inflammation

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

Antivaccine nonsense

autism

Bioethics

biology

Pseudoscience

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 ...

The Integrative Biology of Exercise VII - Day 1

dr. dolittle — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:19:43 +0000

The Integrative Biology of Exercise VII - Day 1

The opening session was great!

By Tatsuo Yamashita (Flickr: ワンセグで紅白をみます 2012/12/31) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Eric Hoffman (Children's National Medical Center) presented work on chronic inflammatory diseases in children. He mentioned that while diets high in fats and carbohydrates (i.e. Western diets), obesity and sedentary lifestyles are associated with inflammation and related diseases (ex: asthma, type 2 diabetes), another contributor could be hormones. Kids who stay indoors more often have reduced exposure to sunlight and exercise less. This may alter the normal biological clock of these kids because their stress hormone levels stay high all day as opposed to peaking at certain times. This constant exposure to elevated stress hormones may then in turn contribute to the development of inflammation and its associated diseases.

Monika Fleshner (University of Colorado, Boulder) presented research on the relationship between exercise, microbes within the gut, and stress. Not surprisingly, her team found that exercise reduced inflammation and depression. What was interesting was that exercise was also associated with a conversion to populations of gut microbes that are associated with health. Who knew exercise could benefit our gut microbes?

David James (University of Sydney, Australia) presented his work that explored how proteins in the body are affected by exercise.

dr. dolittle Wed, 11/02/2016 - 21:19

Tags

The things one can do with light - and messages in the dark

jhalper — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 02:56:50 +0000

The things one can do with light - and messages in the dark

One day in the future, we may be treating our ailments with microbiotic combinations designed specifically to correct imbalances in our personal microbiomes. We’ll bring our prescriptions on rewritable paper and pay using shimmery optical chips embedded in our cell phone cases or maybe our jewelry. Or we’ll be waiting in our doctor’s office for a simple test of our microbiogenome to see if a light-based nanoparticle delivery treatment is working, while watching iridescent optical displays that change as we move...

These future scenarios (and many more) are all imaginary, but they are imminently feasible, given today’s new stories on basic research at the Weizmann Institute. These are about several things one can do with light, including a disappearing trick or two, and messages hidden in deep, dark places.

Dr. Rafal Klajn’s messages are written with light. Printed images on a unique surface disappear within a few minutes. This system, made of nanoparticles in a gel-like medium, can be rewritten over and over again, so it could, one day, be the basis of rewritable paper. Klajn’s innovation is to put light-sensitive molecules into the medium (rather than engineering the nanoparticles); light exposure turns the gel acidic and leads to a fairly simple chemical reaction with the nanoparticles that causes them to disperse. The molecules Klajn uses, by the way, were developed back in the day (1950s) at the Weizmann Institute, and they have been used, among other things for photosensitive coatings on glasses.

Lighting the medium causes nanoparticles to disperse. Image: lab of Dr. Rafal Klajn

A different trick of the light is that of a tiny marine creature commonly known as a sea sapphire. Only a millimeter or so in length, the males of several species flash in brilliant colors ranging from purple to green for a second or so, and in the next they appear to completely vanish from sight. Though we still don’t know if the colors are meant to attract females or warn other males, thanks to Profs. Lia Addadi, Steve Weiner and Dan Oron, and their students Dvir Gur and Ben Leshem, we now know exactly how they perform the trick. Thin, clear crystals on the sea sapphires’ backs are stacked in precise arrays with “spacers” of cellular material holding them in place. It is the tuning of the spaces between the crystals that cause light to be directed in very specific wavelengths. In some species, this creates a glitzy blue iridescence when the light hits them full-on, from above. But when the sea sapphire performs an evasive corkscrew maneuver in the water, the angles are foreshortened as it turns sideways and the reflected light is shifted into the ultraviolet – effectively creating a sort of temporary invisibility cloak.

The precise stacking of the crystals, say the researchers, could lead to the design of artificial nanophotonic structures that would have numerous applications.

[embed]https://youtu.be/26kus22RaTo[/embed]

Finally, a study that brings to light a signal hidden in a place that daylight never reaches – deep inside our intestinal tracts. We know by now that the thousands of different types of bacteria living there are writing their own messages, which our immune systems interpret to our benefit or detriment. Type 2 diabetes, for example, and inflammatory bowel disease are mediated by the mix of microorganisms in our guts. Today we can work out the makeup of a person’s gut microbiome, but its message is mostly still too faint to read.

Computer scientist Prof. Eran Segal and his research students, working together with the group of Dr. Eran Elinav, an immunologist, have come up with a way of identifying a sort of communiqué within the broad picture. The idea is to sequence all of the DNA in a single sample, a task that is already available today with advanced sequencing techniques. Such techniques break the DNA into pieces and then reassemble the short sequences into long ones. But the group showed that this information can tell you not just quantities each kind of bacterium, but how fast each is reproducing. That’s because many of them are in the process of copying out their genomes in preparation for splitting into daughter cells; thus an overall sequencing will turn up lots of partial genomes. Since each kind of bacterium conveniently starts copying at the same point in its circular genome, one can figure out the first and last sequences to be copied and compute the ratio between the two. That will tell you, from a single sample, how fast each is replicating.

And changes in growth rates, according to the team’s further analysis, is a better indicator of the above-mentioned disorders than any other attempt to read our microbiomic messages, so far.

Three different studies – all basic research – in departments ranging from physics to computer science to chemistry and biology. The future possibilities are endless.

jhalper Mon, 08/31/2015 - 22:56

Tags

Chemical communication

personalized medicine

inflammatory syndrome

Categories

I think it's amazing not only will it save up on paper but it could be used to cure almost any disease

Saving Paper will Save Millions of Trees each other which are cut to make Paper. I think it is one of the best ways to save nature. With advancement in Technologies more and more Environment Saving Technologies will make this earth a better place to live.

rgds
S.K
Web Design SEO India

A Matter of Time

jhalper — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:31:16 +0000

A Matter of Time

The next time you reach into the fridge for a midnight snack – take heed: New research by Weizmann Institute scientists has shown that the time at which you eat your meals might have a profound effect on your liver triglyceride levels. Their research was conducted on mice, but if found to be true for humans as well, it may have clinical implications in the way patients could be treated for fatty liver and other metabolic diseases, which are characterized by abnormally elevated levels of lipids in blood and liver cells.

Our bodies are naturally cued to carry out various biological processes such as eating and sleeping at certain times of the day, and disruptions to this timing system, for example, eating at inappropriate times, may disturb the body’s natural rhythm and lead to disease. It’s no coincidence that shift-workers or those who travel frequently have been found to have a higher incidence as fatty liver and obesity, among other diseases.

Dr. Gad Asher of the Weizmann Institute’s Biological Chemistry Department researches the "biological clocks" known as circadian rhythms that are responsible for the fluctuating behavior of various biological processes. He and his colleagues have discovered that the levels of triglycerides – those nasty lipids that can build up in the liver and contribute to various heart problems – are regulated by these biological clocks, with their levels rising and falling according to a specific timetable. No big shocker there, but their next finding was quite surprising: When they restricted the mice’s meals to nighttime hours only, they saw a shift not only in the time the triglycerides had accumulated in the liver, but they observed a dramatic 50% decrease in overall levels. (And before you go ahead and open that fridge – remember: Mice are nocturnal animals so whatever works for them would be the opposite in us, humans.)

No drugs currently available for treating hyperlipidemia and hypertriglyceridemia – common diseases characterized by abnormally elevated levels of lipids in the blood and liver cells – have been shown to change lipid accumulation as efficiently and drastically as simply adjusting meal time. In other words, this research could lead to an alternative therapeutic intervention for such diseases: simply adjusting mealtimes. As an added benefit, one would not have to suffer any of the side effects usually associated with the drugs.

Not only that, but the scientists say it could have some farther-reaching implications. Just think about blood tests: These are usually only carried out in the morning hours, often after a fast. It is possible that the same test, carried out in the late afternoon, would yield different results? And the same holds true for animal researchers: Their data could depend on the timing of samples or feeding schedules.

jhalper Wed, 02/05/2014 - 03:31

Tags

basic research

biochemistry

biological regulation

lipid accumulation in liver

triglyceride level

basic research

biochemistry

biological regulation

circadian clocks

inflammation

obesity

And what is the case for humans who are basically nocturnal, or who are completely detached from the conventional clock and don't usually see daylight?

Both of those are norms in the culture of programmers and related engineering professions. Someone needs to study the time-related health variables in this sector of society, upon whom we depend for much of our modern infrastructure.

Other researchers do, indeed, look at the human cost (see above in the post). The above kind of study can find the exact biochemical mechanisms, which can then be applied to people. One of the problems with doing such studies in humans -- involving diet -- is in that you would not only have to take the timing into account, but to adjust for take-out pizza and coffee consumption. Clearly more research is needed, but ask yourself: How much of that programming really needs to get done at night?

It is very interesting how this plays out in the mice, but I have to question, how do other factors (like differences in circadian rhythms as G mentioned) have an effect on humans? It would also be useful and engaging to see how different individuals of varying gender and age groups would react to this study. According to the National Sleep Foundation, adolescents have a delay in their biological clock. As a teenager very interested in health and medicine, I would be curious to know the difference this age/circadian rhythm change causes on the liver triglyceride levels and how it would affect my meal times. Or if it would even make that big of a difference?

Dr. Gad Asher replied: I do not have a good answer, in fact this is a very good question and future studies will hopefully provide an answer to these questions.
To date our studies are mostly limited to animal models which are well controlled.

If an optimum time was found that the biological processes are occurring within the animal could you therefore have more control on obesity and heart disease that occur and possibly limit the animal to these? Also if studied on humans would this have the same effect?

Studies would have to be carried out on humans, of course.

This is very interesting. It has never occurred to me that time can play a major role based on our biological factors. I have noticed that if I come home from a long, busy day without eating during my usual time, a disturbance in my body when I eat my "midnight dinner." I notice that I feel a little different (not by a whole lot) and it becomes harder to sleep at night right after I eat. But why does a change in your biological clock make sure a huge different later down the road on your body. For example, when someone moves to a new place over seas and they have to adjust to the time zone there, can this cause my problems down the road when they have to fully adjust to this for possible the rest of their lives? Do you think it affects younger people more, the same, or less than someone who is older? Also, based on what you eat at night I presume plays a role in how much or how little it can effect your body. Since our bodies have a nature way of healing ourselves, like forming scabes after cuts and getting better after a cold- because our homeosstatesis plays a role, it could be possible that if a person where to remain stable with a constant time on sleeping, eating etc. that the diseases possibly caused from this down the road can be "re-winded?" Do you think this can play a role in cancer also?
Diseases that can be caused from a disturbance does make sense because our bodies are like a machine and if the machine is not treated properly with care and maintenance the time of the machine will not work long.

I found this article very interesting. The title caught my eye but I didn't expect this is what the article would be on. I am very interested in weight loss and weight management and have done some research on it before based on past experience and other peoples experiences. I have heard from people that late night cravings and snacking is bad for you but never found an article based on it like this one. This makes me rethink the next time I want a snack before bed. It makes me curious how Dr Asher thought to study the circadian rhythm to see how our trygluceride levels are effected. It is interesting to think that we could find the cure to beat obestiy and heart diseases that has been effected Americans for years. When could they start doing these types of testing on humans since they have only been testing mice? And what kind of an effect do you think this kind of testing would have on humans?

I found this article to be very interesting but it's not exactly new information. It's common knowledge to not eat after a certain time to benefit a healthy weight just like it is common knowledge not to eat McDonalds when dieting. However, I think it needs to become more known just how much the late night eating can set people back when trying to maintain a healthy diet. I would be curious to know if this pertains to all "midnight snacking" or if there are certain foods that will not disturb our biological clocks. Say you eat celery at one a.m. Celery does not have much nutritional value so will that throw our clocks out of wack as well. I realize it will not have the same effect as eating a burger at this same time but my question still stands if it is ok to eat late at night if it is something healthy.

Again, the study was done on mice -- it won't tell you what a human can eat at night. The surprise was not that our eating has a biological clock function, but that there is another clock, on top of the first one, that strongly regulates lipid storage in the liver.

I found this article to be very interesting and relatable! I constantly try to watch what I eat. We always seem to get hungry when we shouldn't get hungry. Like we want what we can't have. I've read other articles by Dr. Asher where he is talking about the biological clock. This tells us whether we should wake up, if it's time to go to bed, etc. This helps you decide when it may be "too late" to eat. I'm interested to see what happens to those who may work all night and work all day., or are just nocturnal. I think that it is cool that we are able to use mice as experiments before we use humans. Are there other animals that we could use to experiment on? I think this is interesting because everyone of us can relate to us whether we like to watch what we eat or we don't have a care in the world! Either way these experiments are working closer to reduce the amount of heart disease and obesity!

Birds missing anti-inflammatory protein common to other classes of animals

dr. dolittle — Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:47:45 +0000

Birds missing anti-inflammatory protein common to other classes of animals

Image from www.123rf.com

A new study published in the American Journal of Physiology presents data suggesting that birds do not carry a specific anti-inflammatory protein critical for keeping inflammation under control in mammals, reptiles and amphibians.

The specific protein is tristetraprolin (TTP). It functions mainly by inhibiting key mediators of inflammation in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFa). In fact, mice that are missing this protein have chronic systemic inflammation from unchecked TNFa. Moreover, mice missing the protein specifically in myeloid cells develop fatal inflammation from severely elevated TNFa when exposed to the pro-inflammatory chemical lipopolysaccharide.

Dr. Perry Blackshear and colleagues at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences searched for evidence of TTP in the genome of numerous species of birds. They came up empty-handed. The research team also attempted to stimulate the production of TTP by exposing cells from chickens to proteins from other animals as well as a molecule isolated from bacteria to no avail.

It is really interesting that birds do not seem to express this protein that is so vital to preventing inflammation in animals from other classes (mammalia, reptilia, and amphibia). In a press release from the American Physiological Society the study authors were quoted saying, “From an immunological standpoint, it will be both interesting and important to determine how birds cope differently with the environmental and microbiological assaults that stimulate the acute innate immune response in mammals. This will be important to understand, both to protect birds from infections, and to protect man from bird-transmitted” viruses.

Sources:

Lai WS, Stumpo DJ, Kennington EA, Burkholder AB, Ward JM, Fargo DL, Blackshear PJ. Life without TTP: Apparent absence of an important anti-inflammatory protein in birds. American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 2013 DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00310.2013

American Physiological Society

dr. dolittle Tue, 09/17/2013 - 20:47

Tags

Categories

Does that mean when birds are injured they're likely recover much slower than mammals?

Fungus kills caterpillars but may help humans

dr. dolittle — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:26:35 +0000

Fungus kills caterpillars but may help humans

Caterpillars with fungus growing out of their heads. Image of Cordyceps sinensis fungus from http://cordyceps-sinensis-mushroom.blogspot.com/

Whoever thought that a brain-attacking fungus might actually be good for you? This particular type of fungus, cordyceps, is known for attacking and killing caterpillars and can be found in the mountains of Tibet. Touted as a cure for various ailments including cancer, asthma, and erectile dysfunction, it is sold in Chinese markets as the "golden worm" or "Tibetan mushroom" for as much as $50,000 per pound! A new study published in RNA provides some evidence for these claims. The researchers isolated the chemical cordycepin from the fungus and found that it actually does have anti-inflammatory properties and works by halting polyadenylation, which shuts off genes that induce inflammation. The hope is to develop new anti-inflammatory treatments for asthma, cancer, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and other inflammation-associated diseases. Cordycepin is not currently available as a medication as more tests are needed and doctors caution about self-medicating with the fungus.

Sources:

National Geographic Daily News

Kondrashov A, Meijer HA, Barthet-Barateig A, Parker HN, Khurshid A, Tessier S, Sicard M, Knox AJ, Pang L, and de Moor CH. Inhibition of polyadenylation reduces inflammatory gene induction. RNA. published online Nov. 1, 2012. doi: 10.1261/rna.032391.112

dr. dolittle Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:26

Tags

Awsome blog! I am loving it!! Will come back again. I am bookmarking your feeds also

This is amazing. Inflammation is very common in elderly people as we might all either from experience or knowing someone who suffers from let's rheumatoid arthritis. The success if this fungus in pharmaceuticals would change the level of medicine which would help many people. But then again as we may know many people are allergic to anything with fungus like penicillin this would bring up the same medical concern.

Obesity, Inflammation, and Diabetes

kbonham — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:00:00 +0000

Obesity, Inflammation, and Diabetes

This entry is cross posted from the the SITN Flash, a bimonthly publication written and edited by Harvard graduate students. You can find my piece, as well as archives of previous articles written by many graduate students at the Science in the News website.

In 1985, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) began tracking the prevalence of obesity in the United States. Since then, a clear trend has emerged: obesity is on the rise. The maps below compare obesity levels across the United States in 2004 and 2008:

It's clear that the number of people with obesity is growing, and has been as long we have been tracking it.

Obesity is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) over 30. BMI is calculated by dividing your weight (in kilograms) by the square of your height (in meters). It is important to note that BMI is by no means a perfect measurement of health - its correlation to body fat can vary depending on one's physiology and genetics - but it is the easiest and least invasive way to assess body fat percentage. More accurate measurements can be achieved by measuring relative buoyancy (fat is less dense than other body tissues) or by looking at tissues with X-ray or MRI, but these methods require special tools and a visit to a doctor [3]. To give you an idea of what obesity by BMI means, someone six feet tall would be classified as obese if they weigh over 220 lbs, someone 5'6" would have to weigh over 185 lbs, and someone five feet tall would be over 150 lbs to be considered obese by this measurement [4].

Obesity affects more than the size of your waistline. If you're wondering why the CDC is tracking obesity, it's because those excess pounds have been linked to several significant health problems, including heart disease, stroke, and some forms of cancer. In fact, one study in 2009 estimated that the direct medical cost of obesity in the US accounted for $147 billion of total health-care spending. Of all the health problems associated with being overweight, one of the most significant and well-studied impact is the increased risk for diabetes. Compare the following maps charting the percentage of adults diagnosed with diabetes from the same time span as the previous maps:

The rates of both obesity and diabetes are rising all over the country, and regions with the greatest increases in levels of obesity have corresponding increases in diabetes. In addition to the strong geographical correlation, there is solid evidence for the role of excessive weight in diabetes, but we are only recently beginning to understand the mechanism behind this link.

Diabetes: The Disease

Diabetes mellitus is the Latin name for two conditions in which people are unable to regulate their blood sugar. Blood sugar is comprised of the simple sugar glucose, a product resulting from the breakdown of food that we consume and digest. In healthy people, blood glucose levels are controlled by two competing hormones. When glucose is low (for example, after not eating for awhile), the hormone glucagon is released and causes cells to break down and release their stored glucose. When blood sugar goes up after a meal, the pancreas releases insulin, signaling cells to absorb glucose from the blood and rebuild their stores [5]. Normally, these two processes are finely tuned to make sure cells have sufficient stores of glucose, but are also ready to release it when necessary. In diabetic patients, however, the insulin response is defective, and blood sugar can get dangerously high. In fact, the term diabetes ("passing through" in latin) mellitus ("sweetness") refers to the fact that blood sugar levels are so high that glucose is excreted in urine.

The two forms of diabetes have similar symptoms but have two different root causes. Type 1 diabetes is the result of an inability to produce insulin. Often, this is because the body's own immune cells attack the Î²-islet cells of the pancreas - the sole producers of insulin. This is an example of an autoimmune disease, and is thought to be unrelated to diet and lifestyle.

Type 2 diabetes is far more common, accounting for nearly 90% of all cases of diabetes, and is the form of the disease that has been linked to obesity. Type 2 diabetics are able to produce insulin, but their cells are unable to respond to it.

Today, diabetes can be effectively managed with the use of synthetic insulin injections, but this requires constant vigilance. If blood sugar levels aren't managed properly, the medical complications can be severe and widespread. Chronic high blood sugar can damage blood vessels, increase a person's risk for heart attacks and stroke by two to four times compared to a non-diabetic person, and can result in significantly higher blood pressure. Blood vessel damage can be so severe that it can lead to blindness and nervous system damage or cut off blood flow to the lower limbs, necessitating amputation [6].

Inflammation, Obesity, and Diabetes

Though aberrant immune responses have long been associated with type 1 diabetes, recent evidence has begun to mount that inflammation and the immune system is also heavily involved in type 2 diabetes. Inflammation is the immune system's normal response to infection. Immune cells called macrophages can detect the presence of bacteria and viruses, and release signals that alert the rest of the immune system to an invading bug. These signals are called cytokines, and they promote an anti-pathogen response by increasing blood flow to the infected tissue, recruiting other immune cells from the blood and activating other, more potent immune cells. These activities result in the characteristic redness, swelling and pain associated with inflammation.

One of the first suggestions that the immune system was involved in type 2 diabetes came in 1993, when researchers at Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, MA noticed an increased production of inflammatory cytokines in obese rats that are prone to diabetes. These cytokines were produced directly by adipocytes, the cells that store fat. Interestingly, when cytokine activity was blocked, these rats became less resistant to insulin and their blood-sugar levels dropped [7].

Since then, the evidence for the role of the immune system in the link between obesity and diabetes has continued to mount. In addition to their role in immunity, macrophages are also involved in maintaining healthy tissues and clearing debris. Macrophages in fat tissue are responsible for cleaning up after adipocytes that have burst and released their fat molecules, but in obese individuals, the increased number of adipocytes can overwhelm macrophages. In the last decade, several published studies showed that obese animals and humans have increased numbers of macrophages in their fat tissue, and that these macrophages were more prone to promote inflammation than the macrophages in non-obese individuals. More recently, the cytokines produced by these macrophages have been shown to have a direct effect on insulin resistance [8].

This research is already leading to potential treatments. Several promising anti-inflammatory drugs are presently undergoing clinical trials, and earlier this year, a study in mice showed that a drug currently used to treat arthritis may help decrease insulin resistance. These drugs may be expensive, however, and may not reach the general public for a long time. Until scientists find an affordable and effective treatment, the best way to prevent diabetes is to maintain a healthy weight. A recent study predicted that if current trends continue, 83 percent of men and 72 percent of women will be overweight or obese by 2020. As good as the science gets, we may not be able to make headway against this disease without changing people's behavior.

References

[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Diabetes Surveillance System. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/index.htm

[2] http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DDT_STRS2/FAQ.aspx

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage

[4] http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.htm

[5] http://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/diabetes/normal-regulation-blood…

[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002194/

[7] G.S. Hotamisligil, et al. Adipose expression of tumor necrosis factor-Î±: direct role in obesity-linked insulin resistance. Science, 259 (1993), pp. 87-91.

[8] Jerrold M. Olefsky and Christopher K. Glass "Macrophages, Inflammation, and Insulin Resistance." Annual Review of Physiology Vol. 72: 219-246 March 2010

[9] http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=anti-inflammatory+diabetes

[10] Daniel A Winer et al. "B cells promote insulin resistance through modulation of T cells and production of pathogenic IgG antibodies." Nature Medicine 17, 610-6187 (2011).

kbonham Wed, 12/21/2011 - 02:00

Tags

Categories

Hi Kevin -

Have you seen any of the studies on developmental programming of obesity and/or metabolic syndrome? The findings are both beautiful and terrifying. I hate the somewhat deterministic nature of the findings, but the data is the data.

Maternal Obesity and Developmental Programming of Metabolic Disorders in Offspring: Evidence from Animal Models (Experimental Diabetes Research Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 592408)

Fetal programming of adipose tissue: effects of intrauterine growth restriction and maternal obesity/high-fat diet (Semin Reprod Med. 2011 May;29(3):237-45. Epub 2011 Jun 27)

There are a ton more.

Clearly sedentary lifestyles and food options are big problems, but I fear that we may have a generation of children for whom the deck is heavily stacked against them from the first days of life.

- pD

Okay, sure, there may be some temporary fluctuations in body mass, but there's no reason to think humans are causing it. It could just be some trend in the movement of fatness... or something.

@ pD - I haven't read those studies in detail, but I'm aware of the implications. You're right that we may have a generation of children with the deck stacked against them - all the more reason to do everything we can to promote healthy lifestyles for everyone.

It's not going to be easy though.

@ Surgoshan - I see what you did there. My money is on sun spots.

that is a rather dramatic increase in 4 years. The map of change since 1990 is also pretty amazing. I remember people's lifestyles in the 90s, and it is hard to believe that people are eating much more poorly now than then. Unless I was to learn that the addition of the internet has completely reduced the average exercise level, it does seem like an outside factor is influencing the map

@ July - Inactivity is a problem too. The same place survey that looks at obesity and diabetes also looks at physical activity. Take a look. The changes aren't as dramatic, but they're there.

Do not forget to factor in the damaging affects of FDA approved food chemicals which lead to inflammation.

Great article!
Wow, those 2020 statistics are scary!
Activity and healthy diet, those are our two trusted and true allies. However, there is so much confusion and misinformation on the internet now that I think it actually sends people in the wrong direction, making things worse.
Hopefully we can get our act together soon to better the health of our nation. Thanks for your article!
-Mandy Seay, RD, LD

Ho, Ho, Ho! Merry Christmas! An article just in time to meet the jolly fat man!

Perhaps I am mistaken, but aren't obesity rates increasing in most industrialized societies? The reason I bring this up is in regards to prepared or "manufactured" foods- has there been any studies that have shown any major differences in the way they are made? I realize that of course we eat more of these types of meals now but I wonder if there are significant differences beyond that (beyond fat and sugars for example).

On a observational note, it is interesting to see video shot as late as the 70's and 80's and see how much thinner most people seemed to be.

Inflammation, driven by excess fat, underlies a lot of Western ills, particularly cancer.

BMI is, as you say, misleading. There's a simpler, non-invasive measure: the waist or its ratio to that of the upper thighs. This also relates directly to the most dangerous fat of all - visceral fat.

I think Dr Barry Sears (of the Zone diet and other research/books) has perhaps the best handle on this.

Get the waist circumference and the EFA ratios right (plus Vit.D3 & homocysteine levels) and most of the illnesses will reduce/disappear.

Type 2 diabetes can be cured by going on a two week 500 cals/day regime; and then staying off all carbs.

@ Kellym - Pam over at Tomorrow's Table or the guys at Obesity Panacea are probably better people to ask - I'm not really current on the literature regarding health and nutrition and what goes into those things. There's a reason I tackled this topic from an immunology perspective :-)

@ Ian - I'm not aware of the literature linking adipose inflammation to cancer. I'm not sure that waist to thigh ratio is actually easier than BMI - most people know their height and it's relatively easy to step on a scale. I think the CDC uses this measure because it's easier to standardize, and it's sufficiently correlated to health that it's worth knowing. It's certainly possible that they will include a few people that are healthy with a high BMI, and exclude people that are unhealthy with a lower BMI, but I think this measure is good enough to track what they want to track.

Just maintain a healthy weight, as if it were that easy. Go on a 500 cal a day diet? YOU try it. I have been involved in numerous weight loss groups over the years, and I can tell you that nobody struggles more or works harder to lose weight than those folks. It is so frustrating to hear people who have never had a weight problem speak as if they have the answers and they are "easy".

I challenge anyone who has not been on a diet to cut back 500 calories a day for 2 weeks and see how it feels. Try going to bed with your stomach growling every night and then we'll talk about weight loss.

@ Aggie - I don't think anyone is saying it's easy - I certainly didn't. I cut back to 2500k calories/day (which is roughly what my maintenance level should be) and it's incredibly hard. My mom has been struggling with her weight for decades, but recently found a diet plan that seems to be working for her. For anyone struggling to lose weight, I recommend taking a look at reddit.com/r/loseit - there are tons of inspirational stories, diet and exercise plans of all sorts and a really great community of people that can help.

500 cal/day is starvation, and I don't think that's the answer, but cutting calories and increasing physical activity is possible (not easy), and necessary for proper health. And ultimately, it's probably less effort in the long run than daily insulin shots and monthly doctor's visits.

I lost 1/3 of my body weight over a span of 9 months and have kept it off for a year. It involved a change in lifestyle. I switched to using smaller plates. I paid attention to serving portions. For example when cooking pasta I only cook 2 ounces per person. I reduced my food intake and dramatically increased my daily exercise. During the 9 months I kept my caloric intake to 1,200 to 1,500 calories a day and upped my exercise so I was exercising 500 to 1,000 calories a day. I lost 70 pounds so it is doable over 9 months. A big thing was stopping use of the car. I now no longer drive if I am only going up to 5 miles. I bicycle instead. I even bicycle sometimes if I need to go 10-15 miles one way. I have not been so healthy in years and I am in my mid 50s. Now maintaining my weight is easy.

I've lost some 40 pounds over the last several years and am still overweight. Major thing I did was quit eating between meals. I notice parents loading up kids plates and kids getting nothing but french fries on their own. I think a young child should be given very small portions, then given more if they want it. I see young kids not wanting to eat, perhaps because they are overwhelmed by the amount of food in front of them.

Pardon my having problem with the analysis, but I'm a little bothered by the two graphs each for obesity and diabetes are only four years apart, and that the white areas encompass a range of bmi's of 19.6 while all but the last category have bmi ranges of around 4 in obesity's case. Overall the increase looks dramatic, somewhat like the increase I would expect to come from a communicable disease rather than from a change in dietary habits. That is unless the development of diabetes follows a logarithmic curve rather than an arithmetic one or the disease has changed such that it now develops more rapidly in individuals than it used to.

There is a real possibility that the government has had a active role in making people obese.

See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/?tool=pubmed

You may be interested in the role that intracellular bacteria plays in disregulating the immune system, and the various hormone receptors (e.g. renin, thyroid, androgen, and the especially VDR which transcribes a plethora of antimicrobial peptides).

Cholesterol is not what causes heart disease. Food is not what causes diabetes or obesity.

Chronic diseases are now showing in newborns and children - they are not old enough to have developed chronic disease, but have had the same bacterial problem passed onto them by their parents.

The assumption that some causal event or environmental trigger makes the immune system to attack the body is wrong. The immune system is already in a serious state and the 'trigger' is simply the last straw.
This is why we are so confused and Koch's postulate is no longer valid. Is it Borrelia that causes lyme? Is is inhaled dust that causes sarcoidosis? Is it cholesterol that causes arterial sclerosis? Does alcohol cause cirrhosis?
Are genes responsible for cancer? The genes are the smoking gun, not the agent pulling the trigger.
Look further back up the trail of clues and see if you can see the pathogenic etiology that has already been identified.
Do conduct research, but not in a bubble of unawareness.

BTW,
Some people that are obese are certainly to blame for their own state.

On the other hand, eating differently, or less and doing exercise is simply never going to help a large number of people, because that is simply not the cause of their obesity.

So many years, so many diets, so many exercise regimes - the evidence is clear that this does not work for a large percentage of people.

You are looking at chronic disease, which has been growing significantly over the last 80 years or so.

When almost half the population of the US is deficient in Vitamin D, ask yourself - is it REALLY because they're not getting enough? Almost every food product in the stores is supplemented with that same steroid that many people think is a vitamin that is going to be good for them.
The 'deficiency' is a marker, not a cause of disease.

@ Steve - No need to ask for pardon - it's a good idea to question the analysis of others. The way that you analyze numbers can often lead to erroneous conclusions, even if the underlying data is correct. If you go to the CDC's website (my first reference), they have graphs available that show the map by quartile rather than in this way. And if you dig a bit, all the raw data is available too, so you can plot it how you like. I agree that the increases are dramatic and unexpected, but the data is the data. If you do an analysis that you think is more representative, please come back and let us know.

@ arydberg - I didn't notice anything in that article that points to a government playing an active role, can you clarify?

@ Seth - You assert a number of things there without pointing to evidence (careful of putting in hyperlinks though, the spam filter will grab you). Let me take your points one by one.

You may be interested in the role that intracellular bacteria plays in disregulating the immune system, and the various hormone receptors (e.g. renin, thyroid, androgen, and the especially VDR which transcribes a plethora of antimicrobial peptides)

What intracellular bacteria are you referring to? It's not surprising that pathogens have an effect on the immune system, but are you claiming that people are obese because they are infected with a particular bug? And I'm unclear what all of those hormone receptors you listed have to do with anything.

Cholesterol is not what causes heart disease. Food is not what causes diabetes or obesity

There are direct links between some forms of cholesterol and heart disease, such as plaques on the walls of your blood vessels that increase blood pressure. Cholesterol isn't the only culprit of course, it's a complex problem. But we know that people with high cholesterol are at increased risk, and we know that lowering your cholesterol decreases risk.

Food does not cause obesity or diabetes. Eating too many calories and not exercising enough leads to obesity, and as I've recounted in this post, excess fat can lead to immune disregulation which can lead to diabetes. Again, these are complex issues, but you're making claims that go against the scientific literature that I'm aware of without pointing to any counter evidence.

Chronic diseases are now showing in newborns and children - they are not old enough to have developed chronic disease, but have had the same bacterial problem passed onto them by their parents.

Source?

This is why we are so confused and Koch's postulate is no longer valid. Is it Borrelia that causes lyme? Is is inhaled dust that causes sarcoidosis? Is it cholesterol that causes arterial sclerosis? Does alcohol cause cirrhosis?
Are genes responsible for cancer? The genes are the smoking gun, not the agent pulling the trigger.

It's not that Koch's postulates are no longer valid, it's that these postulates are only relevant for diseases that are caused by an infectious microorganism. Since this is not the case for, say, arterial sclerosis, it doesn't make any sense to try to apply Koch's postulates to that disease.

Cancer is an interesting case, since it's clear that some cancers can be driven by an infectious cause (like cervical cancer). However, cancer is an incredibly complex disease - even talking about "cancer" as some sort of monolith is misleading since there are so many different types of cancer, different disease progression, different risks and different causes.

Some people that are obese are certainly to blame for their own state.

On the other hand, eating differently, or less and doing exercise is simply never going to help a large number of people, because that is simply not the cause of their obesity.

I don't think blame is the right framework. But I also disagree with your assertion that eating less and getting exercise won't help a large number of people. Calories in < calories out will always lead to weight loss, though an individual's metabolism can have a significant impact on both sides of that ledger (it's not as easy as getting X amount of exercise and letting Y calories enter your digestive tract). The question is, what are the incentive structures that lead to the right behaviors. Right now, the cheapest food is the food most likely to lead to obesity, and getting exercise is hard.

When almost half the population of the US is deficient in Vitamin D, ask yourself - is it REALLY because they're not getting enough? Almost every food product in the stores is supplemented with that same steroid that many people think is a vitamin that is going to be good for them.
The 'deficiency' is a marker, not a cause of disease

I'm not really sure what you're trying to assert here. VitD is an interesting topic, as there is a lot of emerging evidence that deficiency is correlated with a number of problems that we aren't aware of. However, it's unclear what role supplementation will have in alleviating these problems. The jury is still out in my opinion.

But VitD is now considered a cure for a whole host of things by the alt-med community, so it's also hard to untangle the good evidence from the woo.

Everybody with a weight problem should try this for 2 weeks: Cut out most sweets and anything with wheat or corn in it. There's plenty of good stuff to replace these mostly empty calories - greens, veggies and fruit (mostly berries) for instance. I have lost 25 pounds over the past 6 months and I am almost never hungry. The first 10 pounds just melted off in a few weeks. Everyday aches and pains disappeared and mental clarity and focus are better than I can ever remember. I highly recommend Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories and William Davis' Wheat Belly. The sooner the American public wakes up and recognizes the nonsensical dogma about "healthy whole grains" for what it is, the better.

What is the economic burden of diabetes? Proper management and control could save 49,000 lives and $196 million annually. http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=2699

When I mention intracellular bacteria, I mean in particular, L-form bacteria. There is a huge amount of recent research and growing evidence that points to a pathogenic etiology for many chronic diseases. The stumbling-block, unfortunately, that must be overcome is the widespread current view that chronic disease has no infectious cause.

A direct link does not necessarily mean cause. A scientific paper may say, "A is linked with B", but this does not necessarily mean "A causes B", although this is a common misinterpretation by many readers and reporters in the media. Unfortunately, this simple misunderstanding is the reason that, despite recent research, for example, that many people now believe Vitamin D supplementation is going to help them avoid cancer or chronic diseases. The fact is, this has not been shown to be valid.

My point about cholesterol not causing disease is that it is not the agent of disease but merely a component.
When you talk of cholesterol, you should know that it is the building block for the hormones the body produces.
If it is taken up by a microorganism, metabolised and deposited as plaque in, for example, an artery, then is the cholesterol the causal factor? What is the agent of this deposition?
Brown dust is not the cause of a wooden house falling down, but if you look further back up the line of causality, you find termites.
If someone was to brick up the doors of your house, you would not say that the bricks were ultimately to blame for this problem, but the person that piled them there and applied the mortar.

There are several hormone receptors that are effected by the same molecules that are often introduced in the diet.
It does not make sense to measure, for example, serum thyroid levels and prescribe T3 or T4 to make up the balance (although, this is standard practice). Sure, it makes people feel better, but it doesn't attend to the underlying problem. If thyroid levels are out of range, there is going to be a reason.
An analogy is - if your car oil is low, you top it up, although another 100miles down the road you are going to have to top it up again, and again. The best solution is to fix the underlying problem. Perhaps the pistons are worn, causing the oil to be burnt, or there is a leak in the engine. Perhaps it is a slow leak that messes up your driveway, but you decide you can live with that. Perhaps the car is old and you don't plan on keeping it, then the trouble of a proper repair is unwarranted, so you just keep on topping up the oil until it finally gives in and the engine breaks down or you decide to trade it in on a new model.

We see too much of this in medical practice as 'disease care' rather than 'health care'. The disease is allowed for and people are palliated, putting off the need for a proper cure. If a doctor can make his patient comfortable with the diseease, then they are manageble until the last moments (although I don't see anyone with chronic dsease having final moments anything other than costly and/or painful).

Trying to regulate one hormone in the body is a fair effort, but many systems are inextricably linked. The balancing of one element can cause an imbalance of all the others, especially as they have common agonists and antagonists. You cannot simply regard one part and try and fix it without caring for the state of something else.
For example, if you were to cut a patient open to repair an artery, you would not forget to stitch them up afterwards. The dermis is just as important as the things it protects.

In 2011, a national cohort study of infants and toddlers found that nearly one-third of US children were overweight or obese at 9 months and 2 years old.
- Moss BG, Yeaton WH (2011). "Young Children's Weight Trajectories and Associated Risk Factors: Results From the Early Childhood Longitudinal StudyâBirth Cohort.". American Journal of Health Promotion 25 (3): 190â198.

Koch's postulate is simplistic and does not work when we start looking at chronic disease as having infectious cause. There is a huge amount of variety in every individual's microbiota, producing a range of symptoms which are classified as particular disease. That is, there is not a "one microbe - one disease" correlation. This is why we are failing repeatedly to identify one virus as a cause for ME or one bacterium as a cause Lyme, for example.

Also, what I am trying to point out is that immune dis-regulation already exists in an individual's system, before they put too much fatty food in their mouth, or before a deer tick triggers Lyme disease, or inhalation of 911 dust causes sarcoidosis.
There is an untold number of biofilms and microbes at work in your body and your particular microbiome is unique to you. This means that everybody has their own unique disease. Sure, doctors can attempt to categorise them, and many of them should be called syndromes rather than diseases - for example sarcoidosis is not regarded as having an infectious cause, although there is growing evidence to the contrary.
As you mentioned, there are many types of conditions that we refer to as 'cancer', but the truth is they are all unique diseases, brought about by the individual combined human-microbial organism. The extent of influence of the human metagenome is only beginning to be understood. (Of course, we know some cancers are caused by exposure to radiation or a genetic deformity).

Medicine to date is concerned with treating the human condition, and has been blind to the fact that on a cellular level, we are not 100% human - it is closer to 1%.

Read https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5380
Read Metagenomics of the Human Body (Springer).
Read the latest papers on Vitamin D, relating to protection against cancer and other diseases. Their only conclusions are that there is no clear supporting evidence and that 'further research needs to be done'. The problem is the press has already seized upon the hope that Vitamin D is the wonderful, sunshine drug that will help us be healthy. The truth is, it is not a vitamin but a steroid that palliates by supressing the immune system but at the same time, makes us more susceptible to disease. As long as you keep loading up on it, you may be ok, but if you try and wean yourself off, you better be aware of the consequences.

It is not hard to untangle the 'good evidence' from the woo. Read the published research.
When I say read the research, I am not going to give you links to papers - google can do that. As an academic, you have a responsibility to read and take into consideration work that has already been done in your field.
But the main drive must be that you are willing to do so. If you are going to discount anything outright, then you should not call yourself a scientist.

I could introduce you to many people I know personally who have exercised and dieted religiously but in vain to lose and keep weight off. The world is full of them - look around.
You have to start questioning all the repeatedly unsuccessful attempts and try and think differently. Don't go the same way everybody else has gone.
Medical science needs to experience something of a paradigm-shift if it is ever going to be able to discover as well as face the truth.

"Excess fat can lead to immune disregulation which can lead to diabetes"

Come on now, do you really believe excess fat disregulates the immune system?

Putting excess fat (even repeatedly) in a "type X" body may cause some weight gain but it does not make this person obese.
Putting excess fat into a "type Y" body where certain bacteria are present does cause fat to be retained and deposited in all the usual places.

Our metabolism is derived from not just the human part of us. The human gut is full of microbes that have a huge influence on our psychological and physical states, and each person has a different combination of pathogens, due to unique inheritance and exposure throughout a lifetime.

To say THE cause of obesity is too much fatty food and not enough exercise is ridiculous, especially if may be trying to explain it to a 9 month-old.

Yeah the data are the data, but the CDC's own data using actual measurements of height and weight isn't showing this increase. The maps take the weight and height that people report, giving results that are fairly wrong in general, and then cuts them into these BMI categories, which probably further distorts the results.

Does the United States have the highest rate of obesity in the world?

As an endocrinologist, I see the results of the research you just described. Type 2 diabetes was almost unheard of in children about 15 years ago. Now, the incidence of type 2 diabetes is starting to surpass the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children. I have also seen portion sizes getting larger especially in fast food restaurants. Parents need to learn how to feed their families and learn the composition of food and appropriate portion sizes as well. Nutrition used to be part of science classes taught in elementary school, and that component of education is now lacking. While some children get plenty of exercise, most are glued to the computer or TV and munch. We need more education about increasing activity, and proper eating in elementary schools and parents should be included in it.

Do not forget to factor in the damaging affects of FDA approved food chemicals which lead to inflammation.

This Week at the Institute: The Mechanics of Life and a Quantum Amplifier

jhalper — Wed, 25 May 2011 00:15:32 +0000

This Week at the Institute: The Mechanics of Life and a Quantum Amplifier

This week's Weizmann news stories: A "steam release valve" for inflammation, a "brake" for cell division and an "amplifier" for quantum signals.

The steam release valve mechanism also involves an amplifier - one that ramps up the inflammation signal in response to viral attack on a cell. When the signal reaches its peak, it trips a nearby protein called caspase-8, which then kills the amps, damping the signal back down. The scientists think that failures in this mechanism could be behind various inflammatory diseases.

The brake on cell division turns out to be our old friend p53. Thirty years and thousands of papers on, scientists are still turning up new functions for this master gene that keeps our cells from becoming cancerous. Three teams worked together on this research; they started out with a broad sweep, identifying around 8,000 different genes that are expressed after a growth factor first knocks on the cell's door. When they looked for the braking mechanism - the countersignal to stop, wait, check and check again before proceeding with cell division - a group of genes under the control of p53 popped up. In other words, cells with mutated or missing p53 - including over half of all cancer cells - are operating their cell division machinery with faulty brakes.

The amplifier is a quantum mechanical version of the "locked-in amplifier" commonly used in physics labs around the globe to measure signals in a noisy environment. In this case, their detector consists of a single ion, and the sensitivity of its measurement of magnetic vibrations is sufficient to measure the magnetic field that is produced by a single electron. That's two orders of magnitude more sensitive than previous such measurements. The researchers say that the technique can be applied to all sorts of quantum sensors to improve their performance.

Ion trap in the lab of Dr. Roee Ozeri

jhalper Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:15

Tags

Good article. I like it.
ophthalmologist's
vodvos.com

Only wanna remark that you have a very nice web site , I love the style it actually stands out.

Thanks

Weekend Review: Sterile Inflammation

kbonham — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 20:00:00 +0000

Weekend Review: Sterile Inflammation

If you've ever rolled your ankle (as I have many times), you have a visceral knowledge of inflammation. Clinically, inflammation is the redness, swelling, heat and pain that's associated with injury. From an immunologist's perspective, it's the set of molecular events that get the immune system going. All of the clinical systems associated with inflammation are due to increased vascular permeability, which is just a fancy way of saying leaky blood vessels. Actually, "leaky" implies that it's uncontrolled, when in fact there's a very orchestrated set of events that recruit immune cells and other helpful factors to the site of an injury.

I've talked a lot about inflammation in a lot contexts, but generally, I think of it as being triggered by the activation of a pattern recognition receptor (PRR) in response to a potential pathogen. When you get a cut, some bacteria are bound to get into it and set off the alarms - alarms that are triggered by "pathogen associated molecular patterns" (PAMPs). But in reality, there are a lot of things that trigger inflammation in the absence of bugs - the rolled ankle I mentioned above is a perfect example. Since there are no bugs involved, it's called sterile inflammation:

It is now apparent that these same PRRs can also be activated by non-microbial signals, many of which are considered as damage-associated molecular patterns [DAMPs]. The sterile inflammation that ensues either resolves the initial insult or leads to disease.

DAMPs are the sterile equivalent of PAMPs, and it turns out that they activate inflammation in many of the same ways. Inflammation is usually helpful. Most infections are resolved once the neutrophils swarm in and lay down the napalm, and if they're insufficient, the same signals that trigger inflammation also activate the adaptive immune system. But inflammation is also destructive. Many of the strategies for eliminating bugs also cause tissue damage. Usually, a bit of damage is a small price to pay to clear an infection, but if inflammation remains unresolved, it can be a serious issue.

Take for instance, asbestos. Last week, I talked about the inflammasome, which can be triggered in response to membrane damage. When macrophages try to eat the asbestos crystals, they get frustrated and react by spewing out some inflammatory cytokines. Since the asbestos can't actually be eliminated, this process continues, and the lungs become chronically inflamed (how this can lead to cancer is a whole 'nother post). A similar problem may occur in obese individuals (macrophages have trouble mopping up the free fat when adipocytes die) leading to diabetes.

Many human diseases are associated with inflammation in the absence of infection. From autoimmunity to sprained ankles, it would be useful to know how the early events in inflammation are triggered. In some cases, known PRR's have been implicated, but by no means proven.

Based on our current understanding, we propose three, not necessarily mutually exclusive, mechanisms by which sterile endogenous stimuli trigger inflammation: activation of PRRs by mechanisms similar to those used by microorganisms and PAMPs; release of intracellular cytokines and chemokines, such as IL-1Î±, that activate common pathways downstream of PRRs; and direct activation by receptors that are not typically associated with microbial recognition

Of course, the stated goal for understanding these processes is always the potential for therapeutics, and the authors spend a good deal of time discussing possible targets, but I think the underlying questions are interesting as well. Did PRR's evolve to combat microbes, and then get co-opted to deal with sterile injury, or was it the other way around? Or is sterile inflammation and unintended consequence? Those questions are hard to answer though, and I think we're too early in our understanding to make any meaningful stabs.

As is becoming my habit, I'll leave you with the authors' concluding remarks:

Much progress has been made in identifying some of the triggers of sterile inflammation. Many questions remain, including the relative importance of the different DAMPs in their biological activity, whether they differentially activate downstream signalling pathways and the molecular basis for their recognition. Whether there are additional unidentified endogenous DAMPs that may be implicated in disease is also unknown. Finally, further studies are needed to understand how the different inflammatory signalling pathways (mediated by TLRs, inflammasomes and IL-1R) interact to mediate the sterile inflammatory response and how they may be modulated for the benefit of the host.

Chen GY, & NuÃ±ez G (2010). Sterile inflammation: sensing and reacting to damage. Nature reviews. Immunology, 10 (12), 826-37 PMID: 21088683

kbonham Sun, 11/28/2010 - 15:00

Tags

great post my friend,i am really interested in sterile inflammation. as you mentioned there are some endogenous molecules which cause strong sterile inflammatory responses such as ATP, Urea crystals etc. but there was just an example of Asbestos in the text that is an exogenouse stimuli.

there are some great invivo movies related to recruitment of GFP expressing neutrofiles to sterile inflammatory sites which are amazing, check them out in this link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/10/13/330.6002.362.DC1.full