For antivaxers, aluminum is the new mercury.

Let me explain, for the benefit of those not familiar with the antivaccine movement. For antivaxers, it is, first and foremost, always about the vaccines. Always. Whatever the chronic health issue in children, vaccines must have done it. Autism? It’s the vaccines. Sudden infant death syndrome? Vaccines, of course. Autoimmune diseases? Obviously it must be the vaccines causing it. Obesity, diabetes, ADHD? Come on, you know the answer!

Because antivaxers will never let go of their obsession with vaccines as The One True Cause Of All Childhood Health Problems, the explanation for how vaccines supposedly cause all this harm are ever morphing in response to disconfirming evidence. Here’s an example. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, antivaxers in the US (as opposed to in the UK, where the MMR vaccine was the bogeyman) focused on mercury in vaccines as the cause of autism. That’s because many childhood vaccines contained thimerosal, a preservative that contains mercury. In an overly cautious bit of worshiping at the altar of the precautionary principle, in 1999 the CDC recommended removing the thimerosal from childhood vaccines, and as a result it was removed from most vaccines by the end of 2001. (Some flu vaccines continued to contain thimerosal for years after that, but no other childhood vaccine did, and these days it’s uncommon for thimerosal-containing vaccines of any kind.)

More importantly, the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines provided a natural experiment to test the hypothesis that mercury causes or predisposes to autism. After all, if mercury in vaccines caused autism, the near-complete removal of that mercury from childhood vaccines in a short period of time should have resulted in a decline in autism prevalence beginning a few years after the removal. Guess what happened? Autism prevalence didn’t decline. It continued to rise. To scientists, this observation was a highly convincing falsification of the hypothesis through a convenient natural experiment, although those who belong to the strain of antivaccine movement sometimes referred to as the mercury militia still flog mercury as a cause of autism even now. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is perhaps the most famous mercury militia member, although of late he’s been sounding more and more like a run-of-the-mill antivaxer.

Which brings us to aluminum.

With mercury in vaccines pretty definitively eliminated as The One True Cause Of Autism, antivaxers started looking for other ingredients to blame for autism because, as I said before, it’s first, foremost, and always all about the vaccines. So naturally they shifted their attention to the aluminum adjuvants in many vaccines. Adjuvants are compounds added to vaccine in order to boost the immune response to the antigen used, and aluminum salts have been used as effective adjuvants for many years now and have an excellent safety record. None of that has stopped antivaxers from trying to make aluminum the new mercury by blaming aluminum-containing vaccines for autism. I was reminded by this earlier this week when my e-mail was flooded with messages about new study being flogged by antivaxers in spectacularly ignorant ways, including three—yes, three—identical messages from a certain antivaxer with a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and delusions of grandeur basically challenging me to review this study and assuring me that antivaxers would be citing it for a long time. Well, whenever I receive messages like that, particularly annoying repetition, my answer is: Be very careful what you wish for.

Also: Challenge accepted.

Which brings us to the study itself. It’s by antivaccine “researchers” whose previous studies and review articles I’ve discussed before. Yes, I’m referring to Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia. Both have a long history of publishing antivaccine “research,” mainly falsely blaming the aluminum adjuvants in vaccines for autism and, well, just about any health problem children have and blaming Gardasil for premature ovarian failure and all manner of woes up to and including death. Shaw was even prominently featured in the rabidly antivaccine movie The Greater Good. Not surprisingly, they’ve had a paper retracted, as well..

This time around, they’ve gone back to their old stomping grounds, the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, and, along with two other co-authors, published Subcutaneous injections of aluminum at vaccine adjuvant levels activate innate immune genes in mouse brain that are homologous with biomarkers of autism. It’s where they published review article in 2011 full of antivaccine misinformation and distortions. So, given Shaw and Tomljenovic’s history, it is not unreasonable to be suspicious of this study as well. But, hey, you never know. Maybe it’s a good study that sheds light on an important aspect of the pathogenesis of autism…Ah, who’m I kidding? It’s nothing of the sort. It’s yet another study designed to imply that aluminum adjuvants cause autism.

Before we look at the study itself, specifically the experiments included in it, let’s consider the hypothesis being tested, because experiments in any study should be directed at falsifying the hypothesis. Unfortunately, there is no clear statement of hypothesis where it belongs, namely in the introduction. Instead, what we get is this:

Given that infants worldwide are regularly exposed to Al adjuvants through routine pediatric vaccinations, it seemed warranted to reassess the neurotoxicity of Al in order to determine whether Al may be considered as one of the potential environmental triggers involved in ASD.

In order to unveil the possible causal relationship between behavioral abnormalities associated with autism and Al exposure, we initially injected the Al adjuvant in multiple doses (mimicking the routine pediatric vaccine schedule) to neonatal CD-1 mice of both sexes.

This is basically a fishing expedition in which the only real hypothesis is that “aluminum in vaccines is bad and causes bad immune system things to happen in the brain.” “Fishing expeditions” in science are studies in which the hypothesis is not clear and the investigators are looking for some sort of effect that they suspect they will find. In fairness, fishing expeditions are not a bad thing in and of themselves—indeed, they are often a necessary first step in many areas of research—but they are hypothesis-generating, not hypothesis confirming. After all, there isn’t a clear hypothesis to test; otherwise it wouldn’t be a fishing expedition. The point is that this study does not confirm or refute any hypothesis, much less provide any sort of slam-dunk evidence that aluminum adjuvants cause autism.

Moving along, I note that this is a mouse experiment, and somehow antivaxers are selling this as compelling evidence that vaccines cause autism through their aluminum adjuvants causing an inflammatory reaction in the brain. Now, seriously. Mouse models can be useful for a lot of things, but, viewed critcally, for the most part autism is not really one of them. After all, autism is a human neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosed entirely by behavioral changes, and correlating mouse behavior with human behavior is very problematic. Indeed, correlating the behavior of any animal, even a primate, with human behavior is fraught with problems. Basically, there is no well-accepted single animal model of autism, and autism research has been littered with mouse models of autism that were found to be very much wanting. (“Rain mouse,” anyone?) Basically, despite the existence of many mouse strains touted to be relevant to autism, almost none of them are truly relevant because:

A good animal model satisfies three fundamental criteria. The first, called face validity, requires sufficient similarities between the phenotype of the mice and symptoms of the human disorder. The second, called construct validity, is achieved if the biological cause of the human disease is replicated in the mouse — for example, when an autism-associated gene is mutated in mice. Finally, a mouse model has predictive validity if treatments improve both the human symptoms of the disorder and the mouse phenotype.

Diagnosis of autism is purely behavioral and requires clearly defined symptoms in each of three core categories: abnormal social interactions, impaired communication and repetitive behavior. One of the challenges in studying mouse models is determining which behaviors from the mouse repertoire could be considered analogous to these symptoms.

And:

So far, very few of these mouse models display behavioral phenotypes relevant to all three core domains of autism. What’s more, in some cases, physical problems such as poor general health following seizures, or low exploratory activity, produce false positives that prevent the interpretation of more complex, autism-relevant phenotypes.

Pay particular attention to the part about construct validity. The assumption behind this study is that immune changes in the brain of mice will be relevant to immune activation in the brains of autistic humans. That is an assumption that hasn’t yet been confirmed with sufficient rigor to view this study’s results as any sort of compelling evidence that aluminum adjuvants cause autism. Yes, the authors include this important-looking diagram describing how they think immune system activation causes autism (click to embiggen):

In the end, though, as impressive as it is, the relevance of this chart to autism is questionable at best, as is the relevance of this study. So let’s look at the mouse strain chosen by the investigators, CD-1 mice. Basically, there’s nothing particularly “autistic” (even in terms of existing mouse models purported to be relevant to autism) about these mice, which are described in most catalogues of companies selling them as “general purpose.” Basically, the authors used them because they had used them before in previous studies in which they reported that aluminum injections caused motor neuron degeneration (nope, no autism) and another crappy paper in the same journal from 2013 purporting to link aluminum with adverse neurological outcomes. That’s it.

As for the experiment itself, neonatal mice were divided into two groups, a control group that received saline injections and the experimental group received injections of aluminum hydroxide in doses timed such that they that purportedly mimicked the pediatric vaccine schedule. Looking over the schedule used, I can’t help but note that there’s a huge difference between human infant development and mouse development. Basically, the mice received aluminum doses claimed to be the same as what human babies get by weight six times in the first 17 days of life. By comparison, in human babies these doses are separated by months. In addition, in human babies, vaccines are injected intramuscularly (in a muscle). In this study, the mice were injected subcutaneously (under the skin). This difference immediately calls into question applicability and construct validity. The authors stated that they did it because they wanted to follow previously utilized protocols in their laboratory. In some cases, that can be a reasonable rationale for an experimental choice, but in this case the original choice was questionable in the first place. Blindly sticking with the same bad choice is just dumb.

So what were the endpoints examined in the mice injected with aluminum hydroxide compared to saline controls? After 16 weeks, the mice were euthanized and their brains harvested to measure gene expression and the levels of the proteins of interest. Five males and five females from each group were “randomly paired” for “gene expression profiling.” Now, when I think of gene expression profiling, I usually think of either cDNA microarray experiments, in which the levels of thousands of genes are measured at the same time, or next generation sequencing, in which the level of every RNA transcript in the cell can be measured simultaneously. That doesn’t appear to be what the authors did. Instead, they used a technique known as PCR to measure the messenger RNA levels of a series of cytokines. Basically, they examined the amount of RNA coding for various immune proteins in the brain chosen by the authors as relevant to inflammation. The authors also did Western blots for many of those proteins, which is a test in which proteins are separated on a gel, blotted to a filter, and then probed with specific antibodies, resulting in bands that can be measured by a number of techniques, including autoradiography or chemiluminescence, both of which can be recorded on film on which the relevant bands can be visualized. Basically, what the authors did wasn’t really gene expression profiling. It was measuring a bunch of genes and proteins and hoping to find a difference.

There’s an even weirder thing. The authors didn’t use quantitative real time reverse transcriptase PCR, which has been the state-of-the-art for measuring RNA message levels for quite some time. Rather, they used a very old, very clunky form of PCR that can only produce—at best—semiquantitative results. (That’s why we used to call it semiquantitative PCR.) Quite frankly, in this day and age, there is absolutely zero excuse for choosing this method for quantifying gene transcripts. If I were a reviewer for this article, I would have recommended not publishing it based on this deficiency alone. Real time PCR machines, once very expensive and uncommon, are widely available. (Hell, I managed to afford very simple one in my lab nearly 15 years ago.) Any basic or translational science department worth its salt has at least one available to its researchers.

The reason that this semiquantitative technique is considered inadequate is that the amount of PCR product grows exponentially, roughly doubling with every cycle of PCR, asymptotically approaching a maximum as the primers are used up.
It usually takes around 30-35 cycles before everything saturates and the differences observed in the intensity of the DNA bands when they are separated on a gel become indistinguishable. That’s why PCR was traditionally and originally primarily considered a “yes/no” test. Either the RNA being measured was there and produced a PCR band, or it didn’t. In this case, the authors used 30 cycles, which is more than enough to result in saturation. (Usually semiquantitative PCR stops around 20-25 cycles or even less.) And I didn’t even (yet) mention how the authors didn’t use DNAse to eliminate the small amounts of DNA that contaminate nearly all RNA isolations. Basically, the primers used for PCR pick up DNA as well as any any RNA, and DNA for the genes of interest will be guaranteed to contaminate the specimens without DNAse treatment. Yes, you molecular biologists out there, I know that’s simplistic, but my audience doesn’t consist of molecular biologists.

Now, take a look at Figures 1A and 1B as well as Figures 2A and 2B. (You can do it if you want. The article is open access.) Look at the raw bands in the A panels of the figures. Do you see much difference, except for IFNG (interferon gamma) in Figure 1A? I don’t. What I see are bands of roughly the same intensity, even the ones that are claimed to vary by three-fold. In other words, I basically am very skeptical that the investigators saw much of difference in gene expression between controls and the aluminum-treated mice. In fairness, for the most part, the protein levels as measured by Western blot did correlate with what was found on PCR, but there’s another odd thing. The investigators didn’t do Western blots for all the same proteins whose gene expression they measured by PCR. Of course, they present primers for 27 genes, but only show blots for 18 (17 inflammatory genes plus beta actin, which was used as a standard to normalize the values for the other 17 genes).

I also question the statistical tests chosen by the authors. Basically, they examined each gene separately and used Student’s t-test to assess statistical significance. However, in reality they did many comparisons, at least 17, and there’s no evidence that the authors controlled for multiple comparisons. If one chooses statistical significance to occur at p < 0.05 and compares 20 samples, by random chance alone at least one will be different. Add to that the fact that there is no mention of whether the people performing the assays were blinded to experimental group, and there's a big problem. Basic science researchers often think that blinding isn't necessary in their work, but there is a potential for unconscious bias that they all too often don't appreciate. For example, the authors used Image J, free image processing software developed by the NIH. I've used Image J before. It's a commonly used app used to quantify the density of bands on gels, even though it's old software and hasn't been updated in years. Basically, it involves manually drawing outlines of the bands, setting the background, and then letting the software calculate the density of the bands. The potential for bias shows up in how you draw the lines around the bands and set the backgrounds. As oblivious as they seem to be to this basic fact, basic scientists are just as prone to unconscious bias as the rest of us, and, absent blinding, in a study like this there is definitely the potential for unconscious bias to affect the results. In fairness, few basic science researchers bother to blind whoever is quantifying Western blots or ethidium bromide-stained DNA gels of PCR products, but that's just a systemic problem in biomedical research that I not infrequently invoke when I review papers. Shaw and Tomljenovic are merely making the same mistake that at least 90% of basic scientists make.

But let’s step back and take the authors’ results at face value for a moment. Let’s assume that what is reported is a real effect. In the rest of the paper, the authors present evidence of changes in gene expression that suggest the activation of a molecular signaling pathway controlled by a molecule called NF-κB and that male mice were more susceptible to this effect than females. (Just like autism!) Funny, but I know NF-κB. I’ve published on NF-κB. I had an NIH R01 grant to study how my favorite protein affected NF-κB. True, I ended up abandoning that line of research because I hit some dead ends. True, I’m not as familiar with NF-κB as I used to be. But I do know enough to know that NF-κB is easy to activate and very nonspecific. I used to joke that just looking at my cells funny would activate NF-κB signaling. Also, NF-κB activation is indeed associated with inflammation, but so what? What we have is an artificial model in which the mice are dosed much more frequently with aluminum than human infants. Does this have any relevance to the human brain or to human autism? who knows? Probably not. No, almost certainly not.

Also, the mouse immune system is different from the human immune system. None of this stops the authors from concluding:

Based on the data we have obtained to date, we propose a tentative working hypothesis of a molecular cascade that may serve to explain a causal link between Al and the innate immune response in the brain. In this proposed scheme, Al may be carried by the macrophages via a Trojan horse mechanism similar to that described for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C viruses, travelling across the blood-brain-barrier to invade the CNS. Once inside the CNS, Al activates various proinflammatory factors and inhibits NF-κB inhibitors, the latter leading to activation of the NF-κB signaling pathway and the release of additional immune factors. Alternatively, the activation of the brain’s immune system by Al may also occur without Al traversing the blood-brain barrier, via neuroimmuno-endocrine signaling. Either way, it appears evident that the innate immune response in the brain can be activated as a result of peripheral immune stimuli. The ultimate consequence of innate immune over-stimulation in the CNS is the disruption of normal neurodevelopmental pathways resulting in autistic behavior.

That’s what we call in the business conclusions not supported by the findings in a study. On a more “meta” level, it’s not even clear whether the markers of inflammation observed in autistic brains are causative or an epiphenomenon. As Skeptical Raptor noted. It could be that the inflammation reported is caused by whatever the primary changes in the brain that result in autism. Cause and effect are nowhere near clear. One can’t help but note that many of the infections vaccinated against cause way more activation of the immune system and cytokines than vaccination.

So what are we left with?

Basically, what we have is yet another mouse study of autism. The study purports to show that aluminum adjuvants cause some sort of “neuroinflammation,” which, it is assumed, equals autism. By even the most charitable interpretation, the best that can be said for this study is that it might show increased levels of proteins associated with inflammation in the brains of mice who had been injected with aluminum adjuvant way more frequently than human babies ever would be. Whether this has anything to do with autism is highly questionable. At best, what we have here are researchers with little or no expertise in very basic molecular biology techniques using old methodology that isn’t very accurate overinterpreting the differences in gene and protein levels that they found. At worst, what we have are antivaccine “researchers” who are not out for scientific accuracy but who actually want to promote the idea that vaccines cause autism. (I know, I know, it’s hard not to ask: Why not both?) If this were a first offense, I’d give Shaw and Tomljenovic the benefit of the doubt, but this is far from their first offense. Basically, this study adds little or nothing to our understanding of autism or even the potential effects of aluminum adjuvants. It was, as so many studies before, the torture of mice in the name of antivax pseudoscience. The mice used in this study died in vain in a study supported by the profoundly antivaccine Dwoskin Foundation.

Also, I’ll tell my antivax admirer the same thing I once told J.B. Handley when he taunted me to examine a study that he viewed as “slam dunk” evidence for a vaccine-autism link: You don’t tug on Superman’s cape. And, no, your name isn’t Slim. You’re not an exception.

ADDENDUM 9/27/2017: Apparently I wasn’t…Insolent…enough with this paper. On PubPeer there is a big discussion about whether the images in this paper were manipulated and whether the authors self-plagiarized Figure 1 from another paper. It looks bad.

Comments

  1. #1 Vaccine Papers
    September 27, 2017

    None of the studies cited in the text below are relevant to aluminum adjuvant safety. MMR does not contain aluminum. Studies of thimerosal are not relevant to aluminum adjuvant.

    “Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children, and five case-control studies involving 9,920 children were included in this analysis. The cohort data revealed no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06) or ASD (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20), nor was there a relationship between autism and MMR (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01), or thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31), or mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07). Similarly the case-control data found no evidence for increased risk of developing autism or ASD following MMR, Hg, or thimerosal exposure when grouped by condition (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98; p = 0.02) or grouped by exposure type (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.95; p = 0.01). Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.”

  2. #2 brian
    September 27, 2017

    The point [of the pitiful Holland paper] was to see whether vaccine injuries that include autism were, in fact, receiving compensation awards in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The authors found they were.

    That’s strong work, Ginny, except that such alleged “vaccine injuries” have been repeatedly shown to be to be genetically-determined and unrelated to vaccination.

    BTW, did you miss “Whistleblower” Thompson’s recorded comment to the effect that the finding that his coauthors attributed to socioeconomic factors was, in fact, due to socioeconomic factors? Here’s what Thompson said in a conversation that BS Hooker secretly recorded on June 12, 2014:

    Thompson: “among the blacks . . . the ones getting vaccinated earlier are the ones from higher-income backgrounds. . . . You could argue that it’s the educated black moms that are getting their kids vaccinated earlier and that’s why you found that effect.”

    BS Hooker: “And they’re getting that effect and the ones that are getting vaccinated later are underdiagnosed.”

  3. #3 Julian Frost
    Gauteng North
    September 27, 2017

    @NWO Reporter, nope. An ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because you’re stupid”. Gallimaufry was saying “you’re scientifically illiterate because your argument is wrong and you don’t know why”. i.e. You’re stupid because you’re wrong.
    Re your second paragraph: no, I didn’t miss the point of Holland’s paper. She was trying to insinuate that because people who had a diagnosis of autism had been compensated by the NVICP, that proved that vaccines can cause autism. They can’t.
    As for William Thompson, that whole palaver has been discussed on Respectful Insolence already. Put his name into the Search Box up top. You will find several posts pointing out that what you say he said was not what he actually said.

  4. #4 herr doktor bimler
    September 27, 2017

    It’s hilarious how many people think the DSM is based on science.

    Who?

  5. #5 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Brian, if autism has been “repeatedly shown to be to be genetically-determined,” then an autism diagnosis would be based on genetic markers. It isn’t. There is not s single person anywhere whose autism diagnosis was based on genetic markers.

    Creative cherry-picking there with Thompson’s comment. But the data omitted from the study speaks for itself–as do the 99.99% of Thompson’s comments you omitted.

    • #6 Se Habla Espol
      September 27, 2017

      if autism has been “repeatedly shown to be to be genetically-determined,” then an autism diagnosis would be based on genetic markers.

      I see from this that you fail to understand autism, genetic markers, or both. I’d bet on both.

  6. #7 herr doktor bimler
    September 27, 2017

    Basically, the authors used them because they had used them before in … another crappy paper in the same journal from 2013 purporting to link aluminum with adverse neurological outcomes.

    That 2013 paper in J. Inorg.Biochem. is actually the b>same study, with the mice being scored on behaviour before making their sacrifice for Science. It’s not immediately obvious, because in the original description there are four litters of 14 pups each, with one control (saline injections), one for some other purpose, and one each on an high- and low-dose regime, whereas in the present paper there are only two groups to compare.

    To get the full picture of what was going on with this mouse work, you have to look at a third study, from 2014, Ref. 166, published in ‘OA Autism’ (see earlier comment). It includes Figure 1: preliminary immunology results from the no-longer-functioning brains of 3 male mice each from control and treatment groups. The authors admit that such small samples cannot sustain definitive conclusions.

    The criteria for selecting those three mice is not explained. Each measurement was repeated four times for accuracy, so the authors could have measured the entre group for the same expenditure of effort. It is as if they wanted to create the impression of multiple independent measurements, with correspondingly narrow confidence limits, without running the risk of sampling an entire diverse group.

    Anyway, moving right along, Figure 1 reappears in the present 2017 paper. Unchanged. Same values, same RT-PCR blots, same error bars. This is peculiar, for the text explains that these are now mean results for five treated and control male mice (delivering on the promise to strengthen the conclusions). Quite how this happened has caused some speculation in Pubpeer.

    But wait, it gets better! For there is now a Fig 2, with comparable results for female mice. By “comparable” I mean identical, for some of the male-mouse PCR blots from Fig 1 reappear as putatively sourced from female brains. In fact they appear twice in Figure 2, flipped horizontally so as to illustrate the expression of quite different proteins.

    To sum up, the same kayak-shaped gels have been used four times, across two papers, nominally illustrating four different claims.

    For further entertainment, other gels are flipped horizontally between Figures 4B and 4D, with different exposures, to illustrate the expression of cytokines and adhesion molecules respectively.

    I can only suppose that someone on Shaw’s team thought they were studying mirror neurons.

  7. #8 herr doktor bimler
    September 27, 2017

    With mercury in vaccines pretty definitively eliminated as The One True Cause Of Autism, antivaxers started looking for other ingredients to blame for autism because, as I said before, it’s first, foremost, and always all about the vaccines.

    You’d think so, but Shaw and Tomljenovic insist that mercury has not been exonerated. Yes, thimerosal might have been removed from vaccines without producing the predicted drop in autism, but apparently fetal exposure to mercury (through maternal use of flu vaccines) makes up for it. I am not making this up:

    Nonetheless, it should be noted that Thimerosal was subsequently re-introduced to vaccines administered to pregnant women as well infants of 6 months of age (and then yearly throughout childhood) in the form of multi-dose flu vaccines[83]. This recommendation to reintroduce Thimerosal at the same time when the U.S. medical authorities recommended its removal from routine childhood vaccines has created a false overall impression that the impact of Thimerosal has been reduced, when in actuality, the administration during the gestational period has increased the potential to damage the developing CNS.

    Yes, this destroys their entire rationale for pursuing aluminium as the cause of autism, but they are more concerned with antivax purity than logical consistency.

  8. #9 MI Dawn
    September 27, 2017

    @NWOR: this will be my last reply to you because, as Chris points out, I need to stop feeding the antivax troll. No. I’m not denying that vaccines can possibly cause any of the table injuries. I am saying that they don’t *definitely* cause them. Because there is a high probability, that’s why they are compensated as table injuries.

    I AM also saying that vaccines don’t cause autism, have never been shown to cause autism, and you are wrong.

  9. #10 MI Dawn
    September 27, 2017

    Oh VP. Defending Shaw and Tomljenovic because they support your fixation about vaccines. Why don’t you go onto PubPeer and talk to the people who are pointing out the errors? I’m sure they would be glad to let you “school” them as to where they are all wrong.

  10. #11 Beth Clarkson
    September 27, 2017

    VP #155: “You wrote:”aluminum salts have been used as effective adjuvants for many years now and have an excellent safety record.”

    Can you please provide citations to support the safety of aluminum adjuvant? Particularly regarding neurological disorders and autism?

    Like VP, I would appreciate seeing some citations for this statement. Could you provide your sources on this bit of knowledge? Thanks.

  11. #12 VARhythm
    September 27, 2017

    “Moving along, I note that this is a mouse experiment, and somehow antivaxers are selling this as compelling evidence that vaccines cause autism through their aluminum adjuvants causing an inflammatory reaction in the brain”

    Took 10 paragraphs to get here, but OP has made his first relevant comment. Must be hard to prove aluminum adjuvants are safe when there is 0 empirical evidence of their safety in humans or animals at vaccine relevant dosages. Might as well keep talking about Thimerosal and MMR.

    “aluminum salts have been used as effective adjuvants for many years now and have an excellent safety record”
    (citation needed for stupid comment)
    ^from 1920 to ~1980 only DTP contained aluminum. Now children receive 30+ dosages. Haven’t you heard “dose makes the poison”? Cite some papers or shut up!

  12. #13 MI Dawn
    September 27, 2017

    @Beth: just become buddies with VP. He’s as wrong as you are. You get more aluminium in your body (actually into your bloodstream! Gasp!) if you get sand scrapes at the beach than in any injection – which goes into muscle, not the blood. And most people have functioning kidneys which can eliminate it just fine.

  13. #14 brian
    September 27, 2017

    Regarding the 83 cases of alleged “vaccine injuries that included autism” that Holland et al discussed in anti-vaxxers’ favorite law review article, Ginny wrote:

    if autism has been “repeatedly shown to be to be genetically-determined,” then an autism diagnosis would be based on genetic markers.

    Well, no. Cases like the 83 that you cited from Holland’s article (i.e., “vaccine encephalopathy” and allegedly vaccine-related “residual seizure disorder”) have been studied by research groups on several continents and determined to be caused by mutations which most commonly occur in the SCN1A gene. Gallimaufry provided you with a curated list of references, but here’s a related paper (published this month) which describes nonverbal children that suffered regression or stasis after a period of normal development, seizures, severe GI issues, and profound intellectual disability; eight of the nine children had the identical SCN1A mutation while the ninth had a different mutation in that gene:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5589790/

  14. #15 Beth Clarkson
    September 27, 2017

    MI Dawn, I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but I am looking for citations regarding the safety of Al adjuvants, not advice on choosing friends. VP claims there aren’t any such studies. Can you provide a cite showing VP wrong?

  15. #16 Orac
    September 27, 2017

    I find it amusing how the antivaxers in this thread are doing everything they can to avoid discussing the major scientific flaws in the Shaw/Tomljenovic study in order to bring up their favorite tropes about aluminum. Maybe this will tweak them. It looks as though the authors of this study might have committed scientific fraud:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/09/27/torturing-more-mice-in-the-name-of-antivaccine-pseudoscience-was-it-fraud-or-incompetence/

  16. #17 VARhythm
    September 27, 2017

    Orac, hopefully you are correct about the scientific fraud in this paper, otherwise your response to VP’s well cited comment will live in infamy. You were so excited to respond to VP’s comments, but for many of us all we witnessed was a massive dodge. In particular we are still waiting to see just one paper that demonstrates empirical safety of aluminum adjuvant for children at vaccine relevant dosages. You said aluminum salts have an ‘excellent safety record’ and provided no empirical evidence in support of this statement.

    Your paper can be experimental data (AlOH injection) in animals or even observational data comparing fully unvaccinated children with fully vaccinated children.

    Just waiting for one single paper with empirical evidence of AlOH safety.

    • #18 Orac
      September 27, 2017

      Even if al the blots were perfect, this would still be a crappy paper, and antivaxers in this thread would still be obviously doing contortions to avoid facing is many flaws. As for my reputation, well, certainly neither you nor VP will have any appreciable effect on it, certainly not from anything you’ve said here.

  17. #19 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Just for the record, which was mysteriously wiped out last night, this is the list of injuries MI Dawn will neither admit nor deny can be caused by vaccines. It is comprised of the injuries listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, and some of the injuries that have actually received compensation awards in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

    Acute Inflammatory Neurological Injury
    Acute Demyelinating Encephalomyelitis (ADEM)
    Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis
    Acute Hemorrhagic Leukoencephalomyelitis (AHLE)
    Anaphylaxis
    Bell’s Palsy
    Brachial Neuritis
    Brachial Plexopathy
    Cardiac arrest
    Cellulitis
    Cerebral Palsy
    Cognitive Delays
    Connective Tissue Disease
    Chronic arthritis
    Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
    Death
    Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
    Disseminated varicella vaccine strain viral disease (Removed in 9/2017 from the Table)
    Encephalopathy or encephalitis
    Frozen Shoulder Syndrome
    Guillain-Barré Syndrome
    Hearing Loss
    Inflammatory Tendinitis
    Intussusception
    Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis
    Kleine-Levin Syndrome
    Leukocytoclastic Vasculitis
    Lumbosacral Raduculoplexus Neuropathy (LSRPN)
    Lymphangitis
    Miller Fisher Syndrome
    Multiple Sclerosis
    Multi-Organ Failure
    Myelopathy
    Myositis
    Neuritis
    Neuralgic Amyotrophy
    Neurologic Injuries
    Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO)
    Optic Neuritis
    Overactive Immune Response
    Paralytic Polio
    Paresthesias/Small Fiber Neuropathy
    Parsonage Turner Syndrome
    Peripheral Neuropathy
    Polyneuropathy
    Psoriasiform Dermatitis
    Radial Nerve Injury
    Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (Removed in 9/2017 from the Table)
    Spinal Cord Myelitis
    Strep A infection
    Systemic Inflammatory Response
    Thrombocytopenic purpura
    Tinnitus
    Toxic Shock
    Transverse Myelitis
    Vasovagal syncope (Removed in 9/2017 from the Table)
    Vaccine Strain Measles Viral Disease
    Vaccine Strain Polio Viral Infection
    Varicella vaccine strain viral reactivation (Removed in 9/2017 from the Table)
    Ventricular Fibrillation
    Vision Loss

  18. #20 Dangerous Bacon
    September 27, 2017

    Beth, who is Just Asking Questions: “…I am looking for citations regarding the safety of Al adjuvants, not advice on choosing friends. VP claims there aren’t any such studies. Can you provide a cite showing VP wrong?”

    Some recent ones from the first search page on PubMed under the heading of aluminum adjuvant safety:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28591778
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28454674
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28027810

    Even with these and other studies (and an approximately 80-year record of excellent safety with aluminum adjuvanted vaccines), antivaxers insist they are dangerous. If only they could demonstrate quality research to support their claim.

  19. #21 squirrelelite
    September 27, 2017

    @Beth Clarkson,

    Start with Taylor et al from June 2014 as referenced by Julian Frost (162) and the 10 studies it analyzed.

    Those studies show that vaccinated children are just as healthy as unvaccinated children, in addition to which they are much less likely to get the diseases the vaccines protect against.

    And none of them found any problems specific to vaccines using aluminum adjuvants.

    In addition to all the safety and efficacy studies needed for approval of a new vaccine, we have years of post marketing surveillance on effects from billions of doses of vaccines. That surveillance has found a few problems occurring about 1 in 100,000 doses and the vaccines were withdrawn from use. But none of those problems were specific to and generic to all vaccines using aluminum adjuvants.

    So if there is a problem caused by aluminum adjuvants, it appears to only occur in 1 in a million doses or less, which is so low that it is extremely difficult to differentiate from random events occurring independent of vaccinations.

    And the calculation that NWO refused to do shows that vaccines are at least 1000 times safer than the diseases they protect against. If that is not an adequate ratio, what ratio do you consider adequate and what methodology would you propose to establish safety at that level?

  20. #22 squirrelelite
    September 27, 2017

    And don’t let your child go play in the park.

    https://www.naturalplaygrounds.com/documents/Playground%20Injury%20Statistics.pdf

    More children die each year from playground injuries than from vaccinations.

    And really don’t let them dig up the dirt in your back yard. They might ingest some of that horrible aluminum!

  21. #23 VARhythm
    September 27, 2017

    Orac is moderating the conversation, not allowing for a suitable discourse. This is a classic predicament when discussing controversial Science online.

    One person appears to be winning an argument because the other person’s comments are not approved.

    So let’s stay on topic here. I am still waiting to see just one paper that demonstrates empirical safety of aluminum adjuvant for children at vaccine relevant dosages. Orac stated aluminum salts have an ‘excellent safety record’ and provided no empirical evidence in support of this statement.

    Please read the f*cking papers before you post them, as the papers posted have been on MMR and Thimerosal.

    • #24 Orac
      September 27, 2017

      Silly antivaxer, pulling the “Help! Help! I’m being repressed!” gambit, then trying like hell to avoid the topic of this post.

    • #25 Se Habla Espol
      September 27, 2017

      So let’s stay on topic here.

      Yes, let’s stay on the topic of
      “Torturing more mice in the name of antivaccine pseudoscience, 2017 aluminum edition”, shall we.

      I am still waiting to see just one paper that demonstrates empirical safety of aluminum adjuvant for children at vaccine relevant dosages.

      You’ll be waiting at least until there is some reason to suspect that Al adjuvants might not be as safe as history has shown them to be.

      Orac stated aluminum salts have an ‘excellent safety record’ and provided no empirical evidence in support of this statement.

      In fact, Orac has pointed the historical, empirical evidence of the safety of Al adjuvants. It’s up to the anti-vax industry to provide credible (e.g., non-fraudulent) evidence that Al adjuvants might not be safe, despite all the available evidence, should they be able to ever do so.

  22. #26 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    The unfortunate reality is that no matter what research the industry and its beneficiaries produces to herald the safety and effectiveness of its products, it simply can’t be trusted. That according to a longtime editor of a respected medical journal, who has reviewed more medical research in depth than all the ‘science’ bloggers on the web combined.

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” Dr. Marcia Angell, Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption, NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.

  23. #27 Gallimaufry
    September 27, 2017

    NWO Reporter cited cases discussed in a Pace Environmental Law Review article as the basis for her belief that vaccines cause autism:

    As for autism, many cases of vaccine injuries that include autism have been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The claimed injury, and the injury compensated, however, was encephalopathy or seizure disorder. So yes, IMO vaccines can cause autism.

    Now that it’s clear that numerous cases like those compensated for allegedly vaccine-related encephalopathy and seizure disorders are caused by mutations rather than by vaccination, NWO Reporter, it’s equally clear that there is no rational basis for your opinion.

  24. #28 Opus
    Just north of the buckle on the Bible Belt
    September 27, 2017

    Ginny bloviated thusly: “Just for the record, which was mysteriously wiped out last night, this is the list of injuries MI Dawn will neither admit nor deny can be caused by vaccines.” (bold added)
    .
    Ginny demonstrated, once again, why she is working as the Walmart greeter of the legal profession. She’s so clueless that she hasn’t figured out that when comments grow too large for one page a second page is added, and comments on page 1 aren’t visible when you are on page 2!!

  25. #29 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Really, Opie? I’m on page one of the comments now. Your comment is #27. Last night, there were about 150 comments on this story. Did you forget your juice box this morning?

  26. #30 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Oh, okay, I see them. I didn’t realize they renumber on later pages. Sorry, Opie. 🙂

  27. #31 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    BTW, Opie, what do you do for a living?

  28. #32 Narad
    September 27, 2017

    Just for the record, which was mysteriously wiped out last night

    Do you see the link that says “« Previous 1 2,” O paranoiac freak?

    It is comprised of [sic] the injuries listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, and some of the injuries that have actually received compensation awards in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

    You keep intoning that, Gindo, but without ponying up the evidence. Moreover, there’s a certain inconsistency in your tediousness:

    MI Dawn, so you are contending that out of the 61 injuries listed in #148 (injuries that are on the Vaccine Injury Table, and that have actually received awards in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program), all but the follow 4 CANNOT be caused by vaccines?

    Allergic Reaction including anaphylaxis
    Death
    Guillain-Barré syndrome
    Narcolepsy

    Are you angling for a job at the vaccine court or something?

    Where’s the VICP award for narcolepsy, NWAD? Seems like an excellent place to start.

  29. #33 Beth Clarkson
    September 27, 2017

    @Dangerous Bacon

    Thank you for the cites. I have read the links you provided, two of which had links to the full paper.
    These studies indicate that there was no statistically detectable difference with regard to adverse reactions immediately following administration of the HPV or IPV vaccines when formulate with or without the Al adjuvant.

    Unfortunately, none of the three studies you listed address the concern regarding the relationship of autism with AL adjuvants and none are specifically looking at the safety of using AL as an adjuvant in multiple vaccines for children.

    Out of the three studies you posted, 2 were on individuals old enough that they would have already been determined to be autistic. The third was on infants too young to determine if they were autistic and no followup in that regard was suggested. So, they don’t provide any evidence regarding the safely of AL with respect to the hypothesis being discussed here.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28591778 discusses the 2-dose compared to the 3-dose approach for HPV vaccination given to girls aged 9-14 both of which contained AL adjuvants. Women aged 15–25 years who received the 3D_M0,1,6 schedule served as the control group.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28027810 had a total n = 240 and studied adolescents rather than infants. The title is “First-in-human safety and immunogenicity investigations of three adjuvanted reduced dose inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV-Al SSI) compared to full dose IPV Vaccine SSI when given as a booster vaccination to adolescents with a history of IPV vaccination at 3, 5, 12months and 5years of age.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28454674 at least has a control (n=206) without the Al adjuvant and looks at infants. But it is not a study reporting on the safety of the Al adjuvant. Indeed, there is no long-term followup of the infants (The mean age at inclusion was approximately 44 days. ) and they tested the infants after two vaccinations at 6 and 10 weeks.

  30. #34 Beth Clarkson
    September 27, 2017

    @squirrelelite VP responded to the link in #162 – it isn’t looking at AL adjuvants.

    You asked: what ratio do you consider adequate and what methodology would you propose to establish safety at that level?

    A good question. That ratio is not, by itself, sufficient to make a decision. It needs to be compared to the risk of acquiring the disease multiplied by the risk of similar or worse result from the disease itself. Since the risk of acquiring the disease varies tremendously based on the disease and one’s physical location, not to mention that the risk of adverse reactions to either the disease or the vaccination will vary tremendously based on one’s own personal and family health history, this isn’t a one size fits all answer this question.

    With regard to the inherent dangers of life vis-a-vis parks and vaccines, I took my kids to parks and vaccinated them. Some risks are worth taking.

  31. #35 herr doktor bimler
    September 27, 2017

    The unfortunate reality is that no matter what research the industry and its beneficiaries produces to herald the safety and effectiveness of its products, it simply can’t be trusted.

    “I want a list of studies showing the safety of X. Also, studies showing the safety of X are all faked and I intend to ignore them.”

  32. #36 Vaccine Papers
    September 27, 2017

    *********””Research shows a clear genetic cause of autism.”

    The claim that autism is largely genetic is based on twin studies. All the twin studies are flawed because they assume gene X environment interactions do not occur in autism. The twin studies assume that gene and environment risk contributions combine ADDITIVELY. This assumption is wrong and it causes the heritability to be greatly overestimated. All the twin studies have this problem.

    This issue is explained here: http://vaccinepapers.org/autism-not-fate-twin-studies-overestimate-genetic-contribution/

  33. #37 Vaccine Papers
    September 27, 2017

    ORAC ignores everything I wrote, and is now trying to change the subject.

    You lose Orac

  34. #38 Politicalguineapig
    September 27, 2017

    How do anti-vaxxers explain the continued existence of humans, if aluminum is a) more toxic than nightshade, belladonna, lead and arsenic combined, and b) ridiculously common.

  35. #39 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 27, 2017

    PGP @ 33:

    Because they don’t believe aluminum exists in the environment. They think it’s something artificial that never existed before the 20th Century–just as gluten is an artificial chemical ingredient that bread makers could just as easily leave out, but don’t as part of a worldwide conspiracy to reduce the population.

  36. #40 Dangerous Bacon
    September 27, 2017

    Reminder to Beth: You said “I am looking for citations regarding the safety of Al adjuvants”.
    Another antivaxer said: ” I am still waiting to see just one paper that demonstrates empirical safety of aluminum adjuvant for children at vaccine relevant dosages”.

    I provided links to three papers validating safety of such adjuvants (just a small sampling of the recent work done in this area).

    Now Beth is attempting to redefine safety as specifically showing no autism risk. We already have plenty of quality research showing no link between vaccines (with or without aluminum-based adjuvants) and autism. Are those studies invalid, and why? What studies can you cite that demonstrate an association between aluminum-based adjuvants and autism risk (aside from the Shaw/Tomljenovic dreck addressed in Orac’s blog article)?
    Shouldn’t you acknowledge that your request for safety studies was granted and that you are now trying to shift goalposts? Don’t you find it embarrassing that your antivax views are so inadequately concealed by a Just Asking Questions M.O.?

  37. #41 Eskimoboi
    September 27, 2017

    @Politicalguineapig so you’re saying humans have always been injected with nanoparticulate AlOH? ..or humans have always been exposed to soluble aluminum?

    @DangerousBacon
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28454674
    This study does not even have a control group, and all participants had already been previously vaccinated. Lol.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28591778
    This isn’t a safety study.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28027810
    This has no control group and all participants had already been vaccinated.

    By the way, for you genius pro vaxxers out there: if autism occurs at 4% of the population and affects mainly boys, and also is diagnosed in 2 year olds…would a smart person trying to prove aluminum is safe for male infants cite 2 studies with no control group about a vaccine we aren’t even debating and a population of 240 teenage women? I mean this is seriously as stupid as it gets, folks.

    and the other study is not a safety study. I think you should let Orac do the talking, whenever he wants to cite a study.

  38. #42 Narad
    September 27, 2017

    Macrophages, PGP. Macrophages with a mission not dissimilar to that of the Starship Enterprise.

  39. #43 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    PGP, I suppose you have difficulty understanding why you can’t just toss your eggs into a blender each morning and inject them for breakfast, too. After all, eggs aren’t even toxic!

  40. #44 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    And I suppose The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge thinks it would be perfectly safe to inject air into an artery…seeing as how the environment has been filled with air for as long as humans have been around. 😀

  41. #45 Vaccine Papers
    September 27, 2017

    Posting this a second time.

    *********ORAC:”15 years ago, vaccine activists advanced the mercury hypothesis and it was wrong. It was tested and while the evidence did suggest some harm, it was clear that mercury could not explain the persistent rise and high rates of autism. New evidence supports the hypothesis that autism is caused by aluminum adjuvant. Science advances by changing a working hypothesis in view of new evidence. Thats why focus is shifting to aluminum. Arguing that the aluminum hypothesis is precluded by the studies on mercury is nonsensical. Studies of mercury cannot be used as evidence for the safety of aluminum adjuvant.

    The evidence support aluminum adjuvant causation of autism is far stronger than the mercury evidence ever was. A big reason why is the immune activation research, which started at about 2005. We now know the immune pathway that causes autism (IL-6 >> IL-17 expression).

    *************”ORAC:Adjuvants are compounds added to vaccine in order to boost the immune response to the antigen used, and aluminum salts have been used as effective adjuvants for many years now and have an excellent safety record”

    There is no evidence for the neurological or autism safety of aluminum adjuvant. Jefferson 2004 and Mitkus 2011 provide no evidence for neuro safety. They have many flaws and design choices that preclude their application to neuro safety, such as :
    –too short follow up (Jefferson)
    –no investigation of neuro outcomes or autism (jefferson)
    –comparing two forms of aluminum, instead of Al to saline (Jefferson)
    –looking at only one or a couple vaccines at a time, not the entire schedule (Jefferson)
    –subjects not infants, but rather older children or adults. (Jefferson)

    –Not based on toxicity tests with Al adjuvant (Mitkus)
    –Theoretical modeling study with no empirical work (Mitkus)
    –Use of erroneous NOAEL, which is too high by a factor of 7.6 (mitkus)
    –Ignores kinetics and toxicity of particles. Only considers dissolved Al3+(Mitkus)

    *****************ORAC:Unfortunately, there is no clear statement of hypothesis where it belongs, namely in the introduction

    Hypothesis is stated. Obviously, the hypothesis is that aluminum adjuvant induces inflammation and elevated cytokine expression i the brain.

    QUOTE: “To investigate Al′s immune and neurotoxic impact in vivo, we tested the expression of 17 genes which are implicated in both autism and innate immune response in brain samples of Al-injected mice in comparison to control mice.”

    ***************ORAC:The point is that this study does not confirm or refute any hypothesis, much less provide any sort of slam-dunk evidence that aluminum adjuvants cause autism.

    It confirms the hypothesis that aluminum adjuvant induces inflammation in the brain, and that the inflammation is similar to brain inflammation observed in human autism. Also, IL-6 is proven to cause autistic behaviors in animals, and the aluminum adjuvant induced IL-6 in the brain (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17913903 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26822608

    **************”ORAC:After all, autism is a human neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosed entirely by behavioral changes, and correlating mouse behavior with human behavior is very problematic. Indeed, correlating the behavior of any animal, even a primate, with human behavior is fraught with problems. Basically, there is no well-accepted single animal model of autism, and autism research has been littered with mouse models of autism that were found to be very much wanting. (“Rain mouse,” anyone?) ”

    Autism has been shown to be associated with physiological dysfunctions such as immune system disorders, microbiome dysbiosis/GI disorders, chronic brain inflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction for example. Immune activation has been shown to cause all these features of autism. These facts support the face validity of the immune activation model of autism.

    *************ORAC:” Looking over the schedule used, I can’t help but note that there’s a huge difference between human infant development and mouse development. Basically, the mice received aluminum doses claimed to be the same as what human babies get by weight six times in the first 17 days of life. By comparison, in human babies these doses are separated by months.”

    Mice develop faster than humans, so the schedule is compressed to match the development that occurs over the first 6 months in humans. It is reasonable to be concerned that this may increase the toxicity of al adjuvant. However, there are also reasons why the compressed dosing schedule should not make a different. Al adjuvant is mostly retained on the time scale of 6 months (see Flarend 1997). So, the doses in humans are cumulative, as they will be in mice dosed over 17 days. If the al adjuvant was eliminated on the time scale of 2 months (the gap between vaccination dates in humans), then this argument could be given some weight. But thats not the case.

    If aluminum adjuvant was as extraordinarily safe as vaccine promoters claim, a compressed dosing schedule should not make a difference.

    **************ORAC:”But I do know enough to know that NF-κB is easy to activate and very nonspecific. I used to joke that just looking at my cells funny would activate NF-κB signaling. Also, NF-κB activation is indeed associated with inflammation, but so what? What we have is an artificial model in which the mice are dosed much more frequently with aluminum than human infants. Does this have any relevance to the human brain or to human autism? who knows? Probably not. No, almost certainly not.”

    NF-Kb is elevated in human autism. See
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098713/
    and
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019488

    Sure lots of everyday exposures induce NF-Kb. But the NF-Kb does not typically occur in the brain. Also, the effect of infections etc is transient. In contrast, the aluminum adjuvant induced NF-Kb in the brain, and the NF-Kb induction was persistent. Measurements were performed about 3.5 months after the final injection of adjuvant. The PERSISTENCE of the inflammation is a critical factor that differentiates al adjuvant exposure from natural infections and the everyday exposures that induce NF-Kb. Persistent inflammation injures the brain over time and disrupts development processes.

    I recommend this recent paper on neuroinflammation in autism: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12264-017-0103-8.pdf

    *****************”ORAC:This is basically a fishing expedition in which the only real hypothesis is that “aluminum in vaccines is bad and causes bad immune system things to happen in the brain.”

    This is not a reasonable argument in view of the extensive research on immune activation and cytokine impacts on brain development. The immune activation research firmly establishes inflammation/cytokines as a cause of human autism.

    ******************ORAC:”Indeed, correlating the behavior of any animal, even a primate, with human behavior is fraught with problems. Basically, there is no well-accepted single animal model of autism, and autism research has been littered with mouse models of autism that were found to be very much wanting.”

    There are challenges, but there are ways to measure autism-like behaviors in mice and monkeys. Eye tracking experiments with monkeys show the same social attention abnormalities as in human autism for example. Paper: http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Maternal-Immune-Activation-in-Nonhuman-Primates-Alters-Social-Attention-in-Juvenile-Offspring.pdf

    The immune activation animal models meet all requirements for validity. Infection/inflammation is a well accepted risk factor for autism. Drugs effective for human autism are also effective in the animal models. The immune activatin models replicate all known features of autism. There is little evidence to suggest the immune activation models are not representative of human autism.

    A 2016 review states: ”
    “These MIA (maternal immune activation) animal models meet all of the criteria required for validity for a disease model: They mimic a known disease-related risk factor (construct validity), they exhibit a wide range of disease-related symptoms (face validity), and they can be used to predict the efficacy of treatments (predictive validity).”
    –Dr Kimberley McAllister, UC Davis MIND Institute, Science”

    **************ORAC:”The authors stated that they did it because they wanted to follow previously utilized protocols in their laboratory. In some cases, that can be a reasonable rationale for an experimental choice,”

    You dont know the details of why this decision was made. it true that SC injection means the results in isolation cannot be assumed to apply to IM adjuvant. But Crepeaux 2016 used IM injection, and reported behavioral abnormalities and brain inflammation. So IM causes brain injury and inflammation also.

    ********************ORAC:”(That’s why we used to call it semiquantitative PCR.) Quite frankly, in this day and age, there is absolutely zero excuse for choosing this method for quantifying gene transcripts.”

    Semiquantitative PCR is still in use today.

    *******************ORAC:””Now, take a look at Figures 1A and 1B as well as Figures 2A and 2B. Look at the raw bands in the A panels of the figures. Do you see much difference, except for IFNG (interferon gamma) in Figure 1A? I don’t.

    Get your eyes checked. CCL2 and TNFA are obviously different in Fig 1A. A Fig 1B shows that CCL2, IFNG and TNFa expression have the largest increases compared to controls. Obviously, this indicates inflammation in the brain.

    Fig 2 is FOR FEMALES, which are more tolerant of the toxic effects of al adjuvant. The milder inflammation in female mice (Fig 2) supports the connection to human autism because males are affected more often by about a 4:1 ratio.

    **********************ORAC:”Also, the mouse immune system is different from the human immune system.”

    On questions of fundamental biological developmental processes, animal models deserve a presumption of applicability to humans. There is no evidence that these models are not relevant to humans.

    IL-6 function in humans and mice appear to be identical. There are no known differences. Your “Of Mice and Not Men” paper is a good paper (I have read it), and it does not mention any mouse-human differences in IL-6. My understanding is that human and mouse IL-6 are identical molecules.

    Immune activation results have been replicated in monkeys.

    Human epi studies, case reports and other human studies demonstrate that inflammation increases risk of brain injury, autism and mental illness in humans. Its clear that brain inflammation is important in human mental illnesses, including autism.

    There is consensus among researchers that immune activation animal models are relevant to humans.

    Aluminum is toxic to all life. There is no reason to believe that humans are uniquely resistant to aluminum, and much evidence that Al exposure causes brain injury (e.g. see the “Camelford incident”). https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

    Fundamental biological processes like brain development are not the types of things that differ greatly between humans and other mammals. The types of things that are different are drug binding affinities and drug metabolism, because they can be strongly affected by small genetic differences. Thats not the case with brain development. Human and other mammal brains develop by the same processes.

  42. #46 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 27, 2017

    I see NWO Distorter still thinks vaccines are “injected into an artery”….

  43. #47 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Hardly, “Reverend.” But it does not surprise you failed to grasp the comparison. 😀

  44. #48 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 27, 2017

    Vaccine Papers:

    All that inane blabber, and you still can’t take the time to type <blockquote></blockquote> around quotations? Assuming you don’t have an app to do it for you, like everybody else?

  45. #49 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    BTW, Reverend Battleaxe…I’ve noticed our environment has dirt–lots of dirt. And it’s been around as long as humans have. So it should be okay to inject dirt into muscle tissue, right? Asking for a friend. She wants her little boy to get all the benefits of playing in mud, but without the mess. 😀

  46. #50 herr doktor bimler
    September 27, 2017

    Vaccine Papers seems to be shifting to the position that “It doesn’t matter if the evidence in this latest paper was fake, it confirms previous claims by the same authors”.

  47. #51 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 27, 2017

    You mean like the buttload of aluminum he’ll get, directly into the bloodstream at that, everytime he skins his knee? Or breathes? Or eats or drinks anything grown on an Earth-type planet?

  48. #52 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Reverend Battelaxe, are all men of God that deceptive? Note I could make some smart alek remark about how you think vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream, like you did to me, but I’ll hold my keyboard finger. Seriously, though–you do know the difference between ingestion and injection, right? I have a disconcerting image of you lining up your congregation for an injection of the body and blood of Christ.

  49. #53 Chris Preston
    September 27, 2017

    Vaccine Papers seems to be shifting to the position that “It doesn’t matter if the evidence in this latest paper was fake, it confirms previous claims by the same authors”.

    Fake data confirms previous data from same group? What is the betting that was fake as well then.

    For all those reading along at home, this is the clearest evidence you will ever need to understand that Vaccine Papers does not follow the scientific evidence, but instead looks for evidence, no matter how fake that evidence is, that supports his existing conclusion.

    Vaccine Papers has a conclusion that has lost its data and he is furiously trying to find some.

  50. #54 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 27, 2017

    Yes, yes, NWO, we know that ingested materials never get into your bloodstream. That’s why drugs are never adnistered in pill form and why we nourish ourselves with hypodermic needles.

  51. #55 Alain
    September 27, 2017

    It’s hilarious how many people think the DSM is based on science.

    Bravo, congratulation, I was the only one mentioning DSM in this thread and get labelled assuming the DSM is based on science. F*ck!ng way to miss the marks so I’ll repeat:

    Need I say that the DSM-I was a statistical manual designed to help psychiatrists fill out code forms (the precursor of today’s EHR) for compliance with the

    Draft Act Governing Hospitalisation of the Mentally Ill, Federal Security Agency, Public Health Service, Publication No. 51

    Where the f*ck does a coding manual to help physician become law compliant has any basis in science?!?!

    Even to this current day, it doesn’t, now, a valid question to ask is how does autism get diagnosed if DSM doesn’t have any basis in science.

    Ranty…

  52. #56 Politicalguineapig
    September 27, 2017

    Eskimoboi: Basically that humans have always been exposed to soluble aluminum. It’s in the ground everywhere, after all. There’s this thing called groundwater, I don’t know if you’ve heard of it, that humans dig wells to get into.. and then there’s this thing called gardening. And then there’s clay, which people use to store food sometimes and sometimes even eat. Oh, by the way, ever heard of this nifty thing called foil?

    Nanoparticles by the way, is a nonsense word that anti-vaxxers use to cry about things they don’t like.

    NWO: Wouldn’t want to, really. Sure, everything winds up in the bloodstream, but with food, it’s about the journey, not the destination. But I suppose you subsist on nuts and smoothies and faint at the sight of bread.

    And obviously, you don’t get out much, or you’d recognize that the Very Rev’s nym doesn’t actually have anything to do with religion. Man, you’re really dedicated to not having any fun ever.

  53. #57 Opus
    Just east of the buckle on the bible belt
    September 27, 2017

    Ginger asked, at #31, BTW, Opie, what do you do for a living?
    .
    I usually don’t indulge trolls, but since there’s a point to be made I will. I am a retired senior executive of a human service agency with over 5000 employees and a budget with lots of commas.
    .
    In the course of my duties I’ve had to deal with the issues of private child collection agencies and have been exposed to the quality of their legal counsel. The business model is based on the lamprey, most of their ‘customers’ are as happy as gut-hooked fish and the majority of the attorneys involved in this endeavor have the ethics of Caligula and the legal skills of Chance the Gardener.
    .
    It’s not just supposition on my part that you are one the Walmart greeters of the legal profession, it’s experience and exposure to your peers.

  54. #58 Vaccine Papers
    September 27, 2017

    Here it is with blockquotes. Sorry about that.

    ORAC:”15 years ago, vaccine activists advanced the mercury hypothesis and it was wrong. It was tested and while the evidence did suggest some harm, it was clear that mercury could not explain the persistent rise and high rates of autism. New evidence supports the hypothesis that autism is caused by aluminum adjuvant. Science advances by changing a working hypothesis in view of new evidence. Thats why focus is shifting to aluminum. Arguing that the aluminum hypothesis is precluded by the studies on mercury is nonsensical. Studies of mercury cannot be used as evidence for the safety of aluminum adjuvant.

    The evidence support aluminum adjuvant causation of autism is far stronger than the mercury evidence ever was. A big reason why is the immune activation research, which started at about 2005. We now know the immune pathway that causes autism (IL-6 >> IL-17 expression).

    “ORAC:Adjuvants are compounds added to vaccine in order to boost the immune response to the antigen used, and aluminum salts have been used as effective adjuvants for many years now and have an excellent safety record”

    There is no evidence for the neurological or autism safety of aluminum adjuvant. Jefferson 2004 and Mitkus 2011 provide no evidence for neuro safety. They have many flaws and design choices that preclude their application to neuro safety, such as :
    –too short follow up (Jefferson)
    –no investigation of neuro outcomes or autism (jefferson)
    –comparing two forms of aluminum, instead of Al to saline (Jefferson)
    –looking at only one or a couple vaccines at a time, not the entire schedule (Jefferson)
    –subjects not infants, but rather older children or adults. (Jefferson)

    –Not based on toxicity tests with Al adjuvant (Mitkus)
    –Theoretical modeling study with no empirical work (Mitkus)
    –Use of erroneous NOAEL, which is too high by a factor of 7.6 (mitkus)
    –Ignores kinetics and toxicity of particles. Only considers dissolved Al3+(Mitkus)

    ORAC:Unfortunately, there is no clear statement of hypothesis where it belongs, namely in the introduction

    Hypothesis is stated. Obviously, the hypothesis is that aluminum adjuvant induces inflammation and elevated cytokine expression i the brain.

    QUOTE: “To investigate Al′s immune and neurotoxic impact in vivo, we tested the expression of 17 genes which are implicated in both autism and innate immune response in brain samples of Al-injected mice in comparison to control mice.”

    ORAC:The point is that this study does not confirm or refute any hypothesis, much less provide any sort of slam-dunk evidence that aluminum adjuvants cause autism.

    It confirms the hypothesis that aluminum adjuvant induces inflammation in the brain, and that the inflammation is similar to brain inflammation observed in human autism. Also, IL-6 is proven to cause autistic behaviors in animals, and the aluminum adjuvant induced IL-6 in the brain (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17913903 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26822608

    ORAC:After all, autism is a human neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosed entirely by behavioral changes, and correlating mouse behavior with human behavior is very problematic. Indeed, correlating the behavior of any animal, even a primate, with human behavior is fraught with problems. Basically, there is no well-accepted single animal model of autism, and autism research has been littered with mouse models of autism that were found to be very much wanting. (“Rain mouse,” anyone?) “

    Autism has been shown to be associated with physiological dysfunctions such as immune system disorders, microbiome dysbiosis/GI disorders, chronic brain inflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction for example. Immune activation has been shown to cause all these features of autism. These facts support the face validity of the immune activation model of autism.

    ORAC:” Looking over the schedule used, I can’t help but note that there’s a huge difference between human infant development and mouse development. Basically, the mice received aluminum doses claimed to be the same as what human babies get by weight six times in the first 17 days of life. By comparison, in human babies these doses are separated by months.”

    Mice develop faster than humans, so the schedule is compressed to match the development that occurs over the first 6 months in humans. It is reasonable to be concerned that this may increase the toxicity of al adjuvant. However, there are also reasons why the compressed dosing schedule should not make a different. Al adjuvant is mostly retained on the time scale of 6 months (see Flarend 1997). So, the doses in humans are cumulative, as they will be in mice dosed over 17 days. If the al adjuvant was eliminated on the time scale of 2 months (the gap between vaccination dates in humans), then this argument could be given some weight. But thats not the case.

    If aluminum adjuvant was as extraordinarily safe as vaccine promoters claim, a compressed dosing schedule should not make a difference.

    ORAC:”But I do know enough to know that NF-κB is easy to activate and very nonspecific. I used to joke that just looking at my cells funny would activate NF-κB signaling. Also, NF-κB activation is indeed associated with inflammation, but so what? What we have is an artificial model in which the mice are dosed much more frequently with aluminum than human infants. Does this have any relevance to the human brain or to human autism? who knows? Probably not. No, almost certainly not.”

    NF-Kb is elevated in human autism. See
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098713/
    and
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019488

    Sure lots of everyday exposures induce NF-Kb. But the NF-Kb does not typically occur in the brain. Also, the effect of infections etc is transient. In contrast, the aluminum adjuvant induced NF-Kb in the brain, and the NF-Kb induction was persistent. Measurements were performed about 3.5 months after the final injection of adjuvant. The PERSISTENCE of the inflammation is a critical factor that differentiates al adjuvant exposure from natural infections and the everyday exposures that induce NF-Kb. Persistent inflammation injures the brain over time and disrupts development processes.

    I recommend this recent paper on neuroinflammation in autism: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12264-017-0103-8.pdf

    “ORAC:This is basically a fishing expedition in which the only real hypothesis is that “aluminum in vaccines is bad and causes bad immune system things to happen in the brain.”

    This is not a reasonable argument in view of the extensive research on immune activation and cytokine impacts on brain development. The immune activation research firmly establishes inflammation/cytokines as a cause of human autism.

    ORAC:”Indeed, correlating the behavior of any animal, even a primate, with human behavior is fraught with problems. Basically, there is no well-accepted single animal model of autism, and autism research has been littered with mouse models of autism that were found to be very much wanting.”

    There are challenges, but there are ways to measure autism-like behaviors in mice and monkeys. Eye tracking experiments with monkeys show the same social attention abnormalities as in human autism for example. Paper: http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Maternal-Immune-Activation-in-Nonhuman-Primates-Alters-Social-Attention-in-Juvenile-Offspring.pdf

    The immune activation animal models meet all requirements for validity. Infection/inflammation is a well accepted risk factor for autism. Drugs effective for human autism are also effective in the animal models. The immune activatin models replicate all known features of autism. There is little evidence to suggest the immune activation models are not representative of human autism.

    A 2016 review states: ”
    “These MIA (maternal immune activation) animal models meet all of the criteria required for validity for a disease model: They mimic a known disease-related risk factor (construct validity), they exhibit a wide range of disease-related symptoms (face validity), and they can be used to predict the efficacy of treatments (predictive validity).”
    –Dr Kimberley McAllister, UC Davis MIND Institute, Science”

    ORAC:”The authors stated that they did it because they wanted to follow previously utilized protocols in their laboratory. In some cases, that can be a reasonable rationale for an experimental choice,”

    You dont know the details of why this decision was made. it true that SC injection means the results in isolation cannot be assumed to apply to IM adjuvant. But Crepeaux 2016 used IM injection, and reported behavioral abnormalities and brain inflammation. So IM causes brain injury and inflammation also.

    ORAC:”(That’s why we used to call it semiquantitative PCR.) Quite frankly, in this day and age, there is absolutely zero excuse for choosing this method for quantifying gene transcripts.”

    Semiquantitative PCR is still in use today.

    ORAC:””Now, take a look at Figures 1A and 1B as well as Figures 2A and 2B. Look at the raw bands in the A panels of the figures. Do you see much difference, except for IFNG (interferon gamma) in Figure 1A? I don’t.

    Get your eyes checked. CCL2 and TNFA are obviously different in Fig 1A. A Fig 1B shows that CCL2, IFNG and TNFa expression have the largest increases compared to controls. Obviously, this indicates inflammation in the brain.

    Fig 2 is FOR FEMALES, which are more tolerant of the toxic effects of al adjuvant. The milder inflammation in female mice (Fig 2) supports the connection to human autism because males are affected more often by about a 4:1 ratio.

    ORAC:”Also, the mouse immune system is different from the human immune system.”

    On questions of fundamental biological developmental processes, animal models deserve a presumption of applicability to humans. There is no evidence that these models are not relevant to humans.

    IL-6 function in humans and mice appear to be identical. There are no known differences. Your “Of Mice and Not Men” paper is a good paper (I have read it), and it does not mention any mouse-human differences in IL-6. My understanding is that human and mouse IL-6 are identical molecules.

    Immune activation results have been replicated in monkeys.

    Human epi studies, case reports and other human studies demonstrate that inflammation increases risk of brain injury, autism and mental illness in humans. Its clear that brain inflammation is important in human mental illnesses, including autism.

    There is consensus among researchers that immune activation animal models are relevant to humans.

    Aluminum is toxic to all life. There is no reason to believe that humans are uniquely resistant to aluminum, and much evidence that Al exposure causes brain injury (e.g. see the “Camelford incident”). https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

    Fundamental biological processes like brain development are not the types of things that differ greatly between humans and other mammals. The types of things that are different are drug binding affinities and drug metabolism, because they can be strongly affected by small genetic differences. Thats not the case with brain development. Human and other mammal brains develop by the same processes.

  55. #59 Vaccine Papers
    September 27, 2017

    How do anti-vaxxers explain the continued existence of humans, if aluminum is a) more toxic than nightshade, belladonna, lead and arsenic combined, and b) ridiculously common.

    Oral absorption is 0.3% and has fast elimination kinetics. The BBB mostly keeps it out of the central nervous system. The body has adequate defenses to protect from natural levels of aluminum exposure.

    Injected aluminum adjuvant persists in the body for years, and it it carried into the brain, through the BBB, by macrophages. Macrophages do this in response to MCP-1 in the brain, which is highly elevated in autism.

    Humans are not adapted to tolerate injections of aluminum adjuvant particles.

    • #60 Se Habla Espol
      September 27, 2017

      it it carried into the brain, through the BBB, by macrophages. Macrophages do this in response to MCP-1 in the brain, which is highly elevated in autism.

      So your claim is that elevated MCP-1 in autistic brains sucks up the macrophages and the imaginary nanoparticles which go back in time to cause the autism that elevates the MCP-1, right? Where did the thiotimoline come from in your scenario?

  56. #61 Alain
    September 27, 2017

    PGP

    b) ridiculously common.

    That statement doesn’t exist (in the mind of antivaxxers).

    Alain

  57. #62 herr doktor bimler
    September 27, 2017

    We now know the immune pathway that causes autism (IL-6 >> IL-17 expression).

    I don’t know who “we” is in this sentence, but it doesn’t include the majority of autism researchers.

  58. #63 Vaccine Papers
    September 27, 2017

    Some recent ones from the first search page on PubMed under the heading of aluminum adjuvant safety:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28591778
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28454674
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28027810

    Even with these and other studies (and an approximately 80-year record of excellent safety with aluminum adjuvanted vaccines), antivaxers insist they are dangerous. If only they could demonstrate quality research to support their claim.

    @dangerous bacon.

    The first study compared 2 and 3 doses of vaccine in teenage girls. Not relevant to autism in male infants.

    The second study compared Al-adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted vaccine in 6 week infants. Follow-up period is SEVEN DAYS. Hence, the study cannot detect autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders.

    QUOTE FROM SECOND STUDY: “Safety assessments
    The infants were observed for 30 min after each vaccination and immediate adverse events were recorded. A diary, thermometer, and ruler were given to parents for daily recording and measuring of injection site reactions, temperature reactions, and other solicited adverse events during the first 3 days (72 h) after vaccination, and for recording of any adverse event during the 7 days after vaccination. The solicited events in the diary were injection site redness or swelling reactions, axillary temperatures, persistent crying for more than 3 h, irritability, drowsiness, loss of appetite, vomiting, and diarrhoea.”

    How could these safety assessments possible provide evidence it does not cause autism? They cannot.

    Study 3 has the same problem. No autism or neurological assessment was made.

    QUOTE FROM STUDY 3:”The subjects were observed for half an hour after the trial vaccination and immediate AE observations were recorded. A diary, thermometer and ruler were handed out to the subjects for daily recording and measuring of injection site reactions, temperature reactions and onset of other solicited AEs during the first three days (72 h) with follow-up and recording in the diary until resolved, and for recording of any AE, until the date of the follow-up at Visit 2 (28–35 days after Visit 1).”

    Also, in study 3, 59/60 subjected were used per group. This is not enough to assess autism or neurological outcomes.

    So, your studies do not provide evidence for the neurological safety of aluminum adjuvant.

  59. #64 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Calm down, Alain. I didn’t even mention your name in my comment about the DSM. No need to take it personally. 😀

  60. #65 Alain
    September 27, 2017

    VP

    here’s yer reference about aluminum absorbsion in the duodenum

    If you have to ask any question about the duodenum absorbsion role for human, you’re already out of the game.

    Alain

  61. #66 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Well, Opie, given your history, it’s no surprise you are devoting your senior years to trying to damage the professional reputation of people you don’t even know. I’m very familiar with the MO of people like you–more than willing to smear from a self-righteous distance, but unwilling to visit, discuss, or otherwise take the time to actually understand who or what you are smearing.

  62. #67 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    BTW, Opie–there is approximately $117 BILLION dollars in delinquent child support owed in the U.S. Seems the cracks in your government system leave ample demand for private alternatives. Perhaps your energies would have been better directed to tidying up your own backyard.

  63. #68 Beth Clarkson
    September 27, 2017

    @VP #36 page 2 re: twin studies.

    Twin studies are not making the assumption that there is no interaction between genes and environments. It’s that they can, when the hull is rejected, definitely show that a genetic component exists in addition to any such interactions.

  64. #69 Opus
    Just west of the buckle on the bible belt
    September 27, 2017

    Ginger said: “BTW, Opie–there is approximately $117 BILLION dollars in delinquent child support owed in the U.S. Seems the cracks in your government system leave ample demand for private alternatives. Perhaps your energies would have been better directed to tidying up your own backyard.
    .
    Here’s a math quick for you: How much of that $117 Billion goes to the children if your fine organization collects every penny of it?
    .
    Any how much to your organization?
    .
    Smears? About 2000 years ago a wise man in the middle east said that one shouldn’t consider paint spatters on others when one is wearing garments soaked with gallons of paint. Or something like that. . .

  65. #70 Beth Clarkson
    September 27, 2017

    @DB #40 page 2 asked: We already have plenty of quality research showing no link between vaccines (with or without aluminum-based adjuvants) and autism. Are those studies invalid, and why?

    No, they aren’t invalid, although it turns out some of them were faked. (Poul Thorsen). The problem is that isn’t what those studies show. They show no detectable difference for certain vaccines examined in isolation. There are no, as far as I can tell, such studies examining the cumulative effect of the many vaccines, boosters, etc. involved in the current recommended schedule. I think parents are right to be concerned about the increasing number of them. I think this is something that should be investigated and published, but the only studies along those lines tend to be, as ORAC is pointing out, of poor quality and dubious conclusions.

    @DB #40 page 2 asked: What studies can you cite that demonstrate an association between aluminum-based adjuvants and autism risk (aside from the Shaw/Tomljenovic dreck addressed in Orac’s blog article)?

    Only ones of that quality or worse. Can you recommend a high quality study on the cumulative effects of the total CDC recommended schedule? For Al, or any other substance parents might be concerned about injecting into their child?

    @DB #40 page 2 asked: Shouldn’t you acknowledge that your request for safety studies was granted and that you are now trying to shift goalposts?

    Okay, I’m happy to acknowledge that some citations were provided. I apologize for having to later clarify exactly what I was seeking. I hope my answer to your previous question was sufficiently specific.

    @DB #40 page 2 asked: Don’t you find it embarrassing that your antivax views are so inadequately concealed by a Just Asking Questions M.O.?

    No. Why should I be embarrassed about asking questions and request citations regarding things I don’t know?

    • #71 Se Habla Espol
      September 27, 2017

      No, they aren’t invalid, although it turns out some of them were faked. (Poul Thorsen).

      Do you have any evidence that Thrsen ever faked anything? Do you have any evidence that Thorsen was ever in a position to fake anything? Can you provide any evidence to back up that claims by the ant-vax industry, their claims that anything Thorsen was ever in the same room with is irretrievably tainted? I didn’t think so.

  66. #72 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Opie, what was your parting salary as senior executive? Did you work for free? Did your employees? I imagine you’re sitting quite comfortably behind your keyboard, with a generous pension at taxpayer expense. I suppose it’s easy not to think about the millions of parents who are owed billions, and will never see a dime of it. It’s no wonder they elect to collect a percentage of something rather than 100% of nothing.

  67. #73 Beth Clarkson
    September 27, 2017

    @#67 – That should be ‘null’ as in ‘null hypothesis’ not ‘hull’ . Oops.

    @VP – Thanks for spelling out the relevance of this research. It’s just one small step in the scientific quest for knowledge. I can’t evaluate the study or the review of it with confidence because the technical details are too far outside my sphere of knowledge. Some of the data pictures in ORACs more recent post certainly appear to be duplicates, but your analysis of it’s relevance to research on the causes of autism is still pertinent.

    @OPUS – Nice reference to Being There you slipped into #57. I love that movie.

  68. #74 JP
    September 27, 2017

    Where the f*ck does a coding manual to help physician become law compliant has any basis in science?!?!

    My therapist uses it as a foot stool.

  69. #75 Vaccine Papers
    September 27, 2017

    We already have plenty of quality research showing no link between vaccines (with or without aluminum-based adjuvants) and autism.

    There are NO studies of Al adjuvant. There are NO studies that look at both
    1) aluminum adjuvant exposure at age 0-1 or so, and
    2) autism or neurodevelopmental outcomes.

    NONE…except the 2011 paper by Shaw, which reported an association. This paper was ecological, however, and so has limited weight.

    Dr Frank DeStefano of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office is co-author of a paper (Glanz 2015) which states:

    “To date, there have been no population-based studies specifically designed to evaluate associations between clinically meaningful outcomes and non-antigen ingredients, other than thimerosal.”

    You guys are empty-handed on the subject of aluminum adjuvant safety. What you lack in evidence, you try to make for with insults, distraction and nonsense.

  70. #76 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 27, 2017

    @70:

    No, they aren’t invalid, although it turns out some of them were faked. (Poul Thorsen).

    You idiots are literally still flogging that dead horse? There was nothing “faked” about that study, and the fact that some middle author on it was accused of some kind of financial malfeasance (in another country, years later) doesn’t invalidate it in any way.

    There are no, as far as I can tell, such studies examining the cumulative effect of the many vaccines, boosters, etc. involved in the current recommended schedule.

    Much time and effort has been wasted doing study after study after study demonstrating that in the real world, with vaccine schedules as they are administered, there is absolutely no correlation between vaccine status and autism.

    “Correlation does not equal causation”. Well, actually it does, when both equal zero. If there’s no correlation, causation doesn’t enter the picture. There’s nothing to cause! You can stop looking for “causes” of a phenomenon that doesn’t happen.

  71. #77 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Reverend, the “some kind of financial malfeasance” of Thorsen involved pocketing CDC grant money that was ostensibly used for vaccine safety research. Nice try at the spin, though.

  72. #78 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 27, 2017

    NWO:

    So the hell what? How does this invalidate a study of all the children in an entire country for 20 years, on which he just happened to be a middle-of the-pack author among dozens of others? Maybe you’d better investigate all the other authors for any misconduct of any sort. Brush up on your Danish–Harry Flashman tells us it’s devilishly difficult.

  73. #79 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    “To date, there have been no population-based studies specifically designed to evaluate associations between clinically meaningful outcomes and non-antigen ingredients, other than thimerosal.” (DeStefano et. al., 2015)

    That’s what makes it possible to confidently say, “There’s no evidence that (X) is harmful.” In the world of vaccine propaganda, that’s code for “We’ve never investigated whether (X) is harmful.”

    The same shenanigans is applied to Thorsen pocketing CDC grant money he was supposed to be using for vaccine safety research. There’s “no evidence” his studies aren’t reliable, because it’s never been seriously investigated.

    • #80 Se Habla Espol
      September 28, 2017

      That’s what makes it possible to confidently say, “There’s no evidence that (X) is harmful.” In the world of vaccine propaganda, that’s code for “We’ve never investigated whether (X) is harmful.”

      The anti-vax industry, as usual (always?), has things backwards. There is no study to identify which ingredient of vaccines is harmful because there’s no indication that vaccines are harmful in any way that’s included in the anti-vax conjectures. Specifically, it’s known that vaccines do not cause autism. There can be no study when there’s nothing to study.

      The anti-vax industry claims that Aluminum adjuvants have not been studied for possible harm. There’s no indication that the conjectured harm occurs. If there were, there would be no reason for the anti-vax industry to produce fraudulent reports asserting their conjectures.

  74. #81 NWO Reporter
    September 27, 2017

    Great liberties are taken with the “no evidence” propaganda code, though. It disguises the fact that there is often ample evidence it *could be* harmful.

    • #82 Se Habla Espol
      September 28, 2017

      Great liberties are taken with the “no evidence” propaganda code, though. It disguises the fact that there is often ample evidence it *could be* harmful.

      I think the phrase you’re looking for is “could have been” rather than “could be”, since we know that the harm that “could be” doesn’t show up, at least not in this reality.

  75. #83 Opus
    Just south of the buckle on the bible belt
    September 27, 2017

    Ginny: You poor dear – I guess reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. I didn’t work for a IV-D agency, I worked with them.
    .
    Yes, I get a pension. It allows me to spend time working with my local community service agency and a residential foster care facility that I respect. I feel no need to apologize. It beats the hell out of flogging conspiracy theories and lies like you do.
    .
    Look, we all get it: you feel like a failure. You’re an artist, but the only Google links are to your website. You are an attorney, but you’re a bottom feeder. In short, you ARE a failure. We get it. You got a multiple degrees and you’re stuck in a dead-end job that could be done by a robo-signer if the Bar Association would let it. You can choose to continue to inflict your misery on others or you can rejoin the real world.
    .
    I don’t care which you choose, because I have a life filled with friends, family, art, travel and service to the community. It’s just a shame that the RI community members have to shovel the ordure that you drop off when you visit.

  76. #84 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 27, 2017

    Was the lead author and all the other authors above Thorsen in the Danish study “pocketing CDC grant money”? In Denmark? Years earlier?

  77. #85 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Reverend, what work specifically did Thorsen claim to have done with the grant money that wound up in his pocket? That information would provide a clue about the extent his fraud impacted the integrity of the papers that came out of it.

  78. #86 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 28, 2017

    Te study of all the children in Denmark for 20 years was done YEARS BEFORE he moved to the U.S. and was accused of “pocketing” CDC grant money. That paper DID NOT “come out of it”. He was a middle-of-the-pack author on that study anyway. Investigate all the authors ahead of him. In Denmark. We’ll wait.

  79. #87 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Reverend, you didn’t answer the question. What work, specifically, did Thorsen claim to have done with the grant money that wound up in his pocket?

  80. #88 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 28, 2017

    WHO THE HELL CARES?!!!!!!!

    Address the fact that there was ABSOLUTELY NO CORELLATION between vaccine status and autism in ALL THE CHILDREN IN AN ENTIRE COUNTRY over 20 years!!!!!!!

    WELL?

  81. #89 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Opie, your facility for condescension and derision is matched only by your capacity for self-aggrandizement. Too bad you couldn’t help your IV-d agency collect more of that $117 billion owed to parents–a number that keeps climbing every year.

    You’re right–I don’t enjoy your high standard of living. I live a very simple and modest life, and I’m not the type who is inclined to publicly pat myself on the back for my good deeds. But don’t let that stop you from belittling me and blindly impugning my integrity to elevate yourself.

  82. #90 Politicalguineapig
    September 28, 2017

    Opus: ” You’re an artist..”

    That’s being way too generous. Have you seen her site? All the ‘art’ is generic flash animations.

  83. #91 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Reverend, are you listening to yourself? Thorsen received CDC grants to do vaccine research, but he pocketed the money instead. What person in his right mind wouldn’t care what he lied about doing with that money?

  84. #92 Politicalguineapig
    September 28, 2017

    VP: “Oral absorption is 0.3% and has fast elimination kinetics.”

    Sure. That’s why people don’t die when they accidentally ingest belladonna or nightshade, or somehow get a poison arrow frog in their mouths and why they keel over dead when they accidentally get a mouthful of dirt.

    Obviously, I’m being sarcastic, but that’s the way you think the world works. My point is that aluminum isn’t a poison and that if it was, we wouldn’t be here. Since we are here, I think you are very, very wrong about basically everything.

  85. #93 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 28, 2017

    NWO:

    What would you know about what a “person in his right mind” would do? You’re trying to connect the validity of a study done in Denmark with a middle-of-the-pack author did in the U.S. YEARS LATER. Better check the publisher of the journal it appeared in. Maybe the janitor in the printing plant was accused of drunk driving years before.

    The rest of us subscribe to a linear theory of time and causation. And again, if there’s no correlation there’s nothing to cause.

  86. #94 Julian Frost
    September 28, 2017

    @Vaccine Papers:

    Autism has been shown to be associated with physiological dysfunctions such as immune system disorders, microbiome dysbiosis/GI disorders, chronic brain inflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction for example.

    False.
    @NWO Reporter:

    Thorsen received CDC grants to do vaccine research, but he pocketed the money instead.

    This dead horse again? From the looks of things, Thorsen did not embezzle. It was just a dispute about who should be paid what.

  87. #95 herr doktor bimler
    September 28, 2017

    Brush up on your Danish–Harry Flashman tells us it’s devilishly difficult.

    Written Danish is nothing special. Sadly, it bears little relationship to the spoken version.

  88. #96 Alain
    September 28, 2017

    Good morning JP,

    My therapist uses it as a foot stool.

    IMO, appropriate use 🙂

    Now, if its job is to be used as door stopper or foot stool, then, what is the proper diagnostic procedure used to diagnose autism? caveat among the expert autism clinician (MD, MD/PhD).

    Alain

  89. #97 Dingo199
    September 28, 2017

    Thorsen got money for doing vaccine research, but didn’t use it for vaccine research….?
    He bought a Harley Davidson with it.

    And….?

  90. #98 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Julian Frost said: “From the looks of things, Thorsen did not embezzle. It was just a dispute about who should be paid what.”

    Well, let’s not quibble–let’s just go straight to the horse’s mouth. This is what the Inspector General says happened:

    “From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.

    “Thorsen worked as a visiting scientist at CDC, Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, before the grant was awarded.

    “The initial grant was awarded to the Danish Medical Research Council. In approximately 2007, a second grant was awarded to the Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation. Both agencies are governmental agencies in Denmark. The research was done by the Aarhaus University and Odense University Hospital in Denmark.

    “Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen.

    “In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering.

    “According to bank account records, Thorsen purchased a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, an Audi automobile, and a Honda SUV with funds that he received from the CDC grants.

    “Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States.”

    No doubt Thorsen will continue to “await extradition” for many years to come, until sooner or later he dies comfortably in old age. There appears to absolutely no interest in bringing him to trial. After all, trials are open to the public, and who knows what unpleasant info might come out.

  91. #99 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 28, 2017

    @NWO Reporter, I couldn’t help noticing that the word “allegedly” appears several times in your quoted section.

  92. #100 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Julian Frost–that’s known as the presumption of innocence, because Thorsen hasn’t yet been tried for the crimes he’s accused of. He should turn himself into the OIG immediately so he can go to trial and clear this whole thing up. 😉

    • #101 Se Habla Espol
      September 28, 2017

      that’s known as the presumption of innocence, because Thorsen hasn’t yet been tried for the crimes he’s accused of.

      But the anti-vax industry claims, at great length, that Thorsen is guilty, guilty, guilty of some unknown, unspecified research fraud that proves PROVES!!!! that vaccines are (somehow) evil. He must be the guy that invented Mercury, that most toxic!!!! of all possible substances!!!!, at least if you were so foolish as to pay attention “Natural” “News”, Kennedy’s Mercury Project, or any of the rest of propaganda engines of the anti-vax industry.

  93. […] h/t  Orac I e Orac II. […]

  94. #103 Dingo199
    September 28, 2017

    NWO, I can’t help but notice your desperate attempts to switch the topic from the fakery and fraud of antivaccine pseudoresearchers to a different topic of some genuine researcher who may have embezzled some grant money.

    You must really be scared shitless to resort to such obvious diversionary tactics.

  95. #104 Chris
    September 28, 2017

    NWO Troll: “Reverend, you didn’t answer the question.”

    Very funny coming from someone who refuses to do my little math story problem.

    So what is the ratio between the number of vaccines give and the number of NVICP compensated claims? What does it mean?

    What does the word “settlement” mean on that table of NVICP statistics? It is utterly bizarre that someone who went to law school does not understand about “settlements.”

  96. #105 Dangerous Bacon
    September 28, 2017

    Beth Clarkson: “No, (the ample studies showing no link between vaccines and autism) aren’t invalid, although it turns out some of them were faked. (Poul Thorsen).”

    On what basis (aside from wishful thinking) have you concluded that any/all studies Thorsen was a participant in were “faked”?

    Apparently Just Asking Questions is no longer enough for Beth – now she’s manufacturing the answers.

  97. #106 Beth Clarkson
    September 28, 2017

    DB asked: On what basis (aside from wishful thinking) have you concluded that any/all studies Thorsen was a participant in were “faked”?

    He’s currently wanted for criminal charges of fraud in connection with his work. See NWO’s posts above for more detail.

    • #107 Se Habla Espol
      September 28, 2017

      He’s currently wanted for criminal charges of fraud in connection with his work.

      That would be financial fraud, not research fraud. But apparently the anti-vax industry, being the anti-vax industry, can’t tell the different between money and science.

  98. #108 Lawrence
    September 28, 2017

    None of which has anything to do with his “work.”

    The studies he was a participant in have never been called into question because of the science.

  99. #109 Michael J. Dochniak
    Minnesota
    September 28, 2017

    Lawrence (#106) writes,

    The studies he was a participant in have never been called into question because of the science.

    MJD says,

    I wish Orac would shelve his biases about vaccines and autism and provide an objective review, with a pinch of respectful insolence, of that science.

    I believe Orac could find scientific garbage anywhere when he has the motivation to look.

  100. #110 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 28, 2017

    @MJD:

    I wish Orac would shelve his biases about vaccines and autism and provide an objective review, with a pinch of respectful insolence, of that science.

    What, in your opinion, are Orac’s “biases about vaccines and autism”?
    Please give evidence that these “biases about vaccines and autism” are genuine, and not just something you want to believe because your ideas are regularly torn apart here.

  101. #111 Lawrence
    September 28, 2017

    Better yet, why don’t you question the science of the studies, if you can?

  102. #112 shay simmons
    September 28, 2017

    He’s currently wanted for criminal charges of fraud in connection with his work.

    No, he was charged with misappropriation of grant money. Stop dodging the question and tell us what research of Thorson’s has been determined to be fraudulent.

  103. #114 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Shay simmons, we’ll need to see the invoices to answer that question. (“Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants.”) Since you seem to be so knowledgeable about this topic, can you tell us where we can find copies?

  104. #115 Chris
    September 28, 2017

    NWO Troll, perhaps you can tell the title of the papers Thorsen was the lead author on, and how it is fraudulent science.

    And then you can answer my little math story problem, and explain what the word “settlement” means on the table NVICP statistics. As a lawyer I assume you understand the meaning of settlement, so you have no excuse for not answering.

  105. #116 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Chris, do you ever stop trying to manipulate and deceive people? I explained long ago why and how your “little math story” was pure deception. Stop pretending it was never addressed.

  106. #117 Lawrence
    September 28, 2017

    Notice that anti-vaxers are completely unable to question the science behind the studies that they don’t like….

  107. #118 herr doktor bimler
    September 28, 2017

    There’s “no evidence” his studies aren’t reliable, because it’s never been seriously investigated.

    If only there was a facility where someone who wanted to investigate a study could report any flaws they found in it. We could call it “Pubpeer”.
    Alas, we will have to go on demanding that other people do our work for us.

  108. #119 Narad
    September 28, 2017

    I take it that the odds of Ginny’s ponying up that VICP narcolepsy case, much less documenting any of the others that she claims, are exactly nil.

  109. #120 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Herr Doktor, peer review generally CANNOT detect fraud. In this case Thorsen claimed to have done work related to the research that he never did. If he totally fabricated data, for example, that would require a deeper investigation to detect. No investigation has been done, as far as I know. If is was, I assume there would be a write-up somewhere. Post it if you have it.

    • #121 Se Habla Espol
      September 28, 2017

      Herr Doktor, peer review generally CANNOT detect fraud.

      Peer review seems to have no problem finding fraud in the anti-vax papers, leading to the suspicion that the anti-vax industry is as incompetent at evaluating science as they are at doing it.

      In this case Thorsen claimed to have done work related to the research that he never did.

      Your claim; your burden of proof, counselor.

      If he totally fabricated data, for example, that would require a deeper investigation to detect.

      Since, IIRC, the data was previously published by agencies independent of Thorsen, it should be as easy to prove fraud as it has been for the anti-vax Aluminum papers.

      No investigation has been done, as far as I know. If is was, I assume there would be a write-up somewhere.

      Why should negative investigative reports be published, especially since there’s no evidence of any mechanism for Thorsen to have invented data, and thus nothing for any investigator to dig into? The anti-vax industry’s accusations of research fraud are all without substance.

  110. #122 Narad
    September 28, 2017

    peer review generally CANNOT detect fraud

    Seems to be working pretty well for image manipulation in this case.

  111. #123 Lawrence
    September 28, 2017

    And why would you suspect that he didn’t do the work, given that he wasn’t working on his own?

  112. #124 Beth Clarkson
    September 28, 2017

    Shay wrote: Stop dodging the question and tell us what research of Thorson’s has been determined to be fraudulent.

    I answered the question asked, which was: On what basis (aside from wishful thinking) have you concluded that any/all studies Thorsen was a participant in were “faked”?

    If you want to know what research I know of that was definitely determined to be fraudulent, I can’t say that any has. It’s being investigated. ‘Faked’ was not the best word choice, ‘suspect’ or ‘untrustworthy’ would have been better.

    • #125 Se Habla Espol
      September 28, 2017

      ‘Faked’ was not the best word choice, ‘suspect’ or ‘untrustworthy’ would have been better.

      Of course, the anti-vax industry must accuse the Danish report of being suspect and untrustworthy, since it demolishes the religion that forms the basis of their income and power (what little they have). It’s never been necessary for the anti-vax industry to have any basis for their accusations, so why should they start with Thorsen?

  113. #126 Chris
    September 28, 2017

    NWO Troll, are you now denying the importance of the NVICP statistics? Well, I guess you won’t be bringing them up again.

    So what paper was Thorsen the primary author of, and why is it a bad paper? If you can’t answer this question, then you should not bring up his name again either.

  114. #127 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Narad, MI Dawn is the one who said vaccines can cause narcolepsy, so ask her for the reference if you don’t believe her. I haven’t come across any narcolepsy compensation cases yet, and it wasn’t on my list.

    You’re the only one who has questioned the list of compensated injuries I posted. I can back it up if I need to, but satisfying someone who is just trying to waste my time isn’t a “have to” situation.

  115. #128 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Lawrence, Thorsen is accused of billing for work he didn’t do. I don’t know what work he falsely claimed to have done. I’d like to know. If you know, share the info.

  116. #129 herr doktor bimler
    September 28, 2017

    I don’t know what work he falsely claimed to have done.

    The lack of allegations about Thorsen’s earlier papers are all the proof we need that they must be fraudulent.

  117. #130 Lawrence
    September 28, 2017

    Perhaps you should ask his fellow researchers – he was never working by himself – he was also never the primary.

  118. #131 Narad
    September 28, 2017

    Narad, MI Dawn is the one who said vaccines can cause narcolepsy, so ask her for the reference if you don’t believe her. I haven’t come across any narcolepsy compensation cases yet, and it wasn’t on my list.

    Memory problems, Gindo>

    MI Dawn, so you are contending that out of the 61 injuries listed in #148 (injuries that are on the Vaccine Injury Table, and that have actually received awards in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program), all but the follow [sic] 4 CANNOT be caused by vaccines?

    Allergic Reaction including anaphylaxis
    Death
    Guillain-Barré syndrome
    Narcolepsy

    Are you angling for a job at the vaccine court or something?

    It doesn’t matter that you added it later. On the off chance that you’ll actually cop to the error, feel free to get cracking on the citations for the rest of the list, which you have not documented in any way, shape, or form.

  119. #132 Se Habla Espol
    September 28, 2017

    I don’t know what work he falsely claimed to have done.

    That’s an interesting admission, counselor, since the work Thorsen did or did not do is the whole foundation of the anti-vax accusations of the Danish paper.

  120. #133 Narad
    September 28, 2017

    Oral absorption is 0.3% and has fast elimination kinetics.

    Except for infants, according to Shaw (PDF):

    “Much of the aluminum that enters the human body comes through food. A smaller amount enters through the skin, such as in antiperspirants. Both of these routes would put aluminum into the circulatory system relatively quickly, and most of this aluminum is typically rapidly removed by the kidneys [9]. The exceptions for such excretion are those who lack patent kidney function, infants until age one [17–19] and the elderly [18,19].”

    Injected aluminum adjuvant persists in the body for years, and it it carried into the brain, through the BBB, by macrophages. Macrophages do this in response to MCP-1 in the brain . . . .

    You’ve already been informed that monocytes aren’t macrophages, Dan.

  121. #134 Chris
    September 28, 2017

    Se Habla Espol, I fear that dear NWO Ginny lost the plot ages ago. She is now reduced to parroting the common anti-vax tropes without even understanding what they are supposed to mean.

  122. #135 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    As long as those fraudulent invoices Thorsen submitted aren’t available to the public, there will continue to be “no evidence of scientific fraud.” No wonder no one wants to bring him to trial.

    • #136 Se Habla Espol
      September 28, 2017

      As we know, in a conspiracy religion, lack of evidence is undeniable, proof positive of whatever conspiracy du jour the conspiracy religioso is peddling.

  123. #137 Chris
    September 28, 2017

    So, there are no Thorsen papers you can list that he was the primary author on, nor have any bad science.

    Now, for those who have been waiting for NWO Ginny to answer my little story problem, well here it is:

    2,845,946,816 total vaccines divided by 2,976 compensated claims is 956299 (and a third)…. essentially 956300 vaccines per compensated claims. So about one in a million. Essentially, vaccines are fairly safe.

    Now of those 2976 compensated claims, 2,326 were in the “Settlement” column. Yep, most of them. So when you scroll down there is a section called “Definition”, and the one for “Settlement” says:

    The petition is resolved via a negotiated settlement between the parties. This settlement is not an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the vaccine caused the petitioner’s alleged injuries, and, in settled cases, the Court does not determine that the vaccine caused the injury. A settlement therefore cannot be characterized as a decision by HHS or by the Court that the vaccine caused an injury. Petitions may be resolved by settlement for many reasons, including consideration of prior court decisions; a recognition by both parties that there is a risk of loss in proceeding to a decision by the Court making the certainty of settlement more desirable; a desire by both parties to minimize the time and expense associated with litigating a case to conclusion; and a desire by both parties to resolve a case quickly and efficiently.

    You see, NWO Ginny did not want to actually answer the truth that the NVICP is not proof of vaccine harm to the extent she likes. It in fact shows that vaccines are safe, and that the Vaccine Court is more generous than what its detractors claim.

  124. #138 Opus
    Just 1 km west of the buckle on the babble belt
    September 28, 2017

    Chris @ 136: Do you mean to tell me that Virginia Stoner, JD, has been using cheap legal tricks to avoid answering a direct question??
    .
    The horror! My faith in the legal profession is permanently impacted. Reduced to near nil, I tell you, nil!
    .
    I need a break on my fainting couch. Perhaps someone would fetch my pearls, if you please. Please?

  125. #139 shay simmons
    September 28, 2017

    If you want to know what research I know of that was definitely determined to be fraudulent, I can’t say that any has

    Bingo.

  126. #140 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    This comment section has morphed into Bizarro World. Where else could someone rip off a million dollars in research money, and get everyone else to defend the integrity of his research?

    “There’s no proof it’s not excellent research!” they cry, outraged at the very suggestion. Never mind that proof is impossible, given Thorsen has been on the lamb for the last 6 years, and no one can examine the evidence until he’s gone to trial.

    Not only that, but it never occurs to anyone in Bizarro World that such a person might possibly have committed other research fraud, and just not been caught.

    “Our hero, Poul Thorsen–the man who proved injecting mercury is perfectly safe! He deserved that million dollar bonus!” 😀

    • #141 Se Habla Espol
      September 28, 2017

      Where else could someone rip off a million dollars in research money, and get everyone else to defend the integrity of his research?

      In the world where the two accusations are separate accusations, and where there is no evidence of research fraud.

      “There’s no proof reason to conjecture it’s not excellent research!”

      The evidence has been published. The evidence was reviewed before submittal, by all the other members of the group. The evidence has been reviewed by peers and by the anti-vax industry: no hint of actual research fraud has ever been spotted. All we have are unsupported conclusions and misrepresentations by those whose income depends on people gullible enough to fall for those misrepresentations.

  127. #142 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Now, for those of you who didn’t catch my previous exposure of the deception of Chris’s “little story problem”, which Chris apparently prefers to forget: Only a tiny fraction of vaccine injuries actually result in a petition being filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

    It’s even a tinier percentage than the vaccine injuries ever reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System–which even our resident vaccine pushers at the CDC acknowledge is less than 10%. Most people with a realistic grasp of vaccine propaganda place that estimate at far less, often less than 1%.

  128. #143 Chris
    September 28, 2017

    NWO Ginny: ” Only a tiny fraction of vaccine injuries actually result in a petition being filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”

    And your evidence of that is….?

    “Our hero, Poul Thorsen–the man who proved injecting mercury is perfectly safe! He deserved that million dollar bonus!”

    And your evidence for that is…?

  129. #144 Narad
    September 28, 2017

    Don’t worry, Gindo, the “record” of “Bizarro World” is sure to be “mysteriously wiped out” in short order. Just like last time.

  130. #145 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Oh, I see Opie is back to libel me again based on his bigotry, while defending the integrity of Poul Thorsen”s vaccine research, even though he’s been indicted for stealing a million dollars in research money. It makes perfect sense in Bizarro World. Fortunately, it’s a place where laws against libel still exist.

  131. #146 NWO Reporter
    September 28, 2017

    Chris, you are the one who claimed for purposes of your “little story problem” that 100% of vaccine injuries result in a claim being filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The burden is on you to prove it. The circumstantial evidence I provided via the percentage of claims reported to VAERS was a freebee.

  132. #147 Opus
    Somewhere east of Ginny's Zone of Irrationality
    September 29, 2017

    Ginny, dear. Your comment at #145 is
    .
    .
    .
    .
    mind boggling.
    .
    Libel is a legal term. It seems that you haven’t run across it while divesting suckers of 34% of their child support. Perhaps you’d like to dig out the ol’ textbooks and take another stab at it.
    .
    Bigotry is also a fairly well defined term, although not to the extent that libel is, at least in the world of lawyers in which you’d like us to believe you work. May I suggest that a brief acquaintance with a dictionary would help you support your feeble case? The fact that I have determined that you are a purblind fool, based on your comments, is not bigotry; it’s a rational assessment based on your public persona.
    .
    You really jumped the shark when you tried to link my derogatory comments to Poul Thorsen. My comment had nothing to do with Thorsen, just your amusingly ineffective efforts to deflect attention from your prior comments.
    .
    However, speaking of libel, your statement that Mr Thorsen is ‘on the lamb’ is deemed to be an accusation of bestiality in most Scandinavian countries. Mayhaply you’d want to apologize to him now, lest he divest you of the pitiful few possessions you’ve accumulated during your years of service in skimming 34% off the top of child support collections?

  133. #148 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    NWO Ginny: “that 100% of vaccine injuries result in a claim being filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”

    Please provide the link and direct quote where this !00% claim occurred. Include in the comment where you provide the PubMed Index Number of the paper that Thorsen was the primary author in that is in question.

  134. #149 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    Geez, Chris, there is no way you can be that dense. You are trying to make a point that vaccines are extremely safe based on the number of successful compensation awards compared to the number of vaccines given. It’s not rocket science. Come back when you finish Basic Math 101.

  135. #150 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    Just answer my questions, Ginny. Don’t lecture me on math when you cannot even figure out how to use a calculator.

    Your evidence for your claims are…?

  136. #151 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    Ginny, what particular paper of interest was Thorsen the primary author? Just post the PMID.

  137. #152 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    In what comment did I ever make a 100% claim on? Just post the link.

  138. #153 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    By the way, Ginny, over a hundred kids died from flu during the last flu season:
    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/reported-flu-deaths-children.htm

    Just post the PubMed index paper by a reputable qualified researcher that any of the flu vaccines approved for children did as much harm during that year.

  139. #154 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    Take note that no American flu vaccine contains an adjuvant… so nothing to see here Dan from Vaccine Papers!

  140. #155 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    Chris, here’s a little story problem for you. If 2,845,946,816 vaccines were given; and there were 2,976 awards in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for serious vaccine injuries; and .01% of legitimate serious vaccine injury claims were filed in the VICP; then how many serious vaccine injuries occurred?

    For the purposes of this problem, you can assume that the VICP, which is run by people dedicated to maximizing vaccination, decided the awards properly–however improbable that may be.

  141. #156 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    Opie, I can assure I understand what libel is. Your file of screen shots is growing, and could potentially be of interest to others as well.

  142. #157 Julian Frost
    September 29, 2017

    If… .01% of legitimate serious vaccine injury claims were filed in the VICP

    “And that’s a new Olympic and World Record in the Goalpost Shift! Virginia Stone once again confirming her dominance in this event!”
    Where is your evidence that 9,999 out of every 10,000 serious adverse events aren’t reported and never go to the VICP? I find it extremely difficult to believe that most serious adverse events are not reported. In fact, I believe that the overwhelming majority of such events ARE taken to the VICP.

  143. #158 herr doktor bimler
    September 29, 2017

    Thorsen has been on the lamb for the last 6 years, and no one can examine the evidence until he’s gone to trial.

    Wait, what, I leave this thread for a few hours and suddenly it’s all accusations of bestiality?
    Unless NWOR means “on the lam”, but that is unpossible, for Thorsen’s location and place of employment are available to anyone who cares to look it up, and NWOR shirley is not that stupid.

    • #159 Se Habla Espol
      September 29, 2017

      NWOR shirley is not that stupid.

      Fact not in evidence.

  144. #160 Narad
    September 29, 2017

    Opie, I can assure I understand what libel is. Your file of screen shots is growing, and could potentially be of interest to others as well.

    Pro se! Pro se! You could finally produce a genuine work of art.

  145. #161 Alain
    September 29, 2017

    Geez, Chris, there is no way you can be that dense. You are trying to make a point that vaccines are extremely safe based on the number of successful compensation awards compared to the number of vaccines given. It’s not rocket science. Come back when you finish Basic Math 101.

    Chris,

    Mind teaching me how to solve a PDE? 😀

    Alain

  146. #162 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    Alain, what is a “PDE”?

    Though I can tell you how to start to solve a second order differential equation. You start by making the variable, like “x”, be equal to the natural logarithm “e” raised to a lamda. Since differentiating the number 2.1718…. is fairly easy. Then you solve the resulting binomial equation to get at least two results for lamda.

    And as for “rocket science”… NWO Ginny, you are in luck. I used to be an aerospace engineer. I sincerely doubt you can cogently lecture me in math, since I probably took lots more than you. Though the ratio of what I took and what you understand would be indeterminable, because we simply cannot divide by zero. Though that number would approach infinity as the limit approached zero.

    Now what paper of note was Thorsen the primary author of?

  147. #163 Opus
    Just 1 km west of the buckle on the babble belt
    September 29, 2017

    Ginny @ #156: “Opie, I can assure I understand what libel is. Your file of screen shots is growing, and could potentially be of interest to others as well.”
    .
    It appears that you were out sick when they covered Sullivan v the New York Times in law school.
    .
    Sad!!
    .
    Why don’t you take a break from your blustering and answer a few of the questions that have been posed to you?

  148. #164 Dangerous Bacon
    September 29, 2017

    What’s most egregious – being on the lamb, jumping the shark or abusing mice in the name of science?

  149. #165 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    Duly noted and recorded, Opie. Neither discretion nor law appear to be your strong suit. 🙂

  150. #166 herr doktor bimler
    September 29, 2017

    Your file of screen shots is growing, and could potentially be of interest to others as well.

    Oh noes, NWOR is Keeping Dossiers on everyone. She’s one of those. I am reminded of Hitmouse from the ‘Uncle’ series, and his Hating Books full of accumulated and itemised grievances.
    Once you’re maintaining dossiers, and menacing people with dark insinuations of defamation suits once you Trace their Identity, it’s only a short step to filling the basement with Mason jars full of saved-up urine.

  151. #167 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    Nah, Herr Doktor. I only keep dossiers on potentially libelous comments. That’s just common sense. There seem to be a shockingly frequent number of them here compared to other places online. Most people with common sense tend to avoid them simply by exercising ordinary online discretion, like referring to people by their designated screen name, limiting the discussion to the issues at hand, and refraining from fabricated allegations that could clearly damage the reputation of another.

  152. #168 Politicalguineapig
    September 29, 2017

    NWO: You seem to have overlooked the fact that you don’t have a reputation to damage.

  153. #169 Panacea
    September 29, 2017

    @Opus #147: the simpler explanation for Ginny’s comment about Thorsen being “on the lamb” is that she ignorantly is using the wrong word.

    Cops talk about fugitives being “on the lam,” not “on the lamb.”

    @NWO Troll #155: Wow. Such open contempt of court. Tsk, tsk.

    Maybe I should forward it to the Special Masters?

  154. #170 Opus
    Just 1 km west of the buckle on the babble belt
    September 29, 2017

    Odd but interesting fact: Ginny’s threats to sue for libel may well be prima facie evidence of incompetence in her chosen profession.
    .
    Who’dathunkit??

  155. #171 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 29, 2017

    I would have said something, but “on the lamb” isn’t common enough to really get under my skin, like “free reign” or “tow the line”….

  156. #172 doug
    September 29, 2017

    It appears that you were out sick …

    see also Popehat Weimaraner

  157. #173 Alain
    September 29, 2017

    Chris,

    Alain, what is a “PDE”?

    Partial Differential Equation. In most engineering degree here in canucksland, it’s (at least) the fifth course in the series of math specific course.

    Alain

  158. #174 herr doktor bimler
    September 29, 2017

    What’s most egregious – being on the lamb

    Red and black, that’s their color scheme.

  159. #175 Panacea
    September 29, 2017

    DB: Lawyers live and die by words. That’s why Clinton made the defense of “it depends of what the meaning of “is” is.”

    He wasn’t being disingenuous. It matters. And Ginny knows it. That’s why she’s constantly shifting the goal posts.

    She may not be very good at making her argument, but she certainly has the basics of dissembling down. A prime example of why so many people hate lawyers.

  160. #176 JP
    September 29, 2017

    Red and black, that’s their color scheme.

    What? Those are my colors!

  161. #177 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    That’s a good one, Lord Opus. It’s like you can’t help yourself. 😉

    I have to admit, you have a certain facility for defaming dissenters. No doubt there are those who appreciate such skills. Not me, of course.

  162. #178 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    Panacea, it’s not like you don’t appreciate the importance of “is.”

    “There’s no evidence that injecting aluminum is dangerous” is a completely truthful statement when it’s never been specifically investigated. Whereas “There’s no evidence that injecting aluminum may be dangerous” is an outright lie.

  163. #179 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    I should have added “Injecting aluminum into human beings,” of course–since there is ample evidence that injecting it into lab animals is extremely dangerous.

  164. #180 Opus
    just 1 km west of the buckle on the babble belt
    September 29, 2017

    Ginny:
    I wasn’t defaming a dissenter; I was describing a dumbass. There’s a difference.

  165. #181 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    Thanks, Alain. I am very familiar several forms of partial differential equations. How you solve depends on their form and purpose. Also after working where PSD meant three different things I really speaking in initials.

  166. #182 Chris
    September 29, 2017

    I am in a hotel with molasses slow WiFi.

  167. #183 Panacea
    September 29, 2017

    Which is why toxicologists use the phrase, “the dose makes the poison.”

    We’ve used aluminum as an adjunct for decades. If you’re going to claim it’s dangerous, or might be dangerous, you have to provide some evidence that is so. It’s on you to prove the danger, not for medical researchers to prove it safe when they already know its safe.

    And you need more than badly done mouse studies to get started on that.

  168. #184 NWO Reporter
    September 29, 2017

    Panacea, no I don’t. After all the fraud and deception I’ve seen over the years when it comes to vaccines, it’s reasonable to presume that everything the industry is peddling is toxic.

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” Dr. Marcia Angell, Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption, NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.

    • #185 Se Habla Espol
      September 30, 2017

      After all the fraud and deception I’ve seen over the years when it comes to vaccines,

      You’ve told us enough about your conspiracy religion that we just wonder what you were actually seeing and what relationship it might have to the universe the rest of us live in.

  169. #186 Narad
    September 30, 2017

    see also Popehat Weimaraner

    Spot-on.

    After all the fraud and deception I’ve seen over the years when it comes to vaccines gravity, it’s reasonable to presume that everything the industry is peddling is toxic.

    FTFY.

  170. #187 TBruce
    September 30, 2017

    So does Dr Angell rely on the bletherings of a random delusional conspiracy theorist instead?

  171. #188 herr doktor bimler
    September 30, 2017

    I have to admit, you have a certain facility for defaming dissenters.

    Is there a Bloom Country story arc in which Opus the Penguin is sued for defamation by some other implausible cartoonish character? If not, why not?

  172. #189 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    September 30, 2017

    Panacea: “And you need more than badly done mouse studies to get started on that.”
    NWO Reporter: “Panacea, no I don’t.”
    Yes, you do. A study involving mice given massive overdoses of aluminium adjuvants is not proof of danger. It’s not proof of anything other than the dose makes the poison.

  173. #190 herr doktor bimler
    September 30, 2017

    Nah, Herr Doktor. I only keep dossiers on potentially libelous comments.

    Notice that NWOR has not refuted the suggestion that she is filling her basement with Mason jars full of accumulated urine.

  174. #191 herr doktor bimler
    September 30, 2017

    I only keep dossiers on potentially libelous comments. That’s just common sense. There seem to be a shockingly frequent number of them here compared to other places online.

    “It is a mark of insincerity of purpose to spend one’s time in looking for the sacred Emperor in the low-class tea-shops.”

    If you can’t take the heat, it was probably a mistake to have set fire to the kitchen.

  175. #192 Panacea
    September 30, 2017

    Boy, Ginny, you love beating the dead horse that is Dr. Angell. You dredge up this quote as definitive proof that the scientific process is hopelessly compromised.

    Of course, Forbes did a wonderful deconstruction of that claim. You can read it here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/12/14/marcia-angells-attacks-on-pharma-have-lost-all-credibility/#5ceb3cfb2737

    What you fail to consider is that if the FDA’s role was to approve drugs in line with the pharmaceutical companies wishes, the process would be much faster, and much less expensive than it is. Big Pharma really doesn’t control the research process the way that you think, otherwise they wouldn’t spend a fraction of what they do on it to get a drug approved. Nobody spends money they don’t have to.

    That’s not to say there aren’t problems with the process. There are. But the vast conspiracy you think exists falls apart when you consider the costs of that process.

    You need more than mouse studies to prove your point. Especially more than a mouse study that is a prime example of the very kind of badly done science you claim is pervasive in the field. You only agree with the conclusions because they support your preconceived narrative: the very definition of bias.

  176. #193 NWO Reporter
    October 1, 2017

    Sure, Panacea–if Forbes Magazine did a “wonderful deconstruction” of the conclusions Dr. Angell arrived at after her two decades of experience as the editor of a prominent medical journal, that settles it. 😀

    BTW, would you agree that a sharp increase in ADHD has pushed the disorder to the forefront of public and psychiatric awareness?

  177. #194 Politicalguineapig
    October 1, 2017

    NWO: would you agree that a sharp increase in ADHD has pushed the disorder to the forefront of public and psychiatric awareness?

    I don’t think there’s been a sharp increase, so much as a decreased tolerance for fidgety kids and a deliberately lower standard for diagnoses. I have ADD myself, and honestly, the ‘awareness’ of ADD/ADHD does a grave disservice to most people who actually have it. Not to mention, it pushes us out on the front lines against twits like you, who hate all medicine and think ‘dying at 40’ is a life goal. Seriously, if you had a broken arm, I imagine you’d rather let your arm be unusable than do the sensible thing.

    I don’t really know why I’m telling you this, because you’re an idiot. But maybe the smarter people on this thread will understand my point.

  178. #195 Joe Tomkins
    Canada
    October 16, 2017

    Looks like their little study is being shredded after all.

    They do not know how the bad data got into the study.

    At what point will they be investigated by UBC for publishing poorly executed science and then playing that “i don’t know how it happened” card.

    “It appears as if some of the images in mostly what were non-significant results had been flipped,” Shaw told CBC on Thursday. “We don’t know why, we don’t know how … but there was a screw-up, there’s no question about that.”

    Shaw said the lab can’t confirm how the figures were allegedly altered because he claims original data needed for comparison is no longer at the UBC laboratory.

    “We don’t think that the conclusions are at risk here, but because we don’t know, we thought it best to withdraw,” the researcher said.

    Asked how the seemingly wonky figures weren’t caught before publication, Shaw said it was “a good question.”

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-autsism-vaccine-paper-retraction-chris-shaw-1.4351855

  179. #196 Panacea
    October 16, 2017

    Duh duh duh . . . another one bites the dust.

    And another one gone and another one gone . . . another one bites the dust.

    That stuff on your face, Ginny? It’s called egg.

  180. […] has erupted over a scientific paper that is being retracted after it was attacked for being ‘antivax pseudoscience‘ and found to contain manipulated, false data… which has now gone mysteriously […]

  181. […] de septembre, la recherche sur des « injections sous-cutanées d’aluminium » chez des souris avait été attaquée initialement le 21 septembre par l’oncologue américain David Gorsky qui, sous le nom de blogueur Orac, pourfend depuis des […]

  182. #199 Clifton Greene
    October 21, 2017

    Every article on this site is full of psuedoscience. Here is the true epidemiology from the late 19thand early 20th century proving that thesmallpox vaccine not only was ineffective but actually caused smallpox.
    https://vactruth.com/download/vaccination_exposed.pdf

    • #200 Se Habla Espol
      October 21, 2017

      Every article on this site is full of psuedoscience.

      Of course. One of the main thrusts of this blog is exposing, discussing, laughing at, and decrying pseudoscience. That exposure of pseudoscience can only happen if it is described. One of the specialties here is anti-vax pseudoscience, since its nonsense is so obvious and threatening to the public health.. To wit:

      Here is the true epidemiology from the late 19thand early 20th century proving that thesmallpox vaccine not only was ineffective but actually caused smallpox.

      Internet rule #386 (hope I got the number right): when a domain name that has “truth” in it, the domain name is almost certainly the only place there where truth is to be found.
      One of the staples of the anti-vax pseudoscience is to accuse 100-year-old medical practices and medicines of inadequacies, and then at least imply that those claimed inadequacies persist to the present, as if medicine acted like your typical quackeries, never allowing themselves to learn anything.

  183. #201 Chris
    October 21, 2017

    Mr. Greene, please explain why smallpox no longer exists.

    Your almost century old bit of nonsense is not a valid citation. Please just provide just PubMed indexed studies dated less than fifty years old by reputable qualified researchers.

  184. #202 Chris
    October 21, 2017
  185. #203 Epsilon
    A wild woo-ly mammoth has appeared
    October 21, 2017

    Uhh, did the smallpox vaccine even exist in the 1800’s or is Mr Greene huffing paint fumes? I don’t even think they knew what smallpox was.

  186. #204 LW
    October 21, 2017

    They didn’t know smallpox was caused by a virus, but the smallpox vaccine did exist at the beginning of the 19th Century. See biography of Edward Jenner.

  187. #205 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    October 21, 2017

    For a fairly complete, easily digested history of smallpox eradication (along with some neat pictures), I’d start here
    http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object-groups/antibody-initiative/smallpox

    From the link –

    In Africa and Asia, smallpox was traditionally contained through variolation—deliberately infecting an individual with a controllable case of smallpox to confer lifelong immunity. Variolation spread from Asia and Africa into Europe and the Americas during the 18th century. This practice had its dangers, as recipients of variolation could develop a full-blown case of smallpox.

    In 1798, the English physician Edward Jenner developed a safer technique: vaccination with cowpox (vacca is the Latin word for cow). He based his “discovery” on existing folk knowledge but provided scientific proof of its veracity by testing the vaccine on a young child.

    In 1809, following Jenner’s published account of his success in using vaccination to prevent smallpox, the town of Milton, Massachusetts, offered free vaccination to all its inhabitants. Over three hundred persons were inoculated during a three-day campaign in July. The town leaders then took the daring step of holding a public demonstration to prove without a doubt that cowpox vaccine offered protection from smallpox. In October, twelve children, selected from those vaccinated in July, were inoculated with fresh, virulent smallpox matter. Fifteen days later, they were discharged with no sign of smallpox infection. The experiment’s success led Miltonians to declare “He is Slain,” presaging the idea of “slaying” smallpox permanently.

  188. #206 doug
    October 21, 2017

    … huffing paint fumes?

    Far worse! – reading vactruth, which is much more likely to cause permanent brain impairment.

  189. #207 Epsilon
    October 21, 2017

    @LW

    Thanks. Wasn’t quite sure.

  190. #208 LW
    October 21, 2017

    @Epsilon, it boggles the mind that anti-vaxxers have been fighting the smallpox vaccine for two centuries now.

  191. #209 Politicalguineapig
    October 21, 2017

    I’d still like to see the explanations of where all Europe’s immortal royalty is. Because according to antivaxxers, obviously no royalty died of disease, and peasants only died from starvation. (Snark, obviously, though I think most of the thinking impaired would actually believe that.)

  192. #210 LW
    October 21, 2017

    @Politicalguineapig, they’re hiding. Wouldn’t do to have the peasantry figure out that homeopathy produces immortality.

    I had a much longer answer but the power died just as I hit submit.

  193. #211 Epsilon
    October 21, 2017

    @LW

    You’re not the only one boggled, buddy. The gall of these people is astounding. My father is an excellent pediatrician who is extremely dedicated to his patients, and it pisses me off to no end that they suggest that he is purposefully hurting both me and his patients.

  194. #212 Chris
    October 22, 2017

    LW: “t boggles the mind that anti-vaxxers have been fighting the smallpox vaccine for two centuries now.”

    What boggles my mind is that some random dude on teh internets like Mr. Greene decided to declare this information on this site as pseudoscience, and his “evidence” is a 98 year old self-published screed by an ink manufacturer whose formal education stopped at the age of nine. On a disease that has been eradicated (except for some lab samples).

    Um, yeah. Science and medicine have progressed in the last century. Perhaps Mr. Greene would like to try learning about it I suggest he find a near by community college and sign up for basic biology and chemistry classes.