Brain and Behavior

Opportunity Costs And Why Fireworks Complaints Are Up This Year

sb admin — Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:17:46 +0000

Opportunity Costs And Why Fireworks Complaints Are Up This Year

The number of fireworks being lit off at night is out of control this year.

While people often light off fireworks close to the Fourth of July, this year fireworks have been lit in large numbers starting weeks earlier. New York City had a 4,000% increase in fireworks complaints in the first two weeks of June compared with last year. This prompted Mayor Bill de Blasio to vow a crackdown on illegal fireworks.

Complaints about fireworks are not confined to just New York City, but in cities across the country like San Francisco, Denver, Harrisburg, Albuquerque, Providence and many other places. This has led to a rise in conspiracy theories, including one that the nightly noise is an elaborate government plot to create confusion in neighborhoods.

I am an economist who has spoken and written about fireworks for years. After hearing a constant barrage nightly for weeks, I began wondering why so many people are lighting off fireworks this year.

It isn’t economics

There are two possible economic reasons behind an increase in fireworks usage: falling prices or increased supply. However, neither of these is the culprit behind the increase in fireworks usage this year.

The vast majority of the fireworks individuals shoot off in the U.S. are manufactured overseas, mainly in China. Each shipment of fireworks brought into the U.S. includes a detailed invoice that shows the quantity and price the importer paid.

Price data for the first four months of 2020 show importers paid an average of US$2.63 per kilogram for fireworks from China. A year earlier, importers paid an average of $2.60 per kilogram. This means prices rose slightly from 2019 to 2020, eliminating the falling price argument.

Increased supply is also not the reason. In a typical year there are two holidays with widespread firework usage; New Year’s Eve and the Fourth of July.

Deliveries in 2020 are an exception to this pattern. Because of the coronavirus, the U.S. imported very few fireworks in March. During the first four months of 2020 the U.S. imported 9 million kilograms of fireworks from China. While this seems like a large number, it is one-third less than a year earlier.

Fireworks are much more common around holidays like New Year’s Eve. Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Nor is it legal reform

Another potential reason could be changes in laws.

Most major dense cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco ban fireworks.

However, if neighboring jurisdictions have loosened their rules, then people can easily drive outside the city to purchase fireworks.

There has been a steady reduction in state prohibitions against individuals using fireworks. Today only one state, Massachusetts, completely prohibits individuals from owning and using any type of fireworks. All the rest allow them in some form.

However, the most recent two states to allow consumers to shoot off fireworks are New Jersey in 2017 and Delaware in 2018. Since most states relaxed prohibitions against fireworks more than two years ago, recent rule changes also cannot be behind the increase.

The most likely culprit

To find the real reason, it helps to consider that millions of Americans have been locked down in their homes and apartments for months. As an employee at a fireworks store in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, put it, “People are bored. They just want to blow stuff up.”

While this argument is understandable, I think the most likely reason is even simpler. And it has a lot to do with opportunity costs, something economists spend a lot of time thinking about.

Opportunity costs put a dollar value on what else a person could do with their time. For example, before the pandemic, I had many choices at night. I could work, go out with friends, watch television or see a movie in the theater.

By shutting down restaurants, theaters, bars and other venues, COVID-19 has dramatically reduced my choices.

The pandemic has also thrown millions out of work. Many people who would normally be working at night are not. This means the opportunity cost for using fireworks is exceptionally low compared with before, since there are so few opportunities to socialize, be entertained or work.

Beyond lower opportunity costs for fireworks users, there are many unemployed people who are now looking for opportunities to earn money. Buying fireworks in a rural area like northern Pennsylvania and selling them at higher prices in a city that bans their sale, such as New York City, can be easy and profitable.

So few arrests are made for fireworks that the FBI, which tracks problems like moonshining and polygamy on its detailed list of offenses, does not give it a category.

Idle hands

Fireworks are dangerous. While few people die each year from using them, the latest figures for 2019 show that fireworks hurt about 10,000 people per year in the U.S.

However, massive unemployment caused by COVID-19 is also dangerous.

There is an old quote that idle hands lead to mischief. In this case, idle people lead to large amounts of illegal firework usage.

My belief is that once the millions of unemployed people in the U.S. go back to work, the number of illegal fireworks shot off will rapidly decrease and will once again be limited to the times around New Year’s Eve and the Fourth of July.

Top image: Fireworks light up the sky over New York City in 2019. Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

By Jay L. Zagorsky, Senior Lecturer, Questrom School of Business, Boston University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

sb admin Tue, 06/30/2020 - 12:17

Categories

Brain and Behavior

'Virtual' Communication During Social Distancing: How We Change When We Know We're Being Seen

sb admin — Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:25:13 +0000

'Virtual' Communication During Social Distancing: How We Change When We Know We're Being Seen

Social distancing due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the threat of COVID-19 has meant online communication is more popular than ever, with even casual parenting groups discovering the previous enterprise video conferencing tool Zoom.

But how will that affect communications? Have you ever met someone who is stiff in person but great on camera or the other way around? Neuroscientists study brain and behavior and in a recent study found that a person's gaze is altered during tele-communication if they think that the person on the other end of the conversation can see them.

People are very sensitive to the gaze direction of others and even two-day-old infants prefer faces where the eyes are looking directly back at them. The phenomenon known as "gaze cueing," a powerful signal for orienting attention, is a mechanism that likely plays a role in the developmentally and socially important wonder of "shared" or "joint" attention where a number of people attend to the same object or location. The ability to do this is what makes humans unique among primates.

Throughout almost all of human history, conversations were generally conducted face-to-face, so people knew where their conversational partner was looking and vice versa. Now, with virtual communication, that assumption no longer holds - sometimes people communicate with both cameras on while other times only the speaker may be visible. The researchers set out to determine whether being observed affects people's behavior during online communication.

Co-authors Elan Barenholtz, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Florida Atlantic University, and Michael H. Kleiman, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher, compared fixation behavior in 173 participants under two conditions: one in which the participants believed they were engaging in a real-time interaction and one in which they knew they were watching a pre-recorded video.

The researchers wanted to know if face fixation would increase in the real-time condition based on the social expectation of facing one's speaker in order to get attention or if it would lead to greater face avoidance, based on social norms as well as the cognitive demands of encoding the conversation.

Similarly, they wanted to know where participants would fixate on the face. Would it be the eyes more in the real-time condition because of social demands to make eye contact with one's speaker? Or, in the pre-recorded condition, where the social demands to make eye contact are eliminated, would participants spend more time looking at the mouth in order to encode the conversation, which is consistent with previous studies showing greater mouth fixations during an encoding task.

Three areas of interest for fixation analyses: full face (purple), eyes (red) and mouth (blue). Credit: Florida Atlantic University

Results of the study showed that participants fixated on the whole face in the real-time condition and significantly less in the pre-recorded condition. In the pre-recorded condition, time spent fixating on the mouth was significantly greater compared to the real-time condition.

There were no significant differences in time spent fixating on the eyes between the real-time and the pre-recorded conditions. These findings may suggest that participants are more comfortable looking directly at the mouth of a speaker - which has previously been found to be optimal for encoding speech - when they think that no one is watching them.

To simulate a live interaction, the researchers convinced participants that they were engaging in a real-time, two-way video interaction (it was actually pre-recorded) where they could been seen and heard by the speaker, as well as a pre-recorded interaction where they knew the video was previously recorded and therefore the speaker could not see their behavior.

"Because gaze direction conveys so much socially relevant information, one's own gaze behavior is likely to be affected by whether one's eyes are visible to a speaker," said Barenholtz. "For example, people may intend to signal that they are paying more attention to a speaker by fixating their face or eyes during a conversation. Conversely, extended eye contact also can be perceived as aggressive and therefore noticing one's eyes could lead to reduced direct fixation of another's face or eyes. Indeed, people engage in avoidant eye movements by periodically breaking and reforming eye contact during conversations."

There was a highly significant tendency for participants engaging in perceived real-time interaction to display greater avoidant fixation behavior, which supports the idea that social contexts draw fixations away from the face compared to when social context is not a factor. When the face was fixated, attention was directed toward the mouth for the greater percentage of time in the pre-recorded condition versus the real-time condition. The lack of difference in time spent fixating the eyes suggests that the additional mouth fixations in the pre-recorded condition did not come at the cost of reduced eye fixation and must have derived from reduced fixations elsewhere on the face.

Comparisons between total fixation durations of the eyes versus the mouth were calculated for both the real-time and pre-recorded conditions, with the eyes of both conditions being significantly more fixated than the mouth. Gender, age, cultural background, and native language did not have an influence on fixation behavior across conditions.

"Regardless of the specific mechanisms underlying the observed differences in fixation patterns, results from our study suggest participants were taking social and attentional considerations into account in the real-time condition," said Barenholtz. "Given that encoding and memory have been found to be optimized by fixating the mouth, which was reduced overall in the real-time condition, this suggests that people do not fully optimize for speech encoding in a live interaction."

sb admin Mon, 03/30/2020 - 17:25

Categories

Brain and Behavior

FHR4: Age-Related Macular Degeneration Breakthrough

sb admin — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:52:20 +0000

FHR4: Age-Related Macular Degeneration Breakthrough

Almost 2 million Americans have age-related macular degeneration (AMD), where the cells in the retina, which is the layer of tissue in the back of the eye, break down, causing central vision to become blurry. Over time, 100,000 of those will become blind.

An international team of scientists has identified a protein, FHR4, which is strongly linked to AMD when its levels are raised in the blood. The findings were confirmed in 484 patient and 522 control samples from two independent collections across Europe. FHR4 is one of a group of proteins that regulate the complement system and the genes encoding these proteins are tightly clustered on chromosome 1, the largest human chromosome.

Analyses of eyes donated for research after life also revealed the FHR4 protein was present in the AMD-affected parts of the eye and FHR4 was shown by the team to activate part of the immune system -called the complement system; over activation is a major causal factor of AMD.

Credit: NIH

When the team investigated a set of genetic variants across the human genome, they found that genetic variants in this region on chromosome 1 determined the levels of FHR4 in the blood. And they found that the same genetic variants were associated with AMD.

"We have shown that genetically determined higher blood FHR4 levels leads to more FHR4 in the eye which in turn increases the risk of the uncontrolled immune system response that drives the disease," said Professor Paul Bishop from the University of Manchester. "So apart from improving understanding of how AMD is caused, this work provides a way of predicting risk of the disease by simply measuring blood levels of FHR4."

sb admin Fri, 02/07/2020 - 11:52

Categories

Brain and Behavior

Eppendorf & Science Prize for Neurobiology Entries Accepted Until June 15, 2019

hank_campbell — Wed, 03 Apr 2019 14:38:26 +0000

Eppendorf & Science Prize for Neurobiology Entries Accepted Until June 15, 2019

Researchers 35 years and younger, the annual Eppendorf &Science Prize for Neurobiology, which is awarded for contributions to neurobiological research based on methods of molecular and cell biology, is now open for entries.

Applying requires a 1,000-word essay and tell the prize committee about your work.

The prize is $25,000 plus Science magazine will publish an essay about your work. You'll have travel paid to the Prize Ceremony held in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in the USA and AAAS throws in a 10-year AAAS membership (but only a digital subscription to the magazine).

The application deadline is June 15, 2019. Apply here.

hank_campbell Wed, 04/03/2019 - 10:38

Categories

Brain and Behavior

#5: Competition horses calmed by lavender

dr. dolittle — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:26:39 +0000

#5: Competition horses calmed by lavender

In looking back over the history of the blog, I thought it would be fun to take another glimpse at the top 5 most popular posts in 2017 thus far...

Image of lavender from GFDL 1.2, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=322384

While lavender aromatherapy has been documented to reduce stress in humans, little is known about its potential for reducing stress in veterinary medicine. Horses can develop elevated heart rates and stress hormone levels when they are confined to horse trailers and transported to new competition venues. Therapies to reduce stress in competition horses are regulated and often prohibit the use of sedatives or oral supplements. Kylie Heitman, an undergraduate student at Albion College, was interested in whether aromatherapy could be used to calm competition horses during transportation. Kylie exposed horses to air-diffused lavender oil or water during transport and found that exposure to diffused lavender oil significantly reduced levels of the stress hormone cortisol although there was no significant effect on heart rate. Her research was presented at the 2017 Experimental Biology meeting in Chicago last month.

Sources:

PH Koulivand, MK Ghadiri, A Gorji. Lavender and the Nervous System. Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2013; 2013: 681304. doi: 10.1155/2013/681304

American Physiological Society press release

dr. dolittle Tue, 10/17/2017 - 06:26

Tags

Categories

How grand!

Cheap Science Books

gregladen — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 12:02:43 +0000

Cheap Science Books

Two science books cheap (Kindle version, two bucks):

The Male Brain: A Breakthrough Understanding of How Men and Boys Think

Dr. Louann Brizendine, the founder of the first clinic in the country to study gender differences in brain, behavior, and hormones, turns her attention to the male brain, showing how, through every phase of life, the "male reality" is fundamentally different from the female one. Exploring the latest breakthroughs in male psychology and neurology with her trademark accessibility and candor, she reveals that the male brain:

-is a lean, mean, problem-solving machine. Faced with a personal problem, a man will use his analytical brain structures, not his emotional ones, to find a solution.
-thrives under competition, instinctively plays rough and is obsessed with rank and hierarchy.
-has an area for sexual pursuit that is 2.5 times larger than the female brain, consuming him with sexual fantasies about female body parts.
-experiences such a massive increase in testosterone at puberty that he perceive others' faces to be more aggressive.

The Male Brain finally overturns the stereotypes. Impeccably researched and at the cutting edge of scientific knowledge, this is a book that every man, and especially every woman bedeviled by a man, will need to own.

I'm not endorsing this book, but if you are a student of sex differences you may want to have a look even if you hate it. But also see by the same author: The Female Brain

Unlocking the Past: How Archaeologists Are Rewriting Human History with Ancient DNA

In Unlocking the Past, Martin Jones, a leading expert at the forefront of bioarchaeology—the discipline that gave Michael Crichton the premise for Jurassic Park—explains how this pioneering science is rewriting human history and unlocking stories of the past that could never have been told before. For the first time, the building blocks of ancient life—DNA, proteins, and fats that have long been trapped in fossils and earth and rock—have become widely accessible to science. Working at the cutting edge of genetic and other molecular technologies, researchers have been probing the remains of these ancient biomolecules in human skeletons, sediments and fossilized plants, dinosaur bones, and insects trapped in amber. Their amazing discoveries have influenced the archaeological debate at almost every level and continue to reshape our understanding of the past.

Devising a molecular clock from a certain area of DNA, scientists were able to determine that all humans descend from one common female ancestor, dubbed "Mitochondrial Eve," who lived around 150,000 years ago. From molecules recovered from grinding stones and potsherds, they reconstructed ancient diets and posited when such practices as dairying and boiling water for cooking began. They have reconstituted the beer left in the burial chamber of pharaohs and know what the Iceman, the 5,000-year-old hunter found in the Alps in the early nineties, ate before his last journey. Conveying both the excitement of innovative research and the sometimes bruising rough-and-tumble of scientific debate, Jones has written a work of profound importance. Unlocking the Past is science at its most engaging.

gregladen Wed, 10/04/2017 - 08:02

Tags

Uncategorized

cheap books

Categories

Brain and Behavior

Pigeons outperform humans when it comes to multitasking

dr. dolittle — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:51:54 +0000

Pigeons outperform humans when it comes to multitasking

Sara Letzner had humans compete against pigeons in a behavioural experiment. Photo from: Ruhr-Universitat at Bochum

The findings from the study show that the mammalian cerebral cortex, with all of its cortical layers, is not the only type of brain that can perform complex tasks as birds do not have a similar cortical organization. "For a long time, scientists used to believe the mammalian cerebral cortex to be the anatomical cause of cognitive ability; it is made up of six cortical layers. That means the structure of the mammalian cortex cannot be decisive for complex cognitive functions such as multitasking," Dr. Letzner said in a press release. Instead, pigeons have 6 times more nerve cells per cubic millimeter of brain tissue than humans! What this means is that information does not have to travel as far since the distance between nerve cells is half that of humans.

The research team studied the time it took for participants to stop a task they were doing and to start a new task as fast as possible. Fifteen humans and 12 pigeons were in the experiment. True multitasking happens when there is no delay between tasks and the brain must therefore think of both tasks at the same time. In contrast, switching completely between two tasks requires nerves that control each task to communicate. They found that pigeons switched tasks 250 milliseconds faster than humans. What this means is that pigeons are able to not only process information faster, but also communicate more efficiently between cells undergoing different tasks.

Sources:

dr. dolittle Thu, 09/28/2017 - 18:51

Tags

Categories

Torturing more mice in the name of antivaccine pseudoscience: PubPeer versus antivaxers

oracknows — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 05:00:40 +0000

Torturing more mice in the name of antivaccine pseudoscience: PubPeer versus antivaxers

Last week, an antivaxer "challenged" me to look over a paper purporting to show that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines cause inflammation of the brain and therefore contribute to autism, a paper that she would be "citing frequently." Being someone who lives by the motto, "be careful what you wish for," I looked it over in detail. Not surprisingly, my conclusion was that the experiments were poorly done using obsolete and not very quantitative methodology and that the results do not support the conclusions made by the authors. I was not alone in this conclusion. Skeptical Raptor was, if anything, even harsher on the paper than I was.

The paper in question came out of the lab of Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia. As I note every time I examine a paper by these two warriors for antivaccine pseudoscience, 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.

Given the authors' history and a paper that I and others found completely consistent with that history of publishing bad science in the service of antivaccine views, you might reasonably ask: Why am I writing about it again? It turns out that I was indeed far too kind the first time around. You see, I didn't look at all the DNA gels and Western blot films closely enough. I confess that sometimes I don't, particularly when the images provided by the journal online are relatively low resolution. Fortunately, however, there are others with a much sharper eye for photos of DNA gels and films of Western blots than I am, and, if what these people are saying is correct, I rather suspect that Shaw and Tomljenovic might well be cruising for their second retracted paper. Before I explain why, it's necessary for me to briefly explain two things for nonscientists not familiar with the methodology used.

In last week's post, I complained that the authors had basically ground up mouse brains and used semiquantitative PCR to measure the level of messenger RNA for each immune cytokine examined. There's no need for me to go into how this method is only roughly quantitative or how there are much better methods available now. I did that last time. What I do need to point out is that, after the PCR reaction is run, the PCR products (DNA fragments amplified by the PCR reaction) are separated by placing them in an agarose gel and running an electrical current through it. This gel electrophoresis works because DNA migrates towards the positive electrode and, once it solidifies, agarose forms a gel that separates the DNA fragments by size. The gel can then be stained with ethidium bromide, whose fluorescence allows visualization of the bands, which can be assessed for size and purity. Photos of the gel can be taken and subjected to densitometry to estimate how much DNA is in each band relative to the other bands.

To measure protein, Western blots work a little differently. Basically isolated cell extracts or protein mixtures are subjected to polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) with a denaturing agent (SDS). Again, like DNA, protein migrates towards the positive electrode, and the gel forms pores that impeded the process, allowing separation by size and charge. The proteins are then transferred to a membrane (the Western blot) and visualized by using primary antibodies to the desired protein, followed by a secondary antibody with some sort of label. In the old days, we often used radioactivity. These days, we mostly use chemiluminescence. Blots are then exposed to film or, more frequently today, to a phosphoimager plate, which provides a much larger linear range for detecting the chemiluminescence than old-fashioned film. Just like DNA gels, the bands can be quantified using densitometry. In both cases, it's very important not to "burn" (overexpose) the film, which pushes the band intensity out of the linear ranger) or to underexpose them (noise can cause problems). It's also important how the lines are drawn around the bands using the densitometry software and how the background is calculated. More modern software can do it fairly automatically, but there is almost always a need to tweak the outlines chosen, which is why I consider it important that whoever is doing the densitometry should be blinded to experimental group, as bias can be introduced in how the bands are traced.

So why did I go through all this? Hang on, I'll get to it. First, however, I like to point out to our antivaccine "friends" that peer review doesn't end when a paper is published. Moreover, social media and the web have made it easier than ever to see what other scientists think of published papers. In particular, there is a website called PubPeer, which represents itself as an "online journal club." More importantly, for our purposes, PubPeer is a site where a lot of geeky scientists with sharp eyes for anomalies in published figures discuss papers and figures that seem, well, not entirely kosher. It turns out that some scientists with sharp eyes have been going over Shaw and Tomljenovic's paper, and guess what? They've been finding stuff. In fact, they've been finding stuff that to me (and them) looks rather...suspicious.

One, for instance, took figure 1C of the paper and adjusted the background and contrast to accentuate differences in tones:

It was immediately noted:

A clear and deliberate removal of the Male 3 Control TNF result. This isn't an unacknowledged splice, as there is no background pattern from a gel contiguous with either band, left or right.

Removal of the left half of the Male 1 Control IFN-g. Dubious also about Male 3 Control IFN-g, as the contrast highlight shows boxing around the band.

What appears like an unacknowledged splice in ACHE blot, between AI Animal 2, Control Animal 3

Comparing this representative blot to the densitometry accompanying it, they score from 5 independent experiments IFN-g fold change from control to AI, relative to actin, as on average 4.5, with an SEM ranging from ~2.7 to 6.5. This seems too good to be true.

Look at the band. It's the second from last band. It looks as though the band has been digitally removed. There is an obvious square there. The edges are clear. Now, this could be a JPEG compression artifact. Indeed, one of the commenters is very insistent about reminding everyone that compression artifacts can look like a square and fool the unwary into thinking that some sort of Photoshopping had occurred.. However, I do agree with another of the PubPeer discussants this is enough of a problem that the journal should demand the original blot.

On this one, I'll give Shaw and Tomljenovic the benefit of the doubt. (Whether they deserve it or not, you can judge for yourself.) That might be a compression artifact. Other problems discovered in the gels are not so easily dismissed. For instance, there definitely appears to be the ol' duplicated and flipped gel bands trick going on in Figure 2A:

Spotting these takes a little bit of skill, but look for distinctive parts of bands and then look to see if they show up elsewhere. It's also necessary to realize that there could be multiple different exposures of the same band, such that the same band can appear more or less intense and mirror-imaged. You have to know what to look for, and I fear that some readers not familiar with looking at blots like these might not see the suspicious similarities, even when pointed out. Still, let's take a look. There are more examples, for instance, these two bands in Figure 4C:

And Figures 4B and 4D, where bubbles on the gels serve as markers:

You can look at the rest of the PubPeer images for yourself and decide if you agree that something fishy is going on here. I've seen enough that I think there is, as is pointed out near the end:

Great to see such rapid progress being made: Band duplications firmly established for gels in Figs. 2 and 4. Perhaps we can add some RT-PCR from Fig. 1 too? In Fig. 2, seek out the band marked above that looks like a sailing boat with mast and forestay. Now look for it in Fig. 1A. And then perhaps check for any other duplications?

Others note that Shaw and Tomljenovic have engaged in a bit of self-plagiarism, too. Figure 1 in the 2017 paper is identical (and I do mean identical, except that the bars in the older paper are blue) to a paper they published in 2014. Basically, they threw a little primary data into one of their crappy review articles trying to blame "environment" (i.e., vaccines) for autism, this one published in 2014 in OA Autism. Don't take my word for it. Both articles are open-access, and you can judge for yourself.

Some comments from PubPeer:

As far as I can see figure 1 is identical in the two papers? But in the 2014 paper hisograns are described as means +/- SEM from three independent experiments and in 2017 as means +/- SEM of five independent experiments? http://www.oapublishinglondon.com/article/1368

And:

Brazen self-plagiarism of the open access 2014 paper’s Fig. 1 is a key find by the human commentator. Especially since it is not in PubMed (though it is Ref. 166 here). This means that they have used certain elements of a single gel four times in three years: Nice work if you can get it.

Here is the direct link to 2014 Fig. 1

http://www.oapublishinglondon.com/images/html_figures/1368_346.png

The licence for the 2014 paper states “Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY)”. Unfortunately, the 2017 recycling of Fig. 1 is neither creative nor is it attributed.

What this means is that Elsevier were misled regarding the copyright situation and the originality of the work. So this finding surely gives the 2017 publisher a get out of jail card. If they choose to play it, they can now unilaterally withdraw this embarrassing Anti-vaxxer concoction on these grounds alone.

Don’t forget to archive the two papers for your records: They might disappear from the publishers’ web sites at some point.

And that's still not all. Let's take a visit to our scaly friend, Skeptical Raptor, where he notes that The Mad Virologist and the Blood-Brain Barrier Scientist jointly analyzed the paper and found:

But there are six other key points that limit what conclusions can be drawn from this paper:

They selected genes based on old literature and ignored newer publications.

The method for PCR quantification is imprecise and cannot be used as an absolute quantification of expression of the selected genes.

They used inappropriate statistical tests that are more prone to giving significant results which is possibly why they were selected.

Their dosing regime for the mice makes assumptions on the development of mice that are not correct.

They gave the mice far more aluminum sooner than the vaccine schedule exposes children to.

There are irregularities in both the semi-quantitative RT-PCR and Western blot data that strongly suggests that these images were fabricated. This is probably the most damning thing about the paper. If the data were manipulated and images fabricated, then the paper needs to be retracted and UBC needs to do an investigation into research misconduct by the Shaw lab.

Taken together, we cannot trust Shaw’s work here and if we were the people funding this work, we’d be incredibly ticked off because they just threw away money that could have done some good but was instead wasted frivolously. Maybe there’s a benign explanation for the irregularities that we’ve observed, but until these concerns are addressed this paper cannot be trusted.

I note that they go into even more detail about the problems with the images that have led me (and others) to be suspicious of image manipulation, concluding:

These are some serious concerns that raise the credibility of this study and can only be addressed by providing a full-resolution (300 dpi) of the original blots (X-ray films or the original picture file generated by the gel acquisition camera).

There has been a lot of chatter on PubPeer discussing this paper and many duplicated bands and other irregularities have been identified by the users there. If anyone is unsure of how accurate the results are, we strongly suggest looking at what has been identified on PubPeer as it suggests that the results are not entirely accurate and until the original gels and Western blots have been provided, it looks like the results were manufactured in Photoshop.

I agree. Oh, and I agree with their criticism of the use of statistics. I even brought up their failure to control for multiple comparisons, but Shaw and Tomljenovic also used a test that is appropriate for a normal distribution when their data obviously did not follow a normal distribution.

So, my dear readers, it turns out that Orac, as Insolent as he can be when slapping down bad science by antivaxers, was not nearly Insolent enough in this case. Mea culpa. I should have known better, given Shaw and Tomljenovic's history. Not only do we have poorly done and analyzed experiments, but we also have self-plagiarism and, quite possibly, scientific fraud. Only releasing the full resolution original images from the original experiments (which are now probably four years old) can put these questions to rest.

Science matters. I hate to see it abused like this, particularly when experimental animals are killed in the service of such awful science.

oracknows Wed, 09/27/2017 - 01:00

Tags

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

Categories

Well, for all we know now, they may have never touched a mouse, but just copied their gels together from something they found on the web. This looks really bad.

Oh man. I used to check images like these for a journal, and this, uh, looks suspicious. I can't believe no one queried these images before publication.

So not only are the methods and statistical analysis flawed but there might be evidence for outright fraud (sounds like another retracted paper we all know). Yet places like the National Vaccine (Mis)Information Archive are spreading this as definitive evidence.

A. If there was manipulation of the images, the university should respond.

B. Shaw, Meehan - is there any link between ophthalmology and being anti vaccine? I expect that's unfair to most ophthalmologists, but wonder.

Orac writes,

Not only do we have poorly done and analyzed experiments, but we also have self-plagiarism and, quite possibly, scientific fraud.

MJD says,

This is, quite possibly, Orac's best re-review!

In summary, when discovered and placed in the public domain, circumstantial evidence (e.g., questionable DNA gels and Western blot films) of scientistic fraud can damage or end the careers of researchers who, without a doubt, have been shown to engage in it.

It's my understanding that Shaw is a tenured full professor at UBC. It's also my understanding that one of the grounds for revoking tenure is academic fraud.

Just sayin"...

It’s my understanding that Shaw is a tenured full professor at UBC. It’s also my understanding that one of the grounds for revoking tenure is academic fraud.

It tends to get pinned on the most junior researcher. (I note that Yongling Li seems to have departed Shaw's group, as well.)

Shaw, Meehan – is there any link between ophthalmology and being anti vaccine? I expect that’s unfair to most ophthalmologists, but wonder.

I don't know who Meehan is, but Shaw does not have an MD and is in no respects an ophthalmologist. Anyway, antivaccinosis can strike indiscriminately. For instance: pediatrics (Sears, Mendelsohn), Gastoenterology (Wakefield), Neurosurgery (Blaylock), Pathology (Sin Hang Lee).

It tends to get pinned on the most junior researcher.

One would think that a succession of junior researchers pinned with academic fraud after having collaborated with the same senior researcher would be a great big red flag for any junior researcher who actually wants to have a future in the field.

Given Shaw's research interests, I'm tempted to think that perhaps he was bestowed upon the Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences department by means of a lateral transfer from another department that didn't want to keep him.

When it comes to poor quality images, particularly when compression artifacts are quite apparent, I'm perfectly happy to wish a pox on both houses - the authors for submitting crap or failing to take the publisher to task for wrecking that which was good when submitted, and the publisher for doing the latter or failing to take the author to task for submitting crap. I'da thunk someone in a dep't with "Visual Sciences" in the name might be a little hyper-vigilant regarding such matters.

We seem to have made a transition from the days when "white space" was regarded as sacred and actual useful content profane to an age of just plain incompetence and/or indifference.

While poor images are set in stone (or a polymer coating a sheet of aluminum) for printed publications, there is simply no excuse for allowing them to persist in electronic publications. Decent digital images can make rather large files, but I doubt that many journal articles are delivered via dial-up.

Of course fabulous images don't make up for poor research.

"2.The method for PCR quantification is imprecise and cannot be used as an absolute quantification of expression of the selected genes."

That is the first thing I thought. 20 years ago, there might be a reason for doing gels (heck, 10 years ago I was doing syber green in an academic lab, because probes were too expensive but gels are too imprecise), but these days, qRT-PCR machines have been around for a long time, and probes are absurdly cheap ($1.20 a reaction for a basic Taqman). Most if not all of those genes are off-the-shelf assays.

Not that I'd trust these fooks to do qRT-PCR correctly.

Or run a negative control. If they did it in this paper, they didn't mention it.

Or use actin as a housekeeper, ffs.

And using a paired T-test for so dizam many comparisons.

Yeah, lousy paper even from just skimming it.

I should have said "when compression artifacts are detrimental" instead of "... apparent" - some a just ugly but don't mask important content.

Orac,

Thanks

Just plain thanks for all you do

(I note that Yongling Li seems to have departed Shaw’s group, as well.)

Yongling Li coauthored the 2013 paper with behavioural results for the same mice, but wasn't involved in the 2014 "OA Autism" paper. OTOH, Dan Li was coauthor in 2014 and 2017... also yet another review-shaped self-plagiarism:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25428645
"Are there negative CNS impacts of aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines and immunotherapy?"
[Contains Figure 1 again]

The Acknowledgements could be read as a CYA positioning of the lab staff to take any blame:

We are also grateful to Agripina Suarez and other laboratory members for their assistance.

It's on Researchgate if anyone wants to quantify the degree of self-plagiarism:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268880246_Are_there_negative_C…

That band removed is not a compression artefact. Compression artefacts don't quite look like that. That is a clear case of photoshop. Photoshopping gels bands should lead to immediate retraction. Let's see what the journal editor does.

But what gets me is why bother with all the copying and pasting of bands. If they were going to just make it up, they could go the Judy Mikovits approach and just rename the bands as they wished.

In response to T. Bruce: Dr. Meehan is an Oklahoma doc trained in ophthalmology whose antivax views got taken down here:

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/jim-meehan-anti…

Let's not forget the most prominent ophthalmologist who's encouraged antivax idiocy - Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

I wondered the same thing, Chris. Maybe they did both?

The Photoshop is easy to see (once you start to look for it), but other that trying to replicate the study, how could you prove or disprove something like renaming (or, to call it what it is, flat out lying)?

I'm glad to know I wasn't imagining things when I looked at the bands and thought, "They look like the same sample to me."

Orac is too kind when he calls this science. This isn't science. It's science fiction.

Off topic, so you can delete this when you see it, but I know you will be most pleased with this news from Australia:

"Fake wellness blogger Belle Gibson has been ordered to pay a fine of $410,000 after being found guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct earlier this year.

The Federal Court in Melbourne found she misled her readers when she claimed her brain cancer was cured through alternative therapies and nutrition.

It was later revealed she never had the disease."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/disgraced-wellness-blogger-belle-…

I wondered the same thing, Chris. Maybe they did both?

The Photoshop is easy to see (once you start to look for it), but other that trying to replicate the study, how could you prove or disprove something like renaming (or, to call it what it is, flat out lying)?

Well it was all made up, but given how easy detecting photoshopping of gels has become, why risk that. I suppose if you are inventing stuff already, you don't think of these things.

The renaming of lanes is in fact really hard to work out unless you have expertise with those specific genes/proteins. Mikovits' paper didn't pass the smell test when I read it, but it was really hard to put your finger on where the fraud was. A clear indication of a problem was that numbers of individuals in the paper and the supplementary information didn't match, and didn't match with Judy's public statements, but what did that mean?

It was only when Judy decided to use the same photo in a conference presentation with different labels on the lanes that it became obvious the sort of chicanery in operation and that the photo in the paper wasn't what they claimed it was. In the end it turned out that the blot was something else again and had been repurposed twice.

Meehan is an anti-vaccine loon who deserves to lose his medical license for the voluminous amount of dangerous stupid he spews. On the bright side, he overstepped his big mouth last year attacking physicians who promote vaccines and Meehan now has a libel case pending against him brought by a physician he slandered.

Shaw et al made stuff up about their control mice, too. In Table 1 they state that control mice received their saline injections on Days 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 17 -- same as the Al-exposed group. The trouble is that in Table 2 of the earlier 2013 report of the same experiment, the controls only received five injections, on 2, 4,, 9, 11, 16.

In Table 1 they state that control mice received their saline injections on Days 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 17 — same as the Al-exposed group. The trouble is that in Table 2 of the earlier 2013 report of the same experiment, the controls only received five injections, on 2, 4,, 9, 11, 16.

What is a day between friends?

Oh and Dan of Vaccine Papers tells me Shaw is going to retract the paper.

Perhaps it has got too embarrassing.

Elsevier management were already talking to the journal editors about minimising damage to their reputation, so one way or the other, the paper will not be around for long,

Even without the fakery it was a crap paper.

It just doesn't stop. In the original 2013 description:

The general development of mice was monitored by systematic recording of their weights from week 1 till the time of sacrifice (week 34).

In the 2017 account:

At 16 weeks of age the mice were euthanized and the brain tissues were collected for gene expression profiling experiments.

If you don't know whether your mice were 16 weeks or 34 weeks old when you killed them, it could be time to change careers.

I'd like to think that maybe not as many mice were needlessly killed for Shaw's current paper, but more likely they killed at least as many as stated in the paper before deciding to fake it all up.

@ #28 Chris Preston

Oh and Dan of Vaccine Papers tells me Shaw is going to retract the paper.

One can only hope a withdrawn publication full of falsified data and even self-plagiarising still counts as fraud.

If you don’t know whether your mice were 16 weeks or 34 weeks old when you killed them, it could be time to change careers.

Well, maybe they went the whole hog fraud-wise, and they didn't even use let alone kill mice in the first place, but just made things up over a few beers kale smoothies or so...

Anyway, if this is a fraud (and so far, it sure smells like one), it once again emphasizes the sheer stupidity of antivaccine people, even the ones with a sort of higher education. Did they really think that they would get this kind of clumsy mess past the science crowd unnoticed? And about this particular subject? They may as well put on bullseye pants and hand out shotguns...

Once again a study shows that vaccines improve health:

Contact: CDC Media Relations
(404) 639-3286

New study shows Tdap vaccination during pregnancy can prevent whooping cough in babies Less than half of pregnant women in the United States take advantage of vaccination
A new CDC study published today in Clinical Infectious Diseases reported that vaccination with whooping cough vaccine, Tdap, during the third trimester of pregnancy prevented more than three out of four (78 percent) cases of whooping cough (also known as pertussis) in babies younger than two months. However, only 49 percent of pregnant women who delivered between fall 2015 and spring 2016 received the vaccine. CDC recommends women get Tdap during each pregnancy to provide critical short-term protection to babies when they are most at risk for this life-threatening illness.
The study used data from 2011 through 2014 on babies younger than two months from six states. It found that mothers whose babies had whooping cough were less likely to have received Tdap during pregnancy. The study reported that, in addition to being 78 percent effective at preventing whooping cough, Tdap vaccination during the third trimester was 90 percent effective at preventing serious cases of whooping cough that require hospitalization.
“Women have such a great opportunity to help protect their babies before they enter the world by getting Tdap vaccine while pregnant,” said Nancy Messonnier, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “This study highlights how babies can benefit when their mothers get the vaccine and reinforces CDC’s recommendation for women to get Tdap vaccine in the third trimester of each pregnancy.”
Read More Here

Orac is correct. The paper was a fraud.

Of course, there should be an investigation ASAP.

I can't believe anyone actually takes anything written by Shaw and Tomljenovic seriously anymore.

VP@36, That is a laudable admission. Will you now scrutinise Shaw et al.'s other studies and consider the criticism leveled at those?

In April 2016 the 10th Int.Congress on Autoimmunity took place in Leipzig -Germany.

http://autoimmunity.kenes.com/2016#.Wc-yO9FpGM8

Within this event the 4th International Symposium on Vaccines took place- sponsored by the antii-vaccine Dwoskin-Family Foundation and their CMSRI -"research" Institute.

The programm of this symposium can be found here

http://autoimmunity.kenes.com/Documents/4th%20International%20Symposium…

Chaired by C Dwoskin and Chris Exley (The Aluminium "expert" ) they also had a panel discussion with Lucia Tomljenovic and C Exley with the following questions:

"1.Why do you think that the authorities are trying to hide the truth?
2.What is the objective evidence that HPV vaccination is not justified?
3.What do you think, are the mechanisms by which vaccine can induce autoimmunity?"

So all authorities on this globe are hiding the truth- such wording is typical for any conspiracy theory in this case it is the anti-vaccine movement including their fraudulent "publications"

Will you now scrutinise Shaw et al.’s other studies and consider the criticism leveled at those?

In particular, his two 2014 publications -- in OA Autism and Immunotherapy -- which used the same Figure 1 with all its problematic features (such as the statistical absurdity of adding standard-error bars and applying t-tests to samples involving only three measurements). Do you find them convincing? Would you include them in the Vaccine Papers archives? Would you advise Shaw to retract them?

In April 2016 the 10th Int.Congress on Autoimmunity took place in Leipzig -Germany.

And Mark Geier was there, having abandoned his mercury / chelation grift in order to climb aboard the aluminium scamwagon. I would have thought that the other panelists would have felt slightly abashed to be sharing the podium with such an out-and-out charlatan, but evidently one must abandon all sense of shame to batten onto Dwoskin money.

Just received an email:
"The paper by Shaw and co-workers is being retracted jointly by the authors and the editor.

John Dawson, JIB Editor"

Pleased it'll be retracted; frankly gutted it was ever published...
Cheers!

The Orbital Laser Cannon of Pubpeer Correction is firm but fair.

#42 Magdalen -
Thanks.
I 1st saw news of the retraction via RtAVM:
https://www.facebook.com/RtAVM/posts/1715728805163788
who cited a guest post by Smut Clyde at Leonid Schneider's blog:
https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/29/the-rise-and-fall-of-an-antivax…
.
At the very bottom is this update:
Update 8.10.2017. The Editor-in-Chief John Dawson wrote me back, with this signed one-liner (no “Dear Dr Schneider”, or “Hi Leonid”):
- “The paper by Shaw and co-workers is being retracted jointly by the authors and the editor.
— John Dawson, JIB Editor”"
.
Now the question remains as to what is going to happen to the authors of this scam. I predict UBC will defend their right to publish alternative facts.

Good news on the retraction and here is hoping a certain anti vac tenured pseudoscientist at ubc gets sacked

I wonder how they will explain this particular retraction.

It is gratifying to see that Clare Dwoskin et al. are getting exactly what they paid for. Although it's a shame that benefactors would rather fund sloppy, fraudulent science than bestow their largesse on worthy autism causes.

Per RW: "We immediately did our own analysis. Indeed, some images have been altered. How that happened, we don’t know."

Don't worry, Christopher, you'll "figure it out" in short order. And republish in OMICS or something.

Someone here said the post-doc would be thrown under-the-bus:

Shaw said that first author Dan Li, a former postdoc who performed the molecular biology and gene expression analysis for the study, has agreed to the retraction but not yet offered an official explanation about the data. Shaw told us:

"She denied that anything had been manipulated, or that anything was amiss".

http://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/09/journal-retract-paper-called-anti…

Worth the read as Shaw's Pollyanna routine is maddening.

It would be xmas come early if it turned out Dan Li absconded with the original data (that wasn't fraudulent) to CYA for the two studies that were published with fraudulent data by Shaw and Tomljenovic.

I didn't know where to put this.
http://www.cracked.com/article_25057_6-conspiracy-theorists-who-got-own…

Torturing more mice in the name of antivaccine pseudoscience, 2017 aluminum edition

oracknows — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:00:11 +0000

Torturing more mice in the name of antivaccine pseudoscience, 2017 aluminum edition

"Why, oh, why do I have to die in the cause of such crappy science?"

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.

oracknows Thu, 09/21/2017 - 01:00

Tags

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

Categories

What is shameful is this "research" gets published at all. Lack of blinding is inexcusable. Reference 41 is cited to show that aluminum from vaccines is found in the brains of mice (https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-99). Reading this reference 41, there is also no mention of blinding in looking at the brain slices of mice who received aluminum versus those who did not (and aluminum deposition was found in both control and aluminum-injected groups). Furthermore they explain away an anomalous finding in the aluminum found in rat brains over time as "was either due to interindividual variations in aluminum handling or to sampling problems related to variable proportions of grey and white matter in the randomly scanned areas (see below)". Say what?

Sadly, each one of these poorly done papers (almost always from the same anti-vaccine biased groups) is used to bootstrap the next poorly done paper and even though we know it's a pile of poop (rather than a staircase to understanding), some parents will be fooled by the growing number of these crappy papers into believing vaccines cause autism.

I'm slightly confused by this anyway, surely aluminum adjuvants are chosen because they stimulate the immune system at the same time that the antigens in the vaccine are given. Why wouldn't you see activation of immune system genes when they are supposed to trigger that?

As for the handwaving in the diagram of "innate immunity -> autism" *sigh*

"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."

Indeed they are experts at committing the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts."

Indeed they are "experts" at committing the logical fallacy of "moving the goal-posts."

In the case of Shaw and Tomljenovic's work, the term "fishing expedition" is better understood in the political rather than the scientific sense of the word. Like the sport fisherman who is looking for a trophy and doesn't much care whether it's salmon, swordfish, or sharks with fricking laser beams, Shaw and Tomljenovic are looking for something that they can blame on vaccines, and they don't much care what it is as long as they find something. That's like the investigations of President Clinton, which after many years and many millions of dollars came up with an instance where Clinton lied about a consensual extramarital affair.

I was aware that Shaw and Tomljenovic are affiliated with UBC but didn't know the detail that they are specifically in the ophthalmology department. I can't resist observing in this context that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

If you going to blame a metal, these eye docs should at least blame the most common metal in the universe and in our bodies.

Hydrogen is a metal and it makes up a good portion of what we are and is everywhere in the body.

I say we start a campaign to ban hydrogen from our bodies (I am being just a tad snarky).

I'd almost suggest a sort of "Three Strike" system for clowns like this: three bad papers, all trying to prove the same thing? One academic title stripped (or some other sanction).
I recall several people with a real academic background who apparently dedicate their entire career trying to prove the unprovable, e.g. Soffritti with his never-ending crusade against aspartame, and Séralini chasing his GMO/Roundup mirage - and they fail every time (which in fact should be enough of a sanction, but somehow that doesn't deter them to keep going at it again and again and again...).

. . . assuring me that antivaxers would be citing it for a long time. . . .

They got that part right. Don't antivaxers cite any "study that ever supported their views, no matter how twisted, forever?

. . . assuring me that antivaxers would be citing it for a long time. . . .

They got that right. Don't the antivaxers cite every "study" that supports their views, no matter how twisted, forever?

Orac writes,

Basically, this study adds little or nothing to our understanding of autism or even the potential effects of aluminum adjuvants.

MJD says,

"Little" or "nothing", which one is it?

If the answer is "little", then, this research could be considered an incremental step towards the etiology of ASD.

It appears you've intentionally given your antivax admirer a reason for hope by using the word "little", but, at the same time appeased your fan-base with the word "nothing".

Sorry for the double (and wrongly typed name) double post. Need more coffee and less cat in lap.

Rich@3: As I am sure you and other RI commenters are aware, vaccines contain significant amounts of dihydrogen monoxide. So do malignant tumors. That's some dangerous stuff!

"Little" = what happens when you overdose mice on Aluminum.....

Besides being a normal conversational gambit, there is actually some things to be learned from this so called study. One: People should perform research within there skill set; I wouldn't expect Orac to write a paper of positron spin positions, just as I don't expect eye doctors to do research on autism. This is also a good example of how not to perform and write a research paper.

Eric, isn't that a good reason to ban hydrogen to prevent hydrogen metal poisoning?

I read this paper and looked at the figures (in high resolution even) and I have so many questions. Looking at the IFNG mRNA in males (Fig1A) vs. females (Fig2A). Males show increased IFNG transcription in response to Al, but the control females have just as much IFNG mRNA as Al-treated females. So female control female mice just have IFNG expression in their brain vs male mice? In their western blots there is a band in the control mice for pair 2 and in the blots of individual brain regions (Fig 5). They only show 2 bands for the mRNA expression which is misleading if they have that much variation.

IL-4 and IL-5 aren't NF-KappaB targets to my knowledge. In fact some studies show that IL-4 suppresses NF-KappaB signaling.

That Figure 6, IFNG and TNFaren't chemokines. IL-4 is primarily involved in T and B responses.IL-4 actually makes macrophages/microglia become less inflammatory.

# 8 Rich Bly
isn’t that a good reason to ban hydrogen
We don't know' All the participants just keep floating off like a cloud.

@ 2 Eric Lund

Christopher Shaw, a professor in the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at UBC. Prof. Shaw, who is chair of the CMSRI's scientific advisory board, frequently collaborates with Lucija Tomljenovic, a post-doctoral research fellow in the department.

. Organizations that promote messages about the dangers of vaccines, such as the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), have used the results of University of British Columbia research as evidence that vaccines cause autism and other serious harm.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/ubc-sta…;

Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute http://www.cmsri.org/

I would like to point out that the diagram from the paper looks like a mouse, except the brain is in its ass. That's quite the Freudian slip there.

Organizations that promote messages about the dangers of vaccines, such as the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), have used the results of University of British Columbia research as evidence that vaccines cause autism and other serious harm.

The paper does cite the Dwoskin Foundation for funding. You can see it as the production wing of an integrated marketing operation.

“Little” = what happens when you overdose mice on Aluminum…..

Stuart Little was an autistic mouse? NOOOO!!

And
Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Tomljenovic About Vaccine Adjuvants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVJkzWXG6CQ

Reference 41 is cited to show that aluminum from vaccines is found in the brains of mice (https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-99).

Imagine my surprise to find that the peer reviewers of that earlier work were (a) Christopher Shaw, and (b) Carlo Perricone. The latter is another of the Circle of True Believers, who can be found regularly co-authoring with Shoenfeld & Tomljenovic, or favourably reviewing other papers from the group for Frontiers journals. The level of intellectual inbreeding is such that their brains are growing sixth fingers. Funded yet again by the Dwoskin Foundation.

It was not clear to me who nominates & selects reviewers in the BMC model.

I was aware that Shaw and Tomljenovic are affiliated with UBC but didn’t know the detail that they are specifically in the ophthalmology department.

He seems to have started to go off the rails around 2010 with a middling publication record beforehand (NB: not all the same Shaw). This item has his affiliation as "University of British Columbia, Departments of Ophthalmology and Medical Science, Experimental Medicine, and Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada."

^ Dammit: "around 2010"

Indignation alert.

^ Jesus, I must need more coffee. This, I hope, is the indignant letter to Toxicology that's in press.

No, the SB monkeys have simply f*cked something up.

doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2017.09.010

Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute

Readers will recall that CMSRI funded Mawson's internet survey on vaccination sequelae, paid for its abortinve publication in Frontiers, then paid again to have it squeezed out through a pukefunnel from a particularly skeezy mendacious publishing parasite, in order that they could proclaim its results at AutismOne.

https://lbrbblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/cnn-money.png

This, I hope, is the indignant letter to Toxicology that’s in press.

Goodness me, that is some serious whiny-arsed whinging there. The authors' amour propre has been dissed and needs a ride on the waahmbulance.

In related news, Exley is not antivaccine* and was trying to crowdsource £500,000+ to demonstrate that aluminum causes Alzheimer disease.** For CMSRI. And to sell silicon water, or something.

* hippocraticpost.com/infection-disease/aluminium-adjuvants-vaccines/
** futsci.com/project/the-aluminium-alzheimer-s-disease-hypothesis-what-is-the-role-of-aluminium-in-alzheimers-disease

^ The list of backers on that failed attempt contains some familiar names, as well. Gotta love Robert "I have to pay and wait for overbroad FOIA requests?" Krakow.

No, the SB monkeys have simply f*cked something up.

I don't know what happened, but a whole lot of legitimate comments got flagged not just for moderation, but as spam. They were dumped into the spam folder. It looks like it's been going on about a day and a half; i.e., since yesterday morning sometime. I've released and published all of the non-spam posts that got hung up. I have no idea what happened. All I can do is to try to keep an eye on the spam folder again to make sure no one whose comment gets flagged as spam has to wait too long for his or her comment to publish. That's all I can do.

Orac, you just need everyone to switch to Al free adjuvants in their posts, or is that mouse free?

The antivax movement has started making it's way into the veterinary profession. We had a client that we eventually turned away because she refused to get a rabies vaccine for her dog (her children weren't vaccinated either). We have many people that only get the rabies vaccine and none of the others. It's very unfortunate when a puppy (and I rare occasion adult dog) comes in with Parvo (an often times fatal disease) when there's a vaccine for that.

@ herr doktor bimler #22: AVers have figured out how to bootstrap their bullsh*t. It's a flimsy house of cards but all they have to do is scare a few percent of parents out of vaccinating and then they have the vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks they so badly crave as proofz that vaccines don't work.

Despicable.

People should perform research within there skill set; I wouldn’t expect Orac to write a paper of positron spin positions, just as I don’t expect eye doctors to do research on autism.

I am not going to demand strict demarcation of specialities. But if I wrote a paper on immune responses and autism, I probably wouldn't sent it to "Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry", unless I wanted to avoid referees with expertise in autism or immunology or neurology.

Does anyone know what Dr. Tomljenovic is doing these days? A google search places her at British Colombia, but she doesn't have tenure, unlike Prof. Shaw, does she?

@Dorit Reiss:
The UBC Faculty as of 2017-2018 still lists Tomljenovic as a postdoc. From what I can tell she started at UBC as a postdoc in 2011. Seems to me like a long time to be stuck there , however the Dwoskin and CMSRI money continues to flow.
As a UBC medical alumnus, I hang my head in shame.

Jessica @34
I was a vet tech for 6 years, the last 18 months of which I was in emergency medicine. Parvo is a horrific disease, capable of killing even the healthiest of pups. The idea of people not vaccinating their dogs infuriates me to no end. If not vaccinating your kids is abuse, not vaccinating your dogs is just as abusive. What is worse is that kids are covered by their parents insurance (if they have it). Pets less frequently are covered.

Vaccines are not just "The One True Cause Of All Childhood Health Problems" to antivaxers. They are the only cause of all health problems. Before vaccines, all humans needed was clean water and clean food. Not vaccines. Vaccines are the cause of all the world's evils, in the mind of the antivaxer. Even the unvaxed are doomed because one's mother's vaccines will affects one's health. Now, if you are misfortunate enough to have ill effects from vaccines sometime in your recent multigenerational past, all you need to do is take $987 worth of supplements daily and $1000 in organic food daily. Of course, you also need the water filtration system and the air purifier and the tanning bed. Also, David Avocado Wolfe has some pillow covers to sell you.

(tongue in cheek)

@ chris hickie "Bootstrap their bullsh*t" Is that one of yours? Hilarious. Here in Australia at least our Health Minister calls out antivaxers and antivax Doctors. One even got his licence suspended or revoked - i forget - aww poor anitvaxer. Orac and his SBM colleagues do a great job. Never stop.

@ jkrideau - good article in the Globe there, i particularly like the equating of anti-vaccine to an 'ethnic or racial slur' by our aggrieved professor of aluminum and eyeballs. As another prof in the interview says there is academic freedom but there is also academic responsibility. Not a lot of responsibility in these two but delusions are powerful things.

Kathy (#40) beat me to it. I was going to cite the "multigenerational effects" of vaccines, since only vaccines could possibly cause health problems, if your unvax'd kid has something, it must be due to your vaccine history (or your mom's, I don't know how far back it goes!)

On the subject of mouse studies, though. I frequently cite this one:
Neurotoxicology. 2008 Jan;29(1):160-9. Epub 2007 Nov 1. Links
Neonatal exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) causes neurobehavioural defects in adult mice.
Johansson N, Fredriksson A, Eriksson P.

Authors do not claim autism per se, but note behavioral changes. In my house we use cast iron. Never see the antivaxxers using it, though. Of course, it does not implicate vaccines, so can not possibly be relevant to their obsession.

The "one true cause"? LOL. Clever use of hyperbole. I sure hope people know better than to rely on blogs like this to tell them what the arguments against vaccines are and why they are wrong. It's as reliable as listening to only one side of a debate, and trusting them to tell you honestly why they won. :D

OK, I was not too offended by my comments vanishing into the aether, but NWO gets posted and mine don't? Now I am sad.

@ #43
From reading articles and comments posted by anti-vaxxers themselves, it's not that much of an exaggeration/hyperbole to summarize their arguments as such.

NWOR -

Here's a list of conditions that anti-vexers have claimed are caused by vaccines.

Is there anything on this list that you are willing to say 'No, vaccines do not cause that'.

Acute flaccid paralysis
ADD
ADEM
AIDS
Allergies
ALS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis)
Alzheimer's
Anaphylaxis
Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS)
Aplastic anemia
Apnea
Appetite, anorexia
Arthritis
Asthma
Autism
Autoimmune diseases
Bell's Palsy
Birth defects
Blood Reactions
Bowel disease
Brain damage
Brain Swelling
BSE risk
Bullous pemphigoid
Cancer
Cerebral Palsy
CFIDS/ME
Chronic inflammatory
CIC (Klinkers)
CJD risk
Coeliac Disease
Convulsions
Criminality
Crohn's Disease
Cysts
Death
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
Demyelination
Demylenating Polyneuropathy (CIDP).
Depression
Dermatomyositis
Development disability
Diabetes
Down's syndrome
Dravet Syndrome
Dyslexia
Dystonia
Ear infections (Otitis Media)
Eczema
Encephalitis, Encephalopathy
Encephalomyelitis
Epilepsy
Erysipelas
Erythema multiforme
Eye damage
Fanconi's anemia
Feline sarcomas
Fever
Fibromyalgia
Foetal damage & death
Foot and mouth disease
Gait disturbances
Gangrene
Gastroenteritis
Glomerulonephritis
Graves' disease
Guillain-Barre syndrome
Gulf War Syndrome
Hair loss
Headache
Hearing loss
Heart damage
Heller's syndrome
Hemolytic anemia
Henoch-Schoenlein Purpura
Hepatitis
Hughes syndrome and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS)
Hyperkinetic syndrome
Immune Suppression
Infections
Infertility
Inflammatory bowel disease
Intussusception
Kawasaki Syndrome
Kidney disorders
Lennox-gastaut syndrome
Leprosy
Leukemia & lymphoma
Lichen planus
Liver disorders
Lou Gehrig's disease
Lung, breathing issues
Lupus
Lycanthropy
Lyell's syndrome
Lyme disease
Lymphoma
Macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF)
Meningitis
Meningoencephalitis
Menopause
Miscarriage
Mitichondrial Disorder
MS
Mumps
Myasthenia gravis
Myocarditis
Narcolepsy
Nervous system damage
Neurological
Obesity
Optic Neuritis
Orchitis
Osteoporosis
Otitis Media
Pancreatitis
Pancytopenia
Panic Attacks
Panniculitis
Parkinsonism
Peanut Allergy
Pericarditis
Pneumonia
Polio
POTS
Premature ovarian failure (POF)/premature menopause
Psoriasis
Renal
Respiratory
RSV
Sarcomas (feline)
Scleroderma
Scoliosis
Seizures
Serum Sickness
Shaken Baby Syndrome
Shingles
SIDS
Sinusitis
Skin disorders
Smallpox
Spanish Flu
SSPE
Sterilization
Stevens-Johnson syndrome
Sudden death
Suicide
Syphilis
TB
Tetanus
Thrombocytopenia purpura
Tics
Tonsillitis
Tourette's Syndrome
Transverse myelitis
Typhoid
Uveitis
Vaccinia
Vasculitis
Vasculomyelinopathy
Violent Behaviour
Whooping cough

In other anti-vax news/ torturing...

I've been hearing about a new documentary about AJW which is advertised as though it were 'balanced' ( famous last word I know)- my initial reaction seems to be realistic:
it is most likely pure Andy worship again.

There's an article by GInger Taylor @ AoA as well as one at briandeer.com about Miranda Bailey, the film maker.

Guess which one makes sense.

From what I can tell she started at UBC as a postdoc in 2011. Seems to me like a long time to be stuck there , however the Dwoskin and CMSRI money continues to flow.

She did a stint midway with Shoenfeld, as I recall.

No, the SB monkeys have simply f*cked something up.

I don’t know what happened, but a whole lot of legitimate comments got flagged not just for moderation, but as spam.

I was referring to the prepending of the page URL that was breaking embedded links.

There's some interesting comments on FB about this study. In one comment thread, for instance, suspicions have been raised that one of the blots was altered. There is also discussion of how the authors didn't look at IκB, which is key to what is known as the canonical NFκB pathway. I'm kicking myself for not having noticed that, given that I had an R01 from 2005-2010 in which NFκB was a major part. https://www.facebook.com/dorit.reiss/posts/10214563162377668?comment_id…

Here’s a list of conditions that anti-vexers have claimed are caused by vaccines.

Seems to be missing drug addiction, which is touted by one Benedetta over a AoA, IIRC.

^ "over at"

Johnny -- interesting list. If nothing else, it's bound to prompt some curiosity in the "vaccine hesitant" that will get them looking around for more information. That is, assuming they don't consider your sneering contempt to be evidence of anything. ;)

There’s some interesting comments on FB about this study. In one comment thread, for instance, suspicions have been raised that one of the blots was altered.

That came up at Pubpeer as well, though the "evidence" for a spliced / deleted band on one of the blots looks like jpg-compression artefacts to me.
I can't see the motivation for the authors to delete a band. As it is, the Figure shows TNF levels varying wildly among the Control animals (all the way down to 0)... implying that it has no biological significance. It's hard to image what a band could show that would be worse than that, and make it worth deleting.

Hey, I'm trying to build bridges here. I struggle to find the "sneering contempt" you mentioned. My post was simple, and had a simple request - here's a list, what doesn't belong.

If we can agree that there are just some things vaccines don't cause, maybe, just maybe, we can put an end to the idea that vaccines cause all problems, and then work to come to an agreement on the problems that vaccines do cause.

Surly there are things on the list that make you say 'No, there is no evidence that vaccines cause XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ , and anyone who believes otherwise is a silly person'. But if you insist that everything on the list might because by vaccines, then I think we would have to agree that Kathy is right after all.

As far as Narad's suggestion that my list is incomplete, I freely admit that it's possible, and in fact I admit it's likely, but I'm not interested in moving the goal posts. But if you want to start with drug addiction, well, it would be a start.

Reference 41 is cited

Ref. 116 omits the minor detail of journal and year:

[116] E.B. Mukaetova-Ladinska, J. Westwood, E.K. Perry

Are there no copy-editors at Elsevier any more??? [/rhetorical question]

Another self-citation of interest is

[166] C.A. Shaw, S. Sheth, D. Li, L. Tomljenovic, OA Autism 2 (2014) 11

"OA Autism" being a predatory journal from the publisher "OA Publishing London". Neuroskeptic delved into the skeezy grifters behind it, a few years ago:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/08/25/strange-rise-…

The publisher subsequently went t-u:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/03/11/when-publishe…

So I am grateful to Shaw et al. for reminding me of the whole entertaining episode.

don’t know what happened, but a whole lot of legitimate comments got flagged not just for moderation, but as spam..
Could some person relate this fact of checking the spam filter to Greg Laden? He's not been receiving comments for a few days now -- http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/09/19/hurricane-maria/

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/09/19/hurricane-maria/#respond

I guess, they are all in the spam folder.... pass it on.

Johnny, why don't you start by telling us which of the conditions on the list you posted you believe CAN be caused by vaccines.

That wouldn't prove anything.

To recap -

Kathy said "Vaccines are not just “The One True Cause Of All Childhood Health Problems” to antivaxers. They are the only cause of all health problems."

You laughed out loud at the idea (or so you claimed).

I give you a list of conditions that anti-vaxxers have blamed on vaccines, and ask if there are any that you don't believe are caused by vaccines, and you refuse to name any.

I can only conclude that you think it's a reasonable list. I just don't understand why you're embarrassed to say so.

Johnny said: "Hey, I’m trying to build bridges here." So start building. The obvious place to start is to ascertain the extent to which you disagree with the list you posted. So tell us which of the items on your list you agree can be caused by vaccines.

BTW, Johnny, your list had nothing to do a "one true cause." It was a list of conditions that some people allege CAN be caused by vaccines. I accepted for the sake of discussion that some people do, in fact, allege it. But presumably no one has ever alleged that vaccines are the "one true cause" of death, for example, which was one condition on your list.

I know I had a comment here. I think the spam filters acting u again.

I accepted for the sake of discussion that some people do, in fact, allege it.

Like you, it seems. A fair interpretation of this thread is that you believe that vaccines can cause all the conditions on that list. They truly are the wonder drug that work wonders.

You've made Kathy's point quite nicely.

Wow, Johnny, you're really doing somersaults to avoid telling us which conditions on your list you agree can be caused by vaccines. It's no mystery why. You have two choices here: to claim vaccines have no risks, which would destroy whatever credibility you might have; or publish a list of vaccine injuries that actually do happen. Which will be? Or will you move on to back flips? :D

Vaccines do have side effects. Here's a good list, broken down by vaccine type.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Now answer the question - is there any disease or condition that vaccines don't cause?

Johnny, go ahead and post a clean list of the vaccine injuries here, like you did for your first list. And if you want me to comment on your first list, post links to the sources you got them from (like you did for vaccine injuries acknowledged by the CDC) and I'll take a look. :)

Why should I do that? So you can move the bar again?

You've made your position, and intentions quite clear.

You even said "I accepted for the sake of discussion that some people do, in fact, allege it", and now I have to give citations that people have made the allegations.

Here, Johnny--I made a clean list of the vaccine injuries acknowledged by the CDC for you. Interestingly, they don't even include all the injuries that have been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. See how many bridges we've already built? Don't bother with the links if you don't want to--you'd only post the weakest links anyway.

Serious allergic reaction
Death
Permanent brain damage.
Long-term seizures
Coma
Lowered consciousness
Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Deafness
Pneumonia
Inflammation of the stomach or intestines
Intussusception (a type of bowel blockage)
Swelling, severe pain and/or bleeding in the arm
Severe long-lasting shoulder pain/difficulty moving the arm
Severe nervous system reaction
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach ache
Seizure (jerking or staring)
Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more
High fever, over 105°F
Fainting
Blood in the urine or stool

Johnny, we can add to our points of agreement the following acknowledged vaccine injuries listed on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Table that weren't already on the list of CDC acknowledged vaccine injuries I posted above. Interestingly, I'm getting a "page not found" error on this table now. Fortunately, I was able to find it on the WayBackMachine, dated 9-10-2017. :)

Anaphylaxis
Brachial Neuritis
Vasovagal syncope
Encephalopathy or encephalitis
Chronic arthritis
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Vaccine Strain Measles Viral Disease
Paralytic Polio
Vaccine Strain Polio Viral Infection
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
Disseminated varicella vaccine strain viral disease
Varicella vaccine strain viral reactivation

Of course, the injuries that have been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program are not limited to the injuries listed on the table. Maybe you can look up the rest of them for us, Johnny., so we can build more bridges. :)

Now NWOR, provide the PubMed indexed studies that show those vaccine side effects occur more often than they occur with the actual diseases.

Also, do provide at least the PubMed indexed case report of the paralytic polio happening with the IPV. Because the OPV has not been used in years.

Chris, are you saying you disagree with the CDC's list of acknowledged vaccine injuries, and/or the acknowledged vaccine injuries listed in the HRSA's Vaccine Injury Compensation Table? If so, it seems it is you who should have the burden of proving they're wrong. What vaccine injuries do you acknowledge occur? Let's help Johnny build bridges. :)

BTW, Chris, according to polioeradication dot org: "Oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) are the predominant vaccine used in the fight to eradicate polio." Are you saying the OPV isn't used in the industrialized world, so the injuries don't matter?

I disagree because you did not link to the documents. Plus the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is not part of the CDC, but with Health Resources and Services Administration.

Do you really thing the compensated claims are proof that the vaccines cause more harm than the diseases? You must have some kind of reading comprehension issue. So lets see how well you are at basic math word problems.

Check out their statistics:
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccinecompensation/data/…

Now go to the bottom of the first table to the row that says "Grand Total." The data first column is the total number of vaccines given in the stated time period (2,845,946,816 total vaccines). Now run your finger over to the number to the total compensated claims (2,976 claims). Now divide the first by the second number.

What is that number? What does it mean?

Also, go look at the compensated claims, tell us how many are under the "Settlement" column. What does that mean? Here is a hint: the second page of this pdf file has a section titled "Definitions." Learn how to use it.

Chris, did you get enough sleep last night? Johnny linked to the CDC's list of acknowledged vaccine injuries. And all you have to do to find the HRSA's Vaccine Injury Compensation Table is to search that term in any search engine, retrieve the link showing "page not found," and look it up on the WayBackMachine. It was just taken down, so the link still shows up on search engines.

I made a clean list of the vaccine injuries acknowledged by the CDC

Uh-huh.

Blood in the urine or stool

This, for example, is under adenovirus. Let's read:

"More serious problems have been reported by about 1 person in 100, within 6 months of vaccination. These problems included:

blood in the urine or stool
pneumonia
inflammation of the stomach or intestines

"It is not clear whether these mild or serious problems were caused by the vaccine or occurred after vaccination by chance."

I'm amazed that teh NWAD managed to squeeze out a comment without a fυcking brain-dead emoticon, though. Perhaps a case of wake 'n' bake.

And BTW, Chris, this discussion is not about the frequency of vaccine injuries--it's about reaching some agreement about which vaccine injuries actually occur. Johnny's trying to build bridges here, and all you're doing it interfering.

And all you have to do to find the HRSA’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Table is to search that term in any search engine, retrieve the link showing “page not found,” and look it up on the WayBackMachine.

Sweet Fυcking Christ, are you stupid. Did you ever try just searching for "vaccine injury table" and looking at one of the many fυcking links that work, such as this one? Do you remember how to read this sort of material, or has your lawyer brain-rot reached an advanced stage thanks to the expanding Earth?

So, NWOR, you really do not know how to do simple math word problems, even when the numbers are given to you.

And all I am trying to do is to get you to answer what is actually on that CDC link: the relative risk. So, tell us why you refuse to answer by just cut and pasting from the page that says for influenza (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#flu): "There may be a small increased risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after inactivated flu vaccine. This risk has been estimated at 1 or 2 additional cases per million people vaccinated. This is much lower than the risk of severe complications from flu, which can be prevented by flu vaccine."

You list GBS like it is common after the flu vaccine. But it is clearly not, and it actually more likely to happen from actually getting flu.

So you are either lying by omission, did not even read past the first page of that link give by Johnny, or just do not know how to read.

Narad, I really try to ignore you because I don't like picking on people who seem to be "special." But special or not, you are one of the rudest little twits to ever grace this page.

Chris, I guess we agree on one thing: the CDC is not a reliable source of information about vaccine risks. :)

So NWOR, where is the side effect of "paralytic polio" on the link provided by Johnny:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#polio

By the way, here is the injury compensation table at the actual HRSA site:
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/pre0320201…

Note that the only polio vaccine that it lists paralytic polio is OPV... and that is why it is not used in the USA anymore!

Did you even notice on that page that you had so much difficulty finding... that there were specific time conditions? No, of course not. You can't seem to figure out how to read table.

NWO Troll: "Chris, I guess we agree on one thing: the CDC is not a reliable source of information about vaccine risks."

Wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong. You misrepresented the risks, and did not link directly to your sources. When you were shown what you got was wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong... you claim the CDC is not reliable.

Again, you make stuff up and get upset that your "brilliant" interpretation turns out to be regurgitated bovine manure. Gah! You can't even find a calculator to do my little math story problem, because you cannot honestly answer with the actual results.

Narad, I really try to ignore you because I don’t like picking on people who seem to be “special.”

I'd love to see you give it a try, Ginny.

But special or not, you are one of the rudest little twits to ever grace this page.

You don't even inspire me, Johnnycakes. Simply observing that you're completely brain-dead requires very little creativity. You should have tried to become a Dreamlander rather than going to law school.

NWO Troll: "But special or not, you are one of the rudest little twits to ever grace this page."

Obviously "rudeness" is asking you questions that expose you as a liar. Especially the bit about pointing out you were literally cherry picking the CDC vaccine side effect page and the NVICP injury table... or more likely, not reading/understanding them.

Chis, you are such a liar. I misrepresented NOTHING--I quoted the vaccine injuries listed on the CDC's list of acknowledge vaccine injuries, and on the HRSA's Vaccine Injury Table VERBATIM. Dance around it all you want, but stop lying.

I quoted the vaccine injuries listed on the CDC’s list of acknowledge vaccine injuries, and on the HRSA’s Vaccine Injury Table VERBATIM

“It is not clear whether these mild or serious problems were caused by the vaccine or occurred after vaccination by chance.”

Are you unclear on the basic concept, 00795670?

Um, sure. Whatever you say, NWO Troll. I actually posted the link and the verbiage that you ignored. You actually posted words without context, which is form of misrepresentation. News flash: no one under the age of of seventeen is going to file for paralytic polio at the NVICP since it was removed from the American schedule in 2000.

So how are you doing with that little math word problem I gave you? Have you figured out that almost every device that can access the internet has a calculator? Do you know how to do fourth grade division problems?

NWO: "I guess we agree on one thing: the CDC is not a reliable source of information about vaccine risks.”
NWO: "I quoted the vaccine injuries listed on the CDC’s list of acknowledge vaccine injuries"

Why do you quote sources that (according to you) are unreliable?

In the interest of Credit where credit is due -

The list I posted at #48 is from Craig Egan. He developed the list, and took it to the Vaxxed bus, and issued the same simple challange I issued to NWOR, with the same results.

Anti-vaxers will not admit that there is a disease or condition that vaccines cannot cause, including Lycanthropy.

Hey, "Let's build bridges" Johnny is back! Here's a list of possible vaccine injuries from the CDC link you provided, and from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Table. Other types of vaccine injuries have been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, but it's a start. Which of them do you agree can be caused by vaccines? Let's match them up to your list of vaccine injuries alleged by those crazy anti-vaxxers, and build some bridges. :)

Anaphylaxis
Blood in the urine or stool
Brachial Neuritis
Coma
Chronic arthritis
Death
Deafness
Disseminated varicella vaccine strain viral disease
Encephalopathy or encephalitis
Fainting
Guillain-Barré Syndrome
High fever, over 105°F
Inflammation of the stomach or intestines
Intussusception (a type of bowel blockage)
Long-term seizures
Lowered consciousness
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach ache
Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more
Paralytic Polio
Permanent brain damage.
Pneumonia
Seizure (jerking or staring)
Serious allergic reaction
Severe long-lasting shoulder pain/difficulty moving the arm
Severe nervous system reaction
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
Swelling, severe pain and/or bleeding in the arm where the shot was given
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Vasovagal syncope
Vaccine Strain Measles Viral Disease
Vaccine Strain Polio Viral Infection
Varicella vaccine strain viral reactivation

Only if you'd be willing to accept the rate by which those severe adverse reactions have been confirmed.

Give it up, Ginny. You lost.

Lawrence, Johnny did not list any rates by which those alleged vaccine injuries occurred on his list. I'm trying to create an equivalent list to help Johnny build bridges, so let's stick to the issue presented.

About 1 in 1 million or less.

Good news, Johnny! I've revised my list to include *some* of the non-table injuries that have been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They sure don't make those easy to look up, so the list is still not complete. It includes: Possible vaccine injuries from the CDC link you provided; injuries listed on the Vaccine Injury Table; and some of the other vaccine injuries that have been compensated in the VICP. I can already see we're closer than ever to building those bridges you wanted to build. :)

Acute Inflammatory Neurological Injury
Acute Demyelinating Encephalomyelitis (ADEM)
Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis
Acute Hemorrhagic Leukoencephalomyelitis (AHLE)
Anaphylaxis
Bell's Palsy
Blood in the urine or stool
Brachial Neuritis
Brachial Plexopathy
Cardiac arrest
Cellulitis
Cerebral Palsy
Cognitive Delays
Coma
Connective Tissue Disease
Chronic arthritis
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
Death
Deafness
Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
Disseminated varicella vaccine strain viral disease
Encephalopathy or encephalitis
Fainting
Frozen Shoulder Syndrome
Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Hearing Loss
High fever, over 105°F
Inflammation of the stomach or intestines
Inflammatory Tendinitis
Intussusception (a type of bowel blockage)
Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis
Kleine-Levin Syndrome
Leukocytoclastic Vasculitis
Long-term seizures
Lowered consciousness
Lumbosacral Raduculoplexus Neuropathy (LSRPN)
Lymphangitis
Miller Fisher Syndrome
Multiple Sclerosis
Multi-Organ Failure
Myelopathy
Myositis
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach ache
Neuritis
Neuralgic Amyotrophy
Neurologic Injuries
Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO)
Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more
Optic Neuritis
Overactive Immune Response
Paralytic Polio
Paresthesias/Small Fiber Neuropathy
Parsonage Turner Syndrome
Peripheral Neuropathy
Permanent brain damage.
Pneumonia
Polyneuropathy
Psoriasiform Dermatitis
Radial Nerve Injury
Seizure (jerking or staring)
Serious allergic reaction
Severe long-lasting shoulder pain/difficulty moving the arm
Severe nervous system reaction
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
Spinal Cord Myelitis
Strep A infection
Swelling, severe pain and/or bleeding in the arm where the shot was given
Systemic Inflammatory Response
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Tinnitus
Toxic Shock
Transverse Myelitis
Vasovagal syncope
Vaccine Strain Measles Viral Disease
Vaccine Strain Polio Viral Infection
Varicella vaccine strain viral reactivation
Ventricular Fibrillation
Vision Loss

The vaccine court has compensated BILLIONS of dollars for "vasovagal syncope" and "fainting" alone.

Stop the madness!

NWO Troll: "Paralytic Polio"

Lather, rinse, repeat. So what vaccine is that listed for, and is it on the present American pediatric schedule.

NWO Troll continues to whine: "ohnny did not list any rates by which those alleged vaccine injuries occurred on his list."

Except they were clearly noted on that CDC page he linked to. You just have to actually read the words with a modicum of comprehension.

So, how are you doing with that little math story problem I gave you about the NVICP compensated claims versus total number of vaccines given? Did you forget all math you learned since third grade?

The list I posted over 50 comments ago, 18 by Ginny, wasn't about rates. The question was 'is there anything on this list that vaccines don't cause?'.

So far, Ginny hasn't listed a single thing, even the really easy one on the list.

I believe our non-USAian friends call that an 'own goal'.

Johnny, I see you are moving on to back flips to avoid answering the question you raised yourself. That is, the extent to which you agree or disagree with the list of vaccine injuries you posted. Yet you demand I answer the question you will not, while claiming to be "trying to build bridges." It's clear that many of the items on your list are vaccine injuries that have actually been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation System. Yet still, you refuse to answer your own question. You're quite a deceiver, although fortunately, not very good at it.

NWO Troll: "That is, the extent to which you agree or disagree with the list of vaccine injuries you posted."

Changing the question to what you want it to be, is not answering his question. It is a diversion, which is a form of lying. It is you being a deceiver.

Though quite an incompetent one, since the pertinent information has been given to you multiple times. But either you just choose to ignore the links and direct quotes, or you just do not understand how to read them.

"It’s clear that many of the items on your list are vaccine injuries that have actually been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation System."

So what? You keep saying that like it holds some form of scientific weight, it does not. It is obvious that you do not understand the definition of the word "settlement" when it comes to the NVICP, nor do you understand the significance of the ratio between the compensated claims and total number of given vaccines.

So have you figured out how to use a calculator to get that ratio?

Chris, there's no need to reiterate your point over and over. I get it: the oral polio vaccine is given to children around the world, but it isn't given to children in the US anymore, and therefore, the injuries it can cause are irrelevant. Don't blame me if it's still on the Vaccine Injury Table--take it up with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program if it outrages you so much.

Chris, if you're going to fight Johnny's battles for him, just answer the question Johnny raised but won't answer himself. Identify the injuries on the list that you agree vaccines can actually cause; or state that you believe vaccines can't cause any injuries. It's not complicated.

The sad part is that Teh NWAD isn't even a real antivaxxer; she's just some freakish hit-and-run, amateur crank who managed to get a nod from Mr. "CDC Whistleblower has been removed from the CDC premises by security" Rappoport.

Good news, Johnny! I’ve revised my list to include *some* of the non-table injuries that have been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They sure don’t make those easy to look up, so the list is still not complete.

Oh, dear, Gindo, you looked something up from "them" but didn't bother with the simple issue of case names and numbers? Is this how you draft memoranda, too?

NWO: Do you agree that drug addiction, ADD and allergies are also vaccine injuries? Also, would you like to explain why most people who claim to have vaccine injured children seem to have issues with reality and generally dislike their children? At this point, anti-vax seems a lot like a coverup for actively hating one's children. Or maybe it's just kids in general that they dislike.

NWO Troll: " I get it: the oral polio vaccine is given to children around the world, but it isn’t given to children in the US anymore,"

And your evidence for this is? Or are you just making assumptions. Anyway, you are using an American program with only American cases. Don't change the subject.

So what if it is still on the table. Only an idiot would not evaluate that table as noted historical data to encompass all of the NVICP statistics.

Now where are those answers to my little math story subject.

PGPig, people who turn on their allies if they cease to be useful are a particular kind of creepy. Everyone with a vaccine injured child was once pro-vaccine--that's why their child was vaccinated. The kind of parents you would be fawning over in your online comments, praising them for being responsible and caring parents because they vaccinate their child. Then their child is injured by a vaccine and you turn on them, accusing them of disliking or even hating their own children. You really are repugnant.

Chris, according to the CDC's page entitled Polio Vaccination: "OPV has not been used in the United States since 2000 but is still used in many parts of the world." Is the CDC lying again, or are you lying again, or do you just not know what you're talking about again?

According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative: "Oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) are the predominant vaccine used in the fight to eradicate polio." Waddayaknow--sounds like the CDC wasn't lying.

How many "vaccine injured" children do you have again, Gindo? I'm just trying to calibrate some sort of creepiness scale here, now that you've thoughtlessly invoked one.

NWO: Nope, I just call them as I see them. Most anti-vax people have a shaky enough relationship with the truth that it is doubtful whether they had their kids vaccinated in the first place, and a number of them have turned around and blamed their PARENTs for their kid's problems. Which suggests that they have the problem. I got no time for the problems of queen bee meanies and their drones. They need to grow up and leave high school. (You too. Speaking of creepy, if you're a 'grandmother' why do you act like a high school sophomore on a sugar bender?)

As for the few parents that I know, including one of my sibs, my influence isn't that great, but I do try to be responsible for myself. I got my DTAP and will likely be getting my flu vaccine this year, because an adult should care about the kids in their life, even if they aren't the parents of those kids.

NWO Troll,

What parts of the world? And why do you care about them?
Perhaps you should do your pearl clutching at the World Health Organization, and not here.

Though here you should provide the answers to my simple math story problem based on that table of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. What is the ratio of total number of given vaccines versus compensated claims? What is the definition of the legal word "settlement"? What does it mean about the safely of vaccines?

These are questions you seem to not to be able to answer. Explain why.

Chris, in order for your simple math problem to yield any potentially useful information, we would need to know what percentage of vaccine injuries actually result in a claim being filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Given that the number of vaccine injuries even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is at most 10%, and at the least less than 1%, I assume the percentage of vaccine injury claims filed in the VICP is considerably less.

It's too bad that your legal skills are apparently so atrophied that you can't get in on those guaranteed fees and have to settle for being a low-rent nut, Gindo.

PGPig, your influence on friends and family isn't that great? Gee, what a shocker! I would have thought your charm and respect would win people over right and left. :D Of course, given your own shaky relationship with truth, it's doubtful you are actually getting your vaccines as you claim. However, if you are, I wish you luck with them. Fingers crossed!

VIrginia Stoner (and I hope you get Google juice from this), the only battle here is the battle against ignorance. I'd bet real dollars that you don't understand this, but anyone can scroll up and see what we have here is science, logic, honesty, along with a heapin' helpin' of what ever it is you bring to the party, you pile of $hit sculpted into a quasi-human form.

You could have declared victory by saying that you do not believe that vaccines can turn people into wolves, but you know that anti-vaxers arguments are so thin that the day may come that they have to say 'what about lycanthropy? where's the study about that?'

You're dead to me. If thinking you won gets you thru the night, you're welcome to it, I try to not deny children their simple comforts. But every time the words 'ethics' or 'honesty' cross your mind, you will know "That's not how Virginia Stoner rolls".

Of course, given your own shaky relationship with truth, it’s doubtful you are actually getting your vaccines as you claim.

Oh, yay, the Gerg routine. Speaking of shaky relationships, Ginny, it would really be a lot more interesting if you explain your issues with gravity. It's an ecumenical joint.

NWO: Oh, that's rich. A Trump fangirl calling ME a liar! Honey, you wouldn't know what the truth was if it sat on you. You think the Earth is flat!

And you're kinda proving my point about your age. Why don't you go outside for a while?

I mean, seriously, why would I lie about something as mundane as getting vaccines. When you grow up, you'll see that the world is not nearly as complicated and dangerous as you're believing it is.

I bet a mouse could pass the bar exam for Texas.

Johnny, you are a monumental hypocrite and coward, hiding behind your online anonymity because you know you are deceiving people. I'm dead to you because I ensnared you in your own web of deception. That you would try to defame me to hide your own corruption is not a surprise. I'm sure you'll be back under one of your other profiles to do more of the same.

Oh, kewl, Gindo is back on the Julian is Science Mom routine or whatever was in her Xtranormal effort. The "profiles" bit is a nice touch.

Poor PGPig. Resorting to condescending "honeys" and that pathetic "flat earth" psy-op to undermine my credibility. Sounds like it's you who belongs on the playground. :D

Psy-op? No, I was just stating your beliefs. It's kind of hard to undermine your credibility, as you don't have any.

Grow up and act your age and maybe I'll think about not insulting you. But for now, you make a fun chew toy, much like Mr. Dochniak. If you want respect, again, maybe stop acting stupid. And go outside once in a while, you aren't a vampire.

NWOR # 124:

psy-op to undermine my credibility.

Nobody can do nearly as much to undermine your credibility as you have already done on your own.

The discussion has moved on a bit, but keep checking PubPeer, the blots seem to have been significantly manipulated. In 4C there are mirror imaged bands and 4D is mostly 4B flipped and with slightly different exposure.

PGPig, I guess that means if don't think the earth is flat, which I don't, then it is you who have no credibility. Do you purport to be a psychic, or are you just a liar? Either way, whatever credibility you might have had just flew out the window. :D

NWO Troll: "Chris, in order for your simple math problem to yield any potentially useful information, we would need to know what percentage of vaccine injuries actually result in a claim being filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program."

Um, yeah. That is exactly what that simple math word problem shows! So just calculate the ratio from that database. I actually gave you the numbers, why are you refusing to to answer the question!?

What are you afraid of?

Chris, are you referring to this "simple math word problem"?

"The data first column is the total number of vaccines given in the stated time period. Now run your finger over to the number to the total compensated claims. Now divide the first by the second number."

Where, exactly, in this "simple math word problem" do you account for the fact that most vaccine injuries do not result in a claim being filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program at all?

Your "simple math word problem" assumes 100% of vaccine injuries result in a claim being filed in the VICP. That's not realistic. The percentage of vaccine injuries reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is somewhere between less that 1% and 10%. Even the CDC acknowledges it is less than 10%. How could only 1%-10% of vaccine injuries be reported to VAERS, but 100% be filed as claims in the VICP? Makes no sense.

You can't just ignore relevant data because you don't have it. Unless you work for the CDC. ;)

NWO Troll: "Where, exactly, in this “simple math word problem” do you account for the fact that most vaccine injuries do not result in a claim being filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program at all?"

Except you are using its table as a point of reference, and all else. Your excused proves all. You don't like the answer...

... therefore you have nothing.

From now on, since you refuse to do my simple math word problem from the NVICP statistics, you are not allowed to bring it up again.

If you do try to bring up the NVICP table or statistics after that last comment without answering my simple math problem based on it... you will be considered a hypocrite.

Seriously, VAERS? That is your excuse? That is just is the most pathetic excuse for not being able to do a simple fourth grade division calculation ever.

LOL. I think you need to get some sleep, Chris. You're not making sense. This whole thread was about Johnny's list of injuries alleged to be caused by vaccines, and trying in vain to determine which ones he agreed with and which he disputed. His list contained nothing about incidence rates.

A lot of parents don't even know about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Or they never associate their child's death or serious injury with vaccination because they have been trained to believe vaccines are safe, and their doctor never mentions the possibility. Or they find out about the VICP or the likelihood of vaccine injury too late, after the 3 year statute of limitations has run. Or they just don't have the heart to endure years of contentious litigation over it, especially if their child has died.

If you were honest, you would admit that the percentage of vaccine injury claims actually filed in the VICP is extremely low--likely far less than 1%. But I guess that's asking too much.

NWO Reporter #110:

Everyone with a vaccine injured child they wrongly believe to be harmed by vaccines was once pro-vaccine

FTFY.

When asked what vaccine anti-vaxers do actually support, they won't even name one....including the Rabies vaccine.

They are hopeless.

Really, Lawrence? When asked what vaccine injuries actually occur, not a single pro-vaxxer on this blog would even name one...not even encephalitis.

Y'all are hopeless. :D

NWOR: if you tell us which of Lawrence's list of health issues are actually due to vaccines, we'll tell you which vaccine injuries actually occur. HINT: gunshot wounds, although found in VAERS and manufacturer inserts, are not vaccine injuries.

MI Dawn, you mean Johnny's list? ;) All of the health issues on his list that also appear on my list of injuries that are ether on the Vaccine Injury Table, or have been compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, can actually be caused by vaccines. Your turn.

NWO: Honestly you believe every other conspiracy theory, so I'm surprised you don't believe that one. I'm pretty sure you think the moon landing is a hoax. And like I said, you have no credibility, and you never ever did. Have you ever told the truth about anything in your life?

Also, because I'm morbidly curious, how did you "pass" the bar exam and get your degree? Did you just buy the degree and the pass whole sale?

I’m pretty sure you think the moon landing is a hoax.

Gindo is quite reticent when it comes to the "content" of her Y—be "channel." I find this somewhat odd, because the whole trip, as well instantiated here, is merely off-topic attention whoring.

Maybe Rappoport has some sort of loyalty-points system in which one can redeem Pink Flamingos–esque "rewards."

MI Dawn, you haven't forgotten about our agreement, have you?

"NWOR: if you tell us which of Lawrence’s list of health issues are actually due to vaccines, we’ll tell you which vaccine injuries actually occur."

I answered your question. I'm not sure who "we" is, but since you made the agreement, I guess it is up to you to answer. Are there any health conditions in my list in #98 you contend cannot be caused by vaccines?

You're going to hurt yourself with those goalposts, Pruno.

I'd say Lycanthropy cannot be caused by a vaccine, wouldn't you agree?

Sorry, NWOR. I have a life, and didn't get on the computer last night. So...Johnny's list of things that antivaxxers claim are caused by vaccines - here's 4 items.
AIDS
Alzheimer’s
Cancer
Cerebral Palsy

Add to that homosexuality.

Now, give us some proof that vaccines actually cause any of those items.

Now, to take a few from YOUR list:

Lowered consciousness
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach ache
Lumbosacral Raduculoplexus Neuropathy (LSRPN)

None of these are life threatening. Please give us the NVICP case numbers so we can see that the courts actually compensated someone for these items. Because you are known to just pull stuff out of your nether regions. And no, I don't have time to do the research - since you posted these things, you should easily be able to provide the case numbers. And that's your claim - that the court COMPENSATED people for these items.

Remember, simply reporting things to VAERS does not mean they were compensated for. After all, my sister (who faints every time she gets a shot of any kind) would be compensated if this were so. And I would have been compensated the last time I got the flu shot, if I'd bothered to report nausea as a problem.

Ball's in your court, Ginny. I have a busy day at work, but I'll try to check back later and see what actual data you give.

Sometimes I feel like Captain Kirk, trying to navigate through a fierce ion storm of crank magnetism.

Before this morning I'd never heard of Dr. Christian Bogner (an antivax ob-gyn up Orac's way). He has some....interesting theories.

"Why is not everyone getting vaccinated become autistic?"

"The short answer to this question: Glyphosate"

http://drbogner.com/vaccine-mechanisms-in-autism/

I would try and explain this, but I got dizzy navigating through Bogner's "Pac-Man" microglia cartoons.

He's a self-described Former Chief Surgeon, so he must know what he's talking about. Oh, and he's helped develop a cannabinoid spray, which surely is good for what ails you.

Stop trying to weasel out of your deal, MI Dawn. “NWOR: if you tell us which of Lawrence’s list of health issues are actually due to vaccines, we’ll tell you which vaccine injuries actually occur.” Post your list.

MI Dawn, I revised the list in #98 to include ONLY those health conditions that were either listed on the Vaccine Injury Table as of 9/10/2017, and/or have actually received compensation awards in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The list is not yet complete. Again, to the extent these items overlap with Johnny's list, I agree vaccines can cause them. Tell us whether you agree or disagree that these health conditions can be caused by vaccines.

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 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 2017 from the Table)
Spinal Cord Myelitis
Strep A infection
Systemic Inflammatory Response
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Tinnitus
Toxic Shock
Transverse Myelitis
Vasovagal syncope (Removed in 2017 from the Table)
Vaccine Strain Measles Viral Disease
Vaccine Strain Polio Viral Infection
Varicella vaccine strain viral reactivation (Removed in 2017 from the Table)
Ventricular Fibrillation
Vision Loss

Nope. You haven't answered my question. Table injuries are understood to *possibly* be caused by the vaccines, and the NVICP relies on less proof than a court of law that the vaccine *MAY* have caused the injury.

We don't deny vaccines can cause problems. What we ARE saying is that they don't cause all the problems that antivaxxers claim they do. Do you disagree with that?

At least your list doesn't include autism, which the antivaxxers claim is the major problem.

Oh, and let me say...compensation does not imply the vaccine caused the problem. It simply means that it is POSSIBLE/PROBABLE. NOT that it is CERTAIN.

MI Dawn writes (#149),

At least your list doesn’t include autism, which the antivaxxers claim is the major problem.

MJD says,

In fairness, the list will eventually include allergy-induced regressive autism.

MI Dawn, STOP WEASELING. You asked me to "tell us which of Lawrence’s list of health issues are actually due to vaccines." I told you my opinion on this issue as you asked. You said if I did so, "we’ll tell you which vaccine injuries actually occur." In your opinion too, of course. List the conditions that, in your opinion, vaccines can cause, like you said you would.

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. Unanwered Questions: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury, Pace Environmental Law Review, vol. 28, no. 2, 2011.

@MJD #151:

In fairness, the list will eventually include allergy-induced regressive autism.

1) No it won't since it has been confirmed that vaccines do not cause autism.
2) Your perseverating on this has gone through boring and tedious, and is now utterly tiresome and banal.
Just go away.

The author of this paper is a moron.

Hi orac

Im glad you wrote about this study because aluminum adjuvant toxicity should be central to the debate about vaccine safety.

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?

When i search the scientific literature, i dont find any studies supporting the neurological safety of aluminum adjuvant. Instead i find papers like Jefferson 2004 or mitkus 2011. These studies are not designed to test neuro safety of al adjuvant, and have flaws or design choices that render them irrelevant to the question of neuro safety.

In the scientific literature, aluminum adjuvant safety is often asserted with reference to its long history of use, but no citations are provided. Long history of use is not evidence for safety, especially for adverse outcomes that take months or years to manifest (like neuro disorders). Also, for most of its use history, al adjuvant dose was much smaller than today.

Finally, there are no epidemiological studies of aluminum asjuvant (except the ecological study by shaw).

So, please cite the studies that support the "excellent safety record" of aluminum adjuvant.

Heheh. One notes that VP was the one to whom I referred above, the antivaxer who emailed me not just one but TWO OR THREE times challenging me to write about this, telling me what a good study it is and how she would be cutting it a lot. What happened? Nothing to say about my deconstruction of this paper? All you have to say is this? After nearly nearly a week of silence, you appear, and when you finally appear, do you tell me how my analysis is fatally flawed and why? Of course not! Instead you zero on on a single sentence and ignore everything else.

I am amused. My analysis must be pretty damned good.

???

@NWO Reporter #152: LOL! An article with Mary Holland as one of the authors? Get real!

Julian Frost, ad hominem is the resort of children. If you have evidence that the vaccine injury awards examined in the paper authored by Holland and three other researchers did not, in fact, involve injuries including autism, then post it.

Hi orac

I just noticed your article today. No this is definitely not all i have to say on the matter. I will write more about it later. So dont draw conclusions just yet. And dont break your arm patting yourself on the back. There are several other reasoning errors and mistakes in your article and i will get to them.

I think your assertion-without citation-of an "excellent safety record" for aluminum adjuvant, especially in the context of autism and/or neurological disorders is particularly egregious. So, can you please respond to this?

The other issues will be addressed shortly.

You just noticed it today? Oh, please. After your emailing me at least two times (maybe three, I don't remember for sure) in one day about this study, I call bullshit. But I do look forward to your comments. It's been a rough, depressing last few days, for a variety of reasons unrelated to the blog. I could use a good laugh.

And is still strange that you didn't decide to lead with all those "flaws" you claim there are. Actually, no, it isn't.

Here, I'll remind you of what you wrote to me on Sept. 19:

Hi Orac:

Its me, VP from vaccinepapers.org!

There is a new paper from the Shaw lab at UBC. They measured cytokine levels in brains of animals that received vaccine-relevant dosage of Al adjuvant as neonates. The brain was inflamed, and it had a pattern of inflammation matching inflammation present in human autism.

Also, IL-6 levels were increased almost 5-fold. IL-6 causes autism-like behavioral abnormalities in animal models. Human studies also implicate IL-6 as a cause of autism.

Males had greater brain inflammation than females.

I hop3 you will write about this new study. We will be citing it a lot!

cheers

VP

Also, don't forget to address the charges of self-plagiarism and image manipulation. There's been some very suspicious stuff pointed out about the images in several of the figures:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/4AEB7C8F30015079E2611157CF8983

https://themadvirologist.blogspot.com/2017/09/does-recent-paper-by-shaw…

@NWO Reporter, I'm not going to pay $30 to some predatory publisher. Only the abstract was available, and I do not trust Mary Holland. Put her name into the search box up top to see why.
The question of whether or not vaccines cause autism has been investigated into the ground. I went to Google Scholar and searched. The very first result was
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367?cc%3…
The money quote from the abstract:

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.

Vaccines do NOT cause autism.

Julian Frost, you don't have to pay $30 to "some predatory publisher" to read the paper--it's available to the public for free. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context…

This investigation, published in a peer-reviewed law journal in 2011, found 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Once again, you show a complete lack of understanding of statistics and statistical analysis.

So i downloaded the paper and perused it. I had to give up. The authors did so much JAQing Off that it was clear they were not interested in researching the question honestly, but instead in insinuating that it is.

Julian Frost, the authors found 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. You have ZERO evidence their findings are not accurate. But you don't like the findings so you insinuate the authors are dishonest. It's a deceptive cop out.

Because you haven't bothered to read any of the judgements for those 83 cases.....

Just like anti-vaxers don't bother to read the VAERS reports that they love to quote numbers on.

@NWO Reporter:

[T]he authors found 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

And they tried to insinuate that the vaccines were responsible for causing those cases of autism, even though the six Test Cases in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings not only lost, but lost so badly that all five Appeals to higher courts saw the original verdicts upheld.

NWO Reporter wrote:

This investigation, published in a peer-reviewed law journal in 2011, found 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

The law clearly lags many years behind the scientific evidence, and the overwhelming evidence that alleged cases of vaccine-induced encephalopathy and “residual seizure disorder” are caused by pre-existing mutations rather than by vaccination began to accumulate only a decade ago.

The 83 claims that you cited would likely not be compensated today, now that the scientific evidence is so clear. (Hint: these mutations can cause such syndromes in unvaccinated laboratory animals. So much for "A Shot in the Dark.") Accordingly, the US Court of Federal Claims has begun to deny such claims and even to require genotyping--at least insofar as checking for mutations in one particular gene (among many genes known to cause similar syndromes. See, for example:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/SMGOLKIEWICZ…
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010vv0704-144-0
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010vv0394-136-0

See also:
--Berkovic SF et al. De-novo mutations of the sodium channel gene SCN1A in alleged vaccine encephalopathy: a retrospective study. Lancet Neurol. 2006 Jun;5(6):488-92.
--Catarino CB et al. Dravet syndrome as epileptic encephalopathy: evidence from long-term course and neuropathology. Brain. 2011 Oct;134(Pt 10):2982-3010.
--Garcia-Junco-Clemente P et al. Overexpression of calcium-activated potassium channels underlies cortical dysfunction in a model of PTEN-associated autism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 5;110(45):18297-302
--Guglielmi L et al. Update on the implication of potassium channels in autism: K(+) channel autism spectrum disorder. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015 Mar 2;9:34.
--Li BM et al. Autism in Dravet syndrome: prevalence, features, and relationship to the clinical characteristics of epilepsy and mental retardation. Epilepsy Behav. 2011 Jul;21(3):291-5
--Okumura A et al. Acute encephalopathy in children with Dravet syndrome. Epilepsia. 2011 Nov 16.
--Reyes IS et al. Alleged Cases of Vaccine Encephalopathy Rediagnosed Years Later as Dravet Syndrome. Pediatrics. 2011 Aug 15.
--Schmunk G, Gargus J. Channelopathy pathogenesis in autism spectrum disorders. Front Genet. 2013 Nov 5;4:222.
--Wiznitzer M. Dravet syndrome and vaccination: when science prevails over speculation. Lancet Neurol. 2010 Jun;9(6):559-61.
--Wolff M et al. Severe myoclonic epilepsy of infants (Dravet syndrome): natural history and neuropsychological findings. Epilepsia. 2006;47 Suppl 2:45-8.

Exactly - anti-vaxers ignore the Omnibus cases all the time....mostly because they don't understand them.

One would think that NWOR would, as a lawyer, understand the very clear writings of the Special Masters. After all *I* understand them.

Hey, NWOR: tell me why autism isn't on the list of table injuries, why EVERY case in the autism omnibus lost, and what Hannah Poling got compensated for.

And you want to know what illnesses vaccines can cause that I will admit to: OK. Here's a few.

Allergic reactions up to and including anaphylaxis, which may lead to death.
The flu vaccine may lead to Guillan-Barre syndrome, although at a much lesser rate than the actual flu disease.
Panderix (never given in the US) may have increased a tendency to narcolepsy in a specific population.

Happy?

Could we please stop feeding the very repetitive and obviously clueless troll?

Julian Frost, not really. Autism is a behavioral diagnosis, based on the observations of certain symptoms. There is no objective physical test to identify autism. The symptoms are a manifestation of some other kind of underlying damage.

@NWO Reporter:

The symptoms (of autism) are a manifestation of some other kind of underlying damage.

As someone with an official diagnosis of autism, find an erupting volcano and throw yourself into it. Autism is not brain damage, and is not caused by vaccination. Research shows a clear genetic cause of autism.

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? :D

Julian Frost "Research shows a clear genetic cause of autism." Really? Are you one of those people who denies there is a recent epidemic of autism? Because it would be impossible for a genetic cause to suddenly explode within a few decades the way autism has.

Claiming that autism is "Brain Damage" allows anti-vaxers to treat those with autism as less than human....

@NWO Reporter:

Because it would be impossible for a genetic cause to suddenly explode within a few decades the way autism has.

But not for increased awareness, broadened diagnostic criteria, diagnostic substitution and previous underdiagnosis to make it look as if something had suddenly exploded instead of being previously under-recognised.

NWOR: No. I simply picked out the ones that I know can definitely be caused by vaccines.

On the other hand, you obviously have never heard of expanded DSM criteria and diagnostic substitution which mostly accounts for your "'explosion".

Anecdotally, I can personally name 5 people, 25 years and older, who would probably have autism spectrum diagnoses if they were born after 2000. They all fit the current DSM criteria. They definitely aren't brain damaged.

Clarification: brain damage and autism are 2 very different diagnoses. People with autism range from "able to function independently in society" to "will never be able to perform self-care". But low IQ is NOT a standard of autism any more than any other health issues are.

MI Dawn, are you denying that any of the other 61 health conditions in #148 (health conditions listed on the Vaccine Injury Table and which have actually received awards in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) can be caused by vaccines?

Julian Frost, it sounds like you and MI Dawn are denying that the incidence of autism has exploded in the last few decades--saying it's just a perception prompted by more expansive and better diagnoses. I've never heard of any longtime teachers who agree with that. They all seem to say there has been a very real and dramatic increase in the number of special needs children over the last couple of decades.

Another anti-vaxer who knows nothing about the way that the mentally-ill used to be treated in this country.

Long-time teachers didn't see kids with autism in school, because they weren't sent to school....at least not normal ones.

Lawrence, you claim to have superior expertise because you know something from Psych 101? If you think children today do not have any more neurodevelopmental or mental health disabilities than children did in 1980, try persuading with facts instead of condescension.

You've obviously never heard of the American with Disabilities Act....

And it just so happens that I have an inherent advantage over individuals such as yourself.

I am a rational human being.

Because even my grandparents could describe individuals in their communities, going back decades, who today would be considered autistic.....they either ended up in the asylums or locked away by their families.

Right, Lawrence. I'm no match for your supercilious powers. :D

There is a new paper from the Shaw lab at UBC. They measured cytokine levels in brains of animals that received vaccine-relevant dosage of Al adjuvant as neonates. The brain was inflamed, and it had a pattern of inflammation matching inflammation present in human autism.

Does VaccinePapers read Pubpeer? The revelations emerging there about faked data in the paper are devastating.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/4AEB7C8F30015079E2611157CF8983

Lawrence, bragging that you're not nuts is ableist.

Correct.

Lawrence: "You’ve obviously never heard of the American with Disabilities Act…."

Nor the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Please stop feeding this clueless troll.

True

May I please quote from my reprint of the DSM-I (copyright: 1952):

000-x28 Schizophrenic reaction, childhood type

Here will be classified those schizophrenic reactions occuring before puberty. The clinical picture may differ from schizophrenic reactions occuring in other age periods because of the immaturity and plasticity of the patient at the time of onset of the reaction. Psychotic reaction in children, manifesting primarily autism, will be classified here. Special symptomatology may be added to the diagnosis as manifestations.

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

IMO, they can stick the word choice and language where the sun doesn't shine but we're dealing with the verbiage used in 1952 for compliance with an Act which is older so I digress a little bit.

That said, the DSM is now in its 5th edition from a line of work originally created by the US census bureau (yep, counting patient in asylum started the incentive of alienists among other to keep documentation about their patient; it snowballed from there).

Obviously, the methods and criteria for diagnosing autism changed in a very major way from that time (1952) and with it, the headcount.

That said, in my case, I have a metric ton of documentation from my 1st and 2nd primary grade in an hospital for which, if we apply current day diagnostic criteria would mean that I do have a diagnostic of autism (and it was made in 2004) but....and that is a giant but I didn't meet the criteria back in 1982-1984 when that metric ton of paperwork was done.

back in 1984, we moved, changed city and never mentionned to anyone (school or otherwise) my two years of schooling in that hospital.

Now Ginny, I wasn't mentioning all that for you but rather, the fence-sitters who read, comment or don't comment but may ask one question which ought to be asked:

1-: how many other current day adult autistic who lived a similar situation where they don't have any diagnostic or they never disclose it? (back in 1980+ and even before, a dx of autism carried a metric ton of stigma).

Alain

NWO Reporter said:

This investigation, published in a peer-reviewed law journal in 2011, found 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

The “peers” who reviewed that article were apparently as scientifically illiterate as you and the authors, since they did not understand or even bother note that the evidence that was available before that article was published emphatically refuted the idea that such cases were caused by vaccination. But, since you’ve posted essentially the same nonsense before, you knew that, didn’t you? Why do you continue to lie?

Alain: "1-: how many other current day adult autistic who lived a similar situation where they don’t have any diagnostic or they never disclose it? (back in 1980+ and even before, a dx of autism carried a metric ton of stigma"

Um, yeah. In 1991 I was assured my then three year old nonverbal child was not autistic because he smiled and laughed (even when it was inappropriate). Then just five years later the same neurologist told me the child would grow out of the hand tics (something we now call stimming).

About three years ago the young man was finally diagnosed with autism level 2 under DSM V. He also qualified under DSM IV.

Yeah, same person.... different criteria. And according to the psychologist lots of research during the past decade. Some of that research has discovered about half of the genetic sequences that cause behaviors consistent with autism.

They are looking for more, so if the parents of a child autism want to give up some spit and answer questions, sign up here:
https://sparkforautism.org/

(I wanted to, but my son is over eighteen, so he has to sign up. It is not going to happen, le sigh)

Gallimaufry, you seem a bit confused about the difference between a legal review and science. Anyway, if you ever leave the playground and come up with something other than ad hominem, let me know.

NWO Reporter, I understand the difference between a legal review that ignores the scientific evidence and the scientific evidence that refutes that legal review at least as completely as you do.

I also understand that your repetitive citations of that legal review are a cynical and dishonest attempt to suggest that the cases discussed in that legal review were caused by vaccination, despite the clear evidence to the contrary that was discussed and cited earlier in this thread as well as in other threads on this site in which you have made the same nonsensical claim.

It's hilarious how many people think the DSM is based on science. It's not based on science at all. There are no "genetic markers" for an autism diagnosis. The criteria for each diagnosis is arrived at by vote. The more diagnoses that get voted in, and the broader they are, the better it is for every industry with a stake. There's something in the DSM for pretty much anyone who wants a diagnosis. That's to ensure that insurance companies have a reason to pay, and psychiatrists and psychologists have a reason to prescribe drugs.

And more and more, it's to ensure that children with a need for special accommodations have a way to get them. That is the problem that seems to be really increasing these days--the number of children who need special accommodations to learn, who are unable to function reasonably normally in life, and who, as they grow older, are not able to be self-sufficient.

NWO Reporter, you seem more than a bit confused about the difference between a legal review and science. You also don't seem to know what an ad hominem is. "the evidence that was available before that article was published emphatically refuted the idea that such cases were caused by vaccination." is not an ad hominem.

Julian, apparently you missed this part of Gallimaufry's comment: "...apparently as scientifically illiterate as you." That's called ad hominem.

And apparently you missed the point of the Holland paper as well--the one you didn't bother to read. The point 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. You can come up with all the industry papers you want saying vaccines don't cause autism, and it won't change that fact.

I'm sure it goes without saying that you're taking the CDC's 2003 autism study at face value. The one where that "crazy conspiracy theorist" and CDC researcher Dr. William Thompson blew the whistle on research fraud, the omission of data to get rid of an unwanted result, a result that indicated the MMR vaccine could cause autism.

*********"For antivaxers, aluminum is the new mercury."

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).

*************"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)

*****************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."

***************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

**************"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.

*************" 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.

**************"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

*****************"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.

******************"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-…

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"

**************"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.

********************"(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.

*******************""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.

**********************"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.

Oh look. VP is ignoring the potential fraud in this paper.
Yeah, the paper is so bad that it deserved a follow-up about the monkey business going on with the figures.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/09/27/torturing-more-mice-in-the-name-of-antivaccine-pseudoscience-was-it-fraud-or-incompetence/

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."

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."

@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.

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

Who?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

"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!

@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.

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/

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?

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…

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.

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.

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

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.

@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?

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

https://www.naturalplaygrounds.com/documents/Playground%20Injury%20Stat…

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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?

Oh, okay, I see them. I didn't realize they renumber on later pages. Sorry, Opie. :)

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

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.

@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.

@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.

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."

*********""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-gene…

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

You lose Orac

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.

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.

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.?

@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.

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

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!

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. :D

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.

*************"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"

*****************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.

***************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.

**************"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?) "

*************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."

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

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.”

******************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."

**************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,"

********************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.

**********************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.

Immune activation results have been replicated in monkeys.

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

I see NWO Distorter still thinks vaccines are "injected into an artery"....

Hardly, "Reverend." But it does not surprise you failed to grasp the comparison. :D

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?

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. :D

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

"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"

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.

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.

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?) "

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."

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

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.”

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."

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,"

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.

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.

Immune activation results have been replicated in monkeys.

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

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.

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?

PGP

b) ridiculously common.

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

Alain

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

@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.

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. . .

@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?

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.

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 - 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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Opus: " You’re an artist.."

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

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?

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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

And....?

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.

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

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. ;)

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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

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.

Correct. His alleged crimes were financial, basically the misuse of federal grant money to benefit himself. There is no evidence of scientific fraud. None. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/14/poul-thorsen-vaccines-frau…

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

peer review generally CANNOT detect fraud

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

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

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.

‘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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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!" :D

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.

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%.

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...?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

NWOR shirley is not that stupid.

Fact not in evidence.

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.

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? :D

Alain

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?

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?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzlxovKTSIE

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

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.

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.

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

@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?

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??

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"....

It appears that you were out sick ...

Comments of the Week #173: From quantum uncertainty to Earth's final total solar eclipse

esiegel — Sun, 20 Aug 2017 03:00:48 +0000

Comments of the Week #173: From quantum uncertainty to Earth's final total solar eclipse

“It will shine still brighter when night is about you. May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out.” ―Galadriel, LOTR, J.R.R. Tolkien

The scientific stories we've covered this week have been out-of-this-world here at Starts With A Bang! But the greatest show is still to come. Right now, I'm on my way down to the path of totality in Oregon, along with millions of others hoping to catch a glimpse and enjoy the experience of a sight unlike any others on Earth. When the sunlight goes completely out, some truly wonderful things will be revealed, and I hope to see them all! For everyone who's joining me, across the path of totality, I wish you clear and cloud-free skies, and a fabulous viewing experience!

And now, onto the scientific stories we covered this past week:

Where does quantum uncertainty come from? (for Ask Ethan),
Five things you must not do during totality at the solar eclipse (my most-read article ever, for Mostly Mute Monday),
Will scientists ever discover life without a home planet?,
Why you can't see the Moon during a total solar eclipse,
Voyager's 'cosmic map' of Earth's location is hopelessly wrong, and
Earth's final total solar eclipse will happen in less than a billion years.

As the release date of Treknology approaches (less than two months now!), there will be a slew of talks and events occurring in Oregon and Washington to promote it and meet me, with more to come around the country as time goes on. Look for it! And now, onto the main event: our comments of the week!

From Steve Blackband on X-rays at the airport: "On the banana thing and airport x-ray scanners, an issue is not the total dose but the distribution. TSA seems to divide by the whole body, but the dose is concentrated at the skin so the dose there is many times higher."

This is actually not true of X-rays in general. Yes, they hit the skin first, but X-rays are of an energy such that the overwhelming majority penetrates the skin and goes into your body. There are a portion of the X-rays, however, that hit the skin and reflect, and that's how the backscattering X-ray imaging works. It's kind of the opposite of traditional X-rays, which measure what goes through your body. But as with all things, we've got to be quantitative. For the airport scanner, you'd need to go through it 200,000 times to equal the radiation of one CT scan.

By the way, there is radiation that primarily affects your skin: radioactive alpha-decay sources. They are the most harmless of all radiation, since the outer layer of your skin stops it. Only if you ingest or inhale an alpha-emitter are you in trouble.

Correctly calibrated satellite data, as well as the more recent temperature data up through 2016, shows that climate predictions and observations are perfectly in line with one another. Image credit: HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST, via Ed Hawkins at Climate Lab Book.

From Denier on what his true beef was with my response to Heartland's climate article: "The boiled down core of what I’m driving at is I felt you wanted a win so bad that you decided hitting below the belt was justified. It wasn’t just Spencer making that observation about 2013. Schmidt(2014) noted it, and it is even reflected in the Climate Lab Book alteration of the IPCC AR5 graph you posted in the article. Heartland made a cherry-picked but accurate statement, and rather than calling it out for what it was, you straw-manned them and made your own counter-factual statement that was not supported by the best science we have on the subject.
A little lower in the article, Heartland did the same thing with a statistical decline in the strength of hurricanes making landfall in the US. 100% Accurate –and- 100% cherry picked. There again you failed to call it out for what it was and went with the cheap Ad Hominem about how the scientist citing the true statistic was biologically related to someone at Heartland.
There is so much good science to support your viewpoint that you don’t need to stoop to these tactics. You don’t need to Straw-man. You don’t need to deny good science. You don’t need to resort to Ad Hominem attacks. I was disappointed in your tactics and felt they were beneath you. That uncharacteristic behavior combined with your talk of de-platforming certain ideas made me think we were losing you to tribalism."

I've been thinking a lot about tribalism and appearances lately as well, and maybe I need to go easier on people who are politically much farther to one side than I am. I think reviewing Alex's latest book brought that to my attention as well, and after some reflection (and some investigation), I think I understand why it hits so many of us so hard. We aren't impartial or objective, no matter how hard we try to be. We view our work and our opinions on issues in terms of what we value as important in this world.

Imagine that politics is a left-right spectrum (I know that doesn't encapsulate it all, but we're oversimplifying for clarity), and you're somewhere on it. Let's assume you're near the center, but slightly to the left. Now there's someone you see who's also near the center, but slightly to the right. To the right of center, but also (and moreso) to the right of you. You both accept the same science facts about issues, but how you feel about and react to those issues are very different. How do you see the person to the right of you? Even if they write things that are both "anti-left" and "anti-right", you'll see the "anti-right" things they write as no-brainers, but then the "anti-left" things will appear biased to you. If you were instead far-right instead of left-of-center, you might see the converse: the "anti-left" things the author writes appear as no-brainers, but the "anti-right" things appear biased.

You and I are always going to disagree about what's "good science" in this realm. I think if you're using the UAH data as it was before the calibration flaw found in 2014 was corrected, you're intentionally spreading falsehoods. That was my beef with what Heartland was doing on that particular issue. You and I may disagree about the egregiousness of cherry-picking data; we had an argument a year ago where you admitted that Newt Gingrich had done that with crime statistics, but you argued that his point was still valid based on the data he had selected. I think cherry-picking -- or "not looking at the full suite of evidence" as I often call it -- is just lying, usually with the intent to mislead.

In any case, you haven't lost me to tribalism, but on certain issues, you and I view one another's positions as inherently flawed. More on that when we get to the comments about Alex's book.

From Steve Blackband on speaking against Nazism: "I understand your frustration and feeling of powerlessness in the face of hatred and bigotry.
But this is not the forum. Keep this a science blog, please, so i don’t have to troll through all these folks e-shouting at each other.
Please!!"

Sorry, Steve, this is the only forum. This is the platform I have online where I get to go beyond my own science writing and get to talk about larger issues; I literally use ScienceBlogs as a Starts With A Bang forum. If I could write about science without people sending me death threats related to ovens, destroying my life, slurs against my ethnicity/religion/whatever-you-perceive-Jewishness-as, it might be a different story, but I hope not.

Some people will always e-shout about what their opinions are, and my options are to either ban them or not. I've chosen not for the people who are still around. You can scroll past the parts you don't like, but there will still be plenty of science, so long as people are still commenting about it.

A spinning neutron star, with its magnetic field lines illustrated. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada.

From eric on neutron stars and magnetism: "if for atomic number you’re only going to count the core and not the surface, then when it comes to charge and magnetic field you should only count the core and not the surface too, right? Otherwise you’re arriving at your conclusion that a neutron star has a magnetic field but Z=0 only by flipping back and forth between two different definitions of “neutron star” – one that only counts the core, and one that includes the surface."

So I will say that this poses an interesting question. If you have a neutral object like a neutron, and you spin it, do you get a magnetic field? Your intuition would say "no," but now consider that a neutron is made up of charged particles itself. If there's a charge separation in there at all, and those charges move around, you could get a magnetic field, couldn't you? Here's the thing: we can take a single neutron and measure its magnetic moment. For electric charges, a proton is +1, a neutron is 0, and an electron is -1. For magnetic moments? Electrons are -1, protons are +2.79, and neutrons are -1.91. You would have a magnetic field, after all.

But it wouldn't be nearly as strong as the magnetic field if you include the neutron star's surface, which is no longer made up of neutrons, and which can no longer be treated as a single nucleus. How much stronger? We're not sure, but suffice it to say it's many orders of magnitude. Still, there's a big difference between a factor of 10,000 and a factor of 1,000,000,000, and I'm not sure where the core of the neutron star lies in this. An interesting consideration!

Front cover of the hard copy of the Little Black Book of Junk Science. Image credit: American Council on Science and Health.

From Alex Berezow, who dropped by to comment on a comment about the content of his book: "You wrote: “Ive been telling everyone that this book taught me that hexavalent chromium isn’t cancerous”
I explained in my book: “If inhaled, chromium-6 can cause lung cancer, but there is no reason it causes cancer when ingested.”"

When you've got a point to make, you're always going to appear biased to people who don't feel the same point is worth making when it comes to that particular issue. I think this is true for everyone; I get accused of my political bias in exactly that way every time I write about a science issue that's political also. And there are some issues with the Little Black Book of Junk Science that I have, but whether you think it's Alex's political bias or my political bias will depend on your politics. For example:

Natural gas is better than coal and oil for sure from a pollutant standpoint, but it still adds the same amount of CO2 for the energy you get out to the atmosphere.
Oil pipelines are much safer and cleaner than any other method of transporting crude, but it also represents a commitment to burning 100% of what's buried in the ground, and represents a commitment to doing it faster, regardless of how dirty it is.
Organic food is neither healthier nor does it deliver superior crop yields to conventional foods, but there are many problems inherent to our modern agricultural system that organic practices represent one small, incremental step towards improving, even though they've been co-opted by industrial agriculture.

When one writes about a topic and doesn't address what you believe the core, or most important, issue on that topic is, their writing is going to appear severely biased (or missing-the-point) to you. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it may mean it's misleading, depending on how you feel. I don't know that there's a solution to this, other than to acknowledge that most of these issues -- yes, even climate science -- are multi-faceted. Someone who disagrees with you may not be wrong as much as they possess different values and focus on different conclusions that the facts may also support.

Visualization of a quantum field theory calculation showing virtual particles in the quantum vacuum. Image credit: Derek Leinweber.

From Elle H.C. on what particle/antiparticle pairs look like: "Cool to see the QCD animation of how particle/antiparticle pairs pop up, how connected ‘holes’ show up and how the Vacuum starts to be shake up. Curious if these tremblings differ very much from Gravity waves?!"

It's vital to remember, when you see either the animation above (representing quantum fields) or the one from the original article (representing individual pairs), that this is a visualization only. This is not what's actually, physically happening. Quantum field theory is a calculational tool, an extremely useful calculational tool, but it is not literally what's going on with the Universe. You can't grab these particles that "pop into existence" and scatter off of them. You can't bend through empty space because of their electric or magnetic fields. They would need to be "real" particles (like the valence quarks, gluons, or sea quarks inside a proton) for that to happen.

But gravity waves are very different, and are produced by accelerating masses in a non-uniform spacetime. They're real. They do affect everything they pass through. They interact. They are more than just a calculational tool. That's the major difference.

An illustration between the inherent uncertainty between position and momentum at the quantum level. Image credit: E. Siegel / Wikimedia Commons user Maschen.

From D.C. Sessions on quantum uncertainty: "Voltage and charge have a different product from the others?
This is news to me."

There are all sorts of quantum commutation relations that go beyond "position and momentum" or "energy and time". I talked about the angular momentum one (for the Stern-Gerlach experiment) but there are others. Voltage and free electric charge, magnetic vector potential and electric current, and so on. If you obey the canonical commutation relation, i.e., your commutator is non-zero, you're in for a world of uncertainty.

The Moon and Sun each take up approximately half a degree on the sky as viewed from Earth. When the Moon is slightly larger in angular size than the Sun is and all three bodies perfectly align, a total solar eclipse is the result, but only if you're in the path of totality. Image credit: Romeo Durscher / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center.

From eric on eclipse safety during totality: "You can take your glasses off and look at the sun at totality only if you’re in the narrow region of the country where the eclipse is total."

Of course! If you're not in that region, you don't get totality. But this is worth saying: do not take off your eye protection and look at the Sun if any part of the solar disk is visible.

If you make the wrong decisions as far as what you do and look at during the moments of totality, you risk squandering the experience of a lifetime. Image credit: Luc Viatour / www.Lucnix.be.

From Brian Bassett on the 5 things you mustn't do during totality: "Vague, regurgitated hash off other sites. Yawn!"

I know, right? It's almost like there's this vast body of knowledge that some group of people have been gathering and developing for centuries, distilling it down to its most important rules and essences, and then disseminating that knowledge and those conclusions worldwide. So boring, right? ;-)

The Newtonian and Einsteinian predictions for gravitational deflection of a distant radio source during the Earth's orbital period (1 year) due to the Sun. The black dots are 2015 data. Image credit: The deflection of light induced by the Sun's gravitational field and measured with geodetic VLBI; O. Titov, A. Girdiuk (2015).

From Anonymous Coward on eclipse science since Eddington: "The bending of light experiment has been repeated many times since Eddington’s day. Astronomers from Lick Observatory went to Australia for the 1922 eclipse and repeated the observations. It was done again during an eclipse in 1952 by Yerkes Observatory astronomers who travelled all the way to Khartoum, Sudan to see it. In 1973, astronomers from the University of Texas went to the Chinguetti Oasis in Mauritania to do the same thing. Each time they found results reasonably consistent with General Relativity. It seems people are going to try to do the same thing with this upcoming eclipse. NASA has even given instructions on how to do it:
https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/testing-general-relativity"

All of this is true, but I'll do you one better. Do you see the image above? That's a radio source that exists far beyond the Solar System. And the x-and-y-axes? That's how much its position deviates over the course of a year. The cause of that deviation? That's the gravitational influence of the Sun! If we could see stars during the day, we never would have needed solar eclipse's or Eddington's work to do the confirmation. As it stands, radio astronomy gives us that ability (not with every star, but with some bright-enough radio sources), and it agrees tremendously with General Relativity.

You no longer need an eclipse to confirm relativity, even in the exact same fashion that it was first confirmed!

On this semilog plot, the complexity of organisms, as measured by the length of functional non-redundant DNA per genome counted by nucleotide base pairs (bp), increases linearly with time. Time is counted backwards in billions of years before the present (time 0). Image credit: Shirov & Gordon (2013), via https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381.

From John on life coming to Earth from space: "Drs. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were serious proponents of Panspermia."

Yes, but.

Before I go any further, panspermia, you must realize, can take many different forms. See that graph, above? At what stage do you think this life came to Earth? According to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, it was "the advanced prokaryotes that gave rise to modern cell, like diatoms, were what came to Earth." Also, they argued, that life couldn't have begun on Earth at all, that the conditions were all wrong.

Neither of these statements is likely to be correct. That they are part of a larger "panspermia" story, some of which may be true, does not translate into anything they said having any validity. Wickramasinghe continues to make the same claims he made in the 1970s... no matter what the modern evidence shows.

No matter how you choose to experience the eclipse, I hope it's a spectacular one for you. Image credit: Beawiharta/Reuters.

From PJ on eclipse wishes that we all share: "May good viewing fall upon those who venture out for Monday’s grand view."

May the entire path of totality be cloud-free. If you do have clouds, may they not lessen the spectacular nature of the show for you. May there be no hazes or wildfires affecting the attendees. May traffic move smoothly. May everyone be safe, and bring enough food, water, blankets, and comfort.

Good luck out there; these wishes apply to me, too!

The gold-plated aluminum cover (L) of the Voyager golden record (R) both protects it from micrometeorite bombardment and also provides a key to playing it and deciphering Earth's location. Image credit: NASA.

From Candice H. Brown Elliott on whether we should announce our presence to aliens: "Not that thought that creating even a perfect map was a good idea… frankly a truly sapient species would have understood that using Bayesian logic, that even if only a tiny handful of other species were dangerous, the risks aren’t worth taking and it would be better to keep one’s head down and NOT announce one’s presence to other sentients in the universe. (This is my favorite solutions to the Fermi Paradox.) But we are too foolish and too disunited to follow such a course."

A lot of people feel the way you do, Candice. Sometimes, Stephen Hawking expresses similar fears. So does Elon Musk, for example. In any great endeavor into the unknown, there are naysayers. There is the sentiment, "Beware! Here be dragons!"

But the alternative goes against everything it means to be human. To remain here, alone, isolated, and "safe." Yes, sometimes curiosity kills the cat, but you cannot stop us from being curious. We want to know, we want to explore, and we want to find out. If that is how we'll meet our demise -- no matter how unlikely that possibility is -- we'll meet it exactly the way we should: by aiming for the best possible options humanity could ever aspire to. To shoot for the planets, the stars, and the Universe beyond.

In short, I do not agree with your recommendation.

The evolution of some of the Sun’s properties over time. Luminosity is what impacts the temperature here on Earth. Note how slightly the radius changes over the next billion years. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user RJHall, based on Ribas, Ignasi (2010), “The Sun and stars as the primary energy input in planetary atmospheres”.

And finally, from Omega Centauri on the possibility of solar eclipses going away entirely: "The sun is also swelling due to evolution. As I understand it at this epoch, the surface temperature stays nearly constant, but the radius must increase to accommodate the increasing luminosity. Both the sun growing fatter, as well as the moon looking smaller push towards annular eclipse. Maybe it will happen faster than your calculation has it (assuming you only used one factor)?"

The swelling is only a few percent, however. Do keep this in mind; as the Moon spirals outward, the Sun grows, but only by about 1% every 250 million years. I thought this was taken into account in the 600-700 Myr calculation I did, but then Michael Richmond showed me that I was in error. As you can see from his graph, below, that tiny rate-of-growth makes a big difference!

The angular diameter of the Sun and Moon as seen from Earth, over time, with the top lines representing perigee/perihelion and the bottom representing apogee/aphelion. Image credit: Michael Richmond.

As Michael Richmond noted: "The increase of the Sun’s radius due to solar evolution has a significant effect, too. Using the evolutionary models of from the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution website, one can show that the last total eclipse will occur around 450 million years in the future."

However, if, as Denier says, the Earth-Moon system spirals away from the Sun during the red giant phase, then perhaps billions of years into the future, when the Sun quiets down to a white dwarf, the Moon's shadow will once again fall on the Earth. If it does, it will be approximately the size of the Moon, instead of just tens-to-hundreds of kilometers across, and solar eclipses will be truly spectacular once again on the charred remnant of our world.

And on that note, have a great rest-of-your-weekend and enjoy tomorrow's eclipse!

esiegel Sat, 08/19/2017 - 23:00

Tags

Comments of the Week

Categories

Brain and Behavior

Ethan,

And may good viewing be yours!

If's you want a great souvenir to pass on, the US postal service is selling some cool eclipse stamps:
https://store.usps.com/store/browse/productDetailSingleSku.jsp?productI…

" The Total Eclipse of the Sun stamp is the first U.S. stamp to use thermochromic ink, which reacts to the heat of your touch. Placing your finger over the black disc on the stamp causes the ink to change from black to clear to reveal an underlying image of the moon. "

Mail it out tomorrow to a family or friend for a lasting treasured memory or just keep as a keep sake.

OK, I should have been more specific and said hexavalent chromium 'isn't cancerous WHEN INGESTED'.
The book implies it only causes cancer when inhaled.
But there was a paper linking HC to cancer from China, from drinking water– a few years later a follow-up paper said it didn’t, but was retracted. This is what the Brockovich case rested on.
Check out wiki
“In July 2014 California became the first state to acknowledge that ingested chromium-6 is linked to cancer and as a result has established a maximum Chromium-6 contaminant level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion (ppb).[30] [31] ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination

On the x-ray scanner - the report by four UCSF professors turns out to wrong. I stand corrected. Although the radiation does indeed have a limited depth penetration, they used the right numbers, when they assumed they had it wrong. "....the imaging penetration experiment shows that 4.8 and 10 mm (0.19 and 0.39 in) plastic samples reduce the image darkness by 23% and 50% respectively. Dr. Smith states that those who calculate high skin dosage have incorrectly used the shallow imaging penetration value of a few millimeters (~0.16 in), whereas the actual dosage is calculated by the deeper dose penetration.[50]" So they did account for the area of dose and not the whole body correctly.
Thanks! Very informative!!

In Georgia right now waiting to be eclipserated. Thrilling. All enjoy!

@ Ragtag
"Mail it out tomorrow to a family or friend for a lasting treasured memory or just keep as a keep sake."

would be cool if anyone still actually mailed anything anymore. Other than my bills, I haven't received or sent any mail for almost a decade

@ Sinisa
I was in London 3 months ago and the post cards I mailed JUST arrived last week. Now that is true snail mail.
Still kinda cool to have special thermo ink stamp of the eclipse post marked on the day of it.

Thanks Ethan, for the indirect link. That picture and its caption was a big enough clue for me to find the paper by Titov and Girdiuk: "The deflection of light induced by the Sun's gravitational field and measured with geodetic VLBI." I'd heard about the radio measurements of light deflection from the sun but didn't know of any primary sources.

@Ethan,

"this is a visualization only"

Sure, but it's about particles popping into existence, and they can let real Black Hole vaporize, so there's some real vibe going on when these fluctuations happen in reality. Perhaps not in this exact form, but it was the frequency into relation with gravity that I was curious about.

@ ragtag
"I was in London 3 months ago and the post cards I mailed JUST arrived last week"

wow... I thought waiting for electronics from alixpress for 45 days was bad :) I won't complain ever again.

Let's apply Ethan's 'feeling' that alien contact would be a 'good' idea... just because he's curious, and has watched too much Star Trek as he segues into bombastic Captain Picard like drivel when he says:
". If that is how we’ll meet our demise — no matter how unlikely that possibility is — we’ll meet it exactly the way we should: by aiming for the best possible options humanity could ever aspire to. To shoot for the planets, the stars, and the Universe beyond..."
.
If you wish to speak in euphemisms, fine.
First, don't drag humanity into your incredibly expensive suicide. When you wish to use 'we' for stupidity like hailing down a dragon to chat for tea, you should very much stick to it being just 'you', and be quite certain it doesn't know where your little village is, as most of them probably don't want to be involved in being dragon-chow alongside you for your suicidal science experiment and 'I'm curious' ennui.
.
Second, inject your naïve curiosity into some historical context and watch what happens to people who scoff at dragons.
.
Long version:
Let's pretend the Aztecs decided, 'What the hell, we're curious, let's send some boats out over the ocean with directions on how to get back to us, let's also send a message of how much gold we have, how vast our lands are, and make a show of how invincible our spears and arrows are, and how we'd just love to have house guests come over and play' and see what happens.'
.
What happens: The Aztecs (and the rest of America) would have been conquered much sooner than they were, and if those delightful Europeans they contacted didn't have the technology to build the boats to make the trip before, they certainly did soon after. It really doesn't pay to advertise about being the land of gold.
.
Short version (for Ethan's more visceral understanding of what he is scoffing at):
Let's pretend we are a Jewish family hiding in Warsaw trying not to get dead in 1943. The husband brings his wife some literature his good 'friend' had just covertly passed to him.
"Yaffa my dear, let us take our family and leave our hiding place and go to this nice Hotel Polski. My friend in the Zagiew passed me this brochure for the place and it looks lovely, it say's they will help us escape to South America!"
.
What happens: Yaffa and her beloved family end up in the maw of an oven in Auschwitz. Evil exists. There be dragons closer than you think, whether you believe in them or not, and they would very much like to entice you with sweet promises before they meet you.
.
What-ifs aside, The Earth is the most pleasant place humanity actually knows about. The vacuum of space and toxic worlds are not anywhere near as hospitable. If our species can not learn to at least live together on this nurturing world, there really is no point outside of brief entertainment value of going anywhere else far more inhospitable, as our problems will just follow us into the heavens the same way they followed us everywhere in this world, only to be played out with ever more powerful weapons. You can't run away from your problems if they are yourself.
.
Humanity has not yet discovered how to live with itself. Until it does, it should not even try to play with others.

CFT,

If no man is an island, then neither is any species.

I saw V.
I also read up on the history of european arrival in the New World.

I vote we discover them before they discover us.

@Craig Thomas #11,
I vote we not poke the hornets nest and think we can outrun the consequences.

CFT: I'm skeptical this is anything but an academic question, but I don't think a few naive messages would set us up for being attacked anyway. Why not? Because if you're a nasty domination-bent civilization and you want to entice 'lesser' civilizations to show you where they are without giving away your intent, what would be a good way to do it? Send a naive lower-tech message out. Make them think (a) you're peaceful and (b) not much of a threat even if you aren't.

So I doubt very much any alien civilization that would want to go all ID4 on us would accept a voyager-like invitation at face value. And similarly, if we discovered an unsophisticated alien message, I'm sure there would be many many humans arguing that we shouldn't give away our position in response, in case it's a honey pot/trap.

Hey Ethan,
I continue to take issue with your airport scanner comments. Here is my comment and your reply.

From Steve Blackband on X-rays at the airport: "On the banana thing and airport x-ray scanners, an issue is not the total dose but the distribution. TSA seems to divide by the whole body, but the dose is concentrated at the skin so the dose there is many times higher."

This is actually not true of X-rays in general. Yes, they hit the skin first, but X-rays are of an energy such that the overwhelming majority penetrates the skin and goes into your body. There are a portion of the X-rays, however, that hit the skin and reflect, and that's how the backscattering X-ray imaging works. It's kind of the opposite of traditional X-rays, which measure what goes through your body. But as with all things, we've got to be quantitative. For the airport scanner, you'd need to go through it 200,000 times to equal the radiation of one CT scan.

I agree the overwhelming majority enters the skin - thats is EXACTLY what we are worried about. So we need to know the dose where the X-rays go. The X-rays don't all pass through your body - some are absorbed by tissues to different amounts depending on the tissue (otherwise their would be no contrast in the image). The dose is low in an airport scanner, so it only penetrates a short distance into the tissue. Thus to get dose correctly you must divide by the volume of the penetration depth, not the whole body volume. If the depth were 1cm, the dose would be 35 x more in that region than if you divided by the whole body. If its 1mm, 350x more - numbers to be worried about. This is countered by the applied x-ray power being being lower, but you need to be concerned about tissues that may be more susceptible to x-ray damage than others, like skin. Or maybe the eye surface (cataracts anyone)?
The UCSF guys were concerned but had the penetration depth too small. In the end its OK when you get quantitative as you say and they stood corrected - the dose is nothing to worry about. Science working as it should - a voiced concern, in depth study, and finally a clear answer.

The same issue occurs in MRI - when we use rf magnetic fields to image they cause heating. If you calculate by just dividing by total body mass, you miss potential 'hot spots' caused by heterogeneity in the tissues susceptibility to heating, or hot spots caused by the rf coil design. For example we worry about the interior of the eye which is avascular and cannot carry heat away as well. Thus complex models have been made of the heterogeneity of rf heating in tissues.

Hope that clear that topic up.

BTW is the guy in the grey beard and crown you?

The dose is low in an airport scanner, so it only penetrates a short distance into the tissue.

The standard x-ray scanners used for luggage use transmission and probably aren't something you should regularly be exposed to.

The more recent whole-body scanners use the Compton effect and x-ray backscattering. Reflectance (rather than transmission or absorbance) off of different types of surface, basically. Compton scattering is intentionally low intensity.

Personally, I'm more worried about the technology being a waste of my taxpayer dollars (both in purchase and in operation) than I am it's safety.

Eric,
You imply that you can tailor the X-rays in some way so that they either transmit or reflect, or are absorbed. You cannot do that. When you irradiate with x-rays, most trnansmit into the sample, some are then absorbed, and if the power is high enough some get through. A small fraction reflect. The power you use determines how far into the sample the X-rays go. At higher powers they go all the way through, used for luggage and Xray imaging and CT. For scanning just the surface using backscattering the sensitivity is there so that you can use low power, and so what is transmitted is also relatively small. Back scattering isn't 'intentionally low intensity'. BUT you only need relatively low intensity to scan the surface and detect, say, guns and knives and stuff i.e. you only need relatively low spatial resolution. If you wanted to increase the resolution to detect smaller objects, like 1mm diameter ball bearings, you would have to increase the power of the applied x-rays to get the resolution. In that case the the back scattering would be 'intentionally high intensity'. Back scattering is not 'intentionally low intensity' - it is by its nature a small fraction of the applied power. Much like the incident, reflected and transmitted waves of light are determined by the properties of the material you shine the light onto and the angle of the applied light.
The power, or density of the x-rays determines what you can see, the spatial resolution. It is possible to do x-ray microscopy, with microscopic (below 100 microns) spatial resolution - but the power of the applied x-rays is so high I would not recommend it for live people - think toast!! (but we do scan for example excised bone samples at microscopic resolution to look at trabecular structure, or small live samples that i am sure won't live long after they have been nuked).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_microscope

Personally, I am worried about wasting tax payer dollars AND safety. The present governments dismantling of the EPA and head in the sand view of climate change depresses the hell out of me - I want my tax payer dollars spent there, not on a stupid useless multi-billion dollar wall that cannot work.
.