordetella pertussis strains.” (Emerg Infect Dis. 2000; PUBMED ID# 10905967)

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10905967

        So the pertussis vaccine was associated with MORE pertussis outbreaks.

        “In Lithuania, the vaccination coverage against pertussis is high. Nevertheless, there is a significant increase in pertussis cases in fully immunized children.”

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15918913

        “Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants…..even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitter of infection”

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/pdf/10998384.pdf

        “acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.”

        http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis

        • I have already addressed pertussis vaccination at this blog, in detail. I and many others have discussed its limitations, and its benefits. You, on the other hand, have cherry-picked literature that supports your point, and I am sure you are unable to admit to any benefit of pertussis vaccination at all. Cognitive dissonance. Dishonesty. Again.

          Anyway, I’ve asked again that you put your cards on the table and share with the group the name of a disease that you think is caused by vaccination. Otherwise, your time here is over. Others have taken time to address your every post and statement, but your response is to rudely ignore those responses and move on to something else. Again, it’s dishonest. I’m tired of these tactics, and as such your time here is running out.

  2. Terri Lewis permalink

    Skeweddistribution,

    Please provide data–from a reliable source–that shows pertussis vaccine protects against pertussis. Also, please, provide data showing that pertussis symptoms in a vaccinated person are *not* diagnosed as something else. (They often are.) The source you cite is not reliable.

    • Here are some references for you demonstrating that vaccinations protect against pertussis. If you would like to make a claim that any of the papers linked here are not from a reliable source, then I would like you to detail why you believe that to be the case. I would also like you to provide evidence, from RELIABLE sources, that pertussis vaccines do not protect against pertussis. If you fail to do so, this conversation is over.

      Feikin DR, Lezotte DC, Hamman RF, et al. Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2000;284(24):3145-50.

      Omer, S.B., et al., Geographic clustering of nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements and associations with geographic clustering of pertussis. Am J Epidemiol, 2008. 168(12): p. 1389-96.

      Omer, S.B., et al., Nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements: secular trends and association of state policies with pertussis incidence. Jama, 2006. 296(14): p. 1757-63.

      • anautismdad permalink

        If you want to convince the antivaxxers about the truth of vaccinations and the effectiveness thereof, then the journal articles you cite are ineffective. They are scientific and rational and peer-reviewed – all things which are anathema who base their evidence on illogic. You need to cite eminent journals like the Journal of Little Green Men and Studies in Bullshitology. They would accept those.

        • True, true. Maybe mix in The Journal of Irreproducible Results and we’ll have a convincing trifecta for the tinfoil-hat wearing anti-vaxxer.

        • Diane Denizen permalink

          Frankly you are insane, you people who think injecting mercury, aluminium, industrial squaline, tween 80 et al, is a safe medically indicated practice. You make me sick! I have tried to unsubscibe from this site but I’m still getting updates from you sick ignorant people who have no grasp of cause and effect. Please unsub me now, this is a Lawful notification, I suggest you act on it!

        • Only you can unsubscribe, darlin’. So before you ring your solicitor, I strongly recommend that you mosey on over to the help page and follow the instructions, and good luck with that.

        • Actually you only need the highest standards of scientific evidence, like placebo controls, randomization and real clinical endpoints rather than surrogates.

          All of this is sorely lacking in the field of vaccines, where biologically active excipient solutions are often passed as “placebos” to make the product look good.

        • Vaccines do go through randomized, placebo-controlled testing. And case-control studies are a reliable way to investigate rare disease outcomes, which for now is true of most VPDs.

        • Show us the best study you can get and let’s see if it holds water. undocumented claims are worthless.

          Case studies are not repeatable – a requirement for science – for obvious reasons. Please don’t call them scientific evidence, they’re not. They’re just statistics yet to be clarified.

        • Um, what? A case study is not a case-control study. And again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. You ask for the “best study”. To which I reply:

          1. The best study of what, exactly? The imaginary single study that shows that all vaccines are safe and effective?
          2. Scientists are required to be able to collate information from published studies, rank it according to quality, and weigh the collective results. This is where your ilk goes horribly wrong. You can’t do it. If you could, you would understand the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

        • Find my answer on case-control studies up above.

          1. “…The best study of what, exactly?…”

          of a randomized placebo-controlled vaccine study, of course.

          2. “…Scientists are required to be able to collate information from published studies…”

          Bla bla bla… science is a method, and a case-control is not scientific method to obtain indisputable evidence because it can’t exclude confounders.

          Again:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case%E2%80%93control_study

          “..Case-control studies are observational in nature and thus do not provide the same level of evidence as randomized controlled trials.

          The results may be confounded by other factors, to the extent of giving the opposite answer to better studies…”

          They can prove the exact opposite of what is happening… now that opens mind-boggling possibilities to the business of vaccines, doesn’t it?

        • Tell me, putin, do you believe that smoking causes lung cancer? If you cannot answer the question, I’m afraid this is your last post. Sorry.

          I explained clearly that scientists must rank the quality of studies in forming opinions about any subject. Just because YOU have decided that case-control studies provide no information does not make your opinion valid. In fact, your lack of understanding of these studies is exemplifed by the observation that you can’t even get the name right. In your world, a case study is a case-control study. You could not possibly give a stronger indication that you don’t understand epidemiology.

      • Let’s take a quick look at the first piece of “evidence” you cite: Feikin DR, Lezotte DC, Hamman RF, et al.

        On page 3146 under the heading “Assessment of Individual Risk” the diagnostic and reporting procedures are described. It is disclosed that the CDC only reports lab confirmed measles cases, and that report forms included information on the child’s vaccination status.

        So the diagnostic was not “blinded” since the vaccination status was known, which can bias the diagnoses by the ingrained belief that vaccinated kids cannot get measles. Avoiding this kined of belief distortions is why blinded studies were invented in the first place.

        Another vaccine sttudy riddled with biases and flaws proving what the authors want it to prove.

        • Okay, so you are saying that the CDC purposely manipulated data to make it appear that all of the measles cases were not vaccinated? Is that where you are going to hang your hat? Because if it is, you are operating at a level of insanity that cannot be overcome. I might add that it is pretty difficult to collect data on vaccination status of measles cases in a blinded fashion. You seem to have some fundamental problems with understanding how scientific studies are actually performed.

        • “…You are operating at a level of insanity that cannot be overcome..”

          The diagnosis changes are a documentally provable fact. The definition of measles has changed through the years, which obvioiusly affects the incidence without any medical intervention needed. Your rant is isulting and worthless.

          “…I might add that it is pretty difficult to collect data on vaccination status of measles cases in a blinded fashion…”

          Duh! that’s why placebo controlled randomizeed studies have to be carried out, not prospective junk science.

        • Tell me, Putin, do you believe that smoking causes lung cancer?

        • I belive vaccine studies compare Marlboro to Marihuana and Pipe tobacco in order to prove cigarettes prevent lung cancer.

          Just pick up any vaccine “placebo” contol and see what it is made of.

        • Tell me, Putin, do yo believe that smoking causes lung cancer?

        • I’m not at all surprised that Putin ran away. If my reader is wondering why I asked Putin about smoking and lung cancer, the reason is that we know that smoking causes lung cancer is largely because of case-control studies. Putin claims case-control studies do not provide any scientific information. Putin was backed into a corner. Putin fled.

        • If the evidence of smoking causing cancer is case-contol studies, look up the rank of such studies in the Hierarchy of evidence before you claim to “know”.

          You’re attributing 5th-rank evidence what only belongs to 1st rank.

          With such faulty thinking no wonder you advocate vaccines, and you migh advocate homeopathy as well.

        • This is absolutely hilarious. You claim that the ONLY type of study that counts is a placebo-controlled randomized trial.

          1. Do you or do you not think that smoking causes lung cancer?
          2. Please fetch the randomized, placebo-controlled trial that demonstrates this link.

          Last chance. You may either address these two points or you are done here. Unlike yourself, I understand how to rank the literature. A well-conducted case-control study can provide scientific evidence and move the field forward. You, on the other hand, misinterpreted a wiki page, sans any understanding of epidemiology at all, and claimed that they offer no useful information. Thanks for stopping by; I doubt I will see you again as this is the fourth time I’ve asked you a question that a toddler could answer and you refuse to do so.

        • “..1. Do you or do you not think that smoking causes lung cancer?..”

          1. That’s a red herring.

          2. I never tooked at the evidence so I just respond to your claims.

          3. Your claim is: “we know that smoking causes lung cancer is largely because of case-control studies”

          4. Via case-controlled studies you can’t claim “knowledge” because the level of evidence they provide ranks too low:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence

          1.Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
          2.Randomised controlled trials with definitive results
          3.Randomised controlled trials with non-definitive results
          4.Cohort studies
          5.Case-control studies
          6.Cross sectional surveys
          7.Case reports.”

          And their reliability is just ridiculous:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case%E2%80%93control_study

          “The results may be confounded by other factors, to the extent of giving the opposite answer to better studies”

          So you can’t turn the Hierarchy of evidence upside down and pretend to be taken seriously.

          “… 2. Please fetch the randomized, placebo-controlled trial that demonstrates this link…”

          I never claimed there weren’t, you did. Red herring!

        • Sorry, Putin, you’re done here for your refusal to answer a simple question. If my question were a “red herring”, as you claimed, then I should think that you would have had no hesitation in answering the question. But you won’t, because you know that it undermines whatever “point” you were attempting to make. Your claim was that case-control studies cannot be counted as reliable. You also claimed that the only way to obtain reliable scientific information is via randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Epidemiologists around the world disagree with you. We know how to rank studies by their worth. You do not, as exemplified by your constant referral to case-control studies as “case studies”, the latter of which are indeed the lowest on the evidence ladder and despite my repeated corrections.

          In addition, for reasons clear only to you, you seem to indicate that I would give case-control studies the highest priority scientifically. They are ONE piece of information. They are the FOUNDATION of why we now know that smoking causes lung cancer, upon which later studies were built. You dismiss case/control studies of vaccines because you posit that they provide no useful information. I provided you with a direct refutation of your “argument”; an example of how case/control studies have given very good evidence in the past. This you call a “red herring”, because you suffer from impenetrable cognitive dissonance. In addition, despite the fact that everyone on the planet other than you and Phillip Morris understands that smoking causes lung cancer, there has never been a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to study this. And yet, people with an understanding of science accept that smoking causes lunch cancer. Period.

          Go back to your anti-vax echo chamber, where you can get away with acting like you understand study designs, because it’s not going to fly here.

  3. J. Barrios permalink

    Ummm… [crappy spammy link deleted]

    • J. Barrios, if you are incapable of writing a comment in your own words that reflects your own thoughts, you may return to whatever anti-vax cave from whence you came.

  4. Todd permalink

    to rosebud and Terry Lewis:
    Skeweddistribution is right, these ARE peer-reviewed resources. These ARE scientific. These are the closest thing to proof that mankind has. Period. You have done nothing except refute knowledge. You have refuted science methods as well. Peer-reviewed articles all say the same thing–vaccinate, and lets work on improving the delivery mechanism to reduce the side-effects.
    We have every intellectual resource at our disposal simply because what we believe is, in fact, accurately demonstrated in reality–a place you don’t seem to fond of.
    You believe in mythology, and that is all. We believe in fact. We have sources, you have your own words. We have professionals who have dedicated their time, money, and lives to the betterment of mankind. You have your prejudices and beliefs. May the goddess demeter bless you, and may social services remove your kids from your house before your primeval beliefs kill them, give viral infections a greater opportunity to mutate inside of them, and in so doing remove existing vaccine’s effectiveness in our kids.
    You people suck, you really do. You’re making life needlessly hard for yourself, opening up your lives to tragedy, and giving diseases a better chance to screw over mankind. Either change your beliefs, or stop having kids. You’ve done enough damage already.

  5. Admin edit: Amber Welch acknowledges that the comment that was left here was, in fact, from her personal account. However, she now claims that someone had “unauthorized” access to her account and that the content of this post was “untrue”. She has requested that comment be removed, and I will honor that request, as it seems that there are some serious problems in this family and I do not particularly want to have anything to do with that. However, several comments received since Amber originally commented have demonstrated that:

    1. Amber is, in fact, the sister of the PPUC pageowner.
    2. The PPUC pageowner does, in fact, use the page to solicit funds for her personal use, as confirmed by the pageowner herself at this very blog, as well as by several of her followers.

    I have saved Amber’s original comment lest there ever be questions regarding what was written.

    • Thanks for stopping by, Amber. I had no idea any of these things were going on over there; I just object to the misinformation and lies that are posted there on a daily basis. This is particularly true because there is no opportunity to correct it. Anyone who tries is banned on sight.

      I’m sorry to say that websites such as PPUC do, in fact, spread information that hurts others.

      • Amber permalink

        Can you please remove this comment? My Twitter account was accessed by someone without my permision, so I deleted it. Can you please remove this untrue comment? I tried to contact you by tweeting @ your name on Twitter with my new account.

        • I will consider modifying your comment. Which specific things that you wrote do you now claim are untrue?

        • Amber permalink

          The entire comment is untrue. Whoever posted it was untruthful from the onset because it was posted without my consent or knowledge. It was posted by someone who had unauthorized access to my account, and because of this, I had to delete that whole account.

        • Gotta be honest here. I’m not sure I believe you about the hacking issue. However, I will delete the comment because your family seems to have enough problems without dragging your drama over here.

    • YoMama permalink

      I can not believe you would say such things about your own sister. WTH is wrong with you. 1. Freedom of Speech. 2. Who gives a crap who gives her money? She is not asking for it for the Organization and is illegally using it. I think she has made it perfectly clear what it is for. 3. How about get your nose out of the computer for a minute and talk to your sister instead of running to the internet to talk behind her back.

      • She explained why quite clearly. If you you are happy with the page owner of Proud Parents of Unvaccinated Children using the site to make money, then good for you. Others may not be so understanding about paying her bills for her. So while the PPUC page owner is free to enjoy her freedom of speech, others, including her sister, are allowed to point out that she uses the page as a moneymaking scheme. Freedom of speech cuts both ways, and frankly it is nothing short of disgusting to use a page that harms the health of the public to make money.

        But I guess no one should be surprised, really. After all, the page owner uses dishonesty in other ways. She has no scientific background and knows nothing at all about vaccinations. It is a little odd that she runs an anti-vax page when she is one of the least knowledgeable ant-vaxxers out there. Further, she is completely dishonest in her methods. She bans anyone who politely asks questions or makes comments supportive of vaccination. That is completely unethical–and dangerous.

    • Astrid permalink

      This needs to be taken down, this is slanderous . This is untrue. Amber you have shown your true colors.. Your sister does more for mass amounts of people then you WILL EVER do! This is not a new fad , people have lived thousands of years without vaccines, Talk to your grandparents about how many vaccines they have had.. vs. the natural disease they have had and have natural immunity. Do you realize this is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

      • Darlin, it ain’t slander if it is true…and I think you are falsely accusing me if libel, not slander. Even one of her followers admitted right here that she uses the page to make money. Sorry, try again.

        In the mean time, you may want to consider this brain-teaser. You say that people should ask their grandparents about the now-vaccine preventable diseases that they survived. How many people do you suppose can tell you about the now-preventable childhood diseases that their grandparents died from?

    • I’ve always found PPUC very suspicious, especially given the frequency with which the admin(s) ask for money. Thanks for sharing this, Amber.

    • PPOUC Owner and Founder permalink

      this is not acceptable, I WILL be making a complaint with wordpress, and talking to my lawyer tomorrow.. We requested that the comment that is slanderous and untrue be deleted. You have no complied. I will take LEGAL action .

      • Personally, I see nothing in your sister’s original post that has not been confirmed by you at this page as well as at the PPUC page. However, after some consideration I will modify the comment. I hope you and your sister can sort out your differences now, preferably somewhere else. Goodbye.

      • Feeble Tinker permalink

        Hey how’s that “LEGAL action” going?

        Be honest- your lawyer laughed you out of the office, right?

        • It’s been strangely silent on the attorney front around here. Maybe PPOUC pageowner decided just to sue the person who wrote the post–her sister, Amber. Of course, there is the tiny problem of trying to sue for defamation when the self-proclaimed victim herself arrived on the scene and confirmed everything that was said in the allegedly libelous post. That is one of the reasons I didn’t mind deleting it per Amber’s request. I have a boatload of comments here that conveniently reiterate the original information.

  6. Diane Denizen permalink

    I am amazed at the level of ignorance regarding ‘vaccination’. Vaccines do not do what it says on the box, indeed the only result of the majority of vaccines is actually a wrecked immune system and neurological damage. I have researched this for three years. The rise in vaccine ‘implementation’ has seen a similar rise in all sorts of illness. It is known and documented that in the 1950s cancer cells were deliberately added to vaccines of that time to cause the cancer explosion we have now in the people in my own age group. Why? It is good for business, the vaccine companies also either make or have an interest in the companies that make chemo-therapy products, its about money and it is cruel and immoral. When I was a child cancer was a rare and nasty disease and was almost non-existent in young children, however, now it is endemic. The people who still stupidly think vaccines offer ANY benefit should grow up, put down the diet soda and go back to a good college and learn research skills, then may be they would stop spouting such ‘repeated meme’ nonsense!

    • Please provide scientific evidence to back up one…just ONE…of your statements. If you fail to do so, the above is your last comment here.

      You assert, for instance, that vaccines are to blame for “all sorts of illnesses”. I will make this simple for you. Show me a paper that demonstrates that vaccines cause any illness.

      To make a claim that companies are purposely giving people cancer so that those people are forced to use chemotherapy is nothing short of disgusting. Do you know a single person who does vaccine or cancer research? I am guessing not.

      You are quite right that certain people need a better education. Those people are vaccine-refusing, conspiracy-minded, science-hating, ignorant (yet overconfident), lie-spreading bottom feeders.

      • Diane Denizen permalink

        Frankly I don’t care if you wish to listen, I have done the research and it is sound, take it or leave it! Russel Blaylock is a good source. I don’t indulge ‘conspiracy theory’ myself, I deal in facts. If you accept vaccine company’s propaganda, that is OK, unlike you I am not an uneducated zealot. You see I have no investment in anything, I’m just explaining what I KNOW. Take or leave it, it is nothing to me. Take the vaccine if you think it is good for you, its OK, all that thimerasal and aluminium and in some ‘tween 80′, its OK, your choice.

        • Just as I figured. No science. You claim to deal in facts and yet you are incapable of providing a single one to support your opinion. That is what is known as uncut bullshit. Go away.

        • Diane Denizen permalink

          That is fine, please do take your vaccines! You won’t see me here again!

        • Awesome. You take care now.

        • “Russel Blaylock is a good source.”

          So I take it you buy his “Brain Repair Formula,” yes? Because that doesn’t sound like snake oil at all, I am sure it is legit when it is from a source as good as he is!

        • Yeah, science is not Blaylock’s strong suit, is it? Manipulation of the ignorant? He is much better at that.

        • I only have one thing to say to that “uneducated zealot” comment: Pot, meet kettle.

    • Feeble Tinker permalink

      “I’ve researched this for three years”

      Well there ya go. Stop the presses! Anonymous internet person has RESEARCHED for THREE WHOLE YEARS and so obviously has figured out the TRUTH behind vaccines.

      Or someone is self-centered, deluded, and dangerous.

  7. Irishlove66 permalink

    This is hysterical that people are that uneducated I am also from WA it is true babies have died and maybe if people would get vaccinated this wouldn’t have happened but there are idiots like this spreading myths about vaccinations. It is a myth the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism.
    This myth started in 1998, when a study authored by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and colleagues was published in the journal The Lancet. The study followed 12 children, eight of whom had parents who believed their child’s behavioral problems were caused by the MMR vaccine. The study set off a panic, causing vaccination results to drop — and rates of measles to skyrocket. Earlier this year, the editors of the Lancet officially retracted the paper, citing evidence that it held false information.
    Many other studies, including ones published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Journal, have shown the increase in autism rates is not linked to the MMR vaccine. One of the largest long-term studies was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002. Following 537,000 children, it found the rates of autism were the same among kids who had been vaccinated and those that had not. Do your research parents before you just start believing everything a stupid obviously uneducated unreliable fb page is saying!! Open your eyes parents and PROTECT your child from disease’s that can potentially kill your child!

    • Thanks Irish. The study you cite is one of those that convinced me beyond any doubt that vaccines do not cause autism. Of course, there are about 20 others that also show no association. Anyone still clinging to the vaccine/autism link needs to have their head examined.

  8. Stacy permalink

    I love how the AVers all say do your research when all they are doing is parroting back everything that they hear on PPOUC or VSS or the like. And oh yeah, the DTaP DOES work. My nephew was just exposed to pertusis and he is fine because he had all 4 of his shots. The child that had pertusis was vaccinated, but was about 2 weeks away from getting his 6th grade booster shot. So, immunity had waned for him which is why he was vulnerable. But, even though he did get it, he had a milder version of it than most cases you hear about. (Though he still coughs until he throws up. Poor kid!) I wish for once, that the AVers would do some REAL research. Talk to a pediatrician, or an immunologist. Read some actual medical jourbnals instead of natural news and whale.to. And no, your 300 hours of research does NOT trump that of a doctor who goes to school for 12+ years!

    • Agree. Somehow these clowns have convinced themselves that they know better than a trained physician, nurse, or scientist. The Dunning-Kruger effect is front and center at the anti-vax sites.

  9. Feeble Tinker permalink

    This facebook page is dangerous. I really can not believe:

    a) it is allowed to continue existing
    b) people will admit to being ‘proud’ of being gullible
    c) people will go there and ask actual medical advice…and random internet people answer!

    Freaking crazy.

    • It is indeed dangerous. I hope some sociologist is studying this phenomenon. Many epidemiologists are, but we do not quite understand how to approach a species that would rather believe a Facebook page than hundreds of thousands of healthcare practioners.

  10. Astrid permalink

    How is it dangerous , if vaccines work so well, all you vaccinated people have nothing to fear!! SHAME on AmberLWelch for spreading LIES, I know the owner personally and that is VERY untrue. The owner has saved many lives.. with REAL data and FACTS!!

    • What a clever question, Astrid! I have never heard it before from an ignorant ant-vaxxer! Oh…wait. I have, and I have addressed it. http://wp.me/p1OSsv-x

    • Feeble Tinker permalink

      Astrid,

      It is dangerous for a few reasons. I’ll put them in list form to make it easier to understand (though I won’t be randomly capitalizing so you may have a problem reading it):

      1 – They advocate that parents do not vaccinate their children. And full stop before returning with “Oh they just want parents to be informed about both sides.” There aren’t ‘both sides.’ And if they truly wanted parents to be informed they would at best direct them to a medical doctor or at worst allow ‘pro-vax’ people to post information

      2 – They appeal to the lowest common denominator – mothers’ emotions. That’s low. Asking for “vaccine injury stories,” but not asking for stories of children who have been ill, ‘damaged’ (to use your terminology), or even killed by the disease we vaccinate against. Constantly revealing some weird kind of persecution complex.

      3 – They dispense medical advice, and it is often wrong. Horribly horribly wrong. Example: just the other day there was an entire thread of people telling a worried mother that she needn’t get her young child a tetanus shot after the child stepped on a rusty nail. One choice piece of advice was to inject colloidal silver into the wound. What. The. Fuck. The thread was finally removed, probably once the deranged page owner was advised of the blatant stupidity of allowing such dangerous medical advice.

      As to your point about the page owner’s sister telling “LIES” – well, the page owner herself admitted to the exact same things that Amber Welch stated (and which has now been removed), so how is she “spreading LIES.” Or perhaps you don’t the know page owner all that personally and so do not know that it is indeed “VERY” true?

  11. I think all of you should be ashamed of yourselves. So what you’re butt hurt that you got banned from a FB website so you all have to get together and talk crap about the page. How mature are you? You’re also on here talking about lies and misinformation…people being gullible. You’re so ready to believe the worst about the page owner and all that she does. I think it’s a wonderful page…with over 20,000 fans the evidence speaks for itself. So what if there are a group of people who want to believe that vaccines are wrong and don’t want to give them to their children. IT’S THEIR CHOICE…ANYONE WHO COMES ON THAT PAGE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE THERE AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO READ THE ADVICE GIVEN…You are all so ready to believe what was wrote up there about her, yet you never stop to consider that you think the owner of the PPOUC is a “known liar”…why would you trust someone related to her? Doesn’t make any sense to me…

    • Wow, so eloquent. If you think I posted about the inane PPUC page because my feelers were hurt, you are not very good at reading. I posted about it because it is a dangerous cesspool of misinformation, chockablock full of people who do not have the foggiest understanding of science. If the information presented at the page is so solid and factually correct, then I wonder why opposing voices are banned on sight? Oh yeah, because those voices of dissent might penetrate an anti-vaxxer’s thick skull and stop the gravy train.

      I might add that while your argument about the sister of the PPUC pageowner is a striking example of idiocy, I believe the sister for several reasons. The first is that I have seen the PPUC page owner making appeals for funds several times. The second is that I have witnessed her dishonest behavior personally. The third is that one of PPUC’s followers came here and inadvertently admitted that the PPUC page owner uses the page to generate personal funds.

    • Feeble Tinker permalink

      Ah the hilarity (or do I mean hypocrisy?) of railing against someone’s maturity (or lack thereof) and using the term “butthurt” in the same sentence.

      Move along Gretchin.

  12. Astrid permalink

    Herd immunity is a MYTH!!

    [crappy link to some crap site deleted by admin].

    Admin note: If you ever post anything written by Suzanne Humphries at this blog, it will be deleted immediately. If Humphries ever manages to publish any of her non-scientifically supported nonsense regarding herd immunity and/or vitamin C curing pertussis in a peer-reviewed journal of any repute, I may reconsider. But I have a hunch that I will be waiting for that for a long time.

    • ….So why is herd immunity still an important component in population ecology?

  13. Kat M Montford permalink

    she has used the page for LEGAL fundraisers.. she makes no money from that site, she should she spends over 40 hours a week plus , I also spoke with amber and she wants it down, I also spoke with the owner of the page and she has an attorney pro bono that will take action if that slanderous comment , that was illegally put on this page is not removed..

    • Oh, okay. So we have yet another person who admits that the PPUC page owner uses the page to solicit personal funds. Remind me why saying so is slander? Is she threatening to set her pro bono lawyer on you as well?

      I have not received a request from Amber by any method asking that her comment be deleted.

  14. PPOUC Owner and Founder permalink

    I am the owner of the page, I have used the page for personal fund raisers(one time for my home bills and one time for my sons medical need), there is nothing illegal about that. My friends KNEW what the money was being raised for and it has only happened ONE TIME. I donate to charity and friends when I can every time they are in need.. I have no reason to be ashamed and nothing to hide. I am sorry you do not agree with the page, that is not my problem, many people disagree with the page. I am too busy to debate you or even spend time on this blog. My sister has requested that is removed, and that she DID not post it. It is SLANDER to say that I SCAM money, it is slander to say that I have used the monies for anything other than what it was used for.. those things ARE NOT true.. I welcome you to message the page if you would like a say , I will be more than happy to post your pro vaccine feelings and reasons on the page.

    • You are a dishonest purveyor of misinformation that is dangerous to public health. You have repeatedly banned any person on your Facebook page who supports vaccination. This is intellectually dishonest. You admit that you use your anti-vax Facebook page to raise personal funds–though oddly you contradict your own lie in your own post. First you say you did this twice, then you say it was only once.

      Many people ‘disagree’ with your page because you allow people to lie about vaccines there on an hourly basis. You do not, however, allow any counterpoint to those lies, thus leading your readers to believe that what is written there is true. I would say that beyond any shadow of a doubt, you have something to be extremely ashamed of.

  15. PPOUC Owner and Founder permalink

    I have asked for personal funds for myself (bills ) ONCE, asked for funds total TWICE , because I asked for help for my sons medical needs… I really do not care about your opinion on the page or what I do, We have a page disclaimer and ban people based on violation of those rules, we ban ALL people who violate the page rules. Just because you do not agree with my cause does not make it one big ‘lie’ .. I am not ashamed of anything, I help people EVERYDAY of my life, and hold my head high, I am here to make sure the slanderous comment, is removed..

    • Okay, so just to confirm (again), as the page owner you DO, in fact, use the Proud Parents of Unvaccinated Children Facebook page to solicit donations for personal funds.

      You are, without question, lying about your banning policy. Give it up. You are not interested in education at all. You are interested in the number of “likes” your page has by catering to misinformed and gullible people. More potential donors, maybe?

  16. Adrianna permalink

    First off all,
    Amber shame on you for saying shit like that and to fuck with your own blood??? remember blood is thicker then water.
    Second: I know the owner of the PPOUC and she didn’t use that page to collect money from people. Even, if she did ask for donation, she clearly stated why she needed the donation and who CARES if she DID! She didn’t rob you nor didn’t do anything to harm you. That was so unnecessary to put your sister on blast like that.
    Scott Hansen – why would you spend your time focusing on your bright future rather sitting online all day and drinking kool-aid, mocking people and posting crap? You don’t even have children to know what it’s like to have an injured child. I hope you will never have kids, because i will be sadden to know that your children would be suffered by moron like you.

    • Well, which is it, Adriana? Does she not use the page to collect money from people or does she ask for donations? Why do you people constantly contradict yourselves in the space of a single sentence? It is very strange.

  17. Christina permalink

    In regards to the owner of the PPUC. People are not banned from the page because they are supporters of vaccines. The page is a place for both pro-vaxers and anti-vaxers to share information provided it is done so in an honorable manner. It is clear that some of the members of the page have stronger views on not vaccinating than others, but the owner cannot be held accountable for the actions or opinions of individual members. I am an admin of the page, I am neither pro-vaccine nor am I anti-vaccine. I have a son, who is 12 that is fully vaccinated and a 3 and a half year old daughter who is not. The real issue here is about freedom of choice. You do not go to the doctor to have pills forcibly fed to you. You should not let the government, your parents or any health care provider tell you what you MUST put into your body or the body of your child without questioning everything concerning the issue. It is just logical and common sense for people to question what is going into their bodies; side effects, risk factors, etc. taking into consideration allergies or health concerns unique to the individual, not the HERD! If you were in a group of people being corralled into a gas chamber or concentration camp to be branded like cattle in a herd and later to be slaughtered for the “greater good”, would you agree with a governing body that because of your weaknesses and inferior physical existence, you did not die in vain? Chances are you probably didn’t even get that. What is good for one is not good for all. Molecular we are all different. That is science and not even science, since that word tends to be thrown around like a badge of some sort, can deny that. This is fact. Science is ever evolving, ever changing, and often receding as well as exceeding in it’s fields of study, including vaccines. I believe that in some cases it is necessary. I also believe in giving the human race a chance at holistically living as God intended us to do. It is about choice. Not everyone should be forced to live in a bubble to protect everyone else, or buy only 1 kind of car because it is considered safer for everyone else. If you want to gear up in a helmet, goggles, a gas mask, and some padded gear every time you walk out the door because you may get into an accident that day, then that is your choice. I can go on and on. PPUC is compiled of laypersons, new parents, old parents, grandparents, doctors, nurses, midwives, teachers, microbiologists, lawyers, and plenty of people, and I mean plenty, who are willing to share their story and lives of the vaccine injured loved ones that they speak on behalf of. It is not a page comprised of just ignorant or stupid people who have no purpose there. The owner of this page is family to me, she is my best friend, she is an amazing mother with passion for a cause that this world needs to be aware of. EDUCATE BEFORE YOU VACCINATE! This is the motto. Education is the key to empowerment and taking control of anything that one can wish to be successful with. She works 40 plus and then some researching and gathering data and speaking with experts and she does it all for free. Anything that has been “invested” or “voluntarily donated” to her has been used strictly for the purposes stated and well deserved for her hard work and dedication. No one that has given anything would disagree. Myself included. I visit with her regularly. Her family means the world to me, daughter, son, sister, mother, father and husband included and I am proud to call her family. There is a disclaimer on the page that reads as follows:
    “All data and information provided on this site is for informational/educational purposes only. “Proud Parents of Uvaccinated Children”makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability of any information on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. This is a Facebook page and expresses opinions of it’s members and administrators. All information is provided on an as-is basis. “Proud parents of unvaccinated children” does not take any responsibility for comments published by its readers. Readers publish comments at their own risk.
    Verified Official by facebook©
    This page or the owners/founders are not liable or responsible in any way for your actions or inactions. Use your head and your own discretion.

    please check with your medical professional ( MD, ND, Midwife, Chiro,etc..) before taking medical advice from someone on this page. this page holds NO responsibility for illness, allergy, etc if you take a supplement / etc because someone on the “internet ” told you too… be wise.. dont immunize , but also dont take something or give your kid something because you read it on the computer :)
    I don’t think there is a problem understanding that, except for you, apparently you missed out on that, or the understanding part anyway. Looks like you may be the one who has something to be ashamed of. It appears evolution may be taking it’s time in your gene pool. Let me reiterate, it is all about education, freedom, awareness, and respect for a science that never has all the answers. Maybe you can find something in that to progressively debate and maybe you will get lucky enough to educate someone on something. Maybe, if I were you I would stick to educated myself and questioning my social skills and being prepared before verbalizing my ideas in a public forum with the intentions of degrading and belittling someone you do not know. Than you for allowing me to post to your thread. Maybe we can all walk away with a new awareness and respect for one another. That is the end all roads should meet. Even f you do not post this, every one will see it either way.

    • Wow, your delusions of grandeur are really amazing. It seems that lying is the default mode among page owners and admins over at PPUC. You claim the page is not anti-vax, which is a joke. You claim that you do not ban people for being pro-vax, which is a bald-faced lie. You claim to want to “educate”, yet your site is filled with misinformation that is dangerous to the less intelligent reader. As for that “new awareness and respect”, I will never, ever respect your ill-informed views. You do not understand science. Your opinions are foolish and frankly offensive.

      If you want to give money to the PPUC pageowner, then that is your choice. And if I want to write that she uses the page to raise personal funds, then I would say that you are about the 5th person who has confirmed this. Thanks, this will make for a great blog post!

    • Erica permalink

      That’s funny. I was nothing but respectful the entire time I was posting on PPOUC and I got banned. Simply for showing data that contradicted the AV stance.

  18. Christina permalink

    You are hopeless and it is your right to be such. Thanks for posting.

  19. Den såkalte svineinfluensaen forårsaket av blant annet vaksine. Swine flu and vaccine, a global crime. Information in english language [admin snip to remove crappy anti-vax link]

    Autism and vaccines, related. Autisme og vaksiner, relatert [admin snip to remove crappy anti-vax link]

    • Diane Denizen permalink

      Honestly, you people make me sick! You are fighting amongst yourselves while the world is going to hell on a hand cart. Truly, you are pathetic! I really wanted to ditch this site, but I think my being here is good, because it makes me see how stupid most people are. For me it is a wonderful education.

      • Hang on, didn’t you already give me “legal notification” that you no longer wanted to subscribe here? Show some discipline, for Pete’s sake!

        • Diane Denizen permalink

          Grow up for Pete’s sake!

  20. Feeble Tinker permalink

    Oh joy of joys I found it again!

  21. Feeble Tinker permalink

    Hey Skewed – have you been following the Great Disappearing and Then Reappearing MINUS the Page Owner and Founder of 2012 today?

    It’s pretty fun! Apparently the FB page was a “security concern” and she could no longer “associate herself with the organization.” (Delusions of grandeur are fun – “organization.” HA!)

    I guess that means she won’t be taking “LEGAL action” against you, or anyone else for that matter (ahem – Embarrassed Cousins) after all.

    • Ah, yes, security concerns. Last night at EC a random poster came on and said that her anti-vaxxing friend was being “threatened”. No further detail was provided on who the friend was, who was threatening her, or why. Imagine my shock when we advised the poster to alert the authorities and the thread disappeared.

  22. informedvaxer permalink

    hm, this is all very entertaining! who needs soap operas when you have vaccine page drama!!!

    I wonder if the security issues were with her sister?

  23. I found a few things… Just to prove that there are studies that are suggestive of causality between vaccinations and ‘non-specific effects,’ also known as adverse effects, or vaccine injuries.

    The quotes below are followed by the URL of the sites I found the information on. None of them are hearsay, they are all submitted to journals for peer review. Hopefully the URLs won’t be deleted, as I see several other comments have been censored by you already.

    Thank you.

    ‘…Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis and polio vaccines were associated with higher infant mortality…’

    http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7274/1435.full

    ‘…In the pre-vaccination era in West Africa, there
    was no sex-difference in post-neonatal child mortality (3). However, vaccines
    do have non-specific effects and these may be gender-specific. Several studies
    have suggested that standard-titre measles vaccine may be associated with lower
    female mortality (3-5), whereas high-titre measles vaccine was associated with
    two-fold increased female mortality (4). Since there was no difference in
    vaccine efficacy in the high-titre trials, the increased mortality was clearly
    a non-specific effect, and the specific increase in female mortality would
    therefore be an indicator of gender-specific non-targeted effects of vaccines. Three other studies from West African (4,6,7) have suggested slightly higher mortality for children
    having received DTP compared with DTP-unvaccinated children; none have reported
    lower mortality.’

    http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7274/1435?tab=responses

    ‘Conclusions. RRV-TV is associated with an increased risk of intussusception. The risk is greatest 3 to 7 days after the first vaccination dose…’

    http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/2001/04000/Population_based_study_of_rotavirus_vaccination.8.aspx

    [Admin snip of last link. I do not allow links to garbage at this site. Anything written by the Geiers is, by definition, garbage]

    • It’s always super-funny when an anti-vaxxer comes here and acts all indignant about “censoring”. I will not allow people to post links here to websites and articles that are dangerous and provide misinformation. Unlike anti-vax sites, however, you are allowed to provide links to peer-reviewed papers written by people who are not quacks. Now that we’ve got that cleared up, I’ll address the papers you provided as soon as I have a chance to read them.

      • “…I will not allow people to post links here to websites and articles that are dangerous and provide misinformation…”

        When vaccine safety and effectiviy are being discussed is in order to find out what is actually dangerous and misinformation: the pro-vax vie, the anti-vax vew or something in-between.

        By deciding it on your own you’re only censoring what could make you lose the debate.

        • Um, no. It’s very simple, putin. You can provide links to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles written by non-quacks, as Crystal did above, and those links will stand. Or you can provide links to disreputable sites or dangerous information, and I will not accept them, period. You may get those at the anti-vax echo chamber of your choosing, but I will not be a purveyor of information that can kill children.

          Your accusation gets to the fundamental problem with the vaccination non-debate. Anti-vaxxers do not have science behind them, hence it’s difficult for them to find peer-reviewed papers, hence the crap they post here does not make it through the bullshit filter.

    • Hi Crystal,

      The first links you provided to the paper from 2000 and the accompanying letter to the editor sure are interesting and were worthy of follow-up, so it’s a good thing that happened. Please see the following studies, which are merely a selection of the large number of reports demonstrating safety and efficacy, and please note that the authors of the 2000 BMJ paper stated in their conclusion that, “Our observations emphasise the importance of immunisations in developing countries; vaccinated children had much lower mortality.” Also note that the results did not hold true for children who had more than one dose of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16061582

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15102565

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11015546

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419280

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249646

      By providing a single sentence from a 3000-word paper and a letter to the editor, and ignoring the rest of the literature, you have done what is called “cherry-picking”. What I would recommend doing is reading ALL of the literature on diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus vaccination rather than relying on a single study that has never been replicated.

      In regard to the link regarding rotavirus, I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. To me, that is proof of principle that one claim that anti-vaxxers make is utterly wrong. They claim that vaccines are not subject to post-marketing monitoring. This paper proves beyond doubt the opposite; that scientists were able to investigate a worrisome trend reported to VAERS, identify a serious problem, and pull the vaccine off the market. This should provide you with confidence that the vaccines currently being used are safe and effective, no?

      • If you’ll allow me to save you some time, SD, the other link is simply the study on the old RotaShield vaccine, which was specifically pulled from the market because of the results.  

        http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/vac-rotashield-historical.htm

        The rotavirus vaccines we use now in the US do not cause intussusception, and there has been extensive study to ensure that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risk.

        http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/intussusception-studies-acip.htm

        The story of how Rotashield was tested, monitored, and pulled is a testament to how closely watched vaccines are.  It would have been easy to sweep the results under the rug (or not look for them) if the CDC was truly in bed with vaccine companies and interested in promoting vaccinations over safety. 

        • Hi COVRAC!

          Thanks so much for your response. I think I snuck in my edit regarding this very thing just before you posted. As you can now see, I agree with you completely!

        • Ah, great minds, you know. You and Crystal may also be interested in this WHO review of the possible nonspecific mortality effects of vaccines in developed as well as developing countries, including the study Crystal cited.

          http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/81/11/cooper1103.pdf

        • Diane Denizen permalink

          You are always right Skewed, no one dare challenge ‘your’ science. I hope you take every vaccine they make, please do, then when you are damaged beyond repair, you will know. Or are you just a shill for vaccine makers and have never taken a ‘shot’ in your life. JD Rockefeller, never took a shot in his life, but pushed the filth on what he thought to be lower life forms, in other words, humanity. Before you shoot your mouth off at least follow the money trail, who wins with vaccine sales?

        • Diane, I thought you had already given me “legal notification” that you no longer want to participate at this page? Here is a simple way to do that: stop posting here. It’s very simple, really.

          I certainly do take every vaccine “they” make, as do my disgustingly healthy children. I reckon that one day I will be “damaged beyond repair”. But I shan’t be blaming my inevitable death on vaccines. However, if an anti-vaxxer ever arrives here with the capability of “challenging my science”, it’s likely that I’ll fall out of my chair and bump my head, perhaps ending my life prematurely.

          Thanks for filling in some of my bingo squares by calling me a pharma shill. If you could direct me to the Big Pharma Money Pot, that would be grand. I failed to win the Powerball the other day and I’d love to retire and blog ALL DAY EVERY DAY.

          Anyway, ciao, Diane. I’m going to fulfill your wish not to be here any longer by failing to post any more of your comments, unless I find them personally amusing.

        • Gosh, I do so love those parting shots, where the antivaxer wishes vaccine damage on the person presenting the science. It’s almost like they are reading from a script, wouldn’t you agree, SD?

        • A script, you say? Yes, I would have to agree. Especially after Diane played the victim and demanded to be unsubscribed, even though she has to do that herself. She just couldn’t stay away!

        • Diane Denizen permalink

          Ok If I’m really rude may be I will get kicked off. Fuck you Skewed!
          If I could find the ‘help page’ you described I’d be gone, and don’t call me a victim, you are the victim, it is your fear and ignorance that is driving you, don’t judge what you don’t know, that is the action of the fool.

        • This is priceless! Consider me amused. You can say whatever you like here, Diane–I cannot unsubscribe you, and furthermore, I’ve heard much ruder comments than “fuck you”. Regardless of whether or not you are subscribed, I cannot prevent you from continuing to read this page, as you constantly do, or from posting comments, which you constantly do. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.

          If you are incapable of finding the “help” page on WordPress, then it doesn’t surprise me that you are an anti-vaxxer.

        • Diane Denizen permalink

          Ah delight! I’ve found my way out, thanks for the heads up.

        • Feeble Tinker permalink

          Holy poo Diane.

          Remember your admonishment to Skewed a few comments/goodbyes/days ago?

          Grow up.

          I’ll try to help you escape this torture that you keep returning to for no discernible reason.

          Go to the email you got when you clicked “notify me of responses” and/or “notify me of new posts” on this or any other entry of this blog. (Just search your mail history for a key word – like skeweddistribution or other permutations of that). There will be an unsubscribe link there. Also, if you follow those links it will take you to your wordpress account and you can manage your blogs from there.

        • Thanks Tinker! I have a feeling that these instructions will not deter Diane from her secret desire to keep reading here, but I appreciate you helping her along.

  24. Sorry if I offended with my choice of words. I was definitely not intending to. I fully respect your view on things, and just want to show that some of us are educated and able to research this issue at a collegiate level. I think everyone deserves to be heard, and make their own educated choices. I do fully agree with you that there are a lot of ‘quack’ websites out there that prey upon people’s inability to distinguish fact from anecdotes or opinions. As a parent, there are so many risks inherent in each day that all you can do is make the best choice you can using the best information that you can find at the time. At this time, my choice is what I deem is best for my child. Thank you.

    • Thank you Crystal for your level-headed response. I haven’t yet had a chance to read the papers but I will do so as soon as I can. While I appreciate that the research can be done on a “collegiate” level, there is the still the problem of having come to the wrong conclusion. I look forward to reading the papers you provided to see why you have been led to believe something that is not correct.

  25. Lizzie Allan permalink

    I’m finding this all interesting reading. The most interesting part is how aggressive and insulting you pro-vaxers are towards the people who have reservations.I won’t call myself an anti-vaxer as that sounds like I am anti the whole idea of vaccination; I am not. But I have reservations about them; the possible side effects(short and long term) and the ingredients, the ethics on how they are tested in clinical trials amongst my worries. “Anti-vaxers” or reluctant vaxers have many many reasons for their reservations and worries, and are frightened for the welfare of their children, as we all are! To label us all as crazy idiots and quacks is very intolerant to say the least.

    • Lizzie,

      You could not be more wrong about how most people feel about individuals with “reservations”, so your characterization is unfair. I was one such parent who had concerns about vaccinating my kids. I read the science and realized that these concerns were not valid. What irritates me is when these concerned parents refuse to listen to the science and insist on valuing misleading emotional appeals over rational thought.

  26. Lizzie Allan permalink

    I went ahead and gave my daughter the immunisations. I watched and held her at the age of 18 months fitting and having seizures.I am glad that your children appear to have been unaffected and that you feel you did the right thing.That wasn’t my experience.

  27. Lizzie Allan permalink

    I know that the above counts as an “anecdote” to anyone reading it, but to me it is absolute reality.

  28. Lizzie Allan permalink

    Oh, and btw; check out the comments and titles on your own site- they ARE insulting to anyone with reservations about vaccinations. Don’t deny it, it’s there to see.

    • Lizzie,

      You may find that you need to read more than titles on this blog to understand the nuances. I have stated here, as have others, that it is the staunch anti-vaxxers who peddle fear and misinformation rather than facts, and those are the people with whom I take exception. These are the folks who either refuse to or do not have the ability to understand science. I am sorry for what you went through with your daughter, but yes, I am afraid that you are correct in your own assessment. It is an anecdote that cannot be verified. Further, you and your daughter should have a vested interest in promoting vaccination, assuming that you can no longer vaccinate her. At least if everyone around you is vaccinated, she will still be protected.

      I have to add as well that this post was quite obviously directed at the criminally stupid PPoUC Facebook page. If you agree with what that page does each day, then you do not merely “have reservations”. You are a full-fledged anti-vaxxer.

  29. Lizzie Allan permalink

    Can I just clarify your stance? Are you saying that you find it acceptable for someone like me to not immunise their child because you accept that the dangerous side effects have the potential to damage them and that it’s okay for me to rely on the vaccinations of others to protect her? But that the vociferous anti-vaxers are idiots? Just want to know.

    • I am saying that if a child has a serious adverse event to a vaccination, then she probably should not be vaccinated again, and I’m sure doctors would agree. Fortunately, these events are so exceedingly rare that the number of individuals to whom this applies is extremely low. Contrary to what anti-vaxxers state, no one in the healthcare community denies that there is a tiny but non-zero risk of an adverse event after vaccination. The risk of becoming severely disabled or dying from a vaccine-preventable disease remains much greater, especially as herd immunity wanes thanks to anti-vaxxers.

      There are a lot of claims to “vaccine injuries” that are simply false. The scientific data bear that out. Emotional anecdotes are powerful but are not a basis for healthcare decision-making.

  30. Lizzie Allan permalink

    please read this article.Its not from a “rag” but from one of the most reputable and yet government subserviant broadsheets we have here in the UK.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7970315/Man-disabled-by-MMR-vaccine-awarded-90000-after-13-year-fight.html

    Just want to know what your feelings are about cases like these. Do you deny them? Think they are connected to something else? Or think they are the inevitable “fall-out” from a vaccination program that suits everybody else. And no, I don’t agree with everything n the PPUC page at all, but I do feel and empathise with the fear of a lot of the parents.

    • Nobody denies that there are extremely rare serious adverse events to vaccination, Lizzie. Nobody. This is a strawman argument that the anti-vax movement likes to peddle. You continue to provide nothing but anecdotes. You fail to understand the scientific data showing that serious adverse events to vaccination are vanishingly rare.

      I use the analogy of airplane crashes. Approximately 50,000 airplanes carrying millions of passengers safely take off and land every single day. However, fear of flying remains a common but completely irrational fear. This is because, when a plane crashes, it is all over the news, and it’s terrifying. The data show that likelihood of any individual dying in a plane crash is close to zero, but the news of plane crashes appeals to emotional centers, which sadly is the major driver of human decision-making. We are terrible at assessing risk because of this.

  31. Lizzie Allan permalink

    But they do deny it. I’ve had it denied to me by my GP when selling the vaccination to me. I just think alittle honesty wouldn’t hurt; and consistency.

    • That is your personal experience and nothing else. You should find a new doc if you don’t trust her.

      • Lizzie Allan permalink

        It was a he. And it was more than one doctor. You fail to avoid making constant , speculative assumptions. Have you ever admitted you are in the wrong?

        • I don’t particularly care if it was a he or a she, Lizzie, and that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I was not speculating on the sex of your physician, merely writing in shorthand so I don’t have to write “he or she” every time I need a pronoun.

          I admit that I am wrong all the time. I’ve done it a few times right here at this blog.

  32. Lizzie Allan permalink

    Fair enough. What about my
    point that it was not a one-off doctor but a variety of doctors who refuse to accept adverse reactions?

    • I guess I don’t agree with that point, Lizzie. I am not sure if the healthcare is different where you are, but in the U.S. you always get an informational sheet with vaccines. I will admit that few people actually read them, however.

      • Lizzie Allan permalink

        I think things may be more open in the US. In uk you don’t really get a choice about your doctor; with it being free you have to take what you’re given. Not that I am complaining about it being free! But I think if there was more discussion and info beforehand then people may feel less suspicious and more confident about vaccination? Or is ignorance better? Tough question.

        • I think it largely depends on the attitude going in. I have written here a few times about how I had my own concerns about vaccinations at first, but I was willing to listen and learn. Hence, my kids are fully vaccinated.

  33. Bill permalink

    If you want to put poison in your children then feel free. I have MANY clients who have 100% unvaxed kids and their children are never sick. Clients who do all the vaccinations have children who get sick very often.

    • Fascinating anecdote, Bill. I’m not sure what kind of “clients” you see, but I’m guessing you provide some sort of untested and unproven remedy to idiots?

  34. Lizzie Allan permalink

    I don’t think it helps to lump all vaccines together into one theory; I like to judge each individual vaccine on it’s own merits based on the advantages versus the dangers and depending on the risk… hence my daughter IS/WAS vaccinated against whooping cough as a baby,but I have chosen NOT to vaccinate her as a teenager against the hpv virus. I would prefer to teach her the dangers of promiscuity and have her rigorously screened as soon as she becomes sexually active.

    • Chris permalink

      Do you plan to have her future husband screened? Or are you going to work on arranging her marriage to someone who your are also going to teach the “dangers of promiscuity”?

  35. Bryan permalink

    “Anyway, I’ve asked again that you put your cards on the table and share with the group the name of a disease that you think is caused by vaccination.”

    As I already stated earlier, “neurological disorders and autoimmunity… have increased in correlation with vaccines.”

    I’ll just say it: autism. But it doesn’t matter because you can produce a slew of studies that have flawed methodology, or mixed results, and claim that they prove that autism and vaccines are not linked.

    The fact remains that autism rates in the US and UK increased in direct correlation with increasing vaccination: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/21623535/reload=0;jsessionid=qCw2kb41vqoMa2FqAxd0.4

    I grow tired of arguing with you, since you show no sense of scientific integrity whatsoever and talking reasonably is pointless. But I’ll give you an example of the type of shoddy anti-science that has been used to claim autism is not linked to vaccination – if you want to take off the kiddy gloves.

    The “study” ‘Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data’ (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/3/604) reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned thimerosal in its vaccines. Yet, it even admits: “since 1995 outpatient activities were registered as well…the proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients…this may exaggerate the incidence rates.”

    They try to cover this up by saying: “In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only … to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence. The same trend with an increase in the incidence rates from 1990 until the end of the study period was seen.” Are we just supposed to take their word on this? Where is the data? It’s an awful stretch to say there’s a 4-6 fold difference in the data sets, but that the outcome was the same.

    And in an earlier study, ‘A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism’ (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134) based on the same data, they report: “In our cohort, 93.1 percent of the children were treated only as outpatients, and 6.9 percent were at some point treated as inpatients in a psychiatric department.” Sooooo… is there a 13-fold difference, a 4-6 fold difference, or no effective difference?

    Ironically, in this case changes in diagnostic criteria seem to have been deliberately used in order to achieve a negative association.

    By the way, this isn’t necessarily “anti-vax”, it’s just calling for reasonable standards for safety for vaccines. Vaccines are given to healthy individuals for prevention, typically at a very young age, so they call for especially careful safety studies – yet vaccine requirements are looser than for most drugs. This is what Tomljenovic and Shaw, and their backers, are about – not “Anti-Vax”.

    Dr. Bernadine Healy is the former head of the National Institutes of Health, and the most well-known medical voice yet to break with her colleagues on the vaccine-autism question.

    In an exclusive interview with CBS News, Healy said the question is still open.

    “I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” Healy said. “There is a completely expressed concern that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.

    “First of all,” Healy said, “I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”

    As an example, Healy points to the existing vaccine court claims.

    CBS News has learned the government has paid more than 1,300 brain injury claims in vaccine court since 1988, but is not studying those cases or tracking how many of them resulted in autism.

    The branch of the government that handles vaccine court told CBS News: “Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries…may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis.”

    “What we’re seeing in the bulk of the population: vaccines are safe,” said Healy. “But there may be this susceptible group. The fact that there is concern, that you don’t want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me. If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children. If you turn your back on the notion that there is a susceptible group… what can I say?”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml

    • There is one disease that we know for sure is not caused by vaccines, and that is autism. Period. There has not been a single study done in humans that shows a link between the two. Not one. See the link below for further detail.

      http://skeweddistribution.com/2011/09/05/vaccines-and-autism-and-nonsense-oh-my/

      The fact that you cling to this belief tells me all I need to know about your understanding of science. You claim that the studies that have been completed were poorly performed. You are wrong. And now I will ask you to provide a reference to a study–any study at all–that shows a link between vaccines and autism. This study must have been conducted in actual humans. This study cannot have been retracted because of fraud. Good luck.

      • Chris permalink

        Or by anyone whose medical qualifications have been questioned, especially those who have had their license revoked. Or has been associated by such persons as noted in review of “replications”.

        • Bryan permalink

          Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 paper did not claim to prove a link between autism and MMR vaccine. What the study *did* show was that gastrointestinal disorders appear in a large percentage of autistic children. His results have been replicated numerous times. A Harvard study in 2010, for example, stated that “Gastrointestinal disorders and associated symptoms are commonly reported.” A 2006 study found that “A history of GI symptoms was elicited in 70% of children with ASD compared with 28% of children with typical development.”

          Buie T et al. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18.

          Valicenti-McDermott M, McVicar K, Rapin I, Wershil BK, Cohen H, Shinnar S. Frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism spectrum disorders and association with family history of autoimmune disease. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2006 Apr;27(2 Suppl):S128-36.

          See also: Wasilewska J, Jarocka-Cyrta E, Kaczmarski M. [Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autism] [Article in Polish]. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2009 Jul;27(157):40-3.

          de Magistris L, Familiari V, Pascotto A, Sapone A, Frolli A, Iardino P, Carteni M, De Rosa M, Francavilla R, Riegler G, Militerni R, Bravaccio C. Alterations of the Intestinal Barrier in Patients With Autism Spectrum Disorders and in Their First-degree Relatives. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010 Oct;51(4):418-24.

          (etc.)

          As for Wakefield being “discredited”, let’s take a look at this (BBC):

          A doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct over the MMR controversy has won his High Court appeal against being struck off… The judge quashed a GMC finding of professional misconduct.

          The former head of department at the Royal Free Hospital in north London lost his licence to practice in May 2010, along with Dr Andrew Wakefield.

          A GMC panel found both guilty of misconduct over the way research into autism and bowel disease was conducted.

          A third doctor, Prof Simon Murch, then a junior consultant in the department, was cleared.

          The disciplinary case against the doctors centred on how they conducted their work.

          The judge said the GMC panel failed to address whether Prof Walker-Smith had been doing research or simply investigating symptoms to help treat children. There had been “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion”, he said.

          The GMC said reforms to disciplinary hearings were being considered.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17283751

          Let’s keep going:

          Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism. “Virus-induced autoimmunity may play a causal role in autism… immunoblotting of measles vaccine virus revealed that the…antibody to this antigen was found in 83% of autistic children but not in normal children or siblings of autistic children. Thus autistic children have a hyperimmune response to measles virus, which in the absence of a wild type of measles infection might be a sign of an abnormal immune reaction to the vaccine strain or virus reactivation.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883

          (It’s also possible that vaccine-induced immunity to vaccine-strain measles virus can suppress natural immunity to wild strains, leaving one more vulnerable to infection to wild measles virus. Despite the media disinformation, numerous cases of measles infection in vaccinated populations have been observed in the scientific literature. Google “measles outbreak highly vaccinated population”)

          Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. “The sequences obtained from the patients with ulcerative colitis and children with autism were consistent with being vaccine strains.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759242

          I had an issue with this sentence from the BBC article too: “Prof John Walker-Smith carried out research with Dr Andrew Wakefield claiming there was a link between autism and the combined jab for measles, mumps and rubella.” NO, the researchers simply honestly reported their results and suggested that a POSSIBLE link existed and that more research is needed–which is real science. Whereas the vaccine establishment continues to rely on a handful of dubious studies, and/or studies with inconclusive results, to claim that it has been unequivocally proven that vaccines have no relation to autism. And they even have made the shocking recommendation that no further research be done!

          There’s an old saying, “the truth doesn’t fear examination.”

          Here is an eye-opening study from the British Medical Journal about influenza vaccination: “Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, & impact in studies of influenza vaccines” ( http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b354.abstract ): “Search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and the web… identified 259 primary studies… A higher mean journal impact factor [the most cited journals, considered to be most read and the ones that publish articles of the best quality] was associated with complete or partial industry funding compared with government or private funding and no funding… Higher quality studies were significantly more likely to show concordance between data presented and conclusions, and less likely to favour effectiveness of vaccines.”

          According to whistleblower David Graham, “…there was an orchestrated campaign by senior level FDA managers to intimidate me so that I would not testify before Congress… One attack came from our acting Center Director who contacted the editor of the Lancet… and intimated to the editor that I had committed scientific misconduct & that they shouldn’t publish a paper that I had written showing that Vioxx increases the risks of heart attack.” (Vioxx, like MMR, is a Merck product)

        • You know, I’ve been enjoying watching COVRAC, Chris, and Darwy surgically destroy each and every one of your “arguments”. But your latest vomit of text is just so incredibly indicative of your underhanded behavior that I have to comment in detail.

          I asked you to provide studies demonstrating a link between vaccinations and autism. You lead off with the latest anti-vax talking point, which claims that Wakefield never said anything about MMR and autism in regard to the now retracted, fraudulent 1998 Lancet paper. You ignore the fact that Wakefield unquestionably tied MMR to autism in the press conference announcing the paper, taking everyone else involved by surprise, and then kept right on stating it over and over again. This despite the fact that his paper was completely fabricated–and he knew it.

          Next, the BBC link you provide has to do with Walker-Smith, not Wakefield. Wakefield is without question disgraced and discredited, and will never again be accepted into the scientific community nor invited to any reindeer games. He is a crank, a quack, a liar and a fraud. The fact that Walker-Smith managed to overturn his ruling puts this into even greater focus, as Wakefield himself has been unsuccessful with his attempts. He is in science jail. He will never, ever be rehabilitated; his rate of recidivism is far too high, and past performance predicts future results.

          Then we have your idiotic quote, “the truth doesn’t fear examination”, which you have probably cross-stitched onto a pillow or customized into your screensaver. You need to check yourself, Bryan, because you aren’t examining a damnfooled thing. You cut and paste and blather on and you listen to nothing that contradicts you. No. You ignore it and change the subject. Nobody fears the truth more than anti-vaxxers, because it undermines your entire religion, and you can’t cope. This is demonstrated by the links that you post to yet more of the Wakefield Follies, as well as other “work” in which the authors couldn’t even find a legitimate control group if it were rolling around in their colon. This is what you choose to believe. You find a few craptastic papers on which to hang your tinfoil hat on and are too afraid to really understand why they represent the very worst of science.

          What disgusts me about the entire tone of your post is that you seem to be indicating that 20 studies in well over half a million children are not enough to demonstrate to the rational person that vaccines do not cause autism. No, you would piggishly propose that more money be spent and more time wasted chasing your irrational agenda. You would rather this than the money and time being spent on endeavors that could actually aid individuals with autism, such as investigations into successful therapies. You only care about your conspiracy theory. It’s revolting. But if you want there to be more studies of vaccines and autism, then I suggest that you write the grant and get it funded. And um, good luck with that.

        • Bryan permalink

          “This despite the fact that his paper was completely fabricated–and he knew it.”

          No, it wasn’t. His results – a GI-autism link – have been replicated multiple times.

          “What disgusts me about the entire tone of your post is that you seem to be indicating that 20 studies in well over half a million children are not enough to demonstrate to the rational person that vaccines do not cause autism.”

          I have already criticised the quality of the 15-20 studies that are claimed to disprove a link between autism and vaccines. but you “blather on and you listen to nothing that contradicts you… ignore it and change the subject.”

          Remember this? “In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only. This was done to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence. The same trend with an increase in the incidence rates from 1990 until the end of the study period was seen”

          This study ( ‘A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism’ ) claims here is no link between vaccines and autism, but with the above statement reveals that they, like the CDC, can provide *no hard data* to back it up. Yet you have the gall to tell *me* “You find a few craptastic papers on which to hang your tinfoil hat on and are too afraid to really understand why they represent the very worst of science.” LOLOLOL

          “…other “work” in which the authors couldn’t even find a legitimate control group if it were rolling around in their colon.”

          Oh, so *that’s* how science works in your definition. Find some petty reason to contradict *every single* researcher who finds something contradictory to your viewpoint. I can provide dozens of papers indicating a link between autism and vaccination, yet you can just handwave it away, simply because “everyone knows” vaccines have no link to autism. Case closed. Go back to sleep, folks.

        • How science works, Bryan, is that a hypothesis is tested using a legitimate study design. Fraudulent study designs are frowned upon.

          “I have already criticised the quality of the 15-20 studies that are claimed to disprove a link between autism and vaccines.”

          No, you haven’t. You have cut and pasted walls of bullshit from The Whale. To wit, you attempt to use this quote, excised from a 4000-word paper and taken out of context, as “proof” of your viewpoint, despite the finding of the paper, which is that autism rates continued increasing after thimerosal was taken out of vaccines.

          In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only. This was done to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence. The same trend with an increase in the incidence rates from 1990 until the end of the study period was seen”

          Now, I know, and the other scientists and intelligent folks here know, that what the authors did was called a sensitivity analysis. This is an additional analysis over and above the main one to determine whether their case ascertainment method might be biased (it was not). Here is a quiz for you, Bryan:

          1. Why do YOU think this quote proves that vaccines cause autism and;
          2. Why do YOU think the authors conducted this extra analysis?

          You claim that I dismiss the papers you provide out-of-hand. Unfortunately for you, I’ve already addressed this in a blog post entitled “Dear Antivaxxer, Yes, I Do The Research”. I don’t dismiss them without thought, my dear. It’s just that the papers you provide are generally so badly conducted that it doesn’t take very long to understand why they are so flawed.

          Next task. You state that you can “provide dozens of papers indicating a link between autism and vaccination”. Please Bryan, if you can, then do so. My caveats remain, however. They must be in humans. They must not have been conducted by anyone who has been revealed as a fraud. They must be in peer-reviewed journals. They must have autism as a study endpoint, and vaccines as the exposure variable. I await your dozens of articles. If you can’t provide such evidence, as you claim to be able, you will likely be banned.

        • Bryan permalink

          Oops missed this comment before.

          “1995 outpatient activities were registered as well, providing the opportunity to examine long-term trends of the occurrence of autism in a total national population. In Denmark, inpatients refer both to children who stay at the hospital overnight and to children who come to the hospital on a daily basis for evaluation and treatment.

          “The proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients with variations across time and age bands”

          “Incidence rates were calculated for each year 1971-2000 using the age and gender specific number of persons in Denmark as a denominator. For each year and age band, we calculated the incidence as the number of people who at that age band and year was diagnosed with autism for the first time divided by the total number of people alive and living in Denmark at that age band and year.”

          Before 1995 they only registered inpatients, afterwards they accounted for the entire population. They took an absolute count from the smaller inpatients group, then compared it to the population when both inpatients or outpatients were counted, using the total population as the denominator in both groups. So, by this statistical chicanery, the reported rates of autism were *predetermined* to increase.

          So then they *claim* that they did a proper analysis, but only show the data for their laughable flawed analysis. I’m sure you don’t have a problem with that, since you are used to taking things on faith, but as a scientist I have a very big problem with it.

        • “…as a scientist I have a very big problem with it.”

          Reeeeeaaaally. Well, I can’t help you with that, Bryan. If you are a scientist, you are one who possesses absolutely no ability to differentiate between bad science and well-performed science. This will come back to haunt you in your career; unless, of course, you decide to become an anti-vax shill. In that case, your rare talents will be embraced as you are hired by anti-vax foundations to write crappy papers and letters to the editor designed to spread fear and misinformation (see your buddies up there in BC for an example).

          If I had to guess, I’d say that you either have or are working on a bachelor’s degree in a field that is somehow tangential to human biology or epidemiology. You have some grasp of correct terminology and you actually can read a paper to some extent. Where the wagon wheels fall off is that you seem to have an over-inflated sense of your own ability to understand these data. It must be intoxicating to think that you know something that the rest of the scientific community does not. The problem is, this feeling is arising from the Dunning-Kruger effect, not from actual knowledge. You don’t yet know enough to know what you don’t know. I see this time and time again with undergrads, and it is often part of maturing into a good scholar. Graduate students who still suffer from this syndrome don’t last very long.

          As for the paper at hand, I have no problem whatsoever with the sensitivity analysis, because it was done correctly. Further, it supports the general findings of the paper overall. What would be of concern if it did not support the results of the paper, which would indicate bias. Results of sensitivity analyses are rarely presented in Tables or Figures, because they are tertiary. You seem to have a grasp on why they did the analysis, but as you are approaching the end zone you fumble when you call the rest of the paper “statistical chicanery”, for no reason whatsoever. I’m sorry if you find the way that Denmark began collecting data for their National Health Register to be incorrect. I supposed they should have consulted you before doing so.

          Regardless, your accusations about this beautifully-performed study are hilarious considering the collection of frauds, cranks, and quacks that you choose to jump into sci-bed with. I do trust the analysis, because it was done correctly. And I will continue to trust it–unless, say, their paper is retracted. It seems to go the other way with you. You believe the frauds and dismiss the legitimate scientists. Very curious strategy indeed. I realize it may be hard for you to trust scientists after what Wakefield and the Geiers did to you, lying and fabricating data, but rest assured that not all of use are utterly devoid of ethics.

          I am still waiting for your “dozens of papers” showing a link between vaccines and autism (with my caveats, of course). Oh, right. I’ll never get them, because they don’t exist, proving you to be…wait for it…dishonest.

        • Chris permalink

          Plus none of the additional studies he posted have anything to do with any MMR vaccine.

          He has yet to answer which MMR vaccine Saint Andrew Wakefield was studying. This is a crucial bit of information since the UK removed two MMR vaccines in 1992, then switched to another in 1998… and none of them were the American version used since 1971. Yet, the Wakefield study included children who were vaccinated in the UK before and after 1992, and included an American child when it was published in 1998 (if you missed it, the year the UK changed to a specific MMR vaccine).

          MMR only means the vaccines contains a measles, mumps and rubella component. It does not specify which component. There are different measles, mumps and rubella vaccine types. The component under question was the Urabe mumps bit. For some reason that is not mentioned much. So if you discuss an MMR vaccine be specific on which one is being discussed, because that is important information.

          So, Bryan, where is the list of PubMed indexed papers published before 1995 that alerted Andrew Wakefield that there was a connection to autism starting with the Americans using the MMR in 1971? This is information that could really help him, yet no one had been able to post this information. Why is that?

        • Bryan permalink

          Chris, the Urabe strain MMR was licensed in the UK in 1988, *after* it was shown to cause meningitis (brain inflammation) in Canada. It was withdrawn *four years later* in 1992, long before Wakefield published his paper. This is never talked about because it sheds utter disgrace on the UK vaccine regulatory authorities, revealing their utter disregard for child health. This type of deviousness is the reason why confidence is falling in vaccines – *not* because Wakefield and others are taking an honest stand against it.

        • The Urabe strain of the MMR was first introduced in the UK between 1987 and 1988, or around the same time as it was recalled from Canada (which was 1988).

          Surveillance in the UK reported a meningitis risk of 1 in 143,000 with the Urabe strain, and 1 in 227,000 with the JL strain, which led to the withdrawal of the urabe vaccine in September, 1992.

          I don’t see where it’s an ‘utter disgrace’ – there were 3 cases of aseptic meningitis in Canada. There was 1 case in the pre-licensure study. The NHS started monitoring the use of the vaccine and determined that the JL strain had a lower incidence of meningitis – so they stopped using the Urabe.

          An ‘utter disgrace’ would be not monitoring for side effects, and then ignoring the problem completely. The NHS did its job.

        • Bryan permalink

          “The Urabe strain of the MMR was first introduced in the UK between 1987 and 1988, or around the same time as it was recalled from Canada (which was 1988).”

          Urabe was withdrawn in Canada in May 1988, and released in the UK in October 1988. But yes, thank you for admitting: (a) the NHS performed an experiment on the population of children and (b) the JL strain MMR also has a high rate of adverse effects.

          And, as medical historian Harris Coulter points out, “no biological phenomenon is either all or nothing. Vaccination cannot be considered to either leave a child perfectly normal or have a very severe impact on a child. There’s got to be a range of effects—how about the children in the middle? How about those who are slightly affected by the vaccine?”

          Skewed likes to scream that the VAERS system is not enough to prove causation, while not holding health agencies accountable for not having an active surveillance system. Then, when I provide an actual researcher who worked on the licensing trials for HPV vaccine, who says there *is* a major risk of adverse events, Skewed simply falls back on the CDC pronouncement of no link, which does not provide a specific study, graph, or statistical analysis.

          “An ‘utter disgrace’ would be not monitoring for side effects, and then ignoring the problem completely.”

        • Such unfounded conclusions you jump to, Brian.

          1 in 143,000 or 1 in 227,000 after vaccination, yet a rate of 17 in 100,000 in the general population.

          http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000674

          http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/2/158.full

          Your conclusions are not supported by the data.

          Why am I not surprised? Oh, and celebrating folks who have their own whale.to page? Doesn’t help your credibility, citing a ‘historian’ whose views on vaccinations have been roundly and soundly criticized by his peers.

        • Adverse events of vaccines are constantly and thoroughly monitored. The fact that you do not personally believe the findings of this surveillance does not invalidate it. I do not ‘fall back’ on what the CDC says. Rather, because I have conducted clinical trials myself, I understand the requirements and meaning of adverse event reporting. I also understand both the benefits and limitations of VAERS.

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          It was withdrawn *four years later* in 1992, long before Wakefield published his paper.

          Yet some of the children were old enough to have been vaccinated prior to that, And the American child was vaccinated with an MMR not used in the UK. The UK switched to a different one in 1998. So which MMR vaccine was the study on?

          Harris Coulter had a PhD in Russian political science. He has no medical training of any kind, so is not a source of any kind of reliable information. What is it with you believing people who are Russian translators (his actual job), business majors and other unqualified persons?

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          No, it wasn’t. His results – a GI-autism link – have been replicated multiple times.

          Here is a tip: when you see words in blue type, that means that is a link to a different webpage. Hover your mouse over the words and see how the little line or arrow turns into a little hand. Click on the words and then read that webpage.

          You see, there are no independent replications of anything Wakefield claims. That list has been gone through and found to be not independent (done by either Wakefield or a friend of his), just case reports (often on adults), often have nothing to do with any vaccine, etc. So this time try to actually read the webpage I linked to:

          http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/05/still-no-independent-confirmation-of.html

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          Skewed likes to scream that the VAERS system is not enough to prove causation, while not holding health agencies accountable for not having an active surveillance system

          First thing you must do before you bring up VAERS again is to tell us what you must read and understand before using the VAERS database at its official website, not the portal provided by NVIC. Here is the official website: http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index. . You should have no trouble telling us what it says you must read and understand before clicking on a button.

          And have you never heard of the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project? Did it not show up in your Google University research? Several large health management organizations have very comprehensive records of hundreds of thousands of people. These records are used to find health trends. Again, here is the link:

          http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/VSD.html

        • Bryan permalink

          Both VAERS and the VDS have been widely criticised. VDS data is not made available to independent researchers, therefore there is no way to verify what the CDC says. Here is what the CDC – OCSO – Blue Panel Meeting Summary Report explained:

          “Providing additional access to vaccine safety data to external researchers for the purpose of conducting vaccine safety research was another recurring theme. Some participants believe that the data must be publicly posted as this would increase public confidence in CDC’s credibility and accountability in these issues, while others place greater emphasis on audits. While a data sharing mechanism to allow access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project data has been in place at CDC since 2002, some expressed their continued interest in having broader access to the VSD database to allow outside researchers to replicate and validate the studies that have already been done by CDC. However, others emphasized that CDC should more fully assess the current mechanism before expanding access. Some participants felt that in providing transparency and public participation in the research process, access to data is a key aspect of strengthening the trust around these issues.”

          This has apparently been removed from the CDC website, but is archived here: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/the-liars-in-government-agencies-60-years-of-disaster-the-experts-still-scratch-their-heads/

        • Bryan permalink

          Chris, I get it! “A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given.”

          Yes, yes, so clearly this is all purely coincidental. “the patient experienced anaphylactic shock 2 minutes after vaccination characterized by a brief loss of consciousness…considered to be immediately life-threatening.” (VAERS ID: 304739-1) … “Cold sweat, Fall, Foaming at mouth, Grand mal convulsion, Immediate post-injection reaction….” (VAERS ID: 305259-1)

          You insisting that I acknowledge what I “must read and understand before clicking on a button” for VAERS doesn’t prove anything. You can’t just *assume* a priori that the vaccination and adverse reaction were unrelated.

          “And have you never heard of the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project?”

          Of course I’ve heard of it, we already discussed how independent researchers like the Geiers are harassed for trying to use it. By the way, the CDC (which once denied the link between smoking and lung cancer) has cited on its VSD page a study claiming no link between MMR & autism. This study was addressed in the Cochrane paper I referenced earlier:

          “We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn’s disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. The methodological quality of many of the included studies made it difficult to generalise their results.” http://www.omsj.org/reports/Demicheli%202012%20abstract.pdf

          In other words, the studies were so poor that no conclusions could be drawn from them.

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          . VDS data is not made available to independent researchers, therefore there is no way to verify what the CDC says.

          That is because certain people were abusing the database trying to get personal information. Fortunately one of them has had his license to practice medicine revoked in many states, and his partner in crime may end up being prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.

          Oh, and the website you linked to is so convoluted that it makes no sense. Which is understandable since it is run by Wakefield’s incompetent UK lawyer. Again, what is it with you thinking lawyers, Russian translators and other untrained persons are more reliable than those who are actually educated in medicine/biology?

        • Bryan permalink

          “That is because certain people were abusing the database trying to get personal information. Fortunately one of them has had his license to practice medicine revoked in many states, and his partner in crime may end up being prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.”

          Ahh yes, Geier-bashing. It’s no wonder that researchers are afraid to look critically at vaccines, when you look at how the Geiers, Wakefield, and others have been persecuted. Now I’m sure you’ll go off on how the Geiers are “chemically castrating” patients, completely ignoring biological principles like the dose-response.

          So, thank you for proving my point that independent scientists are not allowed to look at the data.

          “Again, what is it with you thinking lawyers, Russian translators and other untrained persons are more reliable than those who are actually educated in medicine/biology?”

          Well, I’ve referenced several highly-trained persons, but this hasn’t stopped you. And though you are trained, throughout this conversation you’ve repeatedly overlooked fundamental physiology where it has suited you.

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          Ahh yes, Geier-bashing. It’s no wonder that researchers are afraid to look critically at vaccines, when you look at how the Geiers, Wakefield, and others have been persecuted. Now I’m sure you’ll go off on how the Geiers are “chemically castrating” patients, completely ignoring biological principles like the dose-response.

          You are a laugh riot! I bet you think Bernie Madoff has also been persecuted for his creative financial dealings. The order to revoke the medical license of Mark Geier is entertaining reading, especially the number of patients that complained.

          So, thank you for proving my point that independent scientists are not allowed to look at the data.

          Actually several qualified researchers have access to the data, as long as they follow the rules.

          Well, I’ve referenced several highly-trained persons

          No, you have not. You just cut and paste from dubious websites, without any hint of independent thought. Some hints: If your reference sell supplements on their website they are not reliable. Plus if they have had papers retracted they are not reliable. If they keep signing their name with “Doctor” and do not have a medical degree they are not reliable (that includes Coulter, Scheibner, Shaw and others).

  36. orleyspal permalink

    Your data on correlation are indisputable, Bryan.

    But you might not be considering a multifactorial process, one that includes skyrocketing exposure to cell phone signals, the quiet rise of fruit roll-up sales, an exponential increase in the volume of reality tv programming, and the expansion of anti-vax website traffic. All of these suspiciously correlate to the rise in autism. And in the case of the last three, make you sticky and icky feeling to boot {:~)

  37. Bryan permalink

    And the award for Talks Most, Says Least, goes to: SkewedDistribution!

    “I have no problem whatsoever with the sensitivity analysis, because it was done correctly. Further, it supports the general findings of the paper overall.”

    Without any hard numbers, we have no idea if it supports the general findings. Furthermore, as the quote reveals, the only analysis where they do provide data mixes inpatient and outpatient data after 1995, but only uses inpatient data prior. Since the number of patients is larger in the second group, the result will be an increase.

    “In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only. This was done to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence. The same trend with an increase in the incidence rates from 1990 until the end of the study period was seen”

    You clearly have a lot of knowledge about this subject, so how is it that you cannot grasp how this “beautifully-performed study” in fact provided NO DATA for the above analysis, when this was the analysis that SHOULD HAVE been the center of the paper to begin with!

    “Psychiatric inpatient treatment in Denmark has been reported to the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register since 1969, and since 1995 outpatient activities were registered as well”

    The problem is with how the study was conducted, not the way the Danish Health Register collected the data. They raised the group of patients surveyed (inpatients alone, vs. inpatients + outpatients), but kept the same denominator (total population). This fraudulent tactic skews the stats. It’s ludicrous that this study passed peer review, and that you are now zealously defending it, while simultaneously accusing me of not understanding how proper research is conducted and interpreted.

    My problem is with bad science, regardless of the source. As I have repeatedly elucidated.

    • And as I said, there is no need for the data from sensitivity analyses to be presented, and they rarely are, unless there is a difference between the sensitivity analysis and the primary analysis. There was not. This is not bad science. This is you choosing to believe a fraud over the body of literature showing no association between vaccines and autism. If you have read more than one epidemiological paper, you would know that sensitivity analyses are rarely, if ever, presented, nor do they need to be. This is not unusual.

      In fact, very often the reviewers will ask to see the data for the sensitivity analysis, and the authors present that data to the reviewers and the editor(s). If the reviewers and editors are convinced, the paper goes forward; if not, well, it doesn’t. So you can either choose to trust this system, or you can fail to trust any scientific paper published, ever. What is so odd is that you choose to trust the system when it supports your opinion, but you don’t when it doesn’t.

      So I get it, you simply don’t believe the authors. I can’t help you there, Bryan. I realize that you have been burned by your gods, but the rest of us don’t operate like Wakefield and the Geiers and employ dodgy methodology. It probably seems like the usual strategy to you given whose work you trust, but it is not. And you are running out of time here unless you post your “dozens of papers” showing a link between vaccines and autism. I am really loathe to ban anyone here, but I draw the line at frank dishonesty. You claimed your could provide them, and you haven’t.

      • Bryan permalink

        “And as I said, there is no need for the data from sensitivity analyses to be presented, and they rarely are, unless there is a difference between the sensitivity analysis and the primary analysis.”

        For you to characterize this as a simple “sensitivity analysis” issue is distorted in the extreme. They based their initial autism counts on hospitalized, inpatient records, then in the middle of the study (1995) added in outpatient records, but placed both datasets over population as the denominator. Thus, after 1994, there is a larger group (inp+outp), but they didn’t adjust for this in their primary analysis, and claimed it indicated a rise in autism!

        The funny thing is, the mistake Madsen et al. made is similar to the one legitimate error you pointed out to me earlier (and which I admitted):

        “I don’t mean to embarrass you, but those aren’t percentages, my dear. Those are counts.”
        Again and again I have reported this type of “dodgy methodology” used by studies that have been used to deny that vaccines are related to chronic health problems.

        When I provide a review by Dr. Ratajczak, with references to numerous studies providing evidence for a vaccine autism link, you call it a “steaming turd”, which is the type of wording I used earlier and COVRAC called it a “catchy way of handwaving away what he doesn’t like.”

        Then you say, “I’m afraid she made the rather pathetic error of confusing correlation with causation”, yet you are praising the correlation made in the Danish study, even though it was completely fabricated. Whereas the data on vaccine-autism correlation in the U.S. is “indisputable”, as orleyspal confirms.

        I give up. Every researcher whose results even remotely suggest that vaccines may be linked to neurological disorders or autoimmunity, or even that more careful safety studies need to be done, is automatically discredited in your court. You are exhibiting confirmation bias in the extreme. Thank you for the discussion, but I have nothing more to say here.

        • “For you to characterize this as a simple “sensitivity analysis” issue is distorted in the extreme.”

          The results of the sensitivity analysis were identical to the major findings of the study. For you to imply otherwise, in the complete absence of data, indicates that you would rather buy into a conspiracy theory encompassing the authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal than to listen to reason. It also demonstrates that you have very little familiarity with epidemiological work, as I have already pointed out.

          The funny thing is, the mistake Madsen et al. made is similar to the one legitimate error you pointed out to me earlier (and which I admitted):

          Um, what? They mistook counts for rates? You have provided absolutely no evidence to support this allegation.

          When I provide a review by Dr. Ratajczak, with references to numerous studies providing evidence for a vaccine autism link, you call it a “steaming turd”, which is the type of wording I used earlier and COVRAC called it a “catchy way of handwaving away what he doesn’t like

          Ratajczak did not have actual data, Bryan. There is a world of difference between a review and primary analysis.

          I give up

          I’m not surprised. You have failed to provide the “dozens of papers” that show a link between vaccines and autism in humans, because you can’t. You are again suggesting that MORE research must be done on a non-existent relationship between vaccines and autism. You are thereby calling for more wasting of resources that could better be used to aid those with autism in a productive manner. You have also completed the anti-vaxxer arc. Congratulations.

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          The funny thing is, the mistake Madsen et al. made is similar to the one legitimate error you pointed out to me earlier (and which I admitted):

          The funny thing is that you seem to be basing all your criticism on just one paper and ignoring all of the others (and more have been added like Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400).

          Every researcher whose results even remotely suggest that vaccines may be linked to neurological disorders or autoimmunity, or even that more careful safety studies need to be done, is automatically discredited in your court.

          Actually they are not discredited automatically. They are looked at, and the flaws are noted in great detail. I posted a commentary in Pediatrics that showed that Blaxill and friends (none of them medical researchers) made several errors in the Medical Hypothesis paper claiming autism was a form of mercury poisoning. I just posted a table from another paper that details the flaws of the other “vaccine cause autism” hypotheses in this comment.

          There have been responses to Dr. Ratajczak paper, including one titled “Coincidental associations do not provide proof for the etiology of autism” which is linked to on her paper’s PubMed index page. Though unless I traipse down to the Medical School Library, I cannot read them, but this gives a pretty good analysis where she is wrong.

        • Bryan permalink

          Ugh, WHY…

          “The funny thing is that you seem to be basing all your criticism on just one paper and ignoring all of the others (and more have been added like Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400).”

          I have no intention of moving on to other papers until the problem with this one has been resolved. There are major flaws with the majority of the papers that are often cited to “disprove” the vaccine autism hypothesis. Garbage in, garbage out. So, here are some authoritative criticisms of the Madsen et al paper that Skewed and others have cited as evidence of their viewpoint:

          “The power of the current study1 was high (80 percent to detect a relative risk of 1.5) but misleading. Let us assume hypothetically that there is a vulnerability to MMR-induced disease in 10 percent of the children with autism. We can assume further that 80 percent of the overall group with autism and 95 percent of the subgroup with vulnerability have been vaccinated. In a nested, case–control design within the Danish cohorts, the odds ratio for MMR in the subgroup would be 4.17; for all the children with autism combined, the odds ratio would be 0.97, masking the association in a small subgroup. Yet, in a conservative estimate, 10 percent would represent 50,000 children in the United States, at a yearly burden of $1.25 billion. I hope this possibility can be ruled out.”
          Walter O. Spitzer, M.D., M.P.H.

          “The admirable attempt by Madsen et al. to evaluate a possible association between the MMR vaccine and autism has multiple flaws that compound the bias toward a finding of no association. First, the use of person-years instead of persons in the analysis magnifies the weight of the early cases (when the prevalence of autism was relatively low) and minimizes the weight of the later cases (when the prevalence was five times that in the early period). Second, the mean ages at diagnosis were 51 months for autism and 63 months for other autistic-spectrum disorders. A child born early in the study period had a higher likelihood of receiving a diagnosis than a child born later in the study period. Finally, children in the unvaccinated group underwent a mean of 5.0 years of follow-up (482,360 person-years for 96,648 persons), as compared with 3.7 years in the vaccinated group (1,647,504 person-years for 440,655 persons). This discrepancy also reduced the likelihood that autism would be detected in a vaccinated child as compared with an unvaccinated child.

          The authors overstate their conclusion in the abstract by saying, “This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.” Even if the study did not suffer from these flaws, the strongest defensible conclusion would be that the study did not detect an association between MMR and autism.”
          Michael E. Mullins, M.D.

          You: “Actually they are not discredited automatically. They are looked at, and the flaws are noted in great detail. I posted a commentary in Pediatrics that showed that Blaxill and friends (none of them medical researchers) made several errors in the Medical Hypothesis paper claiming autism was a form of mercury poisoning.”

          That “rebuttal” paper, like most of the ones that are used to cover up vaccine threats, is so flawed as to be worthless. It doesn’t address the real issue at all. I’m amazed that “medical researchers” can post such ignorant (or dishonest) tripe. But, based on our preceding conversation, it’s clear you are not interested in medical truth, only something scientific-sounding that appears to support your opinion. Here is the authors’ counter-response to your paper:

          “In a direct rebuttal to the autism–mercury hypothesis, Nelson and Bauman construct a table of six symptoms (reduced from 95 in Bernard et al.) that they use to compare the ‘‘typical and characteristic manifestations’’ of mercury poisoning and autism. The table suggests an absence of overlap in the clinical manifestations of the two conditions…

          Nelson and Bauman derive their list of mercurialism symptoms largely from relatively high dose, ingested, methyl mercury exposures in adults. These exposure patterns are not closely comparable to the relatively low dose, injected, ethyl mercury exposures hypothesized to provoke autism symptoms in infants. Their claim that ‘‘the typical clinical symptoms of mercurism (sic) are not similar to the typical clinical signs of autism’’ is therefore inaccurate, misleading and unsupported by evidence from any comparable childhood disorder of mercury exposure…

          “All of their references to mercury neuropathology in humans [18–20] are based on ‘‘severe’’ exposure levels resulting in death…. ”

          http://www.vtce.org/mercury/thim/Blaxill_Redwood_Bernard.pdf

          The dose makes the poison, as they say… as you will remind me, while ignoring the fact that the dose of aluminum and mercury in vaccines exceeds the closest available safety limits. I have already proven this for aluminum, you criticised it for being parenteral nutrition and therefore not *exactly* the same, then went on about “scraped knees” providing no data whatsoever, and all the other shills on this site had no problem with your crude speculation.

          “There have been responses to Dr. Ratajczak paper…”

          There has been at least one supporting study too.

          This study focuses on improper integration of the residual DNA as a possible
          contributor to autism, particularly in genetically susceptible infants. It is known
          from gene therapy studies that injected naked DNA can be transported to the
          brain (Wang et al. 2001); that improperly integrated therapeutic DNA has caused
          cancer in young children(Hacein-Bey-Abina et al. 2008); and that shorter DNA
          fragments have a higher probability of entering the nucleus (Lechardeur et al.
          2002). To investigate whether improper DNA integration can contribute to
          autism, we are undertaking the following: (1) measure the amount and length
          distribution of residual human DNA in vaccines; (2) predict sites of DNA insertion
          via homologous recombination (HR) and measure insertion rates; (3) model how
          brain cell function might be affected, either via loss of the ability to make proper
          connections or via selective growth of cells with improperly integrated DNA at the
          expense of healthy cells; (4) conduct epidemiology studies comparing autism
          rates in children injected with vaccines containing human DNA residuals.

          Results: The average human DNA fragment length in rubella vaccine was 220 base pairs. Out of 1145 hotspots in the X-chromosome, 25 hotspots are located in 5 of 15 X-chromosome AAGs, between the transcription start and end sites. These genes are NLGN3 and NLGN4X (neuroligins involved in synapse formation), AFF2 and IL1RAPL1 (involved in X-linked mental retardation), and GRPR (gastrin releasing peptide receptor).

          Conclusions: Autism-associated genes in the X-chromosome contain multiple regions where potential insertion of short, non-host homologous DNA can occur. With new knowledge due to the human genome project, particularly in regards to SNPs and epigenetics, further work must be done to understand the implications of integrated residual human DNA to the etiology of autism.

          Source: Computational Detection of Homologous Recombination Hotspots in X-Chromosome Autism-Associated Genes

      • Chris permalink

        You are still a laugh riot with your unreferenced cut and paste, Bryan. It shows that you are not a scientist and have never written anything that required a bibliography. By the way those are only letters to the editor, which is in this link with replies. Try not to cherry pick again, please.

        You don’t seem to understand that there is nothing to resolve with the one paper, and anything written by Blaxill and friends in Medical Hypotheses is worthless. And quoting a “supporting study” does not tell us what it is. And if it is by Theresa A. Deisher, she has a known conflict of interest, as noted in this aptly titled blog article about that “research”: Thermonuclear stupid about vaccines from someone other than Jenny McCarthy.

        If you have any real evidence that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella then post the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed paper. Do not cut and paste random quotes of the paper without a proper citation. Here are some examples for you to use as a model:

        Vaccine. 2012 Jun 13;30(28):4292-8. Epub 2012 Apr 20.
        The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: The first case-control study in Asia.

        Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5;30(2):247-53.
        Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

        BMC Public Health. 2011 May 19;11:340.
        Congenital rubella syndrome and autism spectrum disorder prevented by rubella vaccination–United States, 2001-2010.

        Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
        Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.

        PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
        Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.

        Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
        Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.

        J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
        Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.

        JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3145-50.
        Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization.

        PS: What was funny is that in putting some of the unreferenced cut and paste quotes into Google, I found the letters being cherry picked quoted by John Scudamore (the guy behind whale.to) on UseNet in a reply to me about a decade ago! It was a deja vu moment.

        • Oh wow, that is deja vu! Good ol’ Usenet; I had some great times there. I still remember the names of some of the posters. But I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that anti-vaxxers haven’t changed in a decade…we know that the anti-vax message hasn’t changed since the 1800’s, after all. Yet science marches on.

          Let’s bring back the horse and buggy, y’all.

        • Bryan claims to be a scientist. Bryan cuts and pastes from The Whale. Bryan works for:

          A. Tenpenny
          B. Mercola
          C. Generation Rescue
          D. Himself as Ambassador From the Land of Chemtrails and Sprinkler Rainbows

        • Bryan permalink

          Skewed, the only way you can deny the toxicity of thimerosal in vaccines is by sticking your head in a hole (perhaps the one that your alimentary canal terminates into…)

          Here is a small laundry list:

          Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes: Possible Role of Fenton Chemistry in the Oxidation and Breakage of mtDNA

          “Thimerosal generates ethylmercury in aqueous solution and is widely used as preservative… We find that ethylmercury not only inhibits mitochondrial respiration leading to a drop in the steady state membrane potential, but also concurrent with these phenomena increases the formation of superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and Fenton/Haber-Weiss generated hydroxyl radical.”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395253/

          Activation of methionine synthase by insulin-like growth factor-1 and dopamine: a target for neurodevelopmental toxins and thimerosal.

          “Methylation events play a critical role in the ability of growth factors to promote normal development. Neurodevelopmental toxins, such as ethanol and heavy metals, interrupt growth factor signaling, raising the possibility that they might exert adverse effects on methylation… The ethylmercury-containing preservative thimerosal inhibited both IGF-1- and dopamine-stimulated methylation with an IC(50) of 1 nM and eliminated MS activity. Our findings outline a novel growth factor signaling pathway that regulates MS activity and thereby modulates methylation reactions, including DNA methylation. The potent inhibition of this pathway by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum and thimerosal suggests that it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins.”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14745455

          Thimerosal Neurotoxicity is Associated with Glutathione Depletion: Protection with Glutathione Precursors
          “Thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with depletion of intracellular Glutathione in both cell lines…The potential effect of Glutathione or N-acetylcysteine against mercury toxicity warrants further research as possible adjunct therapy to individuals still receiving Thimerosal-containing vaccines.”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15527868

        • This is what I love about anti-vaxxers. Bryan thinks that because he told me politely to shove my head up my ass, I won’t notice that he is self-destructing. Fail.

          I have to point out, Bryan, that it is silly that you seem to think we haven’t seen all of these data and “arguments” before. We have. It is meaningless in the face of the epi studies in humans showing that neither vaccines nor their components cause autism. You can keep posting this crap all day long and it doesn’t change that basic fact. Sorry.

        • Bryan permalink

          Here are some ecological studies linking mercury exposure to autism:

          Environmental mercury release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological study of Texas

          “On average, for each 1,000 lb of environmentally released mercury, there was a 43% increase in the rate of special education services and a 61% increase in the rate of autism. The association between environmentally released mercury and special education rates were fully mediated by increased autism rates. This ecological study suggests the need for further research regarding the association between environmentally released mercury and developmental disorders such as autism.”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338635

          Autism Spectrum Disorders in Relation to Distribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants in the SF Bay Area

          “To explore possible associations between autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and environmental exposures, we linked the California autism surveillance system to estimated hazardous air pollutant (HAP) concentrations compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency… Our results suggest a potential association between autism and estimated metal concentrations, and possibly solvents, in ambient air around the birth residence, requiring confirmation and more refined exposure assessment in future studies.”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570060/

          Just so you think I’m not just picking on your beloved Thimerosal, according to beyondpesticides, “At publication, the database lists 5 studies linking pesticides to autism. A study published in the October 2007 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives shows that children born to mothers living near agricultural fields, where organochlorine pesticides, specifically endosulfan and dicofol, are applied during their first trimester of pregnancy, are six times more likely to have children that develop autism.”

          The scientists conclude that the “possibility of a connection between gestational exposure to organochlorine pesticides and autism spectrum disorders requires further study.”

          http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.10168

        • Bryan permalink

          Chris, the largest study ever done on autism-vaccine association was performed on the population of children in the US and UK, and a strong association between spikes in autism association and vaccines was noted *universally* in these huge, diverse populations. I’m not impressed with the vaccine industry’s debunking studies, which are usually small, too short, too superficial, or other major methodological flaws. Or they make conclusions unsupported by their data or study design.

          For example, buried in “Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study” is the following paragraph:

          “To determine whether our data supported the hypothesis that GI pathology
          contributes to ASD pathogenesis, we examined the temporal relationship
          between MMR immunization, first GI episode, and AUT onset. If the
          putative relationship of MMR to GI pathology and AUT is valid, MMR must
          precede GI dysfunction and AUT, and GI dysfunction must precede AUT. If
          GI dysfunction contributes to AUT independent of MMR, it is necessary
          only that GI dysfunction precede development of AUT. X2 analyses
          indicated no role for MMR in either the pathogenesis of AUT or GI
          dysfunction (Table 4). Only 5 of 25 subjects (20%) had received MMR
          before the onset of GI complaints and had also had onset of GI episodes
          before the onset of AUT (P = 0.03).”

          Furthermore: “There were no significant differences in the proportion of cases and controls with
          MMR before onset of GI episodes: 12 of 25 cases (48%) received MMR before GI
          episodes began as compared with 3 of 13 controls (23%; P = 0.13; Table 2).”

          Their results DO support an association! If the study had been larger, it likely would have been stronger here. Their conclusion, “This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure” is clearly politically-motivated, not based on the evidence.

          P.S. – ‘Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons’ (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/154/16/1815):

          “Results
          We found 18 reports of measles outbreaks in very highly immunized school populations where 71% to 99.8% of students were immunized against measles. Despite these high rates of immunization, 30% to 100% (mean, 77%) of all measles cases in these outbreaks occurred in previously immunized students. In our hypothetical school model, after more than 95% of schoolchildren are immunized against measles, the majority of measles cases occur in appropriately immunized children.

          “Conclusions
          The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles. The longterm success of a two-dose strategy to eliminate measles remains to be determined.”

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          I’m not impressed with the vaccine industry’s debunking studies, which are usually small, too short, too superficial, or other major methodological flaws.

          And exactly which one of the studies in my list was financed by pharmaceutical companies? Be specific. And don’t go into conspiracy theories on how the CDC, NHS and other public health agencies are paid by Big Pharma, because that will get you laughed at more than cutting and pasting from Scudamore’s whale.to site.

          What is it with you not being able to give a proper cite? You only give the title, but forget the date and the journal. There are many studies, and the one you cherry picked tried very hard to accurately replicate Wakefield’s retracted Lancet study of only a dozen children. By the way, the main author of that paper, Hornig, has done research financed by SafeMinds.

          And as far as the one that you did provide the link to, it is eighteen years old and done shortly after the second dose of MMR was implemented for eleven/twelve years old, and a few years before that dose was moved to four/five years old. Did you even read the last sentence when you cut and pasted it? It is obvious you do not even read what you post.

          You are making less sense with every comment.

    • I have another simple question for you, Bryan, if you can detach from your irrational critique of the Danish paper for a second.

      Are rates of autism in the US going up or down?

      • It never ceases to amaze me folks that point at Thorsen (who still hasn’t seen a trial), who was a minor contributor to the autism study as proof of the invalidity of the study. His fraud had nothing to do with the data – he stole money.

      • Bryan permalink

        “Are rates of autism in the US going up or down?”

        What answer are you looking for, Skewed? Are they going up in spite of thimerosal removal? Are they going down in spite of increased overall vaccination rates? Did the autism rate not go up at all, only changes in diagnostic criteria, as numerous medical “authorities” have had the gall to claim, and some still do (while others have had the sense to finally admit the rise, while ignoring the fact that this puts them in agreement with what the “anti-vaxxers” have been saying all along)?

        Honestly, I have trouble keeping up with all the contradictions and straight bullshit that mainstream medicine spews on a daily basis.

        • Yes, you do indeed have trouble keeping up Bryan, because of your raging case of Dunning-Kruger. What I am looking for is the simple application of common sense. The anti-vax community was absolutely convinced that MMR caused autism. Then, even the most dug-in anti-vaxxer realized that science showed this could not be true. Therefore, they moved on to thimerosal. Again, this was investigated and shown to be incorrect. So yes, my point is that autism rates appear to be going up in the US, for a number of complex reasons, including but not limited to changes in diagnostic criteria. It is absolutely indisputable that diagnostic criteria have contributed to the increased rates of autism. Your refusal to believe this is bizarre, quite frankly. Please see the new definition of vitamin D “deficiency” for a very simple example of the same effect.

          And we know that the increased rates are due not to MMR nor thimerosal, which was removed from childhood vaccines (and probably shouldn’t have been, but that’s an argument for another day). In fact, the one thing that has not been linked to the rise in autism rates is vaccination. I made a better case for folic acid fortification as the cause of autism here at this blog. You should make it your new cause; at least no one has proven it to be wrong yet. It’s got all of the elements for a new conspiracy, and some convincing data to boot!

          http://skeweddistribution.com/2011/09/12/how-do-rumors-get-started/

        • Chris permalink

          Skeweddistribution:

          What I am looking for is the simple application of common sense.

          You are not going to find any from Bryan. He seems to be just cutting and pasting, and it seems to be from whale.to. While I was looking for where he got his unreferenced quotes, I found this, a reply to me by Scudamore in a seven year old Usenet thread. I thought that was hilarious.

        • LOL! I already responded because that really hit my funny bone! I can’t believe you found the Usenet post, that is hilarious. I started using Usenet in ’93 and was struck by how mean people on this internet thing were. And also, stupid.

        • Chris permalink

          I got to Usenet a little late, about 1998. At first I took Scudamore seriously and attempted to read one of his links. When I read that particular page (something about smallpox), I was a bit baffled why the author (a doctor) was referring to the Native Americans as “savages.” Then I found the date, it was from the mid-1800s. I learned that there are lots of online loons.

  38. Bryan permalink

    Conflicts of interest in the CDC, FDA, AAP, ACS, etc. should be self-explanatory for anyone paying the least amount of attention, but… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22375842

    “What is it with you not being able to give a proper cite? You only give the title, but forget the date and the journal.”

    Honestly dude, I don’t give enough of a shit to properly cite on this blog posting. I’ve provided enough info for you to follow through.

    “There are many studies, and the one you cherry picked tried very hard to accurately replicate Wakefield’s retracted Lancet study of only a dozen children.”

    This study found that “only” 20% of the subjects noticeably regressed after MMR vaccination. How is that “no association”, exactly? For some reason they downplayed this association.

    “Did you even read the last sentence when you cut and pasted it? It is obvious you do not even read what you post.”

    Of course, their speculation that a two-dose strategy is recommended merely shows their bias. They omitted the other possibility, that the vaccine itself was ineffective.

    Of course, the debate is more complex than this. First, measles is a fairly benign childhood disease. Historical severe cases, before the introduction of running water and other innovations that caused infectious disease rates to plummet in the developed world, were compounded by malnutrition, multiple co-occurring infections, crowded housing situations, etc.

    Children who receive measles vaccine often have the immunity wear off within a few years. This is dangerous because measles, like chickenpox, is far more serious to the adult. To a limited extent, childhood diseases are important. They help the body to develop proper defenses. Suppressing a full-blown immune response by magnifying the humoral (antibody) response at the expense of the cell-mediated (T cell) response is not wise.

    See for ex. – “Limiting or preventing infections by intracellular pathogens requires the activation of innate immunity and the consequent generation of effector and memory T cells, which recognize and kill infected cells… Unfortunately, attenuated microbes often fail to elicit long-lived protective immunity… these attenuated bacterial vaccines are not simply prevented from activating immunity, but rather generate a negative signal that inhibits the desired immune response.”

    http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1000568

    “By the way, the main author of that paper, Hornig, has done research financed by SafeMinds.”

    Associate Professor Dr. Mady Hornig actually did publish a much better paper earlier, Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal are Mouse Strain Dependent – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15184908

    (Oh noes! not fully cited!!!1)

    On a follow-up medscape article Hornig said: “The same immune response genes in mice that predict mercury-related immunotoxicity also predict neurodevelopmental damage in our model and are associated with the development of features reminiscent of those observed in autism. These include generalised impoverishment of behavioural responses and abnormal reactions to novel environments, brain enlargement, correlated closely with the observed behavioural abnormalities in exploration and anxiety, increased cell packing in the hippocampus, and disturbances in glutamate receptors and transporters.”

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/480683

    • Chris permalink

      You are citing business professor Gayle DeLong? The SafeMinds person who thought any kid who was referred to speech therapy was automatically autistic? Something that would surprise my daughter’s friend who is has a severe hearing loss, yet is definitely not autistic. She and the paper you cited are both jokes.

      You are making even less sense, especially since how can one tell if a mouse is autistic when they are exhibiting normal behavior for crowded conditions.

    • Chris permalink

      Do you ever plan on answering this question (cut and pasted from above): “Which vaccines in the American pediatric schedule are only available with thimerosal? Do not included influenza because of the eight approved for children, four (that is half) do not contain thimerosal.”

    • Shaliza permalink

      Bryan says:

      “This study found that “only” 20% of the subjects noticeably regressed after MMR vaccination. How is that “no association”, exactly? For some reason they downplayed this association.”

      I couldn’t resist jumping into the fray here… ;)

      The natural course of an autistic spectrum disorder is that children start to regress and loose previously acquired milestones, usually between 18-24 months, give or take a few months. When this is how the disorder normally progresses, regardless of what vaccine was given, it’s kind of hard to make the association that the vaccine in fact, caused this change. Children who have never received the MMR vaccine show this progression, and I’ve seen it many a time during residency and now during daily practice in General Pediatrics.

      Not to mention that now we diagnose autism as early as one year or before, and that is long before the MMR shot is even given. Oh I’m sure you’ll tell me that it’s all the other vaccines that cause it, but then how do you explain the unvaccinated child who shows the same symptoms? Perhaps you will be telling me it’s the air we breathe? Or perhaps the toxic laden food we consume?

      It’s so easy to blame vaccines for autism, because it’s an external factor, and parents are only too happy to sue the doctor and everyone else involved in the child’s care. How about the genetic component in all this, tha actual internal player? To me, as a scientist, and a physician, it makes sense that it’s our DNA that determines whether you will be autistic or not, regardless of vaccines. How else do you explain all the unvaccinated, autistic children? Or the fact that I deal with many families that have generations upon generations of males, in particular, affected by behavior disorders which we now diagnose as autism? Or all my unvaccinated relatives in Sri Lanka who show the classic signs of autism, but who are never diagnosed or treated, because it’s a cultural taboo to have a behavior disorder? After all, it’s a heck of a lot easier to blame evil spirits for the abnormal behavior of an individual, and the third world thrives on this type of nonsense.

      Furthermore, fragile X is more likely than not negative, when we perform this testing, at least in my practice. This is also true when I discuss this matter with my psychiatry and neurology colleagues who diagnose a lot of my patients. The majority of autistic kids my partners and I see are Caucasian, and I have had only one Asian child and one Hispanic child in my practice with autism, to date. The only African American child I take care of, and is autistic, also has Down’s syndrome, so that’s a special case. Considering the fact that the majority of my patients who refuse shots and are autistic are Caucasian, and the large Asian/Hispanic populations I serve and who are extremely vaccine compliant have very few rates of autism, is very interesting to me. It is also clear to me that there is definitely a genetic component at play here, and that its existence is yet to be determined. I don’t know if anyone has had the chance to look up any papers that deal with the genetics of uutism, but it would be interesting to find out. Hopefully one day we will reach this milestone.

      Also, you blame vaccines for autism, but what about the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are unique to the various ethnic groups? When I did research on the genetics of Epilepsy and Schizophrenia, it was fascinating how certain SNPs were seemingly correlated with these diseases in the various ethnic groups. Since these are again behavior disorders and affect the nervous system, why wouldn’t SNPs play a part in the genetics of autism too? Perhaps in the future, we will have these answers, and perhaps there will come a day when we understand what causes autism, and in a more definite sense than we do now.

      In the meantime, to correlate vaccines with autism, without considering the natural progression of the disorder is simply, bad science. Not to mention that it’s damaging to our children, who are now ending up with diseases like pertussis and pneumococcal meningitis because of this vaccine aversion. After dealing with a 2 week old infant who was intubated and nearly died from pertussis (acquired from unvaccinated relatives who were coughing for weeks), I find it shocking that parents, and people like you, Bryan, have no problems propagating lies and spreading untruths that consume society like a wildfire. Skewed et al have done a terrific job of pointing out the holes in your “research” and every single individual you have brought up in your claims that vaccines are BAD, are either a quack or a lunatic who doesn’t understand science anyway. If you want to worship at the altars of these idiots, might I suggest that you pay homage to the lovely PPOUC. They would welcome you with open arms, I’m sure. ;)

      • Boom! Well done, Shaliza!

        • Shaliza permalink

          Thank you Skewed. I aim to please. :)

      • Bryan permalink

        “In the meantime, to correlate vaccines with autism, without considering the natural progression of the disorder is simply, bad science”

        You aren’t even distinguishing between the regressive subtype of autism and “classical” autism. The majority of the new autism cases are regressive, where the child actually *loses* skills. And yes, many of these regressions have noticeably occurred following MMR vaccination. Of course, I’m sure you will dismiss this as “anecdotal”, even though you used anecdotal examples in your own “argument”.

        “How about the genetic component in all this, tha actual internal player?”

        You speak as if genetic research isn’t being done – that’s where most of the funding goes, as it is the most lucrative. But you can’t have a sudden outbreak of a “genetic” disease. If autism rates increased, there must be a change in the environment that triggers it in susceptible individuals. And yes, the causes of autism are likely multifactorial.

        I have argued already that there needs to be research on genetic markers to determine what subgroups may be vulnerable to vaccine damage. I referenced this Medscape article earlier:

        ‘Dr. Hornig countered that the design of published epidemiologic studies may have been inadequate to appropriately estimate risk. Although MHC and non-MHC genes, age, sex, nutrition, route and frequency of administration, and maturity of the metabolic, immune, and nervous systems are known to affect mercury toxicokinetics, previous studies have not evaluated such factors.

        ‘ “The pronouncement that research funds are better applied elsewhere effectively forecloses any possibility of federal funding for an entire field of research,” she said. “The timing is particularly unfortunate given that we are only just beginning to define the mechanisms by which environmental factors such as thimerosal interact with immune response genes during early development.”

        ‘ “Even without knowledge of a specific gene association, we can consider the impact of gene prevalence on our statistical capacity to demonstrate effects of potential toxins in a population, should they exist,” Dr. Hornig said.’

        http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/480683

        I already posted a bunch of studies linking autism to mercury, which SkewedDistribution made some lame excuses about (seeing as how no BIOLOGICAL studies – you know, cell culture, animal controlled trial – have ever shown that the vaccine dose of thimerosal is safe). I also posted a bunch of studies describing pertussis outbreaks amongst the highly vaccinated, which Skewed also dismissed casually… as is the typical reaction of medical zealots to everything that threatens their narrow worldview.

        • Posting a bunch of studies about pertussis in highly vaccinated populations isn’t proof of anything, Brian.

          Based on sheer numbers alone, we would expect to see more pertussis in the vaccinated community, since it dwarfs the unvaccinated community. However, the incidence rate in unvaccinated individuals is significantly higher than in vaccinated.

          Hornig’s studies have focused on mice already susceptible to autoimmune diseases, and not all mice studies are able to be extrapolated to humans.

          Furthermore, we know that thimerosal is more water soluble than methyl mercury, and that it is excreted via the stool. We also know that, post vaccination, blood mercury level is extremely low, and further decreases as more mercury is excreted until the levels are equivalent to post vaccination levels.

          Are you also suggesting women of childbearing age (or anyone, really) should stop eating fish? Pound for pound, the mercury exposure via the diet is orders of magnitude greater than exposure via a vaccine. If a nursing mother eats fish, she passes mercury along in her breast milk. Should we also ban breastfeeding if the mother eats fish?

        • Bryan permalink

          “However, the incidence rate in unvaccinated individuals is significantly higher than in vaccinated.”

          This common assumption is unwarranted, for example:

          “The increase in pertussis incidence was higher among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons of all ages.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10905967

          They continue, “This resulted in lower estimates of vaccine effectiveness. The proportion of pertussis infections resulting in recognizable symptoms may have increased among vaccinated persons because of a mismatch of the vaccine strain and circulating Bordetella pertussis strains.”

          This reveals a fundamental flaw of vaccine theory. Pathogens are dynamic, continually evolving entities.

          “Hornig’s studies have focused on mice already susceptible to autoimmune diseases, and not all mice studies are able to be extrapolated to humans.”

          Sure, there are species differences in anatomy, organ structure/function, metabolism, chemical absorption, genetics, mechanism of DNA repair, behaviour, lifespan and the inherent sensitivity of cell populations to toxicants. Nope, only the ones that show some product to be safe or effective can be extrapolated, right? I’ve been around the block many a time, I know how animal studies are *really* applied.

          “The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything – no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will ‘prove’ a point. Fraudulent methods of argument never die and rarely fade away. They are too useful to promoters…”

          (Dr Irwin Bross, 1982, former Director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, New York.)

          “Furthermore, we know that thimerosal is more water soluble than methyl mercury, and that it is excreted via the stool. We also know that, post vaccination, blood mercury level is extremely low, and further decreases as more mercury is excreted until the levels are equivalent to post vaccination levels.”

          First of all, chemical metabolism, transport to the site of action, and excretion, vary widely based on individual genetic differences and other factors. Burbacher et al and Rodriges et al reported fast clearance from the bloodstream, and recorded accumulation of inorganic mercury in the tissues, including the brain. They claimed mercury was excreted but provided no proof.

          Another study found that autistic children had unusually low clearance of mercury, but elevated clearance following administration of chelators… but I imagine even mentioning this will subject me to knee-jerk heaps of ridicule.

          “Are you also suggesting women of childbearing age (or anyone, really) should stop eating fish? Pound for pound, the mercury exposure via the diet is orders of magnitude greater than exposure via a vaccine. If a nursing mother eats fish, she passes mercury along in her breast milk. Should we also ban breastfeeding if the mother eats fish?”

          Blah, blah, blah. It is unfortunate that pregnant mothers ARE advised not to eat certain types of fish due to their mercury content. But only a tiny fraction of toxins are absorbed via metabolism, whereas by injection it’s nearly 100%. And vaccine doses are given IN ADDITION TO background exposures from diet and the environment; it’s not all-or-nothing.

          EPA classifies 200 ppb mercury in liquid as hazardous waste (http://www.epa.gov/ epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/ regs.htm#hazwaste).

          25,000 ppb mercury is 25 mcg, the level that is still present in flu vaccines – which have recently had their recommendations expanded to include pregnant mothers and other sensitive groups.

        • “The increase in pertussis incidence was higher among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons of all ages”. Ummm, yes. In an outbreak this will almost certainly occur. No smoking gun there, bro.

        • I want to buy that t-shirt that says “It worked in mice”. Cancer has been cured in mice. Rodent studies are certainly interesting, but if the results are not confirmed in humans, then they don’t add much to the picture.

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          And yes, many of these regressions have noticeably occurred following MMR vaccination.

          I asked you for this earlier, but you went off on another tangent:

          The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1971 in the USA. Please show us the verifiable data that autism started to rise in the USA starting before or around the early 1980s. List the title, journal and dates of the PubMed indexed papers dated before 1995 that show this increase, and gave Wakefield the data he needed to create the hypothesis that the MMR caused autism and gut issues.

          Also remember that the American MMR has never contained the Urabe strain of mumps.

          Another thing about Hornig’s SafeMind funded paper on the “autistic mice”: the behaviors that were observed were to be expected for mice in crowded conditions. They were actually acting like that particular strain of mouse in the same kind of habitat.

        • Bryan permalink

          “The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1971 in the USA. Please show us the verifiable data that autism started to rise in the USA starting before or around the early 1980s.”

          According to “The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367287), the prevalence of autism was about 0.5 per 1,000 during the 1960s and 1970s and about 1 per 1,000 in the 1980s. In 1979, MMR II, containing human fetal cell lines, was introduced. Around 1988, a second dose of MMR was added, and compliance campaigns increased the overall uptake. “In the Danish, California, and worldwide data sets, we found that an increase in AD cumulative incidence began about 1988-1989.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20158232)

          Another autism spike occured in 1995, correlated with the introduction of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine containing aborted fetal cell lines. I think the hypothesis that homologous recombination of DNA strands in vaccines into the host’s cells is a cause of autism, has a lot of promise. 4 of 9 boys developed cancer in one of the first gene therapy trials – using inappropriate insertion of external genetic material into genes – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18688286 – These types of retroviruses occur in human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293) used to manufacture vaccines and other products.

          “List the title, journal and dates of the PubMed indexed papers…”

          No. :)

          “…dated before 1995 that show this increase, and gave Wakefield the data he needed to create the hypothesis that the MMR caused autism and gut issues.”

          Have you read Wakefield’s paper? This is what it actually says about MMR:

          “Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another.”

          “One child (child four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, after which his development slowed (confirmed by professional assessors). No association was made with the vaccine at this time. He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation. Child nine received measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at 16 months. At 18 months he developed recurrent antibiotic-resistant otitis media and the first behavioural symptoms, including disinterest in his sibling and lack of play.”

          “Disintegrative psychosis is recognised as a sequel to measles encephalitis, although in most cases no cause is ever identified.14 Viral encephalitis can give rise to autistic disorders, particularly when it occurs early in life.15 Rubella virus is associated with autism and the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (rather than monovalent measles vaccine) has also been implicated. Fudenberg16 noted that for 15 of 20 autistic children, the first symptoms developed within a week of vaccination. Gupta17 commented on the striking association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and the onset of behavioural symptoms in all the children that he had investigated for regressive autism. Measles virus18,19 and measles vaccination20 have both been implicated as risk factors for Crohn’s disease and persistent measles vaccine-strain virus infection has been found in children with autoimmune hepatitis.21″
          “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.”

          “If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence22 or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.23″

          This study was not designed to demonstrate a link between autism and MMR, and it never claimed to have done so. It is a case study, described by Hennekens C., Buring, J. (1987) Epidemiology in Medicine:

          “Case series studies describe the experience of a single patient or a group of patients with a similar diagnosis. These types of study, in which typically an astute clinician identifies an unusual feature of a disease or a patient’s history, may lead to formulation of a new hypothesis… At that time an analytic study (most frequently using a case-control approach), can be done to investigate possible causal factors.”

          Dr. Wakefield was doing what any good researcher should do: listen to the patients. He studied their complaints with an open mind, instead of harassing them for suggesting that vaccination may have been linked to the adverse reaction – as have many doctors.

          “Also remember that the American MMR has never contained the Urabe strain of mumps.”

          I never suggested it did. However, the loss of confidence in MMR in the UK and elsewhere did stem in large part from the problems with the Urabe-strain MMR, long before Wakefield’s Lancet study.

          “Another thing about Hornig’s SafeMind funded paper on the “autistic mice”: the behaviors that were observed were to be expected for mice in crowded conditions. They were actually acting like that particular strain of mouse in the same kind of habitat.”

          This study indicates that certain genetic types are more susceptible than others, which is what I have been saying about the hypothesized vaccine-autism link all along. The paper reports, “Strains resistant to autoimmunity, C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ, were not susceptible.”

          According to a human study, “Significant associations between ASD and two autoimmune disorders were identified. This genetic association supports the idea that specific immunological abnormalities may underlie the etiology of autism, at least in a number of cases.” (http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v1/n12/full/tp201162a.html)

          And another study “observed associations between familial autoimmunity and ASDs/infantile autism” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19581261)

          It is true that crowding and other factors associated with living conditions greatly impact the outcome of an animal trial, and are too often overlooked. However, what you claimed is a gross misrepresentation of the findings of the paper.

          Again, Hornig explains: “The same immune response genes in mice that predict mercury-related immunotoxicity also predict neurodevelopmental damage in our model and are associated with the development of features reminiscent of those observed in autism. These include generalised impoverishment of behavioural responses and abnormal reactions to novel environments, brain enlargement, correlated closely with the observed behavioural abnormalities in exploration and anxiety, increased cell packing in the hippocampus, and disturbances in glutamate receptors and transporters.”

          Are you deliberately lying about the results of the study, or are you deliberately keeping yourself in a state of ignorance about them?

        • “Dr. Wakefield was doing what any good researcher should do: listen to the patients. He studied their complaints with an open mind, instead of harassing them for suggesting that vaccination may have been linked to the adverse reaction – as have many doctors.”

          Oh Lordy, you just worship him, don’t you? Wakefield is a crank, a fraud, and a liar. Your continued defense of him indicates that you do not have the capacity to participate in this debate objectively, because you cannot accept that not only is his work scientifically invalid, but that he has his own agenda–equally as bad as that of “Big Pharma”–that guides his “work”.

          You also have some incredibly messed up ideas about how doctors and scientists think. Wakefield “listening” to the patients has resulted in massive reductions in MMR coverage, putting entire communities at risk. I’m not a doc, I’m a public health practitioner, and I’m listening to the public. And the public is fed up with the anti-vax movement and people who are so conspiracy-minded that they are putting their communities at risk for their own selfish beliefs. And you are a part of that, Bryan. You are part of a movement that endangers your family, friends, and neighbors. No rodent study can dress that up.

        • Yes, Brian, I dismissed the papers you posted, because the question is: do vaccines cause autism? That question has been answered firmly, repeatedly, consistently and scientifically, and the answer is no. No amount of misinterpretation of studies in rodents or cell lines can over-ride that.

    • Chris permalink

      So, Bryan, I specifically asked for papers written before 1995, papers that where the year of the date starts with a “20” are not before those staring with a “19.” And yes, I read Wakefield’s paper and he does not point to any paper indicating that he noticed a rise in autism in the USA during the 1980s. Plus it is still only a case series of a dozen children, which should not topple all of the epidemiological studies that have been done.

      According to Brian Deer Wakefield flipped through a book about inflammatory bowel disorders and noticed that it could be caused by measles. Not the vaccine, but the actual disease. But the cases of measles were decreasing in the UK, so he switched it to the vaccine. That was the only research he did in the field. So you are doing Wakefield a favor if you find the substantial literature he used that existed before 1995 that indicated a correlation between the MMR and autism in the USA.

      Do you actually think that those papers using different diagnostic criteria point to an increase of autism diagnosis due to vaccines? The DSM IV was introduced in 1994, a year before you so-called “spike.” I doubt you understand any of those papers (nor the requirement that they be from before 1995). And the diagnoses in Japan did plummet when they removed their MMR vaccine (though measles with subsequent disability and deaths did rise).

      • Bryan permalink

        Chris, Wakefield was basing his study on the experiences reported to him by parents and doctors, and on his *extensive* review of measles and safety studies of measles-containing vaccines (on which he wrote a 250-page report). Brian Deer spouts so many fallacies that he discredits himself. It’s funny that you question my own ability to interpret a scientific paper, and yet blindly follow him.

        Wakefield explains, simply: “The crucial design feature which differentiates the case series from other designs is its lack of requirement to select participants on the basis of either the exposure (e.g., MMR) or the outcome of interest (e.g., autism).”

        “A case series does not require – and should not employ – strict inclusion or exclusion criteria. Rather, it should function to observe similar presentations in groups of patients that appear to share other common features in order to raise hypotheses that later may be tested in the appropriate study design framework (e.g., a case-control study).”

        “The Lancet paper does exactly what is required of a case series. It states immediately what the report sets out to do: no particular developmental disorder was stated, no particular features or timing of onset were required, no particular initial exposure was necessary, no specific outcome was predicted, and no causal association was claimed.”

        This is why the study was set up as it was. This was a similar study design that McBride used in his Lancet paper that exposed the teratogenicity of thalidomide (a drug also linked to autism). “And it does not help Wakefield that his paper was only a case series of twelve carefully selected children…” NO! They were carefully selected for a reason! You are the one who clearly does not understand.

        “It seems at the home of disinformation central run by Clifford Miller (Wakefield’s lawyer) and John Stone tag team at “Childhealthsafety” he has expressed some frustration”

        LMAO. The cat’s out of the bag now! Perhaps you are familiar with this study then, which indicates that aluminum is a cause of autism: “Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure” – http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227

        Also, Deisher et al have uncovered evidence for a link between fetal tissues in vaccines and autism – http://soundchoice.org/autism/autism-research/ – perhaps the Pharma companies should simply stop using human tissues in human vaccines? Aren’t you at all worried that this practice could lead to the body recognizing its own tissues as antigens, and triggering a chronic autoimmune response?

        “And since Wakefield had his heart set on attaching measles to gut disease, the families affected by the Urabe containing MMR vaccines were left out in the cold (I believe some are working on a lawsuit, which in my opinion should include suing Richard Barr and Wakefield).”

        *GROAN*. No, the victims were left out in the cold because the government and vaccine manufacturers routinely deny any liability for vaccine damage, and make hell for anyone who challenges them. In fact, the government “has its heart set” on the belief that vaccines and autism are not connected, so even when they have acknowledged vaccine injury (as in the Hannah Poling case, or Bailey Banks, or Benjamin Zeller…), it was for an “autism-like disorder”… even though they have full-blown, DSM-IV autism (as a result of vaccination).

        “Do you actually think that those papers using different diagnostic criteria point to an increase of autism diagnosis due to vaccines? The DSM IV was introduced in 1994, a year before you so-called “spike.” I doubt you understand any of those papers (nor the requirement that they be from before 1995). And the diagnoses in Japan did plummet when they removed their MMR vaccine (though measles with subsequent disability and deaths did rise).”

        Please dude, don’t try to say that autism prevalence did not go up, just diagnosis and awareness… the opposite is true. Awareness was raised due to the increase in autism, and if anything diagnostic criteria became stricter, not looser. It’s not as if autism could have been MISSED earlier. And where are all the 30-year-old autistics? At most, diagnostic switching accounts for a small percentage of the rise, if any. Sheesh!

        P.S., That paper, co-written by Professor Rutter, one of Wakefield’s prosecutors, is an obvious hatchet job. In Japan, autism rates increased after MMR was introduced, and declined as confidence in it (justifiably) waned. After MMR was withdrawn, for causing meningitis or inflammation of the lining of the brain, single Measles and Rubella vaccine use continued and indeed increased – so your assertion that “measles with subsequent disability and deaths did rise” is quite interesting. At this time, the mercury-laden Japanese Encephalitis vaccine was also introduced in Japan – encephalitis being a well-established vaccine injury, not to mention a biophysical marker of autism.

        “It does not help Wakefield that there is a paper trail that leads to a deal with Fudenberg to market an alternative…”

        First of all, the deal was with a transfer factor, which was not a competing vaccine, and further, the deal was more through the Royal Free hospital and did not benefit Wakefield personally. Wakefield also did not process the data in the paper, making claims of scientific fraud bewildering. Now consider the very real conflicts of interest in Wakefield’s inquisitors:

        – Sir Crispin Davis became a non-executive director of MMR manufacturer Glaxo SmithKline (one of three defendant drug companies) in July 2003. He was simultaneously an executive board member of Elsevier, publishers of the Lancet which removed Wakefield’s 1998 paper. The High Court judge who denied parents whose children were treated by Wakefield was Sir Nigel Davis, brother to Lancet proprietor/GSK director Sir Crispin Davis.

        – Dr. Surendra Kumar, the Chairman of the GMC Fitness to Practice Panel who ruled against Dr Andrew Wakefield, would not answer questions about his shareholdings in GlaxoSmithKline. As Martin Walker points out, “Not only is it the case that anyone adjudicating in the Wakefield fitness to practice hearing has the power to raise or lower the price of the shares, there is inevitably a question that has to be answered about the individuals commitment to that company and how they came by these shares; it is well known that shares are GSK’s considered method of payment for work done for the company.”

        – Prof. Denis McDevitt attended meetings that discussed warnings from other countries about an early form of the triple jab, using the Urabe strain of mumps virus, which caused encephalitis and meningitis. (see: http://www.stanford.edu/~siegelr/mathakia.html ) Despite warnings and the fact that this vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, the Urabe-containing jab was introduced in the UK in 1988. Some of the 12 children whose medical history featured in the controversial 1998 Lancet paper, drawn up by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues and which suggested a possible link between the jab and bowel disease and regressive autism, had received the Urabe-strain vaccine – as indeed had some of those children in the high court litigation with manufacturers.

        – The person who commissioned Brian Deer, the Sunday Times reporter who popularized the charges against Wakefield et al., was Paul Nuki–son of Professor George Nuki. George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories’ Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval. Sitting on the CSM with Professor George Nuki was Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Sir David Hull. It was David Hull in 1998 who, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, started the attacks on Wakefield’s work.

        – Professor Sir Michael L. Rutter, one of the expert witnesses for Glaxo in the MMR litigation, failed to disclose in at least four papers published between 2005 and 2009 that he had a crucial conflicting financial interest as a highly paid expert witness for the vaccine industry (and for the U.S. Government that defends industry in Vaccine Court) in at least three major litigation projects, U.S. litigation concerning mercury (thimerosal) as a cause of autism, the U.K. MMR litigation, and the U.S. Omnibus Autism Proceeding (concerning both MMR and thimerosal as causes of autism). Professor Rutter’s non-disclosure of a conflicting financial interest is precisely the same as that alleged against Dr. Wakefield (involvement in MMR litigation), but far more extensive. Rutter is also a former (recent) Deputy Chairman of the immensely wealthy Wellcome Trust (founded by the Wellcome Foundation which is now Glaxo). See http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_publishing_group/documents/web_document/wtd002987.pdf , page 2. The Wellcome Trust has assets of over £14 billion, and hands out millions every year and can dictate a great deal of what research is carried out around the world.

        • “Wakefield explains, simply: “The crucial design feature which differentiates the case series from other designs is its lack of requirement to select participants on the basis of either the exposure (e.g., MMR) or the outcome of interest (e.g., autism).”

          Are you kidding me? Are you not at all aware of how Wakefield chose his patients?

          And yes, the cat is out of the bag. Do you want to address the ridiculous accusations you made about this page and its posters, ie. that “no empirical evidence” is provided? Or are you just gonna roll with it and cry to your buddies when your arguments are again revealed to be…well…moronic?

        • Bryan permalink

          Skewed, MMR was associated with onset of autism by the parents and also by the child’s health practitioners and by medical records. In fact, a large and growing number of doctors are accepting the evidence that vaccines may be responsible for some cases of autism. Most of these docs keep their opinions to themselves, for fear of being branded a heretic by extremists such as yourselves.

          However, scientific truth has never been a popularity contest, and evidence only continues to come in supporting a link between vaccines and autism. For example, in many cases, rechallenge and dechallenge has been observed – including in the epidemiological studies you all are citing as evidence exonerating vaccines:

          “The problems with the Honda/Rutter MMR/autism paper from Japan are only just the start of this. The fact of a dip in autism followed by a large rise when vaccinations increased over 150% in 1993 in Japan (according to official Japanese government figures) is actually evidence of at least two things. It is strong evidence of a causal association between the combination of vaccines and autism-like and related disorders.

          “It is also evidence of the existence of a dechallenge/rechallenge case series at a population level. Now that is beyond any doubt powerful. The dechallenge occurred by taking MMR away with a positive dip in autism on a population level. This was followed by a rechallenge with a positive rise in autism by reintroducing the single vaccines in place of the MMR.”

          http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/powerful-evidence-mmr-causes-autism-rechallenge-population-level

          I have summarily demolished the “empirical evidence” you all have provided, and exposed it as a joke, again and again. Whereas you have repeatedly shown that you lack any scientific integrity and are willing to interpret data any way you see fit, including discounting all evidence that disagrees with your bias.

          “Medical schools conduct a virtual hazing process they call professional training. After prolonged intense studies, and life-and-health-jeopardizing clinical exposures, medical residents are deprived of sleep, sometimes for days. This form of high-stress trauma-based education is completely consistent with standardized techniques used in mind control and cult indoctrination programs.”

          “This is commonly called brainwashing, but it is really a subtle form of hypnosis that relies on fear and trauma to capture and control your attention and shape your behavior.”

          “The end result is you get a heavily-trained egocentric professional that earnestly believes they are operating for the public’s greatest good, and arrogantly defends their actions based on the limited and limiting science they have learned.”

          “Many people are offended by this egoist attitude in medicine, but few realize it is rooted in the same German psychiatry that proclaimed at the gates of Auschwitz that ‘Work’ makes you free.”

          -Dr. Leonard Horowitz

        • I have summarily demolished the “empirical evidence” you all have provided, and exposed it as a joke, again and again

          Wow, you have some powerful delusions of grandeur, Bryan. All you have done here is cut-and-pasted garbage from anti-vax websites repeatedly. I’m afraid your sense of your own knowledge far exceeds its reality. Not an unusual trait for your ilk, however.

        • Bryan permalink

          Skewed, give me a break. I posted in rebuttal a very detailed dissection of the Honda/Rutter study, from the British Medical Journal (hardly “anti-vaccine”). http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7491/558.2?tab=responses

          Why don’t you try actually reading these criticisms and explaining what is wrong with them? Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is, and prove you are capable of doing more than slinging mud?

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan:

          Chris, Wakefield was basing his study on the experiences reported to him by parents and doctors, and on his *extensive* review of measles and safety studies of measles-containing vaccines (on which he wrote a 250-page report).

          So what about the stories from the USA dated before 1995 when the MMR had been used for more than twenty years? Do you have a link to that 250 page report?

          Oh, and “Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure” written by Stephanie Seneff and her friend Dr. Robert “trying to run away from $ 7 million lawsuit” Davidson is a joke. I mentioned it yesterday. Bottom line: do not take medical advice from electrical engineers who do not know the difference between an adjuvant and a preservative or medical doctors who like sue, but lose.

          Deisher is a religious ideologue who has not published any real research for years.

          And where are all the 30-year-old autistics? At most, diagnostic switching accounts for a small percentage of the rise, if any. Sheesh!

          They are all around you if you would just look.

          You seem to do lots of cutting and pasting from certain websites. Have you ever tried finding the information from primary sources, or do you find it too hard to think for yourself? So, again do a search of the research papers on PubMed and find the papers dated prior to 1995 that inspired Wakefield to conduct his study on a dozen carefully selected children. Perhaps you can cut and paste the list of references from that 250 paper, and share them with us.

        • Chris permalink

          I have a comment in moderation. But here is the short version:

          Produce that 250 page report by Wakefield, or at least the list of references it contains.

          A wee bit of advice: do not seek medical care from electrical engineers who cannot tell the difference between an adjuvant or a preservative (even if they do have tenure at MIT), also stay away from a medical doctor who is trying to leave this country to avoid paying seven million dollars after losing a lawsuit.

          Theresa Deisher’s arguments are the same ones that killed a young pregnant woman in Ireland recently. I just downloaded the Skeprechauns podcast from the Dublin Skeptics, it is titled “For Savita.” I am sure it will cheer me up as we prepare for Thanksgiving.

        • Chris, I’m sorry your posts keep getting caught in moderation. There is a six-link limit currently, so I am kind of baffled as to why they are getting stuck because there don’t seem to be six in some of the posts…I’ll investigate more after the holiday. Have a great Thanksgiving!

        • Chris permalink

          No problems. It probably helped to post a summary.

          Six links! Wow! I am used to using just two. Perhaps it does not like that I use HTML to imbed them in words.

        • Bryan permalink

          Chris, I have tried several times to post a response but it doesn’t work. This is a test…

        • Bryan permalink

          Chris, please see Wakefield’s “Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine: through a glass, darkly.” for an analysis of the safety studies. PUBMED ID# 11212459 or available for download as a pdf online.

          Did your study indicate that the prevalence of autism among the older cohort is *the same* as that in the younger generation?

          By the way, I did read Orac’s terrible attempt to lambast the study. It’s funny how you all knock the VAERS database, simply because it indicates that vaccines cause adverse reactions, particularly MMR and HPV vaccine. It is estimated that only 1-10% of vaccine ADRs are actually reported. Yes, not every single compaint was necessarily caused by the vaccine, but it’s still a valuable resource.

          I disagree with the author’s speculation (based on the real observation that fever follows MMR vaccination) that Tylenol is the main cause of autistic regression after MMR. Based on the presence of recombinant DNA fragments in both the MMR and the HPV vaccine.

          SaneVax (an “anti-vaccine” group that just happens to be exposing what the “experts” missed) found:

          “At the request of medical consumers concerned about HPV vaccine safety and efficacy, SANE Vax Inc. has retained a private laboratory to test a number of samples of HPV 4 Gardasil™ (Merck) for possible contamination by human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in the vaccine lots distributed to physicians.

          “The laboratory has informed SANE Vax Inc. that one hundred percent of thirteen (13) samples of Gardasil … currently being marketed in the U.S.A., Australia, New Zealand, Spain, France, and Poland have been found to be positive for HPV DNA.

          “When adsorbed to cationic particles, [8, 9] including aluminum adjuvant, [10] the DNA molecules can be inserted into human cells via mechanisms only recently recognized as nonviral gene delivery to their targets.[11]

          “There are at least seven reports published in the peer-reviewed medical journals containing documented links between HPV vaccination and a class of newly recognized, probably immune-mediated inflammatory neurodegenerative disorders, also described under the name of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM).[1-7] These inflammatory pathologies in the central nervous system may constitute a highly likely cause for the commonly reported seizures, physical and mental impairments or even deaths following Gardasil vaccinations.”

          Here is yet more confirmation of Deisher et al’s hypothesis that human DNA contamination in vaccines is causing adverse reactions.

          Science relies on robust debate and taking nothing for granted. Research findings are often influenced by the researcher’s opinion and institutional pressure. John P.A. Ioannidis explains that “for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” Screaming down anyone who disagrees with you, as you have all tried to do here (and you’ve learned from the pros, Pharma’s PR spin doctors), is not the proper way to conduct science.

        • Wakefield’s “Through the Glass Darkly” does not have any reference showing that autism increased after the 1971 introduction of MMR (which did not contain Urabe mumps). It is a desperate bit of trying to justify his bad research by grasping at any little bit of straw for support.

          It was adequately addressed in MMR vaccine: the continuing saga, which observed:

          The authors of the paper, Wakefield and Montgomery, imply that they have examined all the safety data relating to the licensing of the vaccine1 in the early 1970s (1971 in US and 1972 in UK, not 1975 and 1988 as they say). Although this is their aim, in support of their concerns they also cite studies that postdate the award of licences. Therefore it is surprising that they do not mention the classical Finnish double blind placebo controlled trial among twins.2 This was a rigorous study which reported a low incidence of side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms. The omission of this important study casts doubt on the completeness and impartiality of their review.

          Plus they pile on with MMR vaccine—worries are not justified and papers like Arch Dis Child. 2005 March; 90(3): 292–296., “No evidence of an association between MMR vaccine and gait disturbance.”

          Deisher has not published any real research in years because she no real science. Having a hypothesis just means she has a belief, not evidence.

          And, again, I ask you: what must you read and understand before using the VAERS database? It is easy to find out, yet you have not answered. It is explained clearly here. And why would anyone report a sore arm?

  39. Chris permalink

    Oh, yes, Bryan is a Wakefield fanboy. He does find us exasperating. It seems at the home of disinformation central run by Clifford Miller (Wakefield’s lawyer) and John Stone tag team at “Childhealthsafety” he has expressed some frustration:

    From time to time I have fallen into the tar pit trap of pointing out the hypocrisy of these types (most recently, SkewedDistribution on wordpress…) and eventually have to throw my hands up in exasperation. These people have a fair amount of knowledge (enough to be intimidating to the uninitiated), yet when you pin them they employ their knowledge in purely rhetorical arguments, with no basis is empirical reality. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so despicable. Most of their “debate” consists of heaping ridicule on anyone who doesn’t blindly follow the party line.

    Bryan, asking for the data that Wakefield used to build a hypothesis before doing his case studies is not a rhetorical argument. It is a chance for you to prove Brian Deer wrong, and help Wakefield.

    It does not help Wakefield that there is a paper trail that leads to a deal with Fudenberg to market an alternative (based on Fudenberg rolling out his own bone marrow on his kitchen table), and to a lawyer who was using public funds to sue on the few cases of meningitis cause by the Urabe strain in two of the originally introduced MMR vaccines used only between 1988 and 1992. And since Wakefield had his heart set on attaching measles to gut disease, the families affected by the Urabe containing MMR vaccines were left out in the cold (I believe some are working on a lawsuit, which in my opinion should include suing Richard Barr and Wakefield).

    And it does not help Wakefield that his paper was only a case series of twelve carefully selected children, and that they were given up to four different brands/kinds of MMR vaccines (the three used in the UK between 1988 and 1992, and the one American child)…. none of them which are the one the UK switched to in 1998. Having had experience doing computational modeling of structures I know that it works best to keep the number of variable changed between runs to a minimum (one), and with the information gathered from the models the number of physical test pieces were minimized (several are made that are identical, so there may be two or more sets). So having only twelve subjects and multiple vaccines from different manufacturers is not a good idea.

    Personally, I don’t think Wakefield was even aware that an MMR vaccine had been in use since 1971, because he is that bad at research.

    • What an interesting find, Chris! It’s really quite amazing that Bryan claims that,

      “These people have a fair amount of knowledge (enough to be intimidating to the uninitiated), yet when you pin them they employ their knowledge in purely rhetorical arguments, with no basis is empirical reality”.

      We have a “fair amount” of knowledge? We have given him information with “no basis is [sic] empirical reality”? Really, Bryan, a lot of posters here have spent a lot of time nailing you to the wall…empirically. The fact that you choose not to believe the data is your choice.

      Most of their “debate” consists of heaping ridicule on anyone who doesn’t blindly follow the party line.

      Absolute hogwash. You have been given links, data, and scientific debate. Am I heaping ridicule on you now? Yes, yes I am, after weeks of allowing you to post your horseshit here, but your science-proof mindset has reached the point where it deserves nothing but ridicule. Whatever you’re smoking, you might want to re-think it at this point.

      • Bryan permalink

        By the way…

        ‘I want to buy that t-shirt that says “It worked in mice”. Cancer has been cured in mice. Rodent studies are certainly interesting, but if the results are not confirmed in humans, then they don’t add much to the picture.’

        So are you acknowledging that cancer research, and animal testing in general, are largely fraudulent? Or do you just selectively use that argument when animal studies have results that disagree with your bias?

        Dr. Irwin Bross, Director of Biostatistics at the Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research for 24 years, wrote, “animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer.”

        “At Hyde Park and many other dumpsites (including Love Canal and the West Valley nuclear dumpsites) the residents and workers have been repeatedly assured by State and federal agencies that their low-level exposures were ‘harmless’. My research showed that these assurances by government agencies, assurances based largely on animal studies, were false, and that there were excess risks of cancer and other adverse health effects among the persons exposed to these ‘safe’ levels.

        “By science and common sense, when epidemiological studies of humans are positive and laboratory studies of animals are negative, it is prudent public health practice to accept the human evidence as a guide… All the US scientists who have come out with positive findings on the hazards of low level radiation (myself included) have suffered reprisals. When NCI cut off all my grants, the Village Voice asked why. The NCI spokesman replied ‘He bit the hand that fed him’.”

        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2917168-7/fulltext

        History repeats.

  40. Shaliza permalink

    Bryan says:

    “Dr. Wakefield was doing what any good researcher should do: listen to the patients. He studied their complaints with an open mind, instead of harassing them for suggesting that vaccination may have been linked to the adverse reaction – as have many doctors.”

    Ah yes, the typical anti-vaxxer argument about doctors *not listening* to their patients and harassing them. Let me enlighten you on this topic, Bryan and inform you that *we doctors* are being harrassed too, and frequently, by our anti-vaxxer patients. We DO listen and daily, only to be insulted by the anti-vaxxer lunatic at every turn. On a regular basis we are told that we’re only interested in making money, that we’re in league with big Pharma that are hell-bent on injecting toxins into everything, including our children, and that we’re not watching out for our patients’ best interests. If that’s not insulting enough, the religious fanatics also have the gall to tell us that vaccinating is against God’s will, and that we’re devil worshippers for even bringing up the subject. Since we, as physicians take an oath to do no harm, we are required to provide care to these lunatics, even though in extreme cases we have no choice but to discharge these patients from our practice. So yeah, if that’s not enough to make medical practice as frustrating as hell, nowadays, then I don’t know what is. If you want to worship a fraud and a quack like Wakefield, that is your choice, but to brand *many doctors* as not listening to their patients, just demonstrates your own bias, and tunnel vision to the extreme.

  41. Chris permalink

    Wakefield’s “Through the Glass Darkly” does not have any reference showing that autism increased after the 1971 introduction of MMR (which did not contain Urabe mumps). It is a desperate bit of trying to justify his bad research by grasping at any little bit of straw for support.

    It was adequately addressed in MMR vaccine: the continuing saga, which observed:

    The authors of the paper, Wakefield and Montgomery, imply that they have examined all the safety data relating to the licensing of the vaccine1 in the early 1970s (1971 in US and 1972 in UK, not 1975 and 1988 as they say). Although this is their aim, in support of their concerns they also cite studies that postdate the award of licences. Therefore it is surprising that they do not mention the classical Finnish double blind placebo controlled trial among twins.2 This was a rigorous study which reported a low incidence of side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms. The omission of this important study casts doubt on the completeness and impartiality of their review.

    Plus they pile on with MMR vaccine—worries are not justified and papers like Arch Dis Child. 2005 March; 90(3): 292–296., “No evidence of an association between MMR vaccine and gait disturbance.”

    Deisher has not published any real research in years because she no real science. Having a hypothesis just means she has a belief, not evidence.

    And, again, I ask you: what must you read and understand before using the VAERS database? It is easy to find out, yet you have not answered. It is explained clearly here. And why would anyone report a sore arm?

    • Bryan permalink

      Chris – ‘It is a silly “cite.” ‘

      Yet you can’t refute the substance of it. Autism rates fluctuated many times. They increased after MMR was introduced, yet the paper ignores this. Honda-Rutter is a silly paper, it is obviously “cherry-picked” (a phrase you are fond of) in order to deny an MMR-autism association. Most of the papers typically cited in this regard have serious methodological flaws, or make conclusions not supported by the evidence.

      To drive that home, here is yet another interesting paper:

      “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.”

      Citation: Demicheli V, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004407. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3. – http://www.omsj.org/reports/Demicheli%202012%20abstract.pdf

      For example, this so-called debate started with my pointing out that it is grossly innappropriate for Merck to use a “placebo” containing an undisclosed amount of aluminum. In the charts where they separate the aluminum from the genuine saline placebo (Tables 3 & 4) we see a substantially higher rate of injection-site adverse reactions in the aluminum group. Yet it is considered acceptable that they lump the groups together (even though the aluminum group is over 10 times larger) for systemic reactions.

      http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf.

      And yes, I am quite familiar with the limitations of VAERS, however, it is still an important resource for identifying potential adverse reactions of interest. It is not perfect, nor is it conclusive, and nobody said it was. For example, the NVIC (which is doing the job the CDC *should* be doing, if it wasn’t busy being a cheerleader for vaccines) states the limitations of VAERS and even lists 73 HPV reports that are likely mistaken: http://www.medalerts.org/analysis/archives/331

      However, for quite a few there is little doubt of a vaccine connection for any rational person:

      “Information has been received…concerning a 23-year-old female…who on 31-JAN-2008 was vaccinated with her 1st dose of Gardasil…the patient experienced anaphylactic shock 2 minutes after vaccination characterized by a brief loss of consciousness…respiratory arrest, eyes rolled upwards, blurred vision and greyish skin tone…Anaphylactic shock was considered to be immediately life-threatening.” VAERS ID: 304739-1

      “Cold sweat, Fall, Foaming at mouth, Grand mal convulsion, Immediate post-injection reaction….Pt [patient, 14-year-old female] received vaccine, took 6 steps, fell to the ground unconscious and had a 60 sec grand mal seizure then regained consciousness. [Blood pressure] after seizure 60/40 pale clammy skin. [Patient] had bit her tongue and had foam around her mouth.” VAERS ID: 305259-1

      “Two days after receiving the first dose of Gardasil, the
      patient developed groin warts. There is no known history
      of these warts. The patient came back in about a month
      later and was given the second dose of Gardasil. A few
      days after receiving the second dose, the patient had a huge
      outbreak of warts.” VAERS ID: 292052-1

      “Information has been received from a consumer concerning
      her 17-year-old daughter with no medical history and an
      allergy to sulfa, who on 28-SEP-2007 was vaccinated with
      a first dose of Gardasil . . . Prior to being vaccinated with
      Gardasil the patient was tested for HPV and genital warts
      and all her test came back negative. On 15-OCT-2007 the
      patient experienced a fever, and broke out with white
      bumps that were diagnosed as genital warts.” VAERS ID: 301339-1

      “A 16-year-old female patient had received an
      intramuscular, first dose injection of Menactra and an
      intramuscular, first dose injection of Human
      Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine. The patient
      experienced numbness and tingling in her feet and hands
      . . . The patient was referred to and examined by a
      neurologist. During that exam, she was found to have
      weakened severely. She was admitted to a pediatric
      intensive care unit for suspected Guillain Barre syndrome
      which was confirmed by lumbar puncture.” VAERS ID:
      262735-2

      “A 17-year-old female with no medical history and no drug
      allergies was vaccinated with a 0.5mL dose of Gardasil.
      Concomitant vaccinations included Menactra and Dtap.
      The patient fainted, fell off the table, hit her head on the
      ground, and had a seizure. The patient also had a cut on the
      bridge of her nose and gums. The patient went to the
      emergency room . . . The physician thought the seizure was
      due to head trauma.” VAERS ID: 306241-1

      “Information has been received . . . concerning a female
      patient who was vaccinated with a dose of Gardasil. The
      PA [physician’s assistant] reported that ‘the patient died of
      a blood clot 3 hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine.’ ”
      VAERS ID: 275990-1 (D)

      And so on. It is also important to note that if medical professionals are biased against the concept that some people have severe vaccine adverse reactions – such as all of you – they are unlikely to report to VAERS.

      • Chris permalink

        Yet you can’t refute the substance of it.

        It had no substance, it was just the “letters to the editor” opinions of persons without any medical knowledge, but lots of misinformation. Especially since Viera Schreibner was ranting about a completely different vaccine: DTP! It was not worth anyone’s time to deal with.

        Now for the third (or fourth time): What must you read and understand before using the VAERS database from its official website, http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index ? (not “medalerts” which is a website run by NVIC) Explain clearly what those paragraphs mean.

  42. Chris permalink

    Bryan:

    Skewed, give me a break. I posted in rebuttal a very detailed dissection of the Honda/Rutter study, from the British Medical Journal (hardly “anti-vaccine”). http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7491/558.2?tab=responses

    That is not a real citation. It is a “Rapid Response” from Wakefield’s UK lawyer, Clifford Miller. Who also is behind the “Childhealthysafety” blog, where he is notorious for cherry picking. There are also a couple from his fellow blogger of nonsense, John Stone, followed by Schrebner (a geologist) then an acupuncturist. It is a silly “cite.”

    And because I got caught in moderation again, the short version:

    Wakefield’s “Through the Glass, Darkly” was a desperate grasping at straws cherry picking of often unrelated papers to justify his bad research. Plus none of them showed an increase in autism after the MMR (no Urabe) was introduced in the USA.

    Seriously, tell us what you must read and understand before using the VAERS database?

    Deisher only has an hypothesis, but she has not published in years. She has a belief, but no evidence. It is related to the same belief that cause a young dentist to painfully die a needless death in Ireland.

  43. Chris permalink

    Bryan:

    Chris, I get it! “A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given.”

    Then answer the question. What do you need to read and understand before using the VAERS database from its official website: http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index. Just tell me the words and what they mean.

    • Chris permalink

      The “independent” researchers, Geiers, got in trouble for trying to find correlate the Vaccine Safety Database (not VAERS) with identifying information.

  44. Ninika permalink

    Just curious, it is quite obvious whose interest it could be to lobby vaccine safety and necessity of use, with all those expensive sponsored (!) scientific research (by the way, American Tobacco lab had been SCIENTIFICALLY proving that smoking does NOT cause any harm to the health for several decades!). Now, it is rather unclear to me at least, who could be benefiting by deliberately working anti-vaccines… And don’t mention homeopathic drug producers, there is not a single homeopathic drug producer who generates the revenue close to 1/10th of what main vaccine producers do, e.g. Pfizer or Sanofi…. Any thoughts on that?

    • Ninika:

      American Tobacco lab had been SCIENTIFICALLY proving that smoking does NOT cause any harm to the health for several decades

      Citation needed. It has been known for over a century that tobacco causes cancer (chewing tobacco in mouth cancers), and epidemiological studies just after World War II showed smoking is a cause of lung cancer. The same type of epidemiological studies that have failed to show vaccines are associated with autism.

      Try reading The price paid: Manipulation of otolaryngologists by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the emerging truth that smoking causes cancer. It seems that what the tobacco industry did is closer to the “research” performed by SafeMinds (Hornig and Burbacher), the Geiers, Gary Goldman, Wakefield, DeLong, Shaw and others.

      Now, it is rather unclear to me at least, who could be benefiting by deliberately working anti-vaccines

      That sentence does not make sense. But there is a profit in demonizing vaccines, just look at the ads on Generation Rescue’s website for compounding pharmacies, specialized foods, various unproven therapies and expensive DAN! doctors (the Geiers, Bradstreet, Buttar and others charge lots of money for their “cures”). Don’t forget all of the books and speaking tours (apparently there are lots of vendors at the AutismOne conference). Sometimes I think folks aligned with “Big Hospital Supply” are pushing the anti-vaccine agenda to get more orders for hospital equipment needed to keep kids alive.

      (by the way, I was on a listserv for my son’s disability, and one of Bradstreet’s employees was on there pushing the anti-vaccine agenda and promoting his treatments… so, yeah, there is profit in promoting irrational fears)

      Well, considering that homeopathy is just a whole bunch of nothing: even with the gross revenues being close to real pharmaceutical sales, sugar pills don’t cost much to make. As you can see from this graphic, the homeopathic manufacturer, Boiron, has a very decent profit margin. It does pretty good for packaging cake decorating nonpariels in little bottles and giving them fancy names.

      It case it is not clear: homeopathy does not work. By definition a 30C dilution is the original substance (like table salt for Nat Mur) and diluting it to one part in 10 raised by 60 (or a one with sixty zeros behind it, which would be enough water to fill up our sun, in other words: impossible).

    • Chris permalink

      Apologies if this is posted twice, sometimes WordPress hates me:

      Ninika:

      American Tobacco lab had been SCIENTIFICALLY proving that smoking does NOT cause any harm to the health for several decades

      Citation needed. It has been known for over a century that tobacco causes cancer (chewing tobacco in mouth cancers), and epidemiological studies just after World War II showed smoking is a cause of lung cancer. The same type of epidemiological studies that have failed to show vaccines are associated with autism.

      Try reading The price paid: Manipulation of otolaryngologists by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the emerging truth that smoking causes cancer. It seems that what the tobacco industry did is closer to the “research” performed by SafeMinds (Hornig and Burbacher), the Geiers, Gary Goldman, Wakefield, DeLong, Shaw and others.

      Now, it is rather unclear to me at least, who could be benefiting by deliberately working anti-vaccines

      That sentence does not make sense. But there is a profit in demonizing vaccines, just look at the ads on Generation Rescue’s website for compounding pharmacies, specialized foods, various unproven therapies and expensive DAN! doctors (the Geiers, Bradstreet, Buttar and others charge lots of money for their “cures”). Don’t forget all of the books and speaking tours (apparently there are lots of vendors at the AutismOne conference). Sometimes I think folks aligned with “Big Hospital Supply” are pushing the anti-vaccine agenda to get more orders for hospital equipment needed to keep kids alive.

      (by the way, I was on a listserv for my son’s disability, and one of Bradstreet’s employees was on there pushing the anti-vaccine agenda and promoting his treatments… so, yeah, there is profit in promoting irrational fears)

      Well, considering that homeopathy is just a whole bunch of nothing: even with the gross revenues being close to real pharmaceutical sales, sugar pills don’t cost much to make. As you can see from this graphic, the homeopathic manufacturer, Boiron, has a very decent profit margin. It does pretty good for packaging cake decorating nonpariels in little bottles and giving them fancy names.

      It case it is not clear: homeopathy does not work. By definition a 30C dilution is the original substance (like table salt for Nat Mur) and diluting it to one part in 10 raised by 60 (or a one with sixty zeros behind it, which would be enough water to fill up our sun, in other words: impossible).

    • Chris permalink

      Comment in moderation (only two links!):

      Short version:

      What tobacco companies did is more in line with the studies done by the Geiers, Wakefield, Shaw and other anti-vaccine “researchers.”

      Yes there is profit in promoting irrational fears. Ever hear of “DAN!” doctors?

      Boiron makes lots of money putting cake decorating nonpareils in little bottles and giving them fancy names. They are third in the category that includes vaccine manufacturers. Plus homeopathy does not work.

    • Chemmomo permalink

      Ninika,
      who’s benefiting from fear mongering about vaccines? You mean besides Andrew Wakefield?
      How about Jenny McCarthy? And Dr Bob Sears – all those book sales.

      And that’s just the short list – the obvious ones.

      Or did you think that it’s only corporations that can get tarred with that brush? Sorry to burst your bubble.

  45. Shaliza permalink

    [quote]Bryan says:

    “Medical schools conduct a virtual hazing process they call professional training. After prolonged intense studies, and life-and-health-jeopardizing clinical exposures, medical residents are deprived of sleep, sometimes for days. This form of high-stress trauma-based education is completely consistent with standardized techniques used in mind control and cult indoctrination programs.”

    “This is commonly called brainwashing, but it is really a subtle form of hypnosis that relies on fear and trauma to capture and control your attention and shape your behavior.”

    “The end result is you get a heavily-trained egocentric professional that earnestly believes they are operating for the public’s greatest good, and arrogantly defends their actions based on the limited and limiting science they have learned.”

    “Many people are offended by this egoist attitude in medicine, but few realize it is rooted in the same German psychiatry that proclaimed at the gates of Auschwitz that ‘Work’ makes you free.”

    -Dr. Leonard Horowitz
    [/quote]

    LOL! WOW… you must be desperate to start quoting Leonard Horowitz in this blog, while wasting poor Skewed’s bandwidth in the process. Let’s take a minute to examine Horowitz’s claims to fame, shall we?

    1) HIV denialist (after all, the HIV virus was a government conspiracy and a presumed bioterrorism modality before it “leaked” into society).
    2) In 2009, gave statements to al Jazeera that H1N1 vaccines would cause sterility, as part of a US plan of “pangenocide” against Muslims (fact and fiction are indistinguishable here).
    3) Proud author of several insane articles which state that “Kissinger” and “Vaccination” both decipher to “666,” which is the infamous “mark of the beast.” (LMAO)
    4) During the 2003 SARS outbreak, Horowitz and his looney team promoted a miracle cure “Urbani” after the first identified victim of SARS, Carlo Urbani (this accounts for one of the several “miracle cures” that Horowitz peddles on his website with steep prices to match).
    5) Has received FDA warnings for his so called “miracle cures” whose efficacy and safety leave a lot to be desired.
    6) Big proponent of “colloidal silver” use, and uses the NASA logo to sell this miraculous “cure all.” Clearly looking like a “smurf” (argyria) as a result of this insane treatment is no cause for concern where dear Lenny is concerned.

    The list of insanity goes on and on…

    So… if you choose to also believe his insane ranting about each and every doctor and the “brainwashing” that they endure to become the egotistical lunatic that they are, be my guest. Then again, dear Horowitz seems to take the cake when it comes to insanity, hypnosis and overall paranoia, so I suppose it takes one to know one. ;)

    I’ll also admit, there are many doctors that I will never go to, or refer anyone to. And yes, the residency programs are brutal in their training and quite the medical boot camp as it were. But “mind-control” and “cults” are a bit much, methinks. Though of course, the whole anti-vaccine movement could be also be called a cult and a huge brainwashing fiesta as it were. After all, all the anti-vaxxers thrive on anecdotes and fear-inducing tactics to scare the public. Anecdotal pseudoscience, anyone? Oh and Horowitz has no problems with brainwashing people into believing his asinine conspiracy theories and buying some of the quackiest remedies on the planet. Not to mention people like Jenny McCarthy selling huge numbers of books with miraculous cures unknown to anyone but herself and lucrative deals with Oprah to further propagate this type of nonsense. After all, according to many, Oprah’s word is equivalent to god. Riiight… !

    Again, if you want to worship at the altars of Horowitz, Mercola, Wakefield, and the like, that’s your choice. But to accuse the millions of medical professionals and others who uphold vaccination and science as being brain-washed and cult-like, is downright laughable and extremely narrow-minded of you. Then again, it takes one, to know one, right? ;)

    I think that’s all I have to say on this matter, for now. On a final note, thanks for giving me the BEST laugh I’ve had in a long time with dear Lenny’s quote. LMAO! :D

    • Bryan permalink

      POST MODIFIED BY ADMIN

      All denial of the undisputed fact that HIV causes AIDS has been edited by the admin of this page. Bryan: you have gone too far. I will not allow the perpetuation of fraud on this page, ever. You are quite lucky that I have not banned you over this, but you’re close. Watch your step.

      In addition, and there is no way to say this nicely, HIV denialism instantly and irrevocably places you in the “fucking moron” category. Congratulations.

      • Chris permalink

        Considering the deaths of HIV deniers like David Pasquarelli, Christine Maggiore and others, if this were my blog you would be banned for such deadly nonsense. Plus, Luc Montagnier is now suffering from “Nobel disease” by actually believing homeopathy.

        Plus, dealing with water borne diseases does nothing for measles, mumps, rubella, Hib, influenza and other air borne illnesses.

        • Bryan is quite close to being banned for HIV denialism. I’m thinking on it.

        • Chris permalink

          HIV/AIDS killed a very dear neighbor over twenty-five years ago. I remember seeing him sitting on his front porch looking so sad after he got the news. A couple of years after his death his partner helped me deal with getting my baby, car-seat and a load of groceries out of the car, and he mentioned that they had been thinking of adopting children before his partner’s death. It makes me so sad.

          It seems Bryan is just reiterating the stuff he reads on a limited number of websites, without an original thought in his head. I’ve heard most of them before, and even after being corrected he repeats the same old tropes, and sometimes with errors (the Geiers violated the terms of use for the Vaccine Safety Datalink database, not VAERS).

          Yes, Shaliza rocks!

          I am delighted whenever I see one of her comments. Oh, and the website on American Loons is quite fun.

        • Chris permalink

          I need a few more words: ” I remember seeing him sitting on his front porch looking so sad after he got the news that he had AIDS.”

          I figure I need to clarify for Bryan’s sake.

          The infectious disease doctor on the ScienceBasedMedicine blog, Mark Crislip, was in his residency when AIDS was being discovered. He often remarks on how these patients were often hopeless, and how it has changed where they are now living due to active treatment.

          I also have a friend who used to be a lawyer before kids (one is autistic, so that kind of killed her career… something we have in common). One niche she did was dealing in creating trust accounts for gay couples, especially if one had HIV. She did not like getting to know some very nice people, only to have one die. But it was through her legal dealings that the surviving partner had some say in being with their partner in the hospital and rights of joint survival that helped in many cases (if the genetic relatives could ban partners from the hospital, and even to any property that could be considered “community property”).

          Fortunately in our state that changes when same sex marriage becomes officially legal at midnight tonight.

        • Bryan permalink

          “Considering the deaths of HIV deniers like David Pasquarelli, Christine Maggiore and others”

          Considering your impossibly high standards for linking HPV vaccine to adverse reactions, I find it interesting that you cite these ANECDOTAL, highly contested deaths as evidence that HIV is the primary cause of AIDS. Christine Maggiore’s deceased daughter was used as a tactic to raise fear about HIV, even though the autopsy evidence didn’t indicate she died of HIV infection.

          “if this were my blog you would be banned for such deadly nonsense.”

          This is exactly the type of medical fascism I’m talking about. It’s unfortunate that this attitude pervades scholarship and peer review. It is an insult to the practice of science that certain lines of thinking are considered totally taboo, and any research supporting it is swept under the carpet.

          For example, a great deal of high-quality peer-reviewed research supports a therapeutic association with homeopathic treatments. Dr. Benveniste’s finding that water diluted such that it contains no trace of a chemical still preserves a “memory” of the chemical has been replicated multiple times. This has been analyzed as dealing with the structure of water molecules, the shapes they take in relation to each other, which can be quantified by measuring their spectral emission patterns.

          For example:

          “Regression vector coefficients reveals variations in water structures related to functionality of HIV”

          Sakudo A., Tsenkova R., Onozuka D., Morita K., Li S, Warachit J., Iwabu I., Li G., Onodera T., Ikuta K. “A novel diagnostic method for human immunodeficiency virus type-1 in plasma by near-infrared spectroscopy” Microbiol Immunol, 49 (7), pp. 695-701, 2005. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16034213 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16034213

          “even after being corrected he repeats the same old tropes, and sometimes with errors (the Geiers violated the terms of use for the Vaccine Safety Datalink database, not VAERS).”

          No, the Geiers didn’t violate the terms for either the VSD or VAERS. And you’re also wrong again, I never said they were looking at VAERS. It’s like you just haphazardly grab at anything that can supposedly discredit me.

          “All denial of the undisputed fact that HIV causes AIDS has been edited by the admin of this page. Bryan: you have gone too far. I will not allow the perpetuation of fraud on this page, ever. You are quite lucky that I have not banned you over this, but you’re close. Watch your step.”

          Skewed, your attitude is far from what is needed for a healthy scientific discourse. It’s quite clear that the only ones using fear tactics are you and your little troop.

          All I asked was a simple question: Why does the detection of HIV antibodies in the bloodstream lead to a diagnosis of “HIV+”, which is like pronouncing a death sentence in the medical world (and forces you to take HIGHLY toxic antiretrovirals like AZT) – but normally antibody detection indicates successful immunization? How is one supposed to ignore these types of blatant contradictions that riddle the HIV-AIDS hypothesis (such as the alleged decade-long “incubation times”)?

          Do you have an answer, or are you just going to ban me, thus proving my point that close-minded, authoritarian attitudes are widespread in mainstream medicine?

        • “This is exactly the type of medical fascism I’m talking about. It’s unfortunate that this attitude pervades scholarship and peer review. It is an insult to the practice of science that certain lines of thinking are considered totally taboo, and any research supporting it is swept under the carpet.”

          Hey BryBry? I hate to break it to you, but you are not involved in the practice of science. The lines of “thinking” that are taboo are those that are infantile, ill-informed, and demonstrate a shocking lack of scientific knowledge. This is exemplified by your quite simply idiotic question regarding HIV antibodies vs. other antibodies. Viruses work in different ways. Some burn out quickly, leaving antibodies as ghosts of their presence. Some linger, stealthily, and wait to take you down. Take an infectious disease course of some kind, then come back with your tail tucked between your legs and beg for my mercy. HIV as the cause of AIDS has been proven, period (and meets your beloved Koch’s postulates as well!).

          I very much enjoy you playing the victim now because it’s so ridiculous. You have been permitted to post all manner of nonsense on this blog for months on end, hence your allegation that I am “just going to ban” you is simply insane. You have received answers to your questions, in detail. You have ignored those answers and changed the subject, which is why you may have noticed that I stopped interacting with you a long time ago. It is because I realized that you do not have the intellectual capacity for a real scientific discussion, and that there is literally nothing I can say that could possibly dislodge your from your delusional, conspiratorial mindset. You think you are smarter than everyone else, but in fact, you are woefully ignorant about epidemiology and infectious disease and are not worth a second more of my time. As I said from the start: Dunning-Kruger. You are the poster boy.

          So you can keep posting away here–for now–but one more wrong step and you are gone. I will not stand for HIV denialism here. Ever. You have to be, as I said before, a fucking moron not to understand why we know HIV causes AIDS. Period.

        • Christine Maggiore is responsible for the death of her 3-year-old daughter. Strange company you keep, BryBry.

        • That is so sad. I just finished reading “Spillover”, a book I highly recommend, which explains quite clearly how HIV jumped species. It is very difficult for me to deal with people who cannot accept HIV as the cause of AIDS. It is, quite simply, insane. And I don’t know how to deal with that.

        • Chris permalink

          Bryan, go away. You are now a repetitive bore and no longer amusing as you stray off topic. You have no clue that the paper does not say what you think it does.

          It is also pathetic the way you come to the defense of the Geiers. Papa Geier has finally lost his medical license, and as you can see after complaints from multiple patients (they are identified alphabetically from Patient A through to Patient I):

          https://www.mbp.state.md.us/bpqapp/Orders/D2425004.271.PDF

          Perhaps soon the fine hammer will fall on his son for practicing medicine without a license.

        • BryBry’s favorite “scientists”

          1. Wakefield, fraud
          2. The Geiers, frauds
          3. Christine Maggiore, who essentially killed her daughter
          4. Leonard Horowitz, class A nutjob

          He is making some excellent choices.

        • Chris permalink

          Correction: Papa Geier’s license was fully revoked:

          http://www.mbp.state.md.us/BPQAPP/orders/d2425008.222.pdf

        • Shaliza permalink

          “Yes, Shaliza rocks!

          I am delighted whenever I see one of her comments. Oh, and the website on American Loons is quite fun.”

          Thank you, Chris. :) The feeling is mutual, btw. I really enjoy reading this blog and appreciate the witty and informative comments posted by you, Skewed and the rest of the gang. It’s very educational, and I get to enjoy a good ol’ giggle at the same time.

          Speaking of HIV/AIDS, I too, have a story to share. One of my best friends and her husband adopted a 7 year old boy who was born to a drug abusing mom, and had severe neonatal abstinence syndrome after birth. CPS stepped in, and the child became a ward of the state and had such severe behavior issues that he was bounced around from one foster home to another. When my friend and her husband met him as a potential adoptee, he was an angry, defiant boy who trusted nothing and no one. After he was adopted, in spite of his family’s best attempts to help him, he continued to deteriorate, started abusing alcohol at age 12 and became an IV drug user at age 16. He contracted HIV from sharing needles and because he was so non-compliant with his med regimen, ended up developing AIDS.

          In the past two years though, in his 40’s, he finally tried to turn his life around. He was able to have a job for the first time ever, and had his own apartment. He also started growing closer to his adoptive parents and sister, was very apologetic about the way he lived his life, and the suffering he brought them. He became med compliant, and his cell counts were starting to stabilize. But then, unexplained weakness developed, and his medical team at UCLA determined this to be caused the JC virus, and the progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) it can cause in immunocompromised states like AIDS. He grew weaker and weaker, had hospice care for several months, and finally passed away just before Christmas 2011. His final wish was that his body be donated for AIDS/HIV research at UCLA, and his family did so.

          I’ve had patients of my own suffer from, and die from AIDS, but seeing what my friend went through was an eye-opener. It was a deeply humbling experience, and something I will never forget.

    • Thank you, Shaliza! You rock! Bryan is sauntering up to the ban line, so sadly he may not be around to entertain us much longer.

      • Shaliza permalink

        You’re welcome, Skewed. ;) When I saw dear Lenny’s quote on this blog, I couldn’t resist listing his claims to fame and overall insanity that had me chuckling till my stomach hurt. Then again, when you look at the entire breed of anti-vaxxers, he’s right up there with Wakefield, Humphries, Mercola, etc, etc. Birds of a feather flock together, I suppose. ;)

        Speaking of which, I’ve recently discovered the Encyclopedia of American Loons, and a lot of the entries deal with the prominent figures in the entire anti-vax movement. It makes for hours of entertaining reading, and I highly recommend it. :D

  46. Shaliza permalink

    SD says:

    “BryBry’s favorite “scientists”

    1. Wakefield, fraud
    2. The Geiers, frauds
    3. Christine Maggiore, who essentially killed her daughter
    4. Leonard Horowitz, class A nutjob

    He is making some excellent choices.”

    LOL! I couldn’t agree more, Skewed. :D

    I would also like to add #5 to this list. Let me present Viera Scheibner, PhD, retired geologist and anti-vaccine extraordinaire, whose lunacy knows no bounds, and who is possibly best known for her notorious assertations that vaccine administration, rather than child abuse, is solely responsible for Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). I mean really, WTF?!

    Bryan says:

    “Skewed, give me a break. I posted in rebuttal a very detailed dissection of the Honda/Rutter study, from the British Medical Journal (hardly “anti-vaccine”). http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7491/558.2?tab=responses

    The above link sheds great light on the fellow loons that Bryan likes to hobnob with. Among them is the ultimate nutjob Scheibner, who truly believes that vaccines cause immense depletion of the body’s Vitamin C stores, which results in retinal hemorrhages, subdural hemorrhages, retinal detachments and multiple bone fractures. She therefore asserts that while these findings are classic for SBS, that they are, in fact, caused by Vitamin C defiency (scurvy), rather than actual “shaking” or any other form of abuse. The entire paper, in all its glorious insanity can be found below:

    http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/scheibner.html

    LMAO! Just when I think that anti-vaxxers can’t sink any lower, they manage to surprise me yet again. :D

    Since the majority of babies are vaccinated, at least where I work, I wonder why we don’t see many more cases of SBS, since you know, they are all Vitamin C deficient, just bleeding out of every bodily orifice, and having malformed bones to boot! Also, I wonder what dear Dr. Scheibner’s explanation is for SBS in infants who have NOT received a single vaccine? What causes the so called Vitamin C depletion in them? Methinks, it’s just another poorly disguised attempt to exonerate the TRUE abusers and denigrate the pro-vaccine community at every turn.

    Actually, the more I talk about this alarmingly widespread vaccine aversion to my colleagues, family and friends, the more I’m starting to think that it’s the most glorified form of child abuse that ever existed. To refuse to protect your children, based on anecdotal pseudoscience, the words of omnipresent quacks who peddle miraculous cures for every disease known to man, and the deepest confidence in those who have lost their medical licenses in the quest for upholding rubbish and propagating mass hysteria based on a LIE, certainly qualifies as child abuse in my book.

  47. Praise for Diane permalink

    “You are always right Skewed, no one dare challenge ‘your’ science. I hope you take every vaccine they make, please do, then when you are damaged beyond repair, you will know”

    Pro-health bloggers like skewed can never hope to live up to the compassion that antivaxxers demonstrate with their every word. Their posts simply drip with grace and charm. Who would not read the above and resolve to follow Diane where she chooses to lead?

  48. J’ai ϲomme l’impression qque j’en parlerai ѕur un site web

  49. I have been browsing online more than Three hours currently, however certainly not observed just about any exciting write-up such as your own house. It is wonderful price tag plenty of to me. Personally, in case many webmasters plus web owners built just right information as you likely would, online should be a great deal more beneficial than any other time.

  50. Encore un article effectivement attrayant

  51. Euhhh êtes vous sûr de ce que vous affirmez ??

  52. Je prends la peine de poster ce petit com uniquement
    pour congratuler l’auteur

  53. Je peux dire que c’est continuellement une joie de
    visiter votre site web

  54. Je publie ce commentaire simplement pour féliciter l’admin

  55. Very rapidly this site will be famous amid all blog people, due to it’s nice articles

  56. naturally like your website but you need to test the spelling on quite a few of
    your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I
    in finding it very troublesome to inform the truth nevertheless I’ll
    surely come back again.

  57. Today, I went to the beach front with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to
    my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put
    the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab
    inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to
    go back! LoL I know this is completely off topic but I had to tell someone!

  58. is updated frequently with free advice about Google Ad – Words strategy, tactics, tips tricks and techniques for success in Ad – Words advertising.
    The website speed test at Secret Search Engine Labs will analyze how fast a page on your site is loading and give you tips on how to improve it.
    Any time you create new content or share new links on your website or blog, be sure to do so by diversifying all of the link and anchor text you implement, regardless of the market you represent or the industry you
    are working in.

  59. Hi there, yup this post is really good and I have learned lot of things from it concerning blogging.
    thanks.

  60. It will also increase the ranking of your website on search engines and will drive
    more traffic to your website. In addition, the observing surgeons could transmit their comments to the operating surgeon, who could read them on the Google
    Glass monitor. But it seems Memorial Day wasn’t
    important enough to Google.

  61. You have so substantially chance and can do just about everything
    you like, which unfortunately you will not be able to do in common level-based video games.

  62. Who says you have to spend to get the best apps? The most nicely recognized aspect of the Android platform is access to the Android Market.

  63. hello there and thank you for your info –
    I’ve definitely picked up something new from right here.
    I did however expertise some technical issues using this website,
    as I experienced to reload the website a lot of
    times previous to I could get it to load correctly.
    I had been wondering if your hosting is
    OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances
    times will sometimes affect your placement in google and could damage
    your quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords.
    Well I am adding this RSS to my email and can look out for a lot more of
    your respective exciting content. Make sure you update this again soon.

  64. An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a friend who has been conducting a little homework on this.
    And he in fact ordered me dinner because I discovered it for him…

    lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks
    for spending the time to discuss this matter
    here on your web page.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 274 other followers

%d bloggers like this: