Understanding the HPV vaccine “Table of Doom”
Hi Reader. I know you’ve seen it, but have you ever wondered about the story behind it? It’s seen about four times a year and results in great terror, howling and hand-wringing. No, it’s not the chupacabra. It’s the HPV vaccine Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) table. It looks something like this, and is allegedly a list of the adverse events attributable to HPV vaccine.
So, a pop quiz on this table.
Q. Why is this table useless?
A. Well, for one thing, it’s because it includes no denominator. This table is composed of counts; it is not an “analysis” by any stretch of the definition. I’m not theoretically opposed to counting, nor to powerpoint tables. However, no victim looking at this table is provided with adequate information for considering whether or not the proportion of these events is less than, equal to, or greater than the rate of the events in the general population. It’s a good thing that the CDC has done so, and reports that there is no unusual clustering of any adverse events after HPV vaccination, with the exception of syncope (fainting). Despite that fact, the Table of Doom is most often interpreted, Henny Penny-like, as proving that HPV vaccine caused these events. It doesn’t. These are reports of events that occurred at any time after administration of HPV vaccine, and as the CDC page clearly states,
“The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event“.
The CDC also asks that you acknowledge your understanding of this statement before commencing your rampant VAERS abuse. And yet, anti-vaxxers continue to misuse the database daily. But you may be wondering, what is the denominator? How many doses of HPV vaccine have been administered? I aim to please, so here it is: as of July 2012, 46 million doses of HPV vaccine had been given in the United States. As mentioned above, the CDC has calculated rates of the events listed in the Table of Doom for those who are vaccinated vs. the general population, and there are no differences. If we look at deaths, for example, there have been 121 reported after at least 46,000,000 doses of HPV vaccine. The annual death rate for U.S. teens aged 12-19 is 49.5 deaths per 100,000 population. It would take some serious contortions of mathematics to imply that the rate of deaths occurring after HPV vaccine are somehow higher than what is observed in the general population, though a thorough analysis would obviously be much more complicated than what I present here. Thankfully, as mentioned above, the CDC is constantly conducting such analyses and has concluded that HPV does not cause any serious adverse events.
As it happens, I know a person who is involved in evaluating these adverse events. He’s not a horned devil out to slay your daughters. He’s a physician and scientist who cares deeply about his role in ensuring the safety of the vaccine, for both professional and personal reasons. So if your next instinct is to “attack the source”, please remember that there are actual people reviewing these adverse events, and these are people who care greatly about ensuring the health of their own children and their community. If you’d like more information on the limitations of VAERS, Karen Ernst over at Moms Who Vax wrote a terrific summary of the problems.
Q. Who prepares this table?
A. The originator of the Table of Doom is allegedly Janny Stokvis, who refers to herself as an ”HPV Vaccine VAERS researcher and analyst”. I was not familiar with Stokvis’ body of work so I first headed over to PubMed to investigate her scientific publications. Unfortunately this was not very fruitful as the only pub by any “J. Stokvis” was a single 1987 article that appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with vaccination. So I employed the more prosaic technique of Googling and discovered that Stokvis describes herself and her partner in misunderstanding HPV vaccine as follows:
“…we’re not scientists, medical specialists or journalists. We consider ourselves professors in everyday life and even more, we’re mothers”.
Well. Okay then. I respect mothers. Really, I have one myself, and she’s just great (she also happens to be a medical specialist, but that’s beside the point). What I don’t respect is mothers who either deliberately or through a massive misunderstanding of the data are consistently misleading others about the safety of HPV vaccine. I can’t help but wonder if Ms. Stokvis really and truly does not grasp what is wrong with the Table of Doom, and if perhaps it is simply being misused by others for their own agenda. Either way, the Table of Doom is at best useless and at worst a danger to public health. The next time someone presents you with it, ask them how the rates of any of the events compare to those in the general population, and listen for the crickets.
Because the CDC doesn’t provide ANY data or analysis whatsoever, I find it hard to believe them. Especially since a July 2003 UPI Report found, after a four-month investigation, a web of close ties between the agency and the companies that make vaccines.
“Members of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee get money from vaccine manufacturers. Relationships have included: sharing a vaccine patent; owning stock in a vaccine company; payments for research; getting money to monitor manufacturer vaccine tests; and funding academic departments.
“The CDC is in the vaccine business. Under a 1980 law, the CDC currently has 28 licensing agreements with companies and one university for vaccines or vaccine-related products. It has eight ongoing projects to collaborate on new vaccines.”
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2003/07/21/UPI-Investigates-The-vaccine-conflict/UPI-44221058841736/#ixzz1eYiL0X4h
However, take a look at Merck’s OWN data. Table 10 indicates a higher rate of adverse reactions for Gardasil (46%) than “placebo” (34%) – http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf.
I put ‘placebo’ in quotations because they used Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate, which essentially makes their results worthless for determining the true rate of ADRs, since aluminum salts ARE toxic.
“These results may suggest a role for raised levels of aluminium and modulation of proteins that regulate iron homeostasis as biomarkers for identification of women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. The reasons for the high levels of aluminium in NAF remain unknown but possibilities include either exposure to aluminium-based antiperspirant salts in the adjacent underarm area and/or preferential accumulation of aluminium by breast tissues.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21337589
“We have recently found increased levels of aluminium in noninvasively collected nipple aspirate fluids taken from breast cancer patients (mean 268 ± 28 μg/l) compared with control healthy subjects (mean 131 ± 10 μg/l) providing evidence of raised aluminium levels in the breast microenvironment when cancer is present.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013411002078
“Medical practitioners in nine countries submitted samples of Gardasil® (Merck & Co.) to be tested for the presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA because they suspected that residual recombinant HPV DNA left in the vaccine might have been a contributing factor leading to some of the unexplained post-vaccination side effects… The results showed that all 16 Gardasil® samples, each with a different lot number, contained fragments of HPV-11 DNA, or HPV-18 DNA, or a DNA fragment mixture from both genotypes. The detected HPV DNA was found to be firmly bound to the insoluble, proteinase-resistant fraction, presumably of amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) nanoparticles used as adjuvant.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016201341200267X
The evidence linking aluminum to breast cancer (as well as neurological disease, etc.) is far more solid than that linking HPV to cervical cancer. HPV is present in many cases of cervical cancer but not all, which violates Koch’s Postulates. Also, based on the viral breeding cycle, “slow viruses” that cause damage decades after the infection has been cleared are not plausible. At most, HPV is a co-factor.
Simply put, there is a lot of money in “proving” that HPV causes cancer, and in “disproving” that aluminum causes cancer.
The CDC doesn’t provide any data? What do you call the completely accessible VAERS database that the anti-vaxxers are constantly abusing? Regardless, I am starting to have a better grasp on the limitations of your math and science capabilities. You confidently state that Table 10 of the Gardasil insert shows a higher rate of adverse reactions for Gardasil (46) than placebo (34). I don’t mean to embarrass you, but those aren’t percentages, my dear. Those are counts. The percentage, or rate, of adverse events in each group was identical–1.5%. This again illustrates why the denominator is so very important.
As for your allegations about aluminum, none of them–not one, is a study of the doses of aluminum used in vaccinations. The dose makes the poison, and the aluminum in vaccines is not enough to cause disease. You may think the evidence for aluminum and breast cancer is stronger than for HPV and cervical cancer, but the entire scientific community disagrees. There is absolutely no doubt that HPV is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of cervical cancer. It seems as though you can’t quite cope with the “messiness” of this scientific fact, but there it is. HPV is found in 99% of cervical cancers, period. All of the laboratory studies bear out that HPV causes cervical cancer, period. And here’s a question for you, Bryan. Do you think that smoking causes lung cancer?
So in summary, let’s see. Should I go with what Bryan says–a guy who cannot even grasp how rates work? Or should I go with science? Hmmmmmm…I shan’t spend much time considering this question.
Everyone makes mistakes. The point is realizing when you’re wrong. Anyone with half a brain can deduce that Merck mixed in aluminum “placebo” data in with the REAL placebo data, in order to make the Gardasil and “control” groups look the same.
The FDA defines a placebo as ““an inactive pill, liquid, or powder that has no treatment
value.” However, aluminum is specifically used in vaccines in order to amplify the immune response – it is far from inactive. Should we go with what *you* say, someone who doesn’t even understand how a placebo-control trial works?
As far as the smokescreen you threw up, about the dose of aluminum, keep in mind that, again, vaccines probably wouldn’t register an adequate antibody response without an aluminum adjuvant. The dose in vaccines in clearly highly bioactive.
According to the FDA, “Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 μg/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2005-title21-vol4/pdf/CFR-2005-title21-vol4-sec201-323.pdf
Note that the above study refers to ORAL doses, in which much less ultimately enters the bloodstream than when it is DIRECTLY INJECTED INTRAMUSCULARLY.
The vaccine schedule (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/rec-iz-babies.pdf) calls for hepatitis B vaccine at birth, 2 and 6 months of age. Each dose contains 250 micrograms (mcg) of aluminum. The Hep B formerly contained mercury, which is highly reactive with aluminum, greatly amplifying each other’s toxic effects. Synergism is not accounted for.
The 625 mcg Aluminum DTaP shot is given at 2, 4, 6 and 15 months. The 225 mcg Hib vaccine is given at 2, 4 and 12 months. The 125 mcg pneumococcal vaccine is given at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months. The 250 mcg hepatitis A vaccine is given at 12 and 18 months.
This clearly shows that babies are injected with far higher than the safe amount in a day, and the cumulative toxic burden is nearly 5000mcg (5mg) by 18 months of age.
If you are still not convinced (I suspect you never will be)…
“Specifically, 2-month old children in U.K., U.S., Canada and Australia routinely receive as much as 220 to 245 μg/kg bw of aluminum per vaccination session (Table 2), a burden equivalent to 34 standard adult-dose injections of hepatitis B vaccine (Table 3). Similarly, newborns at birth receive 73.5 μg Al/kg bw/day from a single hepatitis B vaccine, which is a dose equivalent to 10 standard adult-dose injections of hepatitis B vaccine in a single day (Table 3). Whether such doses of aluminum are safe even for adults is not known. However, detrimental effects associated with multiple vaccinations over a short period of time in U.S. and other Coalition military personnel who developed GWS in an aftermath of only six anthrax vaccine inoculations [5, 6], may suggest that adults in some circumstances are also vulnerable to deleterious CNS effects of adjuvant-aluminum.”
[5] Shoenfeld, Y.; Agmon-Levin, N. ‘ASIA’ – Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants. J Autoimmun. 2011, 36(1), 4-8.
[6] Israeli, E.; Agmon-Levin, N.; Blank, M.; Shoenfeld, Y. Adjuvants and autoimmunity. Lupus. 2009, 18(13), 1217-1225.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886
“Young, male colony CD-1 mice were injected with the adjuvants at doses equivalent to those given to US military service personnel. All mice were subjected to a battery of motor and cognitive-behavioral tests over a 6-mo period postinjections. Following sacrifice, central nervous system tissues were examined using immunohistochemistry for evidence of inflammation and cell death. Behavioral testing showed motor deficits in the aluminum treatment group that expressed as a progressive decrease in strength … Apoptotic neurons were identified in aluminum-injected animals that showed significantly increased activated caspase-3 labeling in lumbar spinal cord (255%) and primary motor cortex (192%) compared with the controls. Aluminum-treated groups also showed significant motor neuron loss (35%) and increased numbers of astrocytes (350%) in the lumbar spinal cord. The findings suggest a possible role for the aluminum adjuvant in some neurological features associated with GWI and possibly an additional role for the combination of adjuvants.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17114826
Clearly “the entire scientific community” does NOT agree that aluminum in vaccines is safe. This is classic tobacco science. Stop digging in your heels, you are just embarrassing yourself.
Yes, Bryan, everyone makes “mistakes”. The problem is that when everything they post is a “mistake”, they are discredited–as you have been. Confusing a count for a rate suggests intellectual laziness or an inability to understand the data at all. I’m going with the latter in your case. And once again, you have made a huge error in apparently failing to understand the difference between parenteral nutrition and an immunization. I am sure you are aware of my feelings regarding the scholarship of Tomljenovic and Shaw after their hit piece on HPV vaccine, as well as their other papers that are just chockablock full of ecological fallacies. The ones you posted are no exception to the quality of their work in general. In addition, you went on a rant about what you view as conflicts of interest by the CDC. So I have three questions for you. If you don’t answer them, you have made your last post here.
1. How do you feel about Tomljenovic and Shaw’s obvious and blatant conflicts of interest?
2. Do you think smoking causes lung cancer?
3. What human disease or diseases, specifically, do you think are caused by vaccines? I do not want to see any rat studies. I do not want any more hand-waving about parenteral nutrition. I don’t want some vague answer like “neuronal damage”. Just answer the question. Name a disease.
I’m truly tired of the dishonesty that you have displayed posting here. You cannot even follow the thread of a single discussion after I have demonstrated that you are wrong. You brush it off as a “mistake” and move onto to Some Other Thing You Think Is Scary About Vaccines. I’m sure it didn’t even penetrate your skull that perhaps you have made a series of major mistakes in arriving at your position, leading to a wholly incorrect and unsupported opinion. Your inability to understand a rate vs. a count should really give you pause about your ability to understand the scientific literature. So either answer my questions or you are done posting here.
“According to the FDA, “Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 μg/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
[snipped link]
Note that the above study refers to ORAL doses, in which much less ultimately enters the bloodstream than when it is DIRECTLY INJECTED INTRAMUSCULARLY.”
Um, no. Parenteral the opposite of oral. It pretty much means any way except oral, or to be more exact, any way except the alimentary tract. Parenteral nutrition of neonates is intravenous. The linked “study” (which is not a study but an excerpt from FDA requirements) is concerned about continuous, long term, intravenous administration to neonates and has nothing to do with the infrequent intermittent, intramuscular administration of vaccines.
Everyone makes mistakes, but when one makes so many simple ones, one should probably ask one’s self if one knows what one is talking about.
“continuous, long term, intravenous administration to neonates and has nothing to do with the infrequent intermittent, intramuscular administration of vaccines.”
Nonetheless, when in a single dose of vaccines, infants are given a much higher dosage of aluminum than the allowable parenteral nutrition dosage for a day. There are differences between acute and long-term exposure, but the same amount is still entering the bloodstream. You are making excuses. Check yourself.
I am not making excuses. I have corrected one of your errors, that of parenteral meaning oral, and am now correcting another. A guideline to prevent against damage by chronic, long term exposure to something has nothing to do with an acute exposure. The guidelines for that specific product – parenteral nutrition – are specificially created *because* it is given continuously and long term. They are not applicable to intermittent exposures separated by months, nor does it mean that a single exposure of more than that guideline represents any sort of danger.
The FDA states “4 to 5 μg/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity.” Infants are given aluminum in amounts of 125 – 625 mcg per vaccine, which for a 10-kg baby is at least 12 mcg/kg in a single event (also, many vaccines are given in a single doctor visit). Parenteral nutrition limits are not quite the same, but the FDA *has no* safety limits set for vaccines specifically, which is their bad, not mine. You haven’t provided any evidence to indicate that aluminum in that amount is not toxic in “intermittent exposures separated by months” or “a single exposure”. It’s funny how you just make things up to support your opinion.
What I find funnier, Bryan, is that thus far I have not made any opinion. I have pointed out that you are wrong about parenteral meaning oral, and discussed how your assertion that the guidelines for chronic parenteral administration of aluminum is not applicable to a single dose, which seems to be your biggest evidence for your assertion that vaccines are unsafe. I don’t need to provide evidence of safety to demonstrate that your argument against safety is poor. You are the one who came to this blog trying to make a point. You are making it poorly.
I was unable to find your quote on the CDC website to provide context, but again, assuming the quote is accurate, repeating a number regarding chronic long-term daily administration does not make it applicable to a single day’s administration. It will continue to not apply no matter how many times you repeat it.
“I was unable to find your quote on the CDC website to provide context, but again, assuming the quote is accurate, repeating a number regarding chronic long-term daily administration does not make it applicable to a single day’s administration. It will continue to not apply no matter how many times you repeat it.”
Shortly earlier, you posted this:
“According to the FDA, “Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 μg/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
[snipped link]
Here is the link that you yourself removed: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2005-title21-vol4/pdf/CFR-2005-title21-vol4-sec201-323.pdf
Now, please, COVAC. If we know that it is not safe to receive a toxin in a smaller amount over a longer period of time (5 mcg/kg/day), how does this nullify any concern over giving *at least* 12.5 mcg/kg within the space of a few minutes?
“your assertion that the guidelines for chronic parenteral administration of aluminum is not applicable to a single dose, which seems to be your biggest evidence for your assertion that vaccines are unsafe.”
There is much more evidence, but I am insisting that you take seriously the evidence I have already provided, which would give any reasonable person pause.
Bryan, unless you can name a single disease that you believe is caused by vaccines, your time here is finished. Because that is the bottom line. You can handwave and make all sorts of scary-sounding proclamations, but until you cut the bullshit and get down to business, you are revealing yourself to be nothing more than a fraud.
Thanks for pointing out the passage. I apologize for missing it.
Because the mcg/kg/day is given every day for many days in a row and the 12.5 mcg/kg is given once every few months. I am surprised that you continue to not understand the difference. If the 12.5 mcg/kg was given to premature neonates every day for weeks, I could start to see your point. I don’t. I suspect that you just really don’t like vaccines and are trying to be deliberately obtuse about this.
Oh, I certainly would pause before giving vaccines every day intravenously to premature neonates for weeks. Would a reasonable person think that this applies to an acute dose? Maybe. But even reasonable people are often confused by science. A scientifically minded person would only pause for a moment before realizing that guidelines for IV fluids have little bearing on vaccines, which continue to be shown in study after study to be safe in the short and long term.
“Because the mcg/kg/day is given every day for many days in a row and the 12.5 mcg/kg is given once every few months. I am surprised that you continue to not understand the difference. If the 12.5 mcg/kg was given to premature neonates every day for weeks, I could start to see your point. I don’t. I suspect that you just really don’t like vaccines and are trying to be deliberately obtuse about this.”
However, a substance given over a drawn-out period of time allows the body time to clear it and does less damage. Giving a much higher amount all at once has the potential to so much more serious harm – due to its concentration, and the amount of time it takes to clear from the body (assuming it doesn’t deposit and accumulate in body tissues, such as fat, bone, and brain tissue).
At 2 months of age, an infant under the typical schedule receives 4 vaccines (Hep B, Hib, DTaP, PCV) is administered 1,225 mcg of aluminum, in addition to vaccine antigens and other potentially harmful ingredients. Current safety studies do not properly address biochemical systemic effects of individual vaccine additives, and of the entire vaccine schedule. They only do studies on individual vaccines, with minimal follow-up period (typically 2 weeks or so).
Furthermore, though most infants do not appear to suffer major damage from vaccines, there needs to be a rigorous inquiry into why *some* children apparently are, so that these children can be identified and given an individualized vaccine schedule, or even exempted from certain vaccines if it is safer for them.
“However, a substance given over a drawn-out period of time allows the body time to clear it and does less damage. Giving a much higher amount all at once has the potential to so much more serious harm – due to its concentration, and the amount of time it takes to clear from the body (assuming it doesn’t deposit and accumulate in body tissues, such as fat, bone, and brain tissue).”
But you haven’t actually provided any evidence that it does cause any serious harm. Again, you have only referred to a concern for serious harm when something is given every day for many days. I am not arguing giving a single vaccine all at once vs slowly giving it over the course of the day – I am arguing that there is a significant difference in giving a higher dose on one day, vs giving a lower dose day after day after day for many days. These two things are incomparable.
If you think there are acute effects from this acute exposure, you are going to have to show evidence of this. If you think there are chronic effects from tissue loading from this acute exposure, you are going to have to demonstrate how this loading is expected to be a consequential amount when compared to the constant aluminum accumulation you get from your diet throughout your life. In other words, you are going to actually provide evidence that is comparable to giving a vaccine. Preferably something with some actual clinical endpoints.
Yeah, the “actual clinical endpoints” is what seems to trip him up every time.
Oh, Mr. Skeweddistribution, I love you. I have been lurking here for a while, and I just needed to pop in and tell you how much I love your stuff. And your responses to nutjobs like our friend Bryan. Keep up the great work!
Why thank you, GuestB. Comments like yours are why I come to work at SkewedDistribution, Inc. each morning.
Skewed – “And once again, you have made a huge error in apparently failing to understand the difference between parenteral nutrition and an immunization.”
Parenteral nutrition is defined by Mosby’s medical dictionary as “the administration of nutrients by a route other than the alimentary canal, such as subcutaneously, intravenously, intramuscularly, or intradermally.” This is exactly how vaccines are administered. Kindly enlighten me how I am so ignorant as to not see how an injectable toxin, such as aluminum and mercury, is no longer of concern once it’s in an “immunization”. Simply the fact the the CDC, FDA and all them regulate parenteral nutrition far more carefully than vaccines, is merely indicative of their inability to fulfill their mission of protecting the public.
“You brush it off as a “mistake” and move onto to Some Other Thing You Think Is Scary About Vaccines. I’m sure it didn’t even penetrate your skull that perhaps you have made a series of major mistakes in arriving at your position, leading to a wholly incorrect and unsupported opinion.”
The vast amount of scientific literature (more than just Tomljenovic and Shaw) implicating aluminum to health damage and disease indicates that Merck’s data is deeply flawed. Their use of aluminum as a “placebo”, given their adjuvant’s high rate of adverse reactions, indicates that HPV vaccine *also* has a high rate of adverse reactions.
Either way, you “have made a series of major mistakes in arriving at your position”, such as suggesting that aluminum is an appropriate placebo, when you should have learned in the 1st year of med school that this is not the case. Your continued defense of this practice reveals your own intellectual dishonesty.
I have a question for you: Do you consider aluminum salts to be “inactive”, with “no treatment
value”, as is the definition of a placebo? If not, why do you think it’s acceptable to use as a “placebo”? If not, what is the purpose for it to be added to vaccines?
Now, for your questions:
“1. How do you feel about Tomljenovic and Shaw’s obvious and blatant conflicts of interest?”
At the end of their papers they declare, “CAS is a founder and shareholder of Neurodyn Corporation, Inc. The company investigates early state adult neurological disease mechanisms and biomarkers… CAS and LT are in favor of a more rigorous evidence based medicine approach to vaccine safety.”
I agree with this mission. I don’t see any great conflict of interest. Certainly not greater than the CDC’s mandate to promote and distribute vaccines, which is in direct conflict with its mission to regulate them.
“2. Do you think smoking causes lung cancer?”
Smoking is most likely a causative factor in lung cancer, yes.
“3. What human disease or diseases, specifically, do you think are caused by vaccines? I do not want to see any rat studies. I do not want any more hand-waving about parenteral nutrition. I don’t want some vague answer like “neuronal damage”. Just answer the question. Name a disease.”
Vaccines appear to cause damage by triggering excessive immune activation, leading to long-term oxidative stress. The mechanism is unclear, although one factor may be the use of aluminum to provoke a stronger immune response. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin, and is also highly allergenic, as evidenced by it’s immuno-stimulatory properties. These factors link it to neurological disorders and to autoimmunity, both of which have increased in correlation with vaccines.
But I am not here to name specific diseases. It is sufficient to demonstrate that aluminum in vaccines has an adverse effect (and you haven’t given a reason why the parenteral nutrition safety limits should be substantially different from those in vaccines), and that the safety studies in place are grossly inadequate, if not fraudulent.
What is the difference in volume between an IV feeding solution and a vaccine? If aluminum is a “neurotoxin”, why are the guidelines on premature neonates feeding more about kidneys? And what is the difference in size between a premature neonate and a ten year old child, which is the youngest age for giving the HPV vaccine?
Did you as a child ever scrape your knee in dirt?
It’s unlikely he’ll answer. You have brought up some questions that he will find uncomfortable and will therefore try to avoid.
I know. I have given up asking them how they get food that is grown in aluminum-free soil. I am sure that as a kid I absorbed lots of aluminum from my scraped knees, or the scratches from aluminum chain link fences (to an eight year old it is easier to climb over than walk a few yards to the gate).
Elsewhere there is much amusement over the “journal” that Tomljenovic and Shaw paid to publish their latest paper.
I don’t answer because I have already refuted this in past comments, the evidence of which Skewed continues to selectively ignore.
“Aluminum (Al) is a toxicant to the central nervous, skeletal and hematopoietic systems (Krewski et al., 2007). The primary source of oral Al exposure in the U.S. for the typical human is foods, representing ~ 95% of daily oral intake; drinking water contributes ~ 1 to 2% (WHO, 1997; ATSDR, 1999; Krewski et al., 2007). These typically provide a total of ~ 4000 to 9,000 µg Al/day… oral Al intake of 5000 µg/day from diet that is 0.25% bioavailable deliver[s] 12.5 µg to systemic circulation… Injected Al in vaccines and allergy immunotherapy can provide 1 to 8 and 7 to 40 µg/day, respectively, and probably complete absorption (Yokel and McNamara, 2001)”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2449821/
This paper is incorrect in parts, vaccines provide *at least* 125 mcg (and can deliver over ten times that, in the 12- or 15- month checkup) in a small window of time, which is itself ten times the amount that enters through dietary circulation (12.5 mcg). The paper correctly points out that injected aluminum is probably completely absorbed, while dietary aluminum is about 1/4 of one percent bioavailable.
ALL sources of aluminum exposure are of potential concern, but the insult from vaccines is far greater than any other normal source, in a very short period, delivered directly to the bloodstream, *on top of* the normal background exposures.
Your remarks are typical of the unprofessionalism displayed by anti-vax-safety-ers.
So why is the warning only about kidneys for the IV feeding solution?
Good question, Chris!
“So why is the warning only about kidneys for the IV feeding solution?”
The warning does not deal with the toxicity to the kidneys. Kidneys are the primary organ of elimination of aluminum. So individuals with impaired kidney function, such as newborn babies, are especially susceptible to aluminum toxicity.
Where’s your evidence that newborn babies have impaired kidney function? Please cite your source.
And how many newborn babies get the HPV vaccine?
Dietary intake of aluminum is influenced by the amount of acid in the diet. Lactic acid, citric acid, etc – can all increase the absorption rate of aluminum through the digestive tract.
You know Bryan, there are so many things wrong with your post(s) that I’d be hard-pressed to address them all within the space of a single day. It’s like you have hosed yourself down in super-strength science repellent and are safely skipping through a hive of science, blissfully untouched. Here are some especially egregious issues:
“But I am not here to name specific diseases”
Of course you aren’t. Because you can’t. Because, you see, if you name a disease, I am going to promptly prove to you that vaccines do not cause said disease by looking in the scientific literature. Much better to make vague and meaningless insinuations about “long-term oxidative stress” and “immuno-stimulatory properties” in order to keep your cause alive. You don’t seem to understand how dishonest this is, and this is how the anti-vax movement thrives. You hide under the rock and let the worms multiply, and you can’t bear to let the light in. This is what causes me the most pain about your movement–the rampant dishonesty. You should be positively ashamed of these tactics.
Next, you give another example of your unadulterated dishonesty. At the end of Tomljenovic and Shaw’s recent papers, they state: “This work was supported by the Dwoskin, Lotus and Katlyn Fox Family Foundations”. At least two of these are rabid anti-vax organizations, and the third probably is as well, but I can’t prove it. I’m sure you don’t see this as a conflict of interest though–dishonest and hypocritical is the vibe I’m getting from you. But maybe your homeopath can fix that.
In addition, you state, “Smoking is most likely a causative factor in lung cancer, yes.”
This absolutely slays me. Smoking is most likely a causative factor in lung cancer? Most likely? Great illustration of the reason that no one–and I do mean no one–should take you seriously. Regardless, the reason I brought this up is because you were crowing about how the HPV/cervical cancer link does not satisfy Koch’s postulates, because not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV. Well, guess what Bryan? Not all lung cancers are caused by smoking. So in BryanLand, we are to believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer. He’s just not buying it, folks. Most likely it causes lung cancer, but maybe not. Light up, everybody, with Bryan’s endorsement!
Lastly, COVRAC has pointed out to you, several times, why the study of parenteral nutrition is in no way related to vaccinations. It’s fun but yet also soul-destroying to watch you put up your anti-science forcefield and ignore the 100% accurate points made by COVRAC. I’d give you props for attempting to answer my questions, but unfortunately you quickly backslid into the obfuscation that is the hallmark of a lying anti-vaxxer.
“Regardless, the reason I brought this up is because you were crowing about how the HPV/cervical cancer link does not satisfy Koch’s postulates, because not all cervical cancers are caused by HPV. Well, guess what Bryan? Not all lung cancers are caused by smoking. So in BryanLand, we are to believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer.”
Koch’s Postulates don’t apply to toxins, they are specifically used to determine if a disease is infectious. This is yet another example of you twisting around medical truth to make a point.
“Lastly, COVRAC has pointed out to you, several times, why the study of parenteral nutrition is in no way related to vaccinations. It’s fun but yet also soul-destroying to watch you put up your anti-science forcefield and ignore the 100% accurate points made by COVRAC.”
The FDA’s recommendation that infants receive by IV no more than 5 mcg of aluminum per kg per day, casts serious doubt on the belief that it is safe for them to receive *at least* 12 mcg/kg/minute. COVRAC, like you, is living in a fantasy world.
“Tomljenovic and Shaw, a basic tenet of the placebo-controlled trial is that the placebo is IDENTICAL to the active drug, with one difference–the lack of the component being tested for efficacy, which in this case would be the HPV virus-like particle (VLP). Let’s say that the test drug included the aluminum adjuvant and the VLP, while the placebo did not contain the adjuvant. When, in 20 years, the vaccine has been shown to have substantially reduced the risk of cervical, anal, and head and neck cancers, there would be tinfoil hatters that would claim that it was the ALUMINUM that prevented cervical cancer, not the VLP. And there would be no data to indicate otherwise. Therefore, the placebo MUST contain the adjuvant for a fair test of the actual drug.”
This is a steaming pile of obfuscation. A placebo-controlled trial is only between the entire drug that is going to be administered, and a genuine nonactive placebo. It is true that Merck *should* do safety studies on individual vaccine additives in addition to whole vaccines, but this is not what they were doing. It is dishonest for Merck to present aluminum adjuvant, an active vaccine ingredient, as a placebo. And you are equally dishonest to defend it. You clearly have no interest in doing real science at all. How sad.
“12 mcg/kg/minute” How many minutes does it take to give a vaccine?
Does a ten year old child have the same kilograms of mass as an infant?
Koch’s postulates were adapted for use in detecting non-infectious etiologies long ago, Bryan. That argument is so weak that it couldn’t kick its way out of a wet paper bag. Regardless, I am pointing out the failure of your “logic” regarding HPV not being the cause of cervical cancer. There is simply no question that it does, and your refusal to accept it is yet another indication of your complete inability to understand scientific data.
COVRAC is correct, you are not. His explanation makes good, scientific sense. Yours does not, because for the twentieth time, you cannot understand the differences between parenteral nutrition vs. vaccinations.
There was no obfuscation in my post whatsoever. In fact, to anyone with a functioning brain cell, it should be quite clear. In any case I’m growing tired of your constant avoidance of all of the evidence presented to you that makes you feel icky, such as the conflicts of interest by your buddies Tomljenovic and Shaw. You lied about their conflicts of interest, and when presented with irrefutable evidence of them, you simply ignored it and moved on to something else as if it never happened. You have done this several times now, and again, it’s an indication of dishonesty as well as an inability to process any information that is contrary to your erroneous belief system. This is called cognitive dissonance. Look into it.
Correction: “If SO, what is the purpose for it to be added to vaccines?” <-typo
Seriously, why do you insist that aluminum salts are an appropriate placebo?
Um, because in scientific studies your placebo must resemble your intervention as closely as possible in order to compare the differences in outcome. Otherwise there are too many factors that you can’t control for.
Exactly, and oddly enough, as shown in Bryan’s own links, a saline placebo was in fact used in the original HPV vaccine trials, in addition to the aluminum-containing placebo. If Bryan’s apparent inability to interpret data weren’t so tragic, it would be funny.
“Um, because in scientific studies your placebo must resemble your intervention as closely as possible in order to compare the differences in outcome. Otherwise there are too many factors that you can’t control for.”
By resembling the intervention as closely as possible, what is meant is that, for instance, a saline injection must be used in comparison to the vaccine – rather than a sugar pill.
“Exactly, and oddly enough, as shown in Bryan’s own links, a saline placebo was in fact used in the original HPV vaccine trials, in addition to the aluminum-containing placebo.”
Skewed, the fact that Merck did the proper thing in some trials doesn’t negate the fact that they improperly used an active ingredient (aluminum adjuvant) as a “placebo” (which, *by definition*, is supposed to be inactive). Once again, this is basic medical science.
No, it just shows that they evaluated the vaccine from a variety of standpoints. Using the excipient is a superior placebo to show efficacy. It also is able to give safety data that the saline placebo can’t. First, it blinds the patient better. The HPV vaccine hurts, because of the excipient. If your arm doesn’t hurt, you’re likely to be poorly blinded about what you got. Also, if a problem turns up in the saline arms, by looking at the excipient control arms, you can tell better where the problem lies.
The placebo controlled trials, using tens of thousands of subjects, show no significant problems, just like all the retrospective studies, adverse event investigations, and VAERS data analyses. But Bryan will stick to that quote about IV fluids in neonates, and act as if it is meaningful in the face of all this research. And call it all a “steaming pile of obsfucation” which is a catchy way of handwaving away what he doesn’t like.
“No, it just shows that they evaluated the vaccine from a variety of standpoints. Using the excipient is a superior placebo to show efficacy. It also is able to give safety data that the saline placebo can’t. First, it blinds the patient better. The HPV vaccine hurts, because of the excipient. If your arm doesn’t hurt, you’re likely to be poorly blinded about what you got. Also, if a problem turns up in the saline arms, by looking at the excipient control arms, you can tell better where the problem lies.”
If Merck had three separate groups, this might be true. However, the fact that they lumped together the saline and aluminum “placebo” groups into one, makes their “safety” studies totally inadequate. The fact that the FDA hasn’t even established safety limits for aluminum (for instance), should be worrying to any responsible scientist (and yes, I *do* understand the difference between acute and chronic toxicity).
Vaccine safety trials are far too limited in scope – for example, they look mainly for surface reactions, such as allergic reactions at the skin, and *are not required* to assess toxicokinetics and pharmacokinetics of additives like aluminum. (see, for ex: http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/document.aspx?documentid=15259). And VAERS, as already discussed, is an inadequate passive monitoring system.
The FDA, CDC, et. al have a *responsibility* to do more rigorous safety assessments prior to releasing vaccines, as well as careful post-marketing surveillance. What they should be doing is closely studying alleged cases of vaccine injury, instead of doing “reviews” of methodologically-flawed pharmaceutical studies.
“Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism epidemic. This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding injected thimerosal and the sharp rise of infant exposure to this known neurotoxin. Our public health agencies’ failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry”.
‘Mercury in Medicine – Taking Unnecessary Risks’ Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
You must be referring to the package insert, which does break down a lot of the adverse events into the aluminum vs. saline placebo trials if you bother to read the text. You can also look up saline trials on pubmed, if you wish.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17484215
“And VAERS, as already discussed, is an inadequate passive monitoring system.”
It’s quite adequate for it’s purpose, and has been shown to be quite sensitive in finding red flags for further research. It triggered a VSD study on the original rotavirus vaccine that found a one in ten thousand increased risk for intussusception.
“Vaccine safety trials are far too limited in scope – for example, they look mainly for surface reactions, such as allergic reactions at the skin, and *are not required* to assess toxicokinetics and pharmacokinetics of additives like aluminum.”
They also quite clearly assess for serious reactions. Differences in reactions in people is the the endpoint of interest – obviously a preclinical study would not assess pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics. This information already exists for ingredients like aluminum.
Again, we now have volumes of studies of all types confirming the safety of this vaccine. Meanwhile, you are reduced to using quotes instead of sceince to support your argument.
“You must be referring to the package insert, which does break down a lot of the adverse events into the aluminum vs. saline placebo trials if you bother to read the text.”
For some of the trials, for example surface reactions, they do provide both saline & aluminum datasets. But for more serious categories, like “Common Systemic Adverse Reactions” and “Incident Condition Potentially Indicative of a Systemic Autoimmune Disorder After Enrollment in Clinical Trials”, they lump the data together for no reason. This could be used to hide an association that would be apparent if the datasets were kept separate. We’ll never know, will we?
“They also quite clearly assess for serious reactions. Differences in reactions in people is the the endpoint of interest – obviously a preclinical study would not assess pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics.”
Yes, they assess for major reactions, but long-term adverse events, or reactions that have a normal background rate and may or may not be causally related to vaccination, (or that occur in infants who may not make such changes immediately apparent…) can slip through the cracks. Especially when important areas of research are deliberately ignored.
“This information already exists for ingredients like aluminum.”
So you say, yet your complaint earlier was that my aluminum safety limits were based on IV feeding, which is not strictly comparable to vaccine aluminum receipt. So my question to you is, since you seem to ‘know’ this information exists, where is it?
You’re ignoring the fact that there were more than one clinical trial for the HPV vaccine, and there was, in fact, a saline placebo used (besides the aluminum adjuvant placebo).
“This could be used to hide an association that would be apparent if the datasets were kept separate. We’ll never know, will we?”
Did you miss the link specifically to the saline trial that I posted?
“Yes, they assess for major reactions, but long-term adverse events, or reactions that have a normal background rate and may or may not be causally related to vaccination, (or that occur in infants who may not make such changes immediately apparent…) ”
I agree, preclincal studies don’t assess for long-term adverse events. That is where larger retrospective studies such as those done with the Vaccine Safety Datalink come in. I disagree that preclinical studies miss reactions with “a normal background rate” (which is pretty much any event), because those events still would be more common in the test group. Unless, of course, the event is too rare, when again VSD studies come into play.
“So you say, yet your complaint earlier was that my aluminum safety limits were based on IV feeding, which is not strictly comparable to vaccine aluminum receipt. So my question to you is, since you seem to ‘know’ this information exists, where is it?”
Information on the toxicokinetics of aluminum? All over pubmed. I suggest starting with this article and the studies linked therein.
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/aluminum-adjuvants-vaccines
But I am not here to discuss the entirety of aluminum research and its history. It is too far away from the topic of the original post. My original point was to discuss how poorly using a guideline for a product given intravenously every day for weeks to premature babies applies to a product given once every two months intramuscularly to the general population. Which, itself, is far away from the original topic.
“Information on the toxicokinetics of aluminum? All over pubmed. I suggest starting with this article and the studies linked therein.”
The problem with this article, again, is that conclusions are drawn that are not there to be made from the data and study design. This is highly relevant to the original topic of discussion, if poor quality studies are being defended by vaccine cheerleaders. For example, your source claims:
“A recent review of the evidence of adverse events after exposure to aluminium-containing vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), found no evidence that aluminum salts cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632
However, simply reading through the abstract shows that it was nowhere near a comprehensive study. As pediatrician Dr. Bill Sears points out, “the Cochrane group didn’t actually study aluminum metabolism itself. They didn’t test aluminum levels in kids after vaccination. They didn’t explore whether or not the amount of aluminum in vaccines builds up in the brain or bone tissues. They just looked for evidence of visible symptoms of toxicity without even looking for internal aluminum effects. And they didn’t even do their own research. They simply reviewed all available studies done by other people. Also, they only looked at one aluminum-containing vaccine instead of testing all four at once. The Cochrane group essentially closed the book on aluminum without ever really opening it.”
Indeed, the study concludes: “Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.” Recommending *against* further research? WTF??
“The problem with this article, again, is that conclusions are drawn that are not there to be made from the data and study design.”
Thank you so much for your expert analysis that supercedes that of the Cochrane group, who I guess must be in on the gig. Really, I can’t believe you can actually quote what Sears wrote there with a straight face. Of course the Cochrane Review didn’t have toxicokinetic studies; it was a meta-analysis of trials on the subject. And if you read the full text they explain that despite a small number of studies they were able to reach a convincing conclusion by doing meta-analysis of the existing data. Interesting that you chose that instead of an actual toxicokinetic study on aluminum. But, as is common among those opposed to vaccines, picking out the bits you like and ignoring the actual data is the order of the day.
“Interesting that you chose that instead of an actual toxicokinetic study on aluminum. But, as is common among those opposed to vaccines, picking out the bits you like and ignoring the actual data is the order of the day.”
COVRAC, stop, you’re killing me. I didn’t choose an actual toxocological study because *they didn’t provide one*. All they have is this piece of work:
“The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) *estimated* these levels [emphasis added] for infants taking into account the amount of aluminum a child would eat as well as receive by injection of vaccines. The body burden of aluminum from both sources is below the minimal risk level except transiently following vaccinations; since 50-70% of injected aluminum is excreted within 24 hours, this is believed to have no negative effect.”
Yes, you read correctly. This rag they referenced (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12184359) did not actually measure the toxicokinetics of aluminum adjuvant, they ESTIMATED it! That is the best you’ve got? This conversation has been a comedy of errors for all of you. Really, I’m quite amused.
By the way, their aluminum excretion figure (based on a questionably applicable study) is contradicted by other literature, such as:
“In healthy subjects, only 0.3% of orally administered aluminum is absorbed via the GI tract and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminum from the human body. It is only when the GI barrier is bypassed, such as intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal [Skewed, Chris - this means kidney] dysfunction, that aluminum has the potential to accumulate. As an example, with intravenously infused aluminum, 40% is retained in adults and up to 75% is retained in neonates.[4]” http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview#a0101
Yes, the above quote refers to parenteral nutrition, but again, the toxic burden from some vaccines, such as the four given at 2 months for a total of 1,225 mcg – several times the safe level per kg for a day , given all at once. You are a moron for not understanding why a toxic dose, that would cause cumulative harm if given over several days, will also cause harm if suffered acutely, or in a short period.
The folks over at Cochrane are more reliable that Dr. Bob – who wouldn’t know the pharmacokinetics of aluminum if I drew him a map and gave him a flashlight.
It’s funny. When Cochrane Reviews question vaccines, they are a deity. When they affirm the safety of vaccinations, it’s just a site for pharma shills.
It’s the olympics of cherry picking, Skewed.
Indeed.
Eyeroll. Of course it is estimates, based on available data. All kinds of toxicity guidelines are estimates, because to find exact values, we would have to progessively load lots of humans with substances until they developed toxicity. Yet these estimates are based on actual data, which is something you are sorely lacking. Yours is not a serious critique of this article. Do you actually have some logical rationale for why these estimates are incorrect, or are you satisfied with your handwaving?
And it’s actually not the best I’ve got, as there was updated aluminum pharmacokinetics modeling published last year. It does not favor your preconceived conclusion either, so I expect you to dismiss it as a rag as well.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
“Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.”
Regardless, I am not inclined to spoon feed you through all of the available published information about aluminum, and merely gave you that article as a starting point. Since you have provided no relevant evidence indicating potential harm, there is little need for me to refute your claim further.
No, and calling other people derogatory names to cover up your lack of understanding of the toxicology involved does you no favors. If you had evidence of danger from the amount of aluminum in a vaccine given slowly over weeks, then you would have a point. But the IV doses are given every single day, not stretched out over many days. Please read up on acute and chronic toxicity. Something that causes chronic toxicity in chronic doses does not necessarily cause acute (or chronic) toxicity in an acute dose, even if the acute dose is higher than the daily chronic dose. To put it another way:
http://safety.science.tamu.edu/toxics.html
“Most chemicals exhibit some degree of both acute toxicity and chronic toxicity. The symptoms displayed and the systemic effect will, however, differ. In addition, some materials may act as acute toxins, but show no chronic ill effects. The same is true for materials labeled as chronically toxic, which have no adverse single dose effect. Despite this lack of correlation, the effects of both forms of toxicity are definitely dose related, that is, the greater the dose, the greater the effect.”
I would not call you a derogatory name for not understanding this. It is an easy mistake to make.
You have evidence of a concern over tissue loading when a smaller dose is given *every day* over a long period of time. Now, I don’t deny that some tissue loading of that aluminum from a vaccine may occur, at least briefly. But you have no evidence that this amount is significant considering the continuous tissue loading that occurs over a lifetime, nor do you have any evidence of acute effects from this bolus of aluminum. Rather, all available evidence is against you, and concludes that the majority of the aluminum is excreted, more vaccines do not cause more long term developmental issues, and studies of aluminum containing vaccines do not find any significant acute concerns with rare exceptions. This dead dead horse continues to be beaten by bias alone.
“Eyeroll. Of course it is estimates, based on available data. All kinds of toxicity guidelines are estimates, because to find exact values, we would have to progessively load lots of humans with substances until they developed toxicity.”
…which is exactly what we’re doing, since adequate safety studies were never done.
“No, and calling other people derogatory names to cover up your lack of understanding of the toxicology involved does you no favors… blah blah blah”
Thank you for your utterly rhetorical response. Yes, let’s just ASSUME that the short-term vaccine dose is harmless, especially during the early periods of brain development. Let me ask you, if the FDA dose is 4-5 mcg/kg/day, wouldn’t that mean that getting that dose even for just 1 day would still be harmful? They don’t specify that it MUST be over the long term. So how is it safe to get many times that dose in a few minutes?
I’m sorry, dude, but you’re still a moron. But you’re in good company, and this blog is clearly where you belong.
Here’s an interesting study for you to gander:
Long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide is associated with chronic cognitive dysfunction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748679
Wow, a *real* biological study! Imagine that!
Oh goody gumdrops! Bryan’s on Step 9, which means he’ll soon be leaving.
http://skeweddistribution.com/2012/09/03/the-anti-vaxxer-arc-a-step-by-step-guide-for-an-anti-vax-invasion-of-a-pro-vax-page/
COVRAC is an intelligent and articulate person with a vast working knowledge of biology and epidemiology. To have you calling him a moron is…well…interesting, to say the least.
Once again, thank you for your predictable and non-expert assessment of the entirety of the literature. Also for the insults. But are you sure I’m a moron? Have you considered the possibility that I am in on the conspiracy?
Let’s not assume. Let’s see whether less vaccines or delayed vaccines cause better long term developmental outcomes.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/1134.abstract
They don’t.
No, it doesn’t. This is precisely what I have been trying to explain to you. I don’t know how to make it any more clear. Something that is harmful in chronic doses is not necessarily harmful in an acute dose. The biologic information does not indicate likelihood of harm, and neither does it bear out in the epidemiologic data. Please come up with a better reason for people to believe what you say.
Deflecting to a study about MMF, an exquisitely rare phenomenon, is not exactly what I had in mind.
“Let’s not assume. Let’s see whether less vaccines or delayed vaccines cause better long term developmental outcomes. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/1134.abstract They don’t.”
*Yawn*. Another totally superficial study that looks *real hard* for evidence of harm. This has been thoroughly criticised, for example, Sallie Bernard identified what the “experts” somehow missed:
” The sample comprised children who were least likely to exhibit neuropsychological impairments. Specifically, children with congenital problems, those from multiple births, those of low birth weight, and those not living with their biological mother were excluded. The sample was skewed toward higher socioeconomic status and maternal education — factors that are associated with lower rates of neurobehavioral problems and higher intervention rates and that were not measured. The sampling frame included only children enrolled from birth in the health maintenance organization (HMO) and still enrolled after 7 to 10 years, excluding children in higher-mobility families, who tend to have lower academic and behavioral function.2 Children with neurobehavioral problems may have been less likely to remain with the HMO. Only 30% of families selected for recruitment participated, a low rate for scientific research. ”
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc072980
James P.K. Rooney, B.Sc. also identifies several possible environmental, nutritional, genetic and other factors that should have been assessed in the analysis. I elaborated on this in another commentary by Dr. Mady Hornig.
And yes, I saw the author’s response, which in no way corrected the deficiencies in the study. This is yet another example of how a study can be manipulated to potentially mask an association.
You’re right, they don’t specify there, do they? It is convenient, I suppose, for you to use that particular link, since the offending sentence does not have a reference so that you can easily be proven wrong.
FYI, the 4-5 ug level is derived from Bishop et al 1997 that compared standard (~45ug/kg) and depleted (~4-5ug/kg/day) TPN and found “Among the infants with no neuromotor impairment, the mean (±SD) Mental Development Index values for the groups receiving the standard and aluminum-depleted solutions were 98±20 and 101±18, respectively. The Mental Development Index values for all the groups of infants who received intravenous feeding for 10 days (median duration of exposure) or less were similar. However, for the group of infants receiving the standard solutions for more than 10 days, the Mental Development Index was 10 points less than for those receiving the aluminum-depleted solutions (P = 0.02). ” Other research had not found loading less than 6ug/kg/day, so that lower number was chosen as a safe and feasible standard for TPN.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203#t=article
I would also point out that your FDA link does specify that the 4-5 ug limit applies to cases of renal impairment. So in summary, renally impaired babies who had 45ug/kg/day for ten days or less of aluminum infused directly into the veins had no significant difference than(in fact, in the non-already-neurologically-impaired group, slightly better than) those who had 4-5 ug/kg/day upon developmental testing at 18 months. How, again, is it that you believe this information supports your position?
Who’s cherry picking now? The overall outcome demonstrates neurotoxicity of aluminum at well under the levels administered in vaccines.
“The results of this study suggest that aluminum intake in preterm infants is associated with reduced developmental attainment at the corrected post-term age of 18 months. The infants who received the standard intravenous feeding solutions (providing 25 μg of aluminum per deciliter) had a lower mean Bayley Mental Development Index than those who received aluminum-depleted solutions (providing 2.2 μg of aluminum per deciliter), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. However, a substantial number of infants received little or no intravenous feeding after randomization, and explanatory analysis showed that the effect of aluminum exposure was dose-related.
“Aluminum exposure from the standard intravenous solutions was calculated to be associated with a mean loss of one point on the Bayley Mental Development Index per day of full intravenous feeding, after adjustment for potentially confounding factors. In infants fed intravenously for 10 or more days, those receiving the standard solutions had a major (10 point) deficit in their Mental Development Index and were twice as likely to have a Mental Development Index below 85. These results provide support for our hypothesis that intravenous aluminum may have neurotoxic effects, with longer-term consequences for neurologic development.”
The specification of “renal impairment” includes neonates, or babies generally under 1 month old, whose kidney function is relatively impaired. So it would apply to newborns receiving Hep B with 250 mcg Al, which for a large 5kg newborn would be 50 mcg/kg in a single injection. Of course, all babies are different, so the fact that many can handle the burden doesn’t rule out that a possibly small subset suffers lasting sequelae that cannot be detected at that age. All of the studies you have provided in your defense appear to be designed not to pick up this sort of trend.
And by the way, I am well aware that a linear relationship cannot always be expected in dosing curves, and that results can often be unpredictable or counterintuitive. For example:
“We conclude that when nonmonotonic
dose-response curves (NMDRCs) occur, the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. Thus,
fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health… the definition of a NMDRC is based upon
the mathematical definition of nonmonotonicity: that the
slope of the dose-response curve changes sign from positive
to negative or vice versa at some point along the range
of doses examined (42). Often NMDRCs have a U- or
inverted U-shape (43); these NMDRCs are thus also often
referred to as biphasic dose-response curves because responses
show ascending and descending phases in relation
to dose. Complex, multiphasic curves have also been observed
(41, 44, 45)”
http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/03/14/er.2011-1050.abstract
You are, Bryan, more blatantly than ever, as you leave out the parts that make it clear that this deficit was seen with greater than ten days of infusion, and not less. The data is there in the paper and plain as day. Less then ten days was essentially the same, or even slightly better at 18 months. Again, the data that you think supports your decision in fact opposes it. I’m sure you really want it to support you, and you will try to make it support you in any way you can. But it doesn’t.
Well, no, your link specifies premature neonates, which the above study was performed on, and found no deficits associated with ten or less days of IV infusion. No doubt, everyone is different. But this study was done on those who would be able to handle aluminum the least.
And thanks for the link on “Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals;” if you want to tell us how that applies to aluminum, we’re all ears.
*er, large 5kg newborn
Hey, wow. I just reread this thread and saw that I had missed that Sallie Bernard’s inept rebuttal to Thompson et al was used to refute Smith et al demonstrating no relationship between number of vaccines and developmental outcomes (the link being that Smith et al used the same data as Thompson et al, which was focused on thimerosal).
Put aside the fact that Bernard is an antivaccine activist (from “Safeminds”) with no background in science or trial design who was a consultant in designing Thompson et al, who then bowed out and tried to lambast the very study she helped design once she saw that the results didn’t back up her preconceived notions.
An undergrad after his/her first class in statistics could see how weak Bernard’s criticisms are without knowing about her personal vendetta – it’s almost as bad as Sears trying to criticize the Cochrane review. Skewed can speak more expertly on study design and correct me if I am wrong, but it is evident to me that exclusion criteria are chosen specifically to increase the ability to detect a difference in the two groups – you want the data in the control group to be as tight as possible. If the data is significantly affected by things that are not the thing being studied – for example, congenital disabilities, the ability to detect a difference may be masked. Further, if those things profoundly affect the data, and by chance you have more congenital disabilities, etc, in one group, the study would demonstrate a difference where there is none.
And to criticize the study for only including those who remained with the HMO, you know, so you actually have their complete records and all, is beyond stupid. The authors quite thoroughly demolished every one of Bernard’s claims in their response. Again, not a serious critique of a scientific study, but a simple case of sour grapes.
It must be exciting living in antivax world. Up is down, black is white, vaccines are evil, diseases are our friends, controlling for confounding factors and getting complete data in a study is bad, and Bob Sears and Sallie Bernard are experts.
Dogs and cats, living together… mass hysteria!
COVRAC, Barnard’s criticisms are important because you DO want the two groups to be as similar as possible. She’s pointing out that there are extenuating factors that make the groups DISSIMILAR in areas that are not being specifically looked at, so it could “skew” the results.
By the way…
“No, Bryan. Reread the study. 45mcg/kg/day (not 4-5 mcg/kg/day) for for ten days or less showed no deficits. The entire reason that I presented it is because you claimed that the 4-5mcg guideline did not specify long-term daily dosing, when in fact it is specifically long term administration. The fact that Bishop et al showed no developmental problems at ten days or less of much higher concentrations is a nice additional refutation to your overall concern.”
First of all, the objective of conservative limits is that you want to keep people as far away from the point where they are being harmed. Giving them 4-5 mcg for even a day is not a good idea, and over ten days you are giving them as much (or even less) than what would be given in vaccines (per kg). Over 10 days the exposure is 50 mcg/kg – at least equivalent to the amount administered at birth, and at 2 months.
This does not account for background exposures – for example, socioeconimically disadvantaged children are more likely to be exposed to mercury/aluminum from the background environment. Furthermore, Bishop et al. only looked for neurological impairment at 18 months, yet autism is not generally diagnosed until at least two years.
You can construct a study to “prove” most any point you want, and given institutional biases, there is inertia to clear vaccines from any culpability. You have tunnel vision, my friend.
“It must be exciting living in antivax world. Up is down, black is white, vaccines are evil, diseases are our friends, controlling for confounding factors and getting complete data in a study is bad, and Bob Sears and Sallie Bernard are experts.”
Very well said.
No, Bryan. Excluding a group does not make any groups dissimilar, as they are excluded from the entire cohort. What exclusion criteria actually do is make it so that a difference from the exposure of interest can be more easily detected. Including groups that are going to have neurologic deficits independent of vaccines adds to the background noise of the study and makes it more difficult to detect a true association. Excluding these groups is not just appropriate, it is important in order to have the best chance of finding an association.
If one then wants to find out if vaccines significantly affect children with birth defects, this would not be the study to find out – one would have to design a study looking specifically at that population – throwing them in to a study like Thompson et al is not going to give you that information, and is going to weaken the ability of the study to detect an association in general. People who design studies (i.e. the authors) understand this. People who don’t (i.e. you and Sallie Bernard) do not. In that world, strengths of a study become weaknesses, at least when the study does not say what they want it to say.
The beauty of this alternate world is that if the study did not have exclusion groups, they could criticize it for that instead. It doesn’t matter – if the study doesn’t show vaccines are bad, they must have done it wrong.
You keep repeating this, Bryan, but you are continuing to fail to understand the guidelines and the differences in exposure. 5 per kilo has been shown to not cause deficits, even for more then ten days. 45 per kilo has been shown to not cause deficits when given every day for ten days or less. Adding up daily 5 per kilo dosages and trying to make it compare to a single dose of vaccine is irrelevant, especially when the evidence shows that ten days of very high dosages of aluminum caused no deficits. The pharmacokinetics of aluminum, as well as short and long term studies of vaccines simply do not bear out your concern.
Average age of diagnosis is 3.1 years in the general population – however, initial presentation of symptoms appear much earlier, when language and social skills are developing. In fact, that is why a screening tool for autism is recommended at the 18 month well child check. This study rigorously assessed developmental outcomes at 18 months.
In a placebo-controlled trial of the effectiveness of parachutes on falls from high altitude, the placebo isn’t standing on the ground (saline). It’s jumping with an empty pack (excipient).
As an aside, these trials have never been performed, and so proof of effectiveness has never been established according to FDA standards. Steaming pile, indeed. {:~)
The problem is that Merck lumped the saline and aluminum groups together into a single “control”. In so doing, they made it impossible to differentiate between the effects of saline (a true placebo) and aluminum adjuvant (a vaccine additive that *should* be properly evaluated for safety, given aluminum’s well-established toxicity). This methodology supplies us with *less* information, not more. It’s simply bad science.
And you are qualified to discuss what is or is not a placebo because…?
You have made enough errors in your comments to verify that you are only matriculated in at Google U. Seriously you have demonstrated no concept in relative risk or mass when you compared the IV feeding fluids on premature infants to the amounts used on vaccines (three given every two months) to children over the age of ten years! On another thread you mentioned thimerosal as correlating to an increase in autism when it was removed enough that a SafeMinds executive member could not find any in 2001! Plus you referred to Dr. Healy as if she was still alive (she died over a year ago, and she was a cardiologist, not a pediatrician).
You are cutting and pasting old arguments without understanding what you are doing.
That’s it in a nutshell, Chris.
“You have made enough errors in your comments to verify that you are only matriculated in at Google U.”
This is coming from the guy who asked: “So why is the warning only about kidneys for the IV feeding solution?” I mean, try taking high school biology before talking to me.
“Seriously you have demonstrated no concept in relative risk or mass when you compared the IV feeding fluids on premature infants to the amounts used on vaccines (three given every two months) to children over the age of ten years!”
So please show me where the work has been done to set the applicable safety limits based on age, weight, and number of vaccines administered. You can’t, because it hasn’t been done.
“On another thread you mentioned thimerosal as correlating to an increase in autism when it was removed enough that a SafeMinds executive member could not find any in 2001!”
The point is that it shouldn’t have been there to begin with. Autism shares many symptoms with mercury poisoning, but mercury is not the only cause of autism. For example, Dr. Helen Rataczak, a former senior pharmaceutical scientist, did a review which found ” “Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination” (“Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review.”, J. of Immunotoxicology, 2011)
“Plus you referred to Dr. Healy as if she was still alive (she died over a year ago, and she was a cardiologist, not a pediatrician).”
My condolences for Dr. Healy, however, my not being aware of her death has nothing to do with vaccines. And as former head of the NIH, I find her to be qualified to assess this issue, from a biological as well as political standpoint.
However, earlier I mentioned that Dr. Diane Harper, who helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III trials that got HPV approved, said that HPV vaccine needed better safety warnings for proper informed consent, and also that “the rate of serious adverse events [from HPV is at least] on par with the death rate of cervical cancer.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml
Of course, you and Skewed have serious “cognitive dissonance” going on, so I suspect you’ll just completely ignore this, just like all the other evidence I provided.
Ratajczak’s steaming turd of a paper has been completely dismantled by the scientific community, as well it deserves. I’m afraid she made the rather pathetic error of confusing correlation with causation. It was really a rather embarrassing paper for her, and for those who believe(d) it.
Harper’s comments are actually misinformed. The JAMA paper by Slade to which Harper refers employed VAERS to assess adverse events. As most readers understand, VAERS reports are in no way an indication of events caused by any vaccine.
In response to your petty comment to Chris: trust me when I say that Chris’s knowledge of biology is far, far superior to yours. I am sure this is obvious to anyone reading, but I just wanted to be clear about it.
And you are still unable to provide a single paper representing a study in human beings that links vaccinations to autism. Unless…wait…were you trying to count the “review” by Ratajczak? The one which consisted solely of that author’s opinion with absolutely no scientific data to back it up? The one that was ripped apart in letters to the editor as well as by scientists everywhere? Yeah, I’m sure you did lap that right up.
Autism does NOT share symptoms with mercury poisoning. Far from it.
http://www.minamata-tour.org/en/disease/symptom/index.html
Minamata disease is not a valid comparison because it it is a different dosing, exposure period, method and age of exposure. As Blaxill et al point out, ‘no ‘‘typical’’ pattern of mercury poisoning can be or has been described. Rather, as expert toxicologists well know, ‘‘no other metal better illustrates the diversity of effects caused by different chemical species than does mercury’’ [12].
“Clinical manifestations of mercury toxicity vary greatly depending on numerous factors, including:
• amount of exposure (dose relative to body weight),
• dosing patterns (intermittent bolus, chronic, and acute),
• species type (ethyl, methyl, di-methyl, metallic, mercuric, and mercurous),
• route of administration (cross-placental, ingested, injected, inhaled, mucosal, and transdermal),
• excretion context (in utero, with antibiotics, immaturecommensal flora and/or bile production, and milk diets),
• age and developmental context at exposure (prenatal, postnatal, infant, toddler, child, and adult).’
For more info: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848
Yes, I know when something is called a “neurotoxin” it is supposed to affect the brain. Kidneys are not part of the brain.
And, of course, the human body has several ways to deal with aluminum because it is the most common metal element on this planet. You breathe it in, you eat it and it gets under your skin when you skin your knee in soil, or your arm on an aluminum chain link fence. Your kidneys and liver work to get it out of your body. Doing a PubMed search and eliminating anything written by an ophthalmologist brings up papers like this which says ” In conclusion, these results indicate that concentrations of aluminum in the drinking water that are required to produce minimally detectable neurobiological effects in the rat are about 10,000 times higher than what is typically found in potable drinking water.”
A real “toxin” is a poison created by a biological agent. Those include the very real toxins created by bacteria that cause tetanus, pertussis and botulism (the kind that one celebrity who campaigned against vaccines likes to inject into her face).
I also know there are risks to vaccines, but that risk is very small compared to the disease. None of those risks really include autism. Which really cannot be applied to the HPV vaccine, since autism is usually diagnosed several years before a child’s tenth birthday (who should have several times the mass of a premature infant).
The aluminum in the vaccines do cause one thing; a sore arm. That is an immune response, which is very similar to what you get when you scrape a knee in dirt or scratch your arm on a chain link fence. My college biology professor said that was one way to know that the vaccine was actually working.
Bryan:
You really should be wary of any paper published in a journal where the title includes “hypothesis” (or at least look up what it means). The highest biology/medical training any of those authors had was a nursing degree. The others include a chemical engineer, a math major and a master in business administration.
I don’t know about you, but I prefer biomedical researchers to have some actual education in the subject.
And again, that paper was published just about the time thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines, and so it is at least a decade out of date, along with being very wrong.
Agree. “Medical Hypotheses” is a very dodgy pseudoscientific rag. They only very recently claim to have instituted peer review. Anything in that journal is highly suspect at best but more likely to be absolute, unadulterated garbage.
An educated response to Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning which was published in Medical Hypotheses in 2001:
Commentary – Thimerosal and Autism?.
And again, in case it was unclear: autism that is not Asperger’s is diagnosed long before a child is old enough to get the HPV vaccine.
Plus the hang-wringing over aluminum is just because reducing the amount of thimerosal to almost nothing had no effect on autism diagnoses. I know that no one suspects the changes to the DSM in 1994 that would have labeled my son with autism (he is just a couple years too old). Though there was goodness in that since the high school psychologist told me that if he had become part of their autism program he would have lost certain services. As it was, he was given an IEP that fit his needs, not a label.
So Brian, as per your cut/paste: species type (ethyl, methyl, di-methyl, metallic, mercuric, and mercurous).
So, what are the differences in chemical species, and how do they relate to toxicity?
skeweddistribution:
(the thread is being quirky)
Well, since that particular paper is over ten years old, it definitely would not have been peer reviewed.
Ugh, I remember being on a listserv for my son’s disability around that time. It was when the Mercury Militia was starting to claim vaccines caused the speech/language issues we were dealing with. I usually replied that the most potent suspect were the seizures my son had, especially the major one he had as a toddler that at time there was no vaccine. But I received nasty-grams for mentioning that a disease could be a cause, and warnings that some big “research” would show us all. It turns out that paper was the “big research.”
My response was “You are joking.” But, of course, they were not. This was the same bunch that tried to get me removed from the listserv because I dared to mention that the MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal.
Obviously their research skills have not improved during the past decade. Especially when one brings up autism on an article about a vaccine that is used only those over ten years old.
I’m sorry Chris that you have been forced to deal with this kind of idiocy. It’s disgusting.
I have mentioned here before that I have a relative with an autoimmune disease who is constantly getting incredibly interesting advice regarding “detoxing” and Goji juice and that sort of thing. In her case, I do believe that most of the individuals offering their thoughts are truly doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are trying to help. This is not the case for anti-vaxxers, who stridently claim that the disease is caused by vaccination (it is not). But said relative and I had a heart-wrenching conversation when, at first, she thought she’d given herself the disease by getting vaccinated.
As you can tell I have been dealing with this for a very long time. It is just another bit when one has a child with multiple health issues, starting seizures when he was just two days old. Before there was the internet I was offered all sorts of less than helpful suggestions, and then was told by a mom/toddler group that I needed to stop talking about my son’s issues because they were not interested.
Which is why it was great when the internet came along and I found others to converse (first in Compuserve groups, where I was introduced to the email listserv and then Usenet… the latter where I first encountered John Scudamore of whale.to fame). The listserv was great for the first five years, but then the vaccine questioners appeared (including at least one who was employed by a DAN! doctor to recruit patients). I left it just before Roy Kerry killed a five year old through chelation (just before he became a DAN! doctor).
So I have had a front seat vantage point to observe the modern anti-vax movement. It has been an education. And lots of my research started by reading books in waiting rooms for various medical appointments and therapy (four years intensive twice a week, another six just an hour or so).
I had to quit work (engineer) to deal with my son, but I did go back to school thinking of doing bio-statistics (I used statistical methods with structural vibration). So I took more statistics, biology, etc. But, alas! That came to an end when we had to deal with his heart issues. So I’m back to making sure that he goes to cardiac rehab twice a week (he does not drive, and may never live on his own). At least the building has free wifi in the waiting room.
Bryan is trotting out the same old arguments I have heard for over a decade. I really feel for those who have been swept up in the blame game, and are told it is something they did. Especially those who open their wallets to buy supplements, odd treatments (like cranialsacral) and on and on (see second link above).
Thanks. I have been around the block with this for a long time, as you will see in the first link in the comment that went into moderation.
Indeed you have. And I’m glad you post here at SkewedD!
“Less then ten days was essentially the same, or even slightly better at 18 months. Again, the data that you think supports your decision in fact opposes it.”
Okay, so over ten days, the total of a 5 mcg/kg feeding adds to 50 mcg/kg. This is the minimum exposure level of a newborn receiving Hep B, as I indicated earlier (large 50 kg newborn – an actual premature baby could weigh half that – 250 mcg/shot ).
Sooo… you’re arguing that neurotoxicity starts at the level present in vaccines? Thank you for agreeing! Now, yes, it does specify *premature* neonates, but it also states that tissue loading can occur at below the 4-5 mcg/kg level.
Also bear in mind that this is like the difference between taking the same dose of a poison over an extended period of time, and getting it all at once. Neither is desirable, but generally you would expect the acute dose to be more harmful.
‘And thanks for the link on “Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals;” if you want to tell us how that applies to aluminum, we’re all ears.’
Why don’t *you* tell us how? That link demonstrated how certain exposures can be less dangerous at high doses. You have been implying that I’m ignorant for extrapolating parenteral nutrition safety limits to vaccines, yet you have not demonstrated how the comparable or greater doses in vaccines are *magically* harmless.
No, Bryan. Reread the study. 45mcg/kg/day (not 4-5 mcg/kg/day) for for ten days or less showed no deficits. The entire reason that I presented it is because you claimed that the 4-5mcg guideline did not specify long-term daily dosing, when in fact it is specifically long term administration. The fact that Bishop et al showed no developmental problems at ten days or less of much higher concentrations is a nice additional refutation to your overall concern.
For acute toxicity, yes, which is not demonstrated in studies on the newborn dose. But we are talking about chronic toxicity here, also not demonstrated in the doses in vaccines. As one of my above links discussed, “some materials may act as acute toxins, but show no chronic ill effects. The same is true for materials labeled as chronically toxic, which have no adverse single dose effect.”
Okay, I will: It doesn’t.
Yes, I have, and if you were not blind to all but your foregone conclusion you would know this. I have provided epidemologic and toxicologic data indicating safety, including Bishop et al showing high doses of aluminum for ten days causing no developmental problems in renally impaired neonates. An this is not even all the data that is out there. But if there is one thing that the Bishop discussion has shown me, it’s that it is brutally futile to walk you through data.
Your argument, thus far, has consisted of one part “I don’t believe it,” and one part (unspoken) “I don’t understand it.”
Indeed. That’s it in a nutshell. Thanks for hanging in there along with Chris and Darwy in demonstrating why Bryan doesn’t understand 99% of the data. He is certainly an energetic and dedicated fellow.
I’m rather late commenting here, but I wanted to say thanks to COVRAC and skewed and others who contributed actual useful scientific stuff to the conversation – I just read through the entire comment thread and a few of the linked articles and learned rather a lot while I was at it. Thank you!
LMAO, this is why I stopped bothering. Even when COVRAC and Skewed make blatant errors, they get unlimited praise from the sycophants on this blog.
COVRAC – “Adding up daily 5 per kilo dosages and trying to make it compare to a single dose of vaccine is irrelevant, especially when the evidence shows that ten days of very high dosages of aluminum caused no deficits.”
This is directly contradicted by the actual study he’s referring to, ten days *did* see deficits. “In infants fed intravenously for 10 or more days, those receiving the standard solutions had a major (10 point) deficit in their Mental Development Index and were twice as likely to have a Mental Development Index below 85. These results provide support for our hypothesis that intravenous aluminum may have neurotoxic effects, with longer-term consequences for neurologic development.”
And though this deals with chronic, not acute toxicity, it’s not totally irrelevant! What would you rather take, an aspirin a day for ten days, or ten aspirin all at once? You will now accuse me of being ignorant of science. NO – I just have the temerity to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and you are showing me the emperor’s naked gluteus and insisting it is clad in gold and silk.
You are all knowledgeable, but it seems like your medical training mainly taught you to pathologically disregard even basic biology, when it is necessary to do so in order to claim that a pharma product is safe or efficacious.
No matter how many excuses you make, it is grossly inappropriate 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.
This is a form of cherry-picking!!!!! See, the fact that you defend this alone is proof enough that you lack any scientific discernment, and have a religious devotion to your belief system. I hope that most medical practitioners are not as arrogant and thick-headed as all of you turned out to be. Thanks for the discussion, I learned more than I wanted to.
Shit, it’s like a poltergeist! Quick rule of thumb: for every exclamation point that you add to a statement, its truth is divided by ten.
Thank you, Jeshyr. COVRAC, Chris, Darwy, and Shaliza are regular commenters here who will bring the science always, and I am grateful to them for their participation. I appreciate you stopping by, and please feel free to ask any questions. Even Bryan the Poltergeist didn’t get smacked down brutally hard until he revealed himself as an AIDS denialist, so I do welcome questions here, just not blatant stupidity.
Skewed, where has it ever been established (and not merely theorized with no evidence) that the HIV virus depletes CD4+ T cells? How is it that a virus that is so rare in the body that it can’t even be directly detected, only by the presence of its neutralizing antibodies, is said to cause full-blown, lethal infection? And with an incubation time of several years, not weeks at most like all other infections?
And such a wide array of diseases are attributed to this incredible virus – from the hepatitis or Kaposi’s sarcoma of a drug addict, to the tuberculosis or diarrhea of an impoverished African, to the internal bleeding of a hemophiliac. But if they do not test “HIV+”, then they just simply diagnosed with those diseases that are normally associated with their cohort / risk group.
Whereas perfectly healthy people, such as Christine Maggiore and many others, can test positive and yet be perfectly healthy! Make no mistake, anyone has a right to refuse the expensive, extremely toxic drugs like AZT that CAUSE “AIDS-defining” symptoms like immune suppression, anemia, and muscle wasting!
The HIV-AIDS theory is not scientific, because it cannot be falsified. Virus hunters jumped on the hypothesis and adapted it to every new piece of counter-evidence, until they created a theory so vague and all-encompassing as to be scientifically meaningless.
Goodbye, BryBry. I warned you. I will not tolerate this level of stupidity on this blog. Take your idiocy elsewhere.
P.S. Christine Maggiore is responsible for the death of her daughter from AIDS…and Maggiore herself is dead of AIDS. Only in BryBryWorld would deadness equal “perfectly healthy”.
Edited 12/21/12: Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. You are banned here. Stop trying to post.
OK this is a reply to Bryan’s reply, basically just to make sure I have it straight in my head – if any actual trained people would confirm or correct what I put here that’d be great.
And thank you for stopping by and for your thoughtful post. Bryan the Poltergeist is desperately trying to respond to you but he has been banned for AIDS denialism, so I’m afraid we won’t have the pleasure of his company anymore.
Skewed, please let me post my response to her. Other than that, I have nothing more to say to you. Goodbye forever.
Bryan:
No, I am not going to let you post a response to Jeshyr. You have lost your ability to comment here because you cannot restrain yourself from posting lies, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, even after repeated warnings. You seem to think that you are exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else; therefore, you are now IP banned. Congratulations, you’re the first who has ever needed that.
Brian says:
“Okay, so over ten days, the total of a 5 mcg/kg feeding adds to 50 mcg/kg. This is the minimum exposure level of a newborn receiving Hep B, as I indicated earlier (large 50 kg newborn – an actual premature baby could weigh half that – 250 mcg/shot ).”
A 50 kg newborn???? Are you for real, Bryan? That would mean a baby is born weighing like 110 pounds. I’m a Pediatrician, and I’ve yet to see that, so your credibility just hit rock bottom with that comment. Give it a rest, for cryin’ out loud!
Oh my! I missed that (I have skimming his aluminum bits, choosing to only read the responses). My sister was born a couple of months too early, she weighed a bit over three pounds, which is less than 2.0 kg. It looks like someone forgot a decimal point (though a 2.5 kg newborn is kind of large for a preemie).
I had a good giggle over that one. My son was large, but still only 4.4 kg at birth – and he was certainly no preemie. They tend to weigh between 1.5-3 kg.
My sister weighed under 1.5 kg, which is not as low weight as some preemies. Being born in May instead of July was one effect of my mother being addicted to cigarettes. She spent two months in the hospital, but fortunately not one equipped with the full oxygen isolettes that were used in the early 1960s. That was a major cause of blindness in premature infants. Fortunately she is very healthy middle-age woman, and the only problem is that she has been lactose intolerant from birth.
Shaliza, I already pointed out that that was a typo. I meant to say 5 kg, and even that was being generous.
And that relates to a ten year old child how? How many infants are given the HPV vaccine?
I totally agree, Chris.
And I commend you and Skewed and the rest of you for successfully turning the tables on dear Bryan over and over again. Anti-vaxxers NEVER know when to quit, that’s for sure.
Haven’t read this in a while, allow me to restate that –
COVRAC, Bernard’s criticisms are important because you DO want the study to be as representative as possible. She’s pointing out that there are extenuating factors that make the groups DISSIMILAR to the general population in areas that are not being specifically looked at, so it could “skew” the results.
P.S. These small studies that you showed me that are supposed to prove vaccines aren’t linked to autism, are clearly cherry-picked. Zooming in on a few dozen people is highly suspicious, when the resources are there to conduct a much larger, higher-powered study.
Whhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa? The non-association between vaccines and autism has been demonstrated in studies of over 500,000 children. How many friggin’ children do you need, Bryan? Oh yeah, that’s right. You want to waste even more resources instead of directing them toward programs in support of those with autism. Incredible amounts of money and time have already been spent on demonstrating that vaccines DO NOT CAUSE autism. And yet you are so incredibly selfish and myopic that you’d rather have more spent to suit your disingenous, ill-informed agenda. Disgusting.
As I suggested before, Bryan, if you want another study of vaccines and autism performed, then I suggest you write the grant, get it funded, and do the work. And good luck with that.
Indeed, it is a strange accusation to be “zooming in on a few dozen people,” as the cohort in Smith et al alone had over a thousand kids. But I find it especially funny that Bryan is lecturing me on cherry picking, considering that the bedrock of his argument is an FDA quote about long term parenteral nutrition, and was unfamiliar with the science supporting the quote.
izf anastrozole research chemical buy anastrozole for men, anastrozole during cycle