vaccines

Quackery

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/starts-cholera-vaccinations-bang…

He added that when Li left the lab in 2015, she took the original data with her:

How can you publish a paper if you don't have the data?

How can you publish a paper if you don’t have the data?

Fire up the Recto-Source 2000™.

What is it with these people who feel the need to pop up one faux antivaccine paper after another? Don't they understand that they're wasting everyone's precious time (including their own) with this stupid antivaccine version of Whack-a-Mole?
I almost envision a sort of "three-strike" system where researchers who want to prove a particular point (e.g. that vaccines are harmful) that is contrary to widely established scientific consensus get three shots at it. After three failures, any further papers by this author on the same subject should be automatically rejected.

@ Richard--I wish what you say was so. However:

1. The faculty that put up these phony papers (Shaw, here) never seem to get sanctioned by their schools. Mawson with his phony internet survey paper that Orac has covered never was sanctioned. Brian Martin, the phd advisor for the laughable anti-vaccine defecation--er, I mean dissertation--of Judith Wilyman never was disciplined either. Orac has covered the Mawson paper and Wilyman dissertation. Heck, Wakefield's retracted Lancet paper was never truly retracted in the eyes of anti-vaxxers as clearly Wakefield was the victim of a vast conspiracy.

2. Once the article is published (even if just for a day before being retracted), it will forever exist as a published article in the eyes of anti-vaxxers. They will add it to their list of "papers" showing the ebil of vaccines and that list will forever circulate on social media where a direct refutation of each bogus citation takes longer than a lot of people who have been scared into not vaccinating are willing to read (sadly).

So even though this may seem a waste, it serves their purposes well enough.

How can you publish a paper if you don’t have the data?

Back in 2015, Li, Y. Li and Shaw presented "Gene-toxin synergy in the brain of autistic mouse model" to the 11th Keele Meeting on Aluminium. From the Abstract, the presentation sounds like the PPT version of this paper. That, of course, was before Li went off the reservation.
https://www.keele.ac.uk/aluminium/keelemeetings/2015/scientificprogramm…

Perhaps Shaw can be persuaded to make the PPT of the 2015 presentation available. Then we could help him determine whether the Figures were shonky at that stage, or whether the shonkyness crept in at a later stage of preparation.

@ Chris Hickie
Yeah, I know, rejection by the scientific community never stopped any one of these antivaccine clowns, quite the contrary. If anything, they almost seem to consider it a badge of honor of a kind, a sort of painful-but-ultimately-rewarding acceptance ritual into the whackjob crowd -- after which they merrily keep on excreting their oddly distorted type of 'science', proudly showing off their potty's paper's contents after every single one of those efforts...

@The Rev #2:

Fire up the Recto-Source 2000™.

That statement can be read several ways, none of them good!

What I also don't understand is why anyone wants to work for these clowns when you know in advance that their studies are fundamentally flawed (garbage) and your reputation is going to be tarnished by association. No matter how desperate you are to earn your doctorate, or land that first post-doc position you have to think about for whom you are working.

A. I wonder if they'll fix the images in the new version. And if he says the data is missing, how they'll fix any of the issues, if at all.

B. Shaw is in the department of ophthalmology. Does he have any recent publications in that area, I wonder?

C. It was already mentioned here that this is not the first paper off that set of experiments. Is this grounds to reexamine those?

He added that when Li left the lab in 2015, she took the original data with her

The cynic in me is wondering whether the "original data" include e-mails between Shaw and Li about how to prepare the data. Of course Li is going to deny that the images were manipulated--to admit this would be a career-ending move. But if she was ordered to prepare the figures a certain way, she may have thought that keeping proof of those orders was a good thing.

In general, the postdoc-mentor relationship is one that has a serious power imbalance, and far too often it becomes an abusive relationship. For several years now, NSF has required proposals that request funding for post-docs to include a mentoring plan, and one of the reasons for this requirement is to reduce the likelihood that the relationship will become abusive. I do not know what requirements (if any) NIH or the counterpart Canadian funding agencies have.

Daglan@7: I can see at least a couple of possibilities. One is that Dr. Li (who is presumably a Chinese national, or at least born in China) wanted to remain in Canada and therefore needed a Canadian job. She may also have had a two-body problem which constrained her to the Vancouver metro area--it is quite common for women with Ph.D.s to be married to men with Ph.D.s (especially in physics, whence the term "two-body problem").

That's another reason postdoc-mentor relationships can become abusive: often it's difficult for the postdoc to leave on good terms with her advisor, because there may not be that many other options out there.

@ Eric
"In general, the postdoc-mentor relationship is one that has a serious power imbalance, and far too often it becomes an abusive relationship."
Some years ago, i was in a lab where the mentor put pressure on the post-doc when the results were not those that were expected: "You need to have your paper published, don't you?" The mentor was not antivaccine, on the contrary.

Maybe if he runs a loose ship it'll sink and never come back.

It's not a good day for antivaxers.

They were crowing recently over a dubious decision by the Yemen government to suspend a cholera vaccine campaign (among other things, the government claimed that administering the vaccine might distract health care workers from treating patients).

Now a massive cholera vaccination program has been launched by the U.N. in Bangladesh:

Based on when he received his first degree, I estimate that Shaw is between 65 and 70, likely closer to the latter. While some academics are still going strong at that age, others are beginning to weary of the whole endeavor. I can't say that I'm surprised at the notion he is running a loose ship. I am a bit surprised that his operation seems to have some sort of an automaton that generates papers, under the names of humans, and that apparently the humans don't bother to look at the papers before they go out the door.

Again, given his interests, I'm suspicious he is in the ophthalmology department as a result of lateral transfer from a department that no longer wanted him. It is an established way of "disposing" of a tenured faculty member.

Orac writes,

The kindest possible interpretation is that Christopher Shaw runs a loose ship...

MJD says,

After being poked to evaluate the significance of this work, Orac provides a left-handed compliment.

Let's get serious, running a "loose ship" is exactly what pharmaceuticals maintained over the last century with respect to vaccine packaging.

If an industry continues to use warnings labels, directed at packaging hazards, the ship is in dire need of repair.

@Orac,

In retrospect, it's past due for ScienceBlogs and/or Orac to retract the following RI posts:

1) http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/10/anti-vaccine-contortions-t… ; and

2) http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/02/mr-michael-dochniak-meet-p…

One of Orac's minion's named Prometheus admitted altering comments in his blog and, thereafter, Orac continues an association with the posts described above.

Indeed, it can be said that Orac also runs a "loose ship".

Does RetractionWatch keep track of which disciplines are most susceptible to papers being retracted?

Based on what I've seen, antivax articles are running neck and neck with anti-GMO publications.

Why is it that the University of British Columbia and its Department of Ophthalmology (which is the department where Shaw and Tomljenovic are based) put up with crap like this? Shaw must have tenure or pictures of the Dean having an affair. I can’t think of any other reasons why he isn’t long gone.

Shaw is bringing in a reliable revenue stream from Dwoskin and her anti-vaxx pals. It's going to go to another uni so why not keep it there? I don't foresee them sacking Shaw unless his activities interfere with other funding.

Of course, I wonder about Shaw’s practices.

One only needs to look at his seminal paper on the subject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17114826 to see where his practices were going. The methodology of that study was so obviously manipulated as to render it useless. All his subsequent papers follow the same cast.

I worked in a lab where the PI was known to treat his post-docs HORRIBLY the second he was aware they were looking for a new position (which they needed to do anyway) and once they had secured one - he was intolerable. Nice guy in some ways, absolute nightmare to work for in others. I had dreams of throwing him off of the building to the wild applause of other PI's. I found a new job soon after before I made my dreams come true.

Oh yes, of course - the two-person conundrum. Well, I hope she found a better boss the next time around.

MJD, you seem to be butthurt that the complete crap you push gets called out for the baseless stuff that it is.

@MJD

Jesus man is that all you know how to do? I've seen toddlers that connect the dots better than you.

Forget ad blockers, Orac needs ad hominem blockers.

When this study first surfaced not too long ago, there were a flurry of angry anti-vaxxers touting this as the "final" proof they were right about, well, everything. They are wrong as usual but it leaves a bad taste not to be able to go back and say. "see, I told you so". And this was retracted rather quickly.

So glad Orac has an archive.

Epsilon (#21) writes,

Jesus man is that all you know how to do? I’ve seen toddlers that connect the dots better than you.

MJD says,

Good heavens no, I've written extensively about aluminum-based adjuvants binding to contaminants from vaccine packaging.

I'm in favor of keeping aluminum-based adjuvants on the vaccine playground but medical science better make sure that said adjuvant maintains the right partner before injection.

On second thought, how about improving vaccine packaging?

Google the words "Dochniak" and "vaccine" for the specifics.

Again, given his interests, I’m suspicious he is in the ophthalmology department as a result of lateral transfer from a department that no longer wanted him. It is an established way of “disposing” of a tenured faculty member.

I suppose that's possible, but it is at least as likely [he says without looking at a publication list] that Shaw was at one time a respectable ophthalmologist, and became a vaccine crank later in life. It does happen: Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and Brian Josephson on race, are two examples I can name offhand. Even Stanislaw Burzynski, one of Orac's favorite target, was once a mainstream medical researcher before he realized he could make more money selling his particular brand of snake oil, though he was relatively young when he became a full-time Mammon worshipper.

I note that the paper's web page gives no indication that the paper is, or will be, retracted. How long does it take to add a big red 'RETRACTED' to the top of the page, with the additional text 'This paper is bad, and the authors should feel bad'? It seems like a bit of foot dragging to me.

On another topic -

As I previously noted, I found MJD's book in the used book store. It's a quick read if you can stomach it (less than 100 pages, and plenty of white space). But it will probably take more than one sitting. It's that bad.

I've sucked all the entertainment value I can out of it. I've compared the book, Prometheus review, and other web sources and have determined that Prometheus was a mighty fair fellow. I've savored the poetry, both sober and drunk, and can tell you it hurts to read it, no matter the state if inebriation.

So I'm ready to pass it on. Our host has the right of first refusal. Orac - if you want the book, I'll ZAG it up to you. You have my e-mail, just let me know. Otherwise, in a day or so, I'll come up with a way that some other minion can communicate with me and claim the book.

Just so there's no doubt, no charge for the shipping. I paid 50 cents to get it, and I'd pay a coupla bucks to get rid of it.

While I appreciate your concern that I have not been adequately exposed to your unique blend of antivaxx involving the horrors of latex and the minuscule amounts of a non-heavy metal in a small amount of liquid, I would rather keep my brain cells as they are. They're already strained enough with my health issues and I'd like to live to a ripe old age.

And besides, you get what you give, right?

I paid 50 cents to get [MJD's book], and I’d pay a coupla bucks to get rid of it.

You're a better man than I am, Johnny--I'd send it straight to the recycling bin. From your description, it sounds like I would be overpaying if I got it for free.

@ Johnny:

I'll decline the book offer in advance -
I doubt Orac will accept unless if he wants to pad his woo shelf -
although I listen to and read loads of nonsense every day courtesy of prn.fm, natural news, AoA, mercola.com, green med info, TMR, Jake and various twits in twitter-

I have to draw a line somewhere and MJD is it.

Good heavens no, I’ve written extensively about aluminum-based adjuvants binding to contaminants from vaccine packaging.

Copious amounts of bullsh*t are still bullsh*t.

I suppose that’s possible, but it is at least as likely [he says without looking at a publication list] that Shaw was at one time a respectable ophthalmologist

Shaw is a neuroscientist by training; his doctorate thesis was about invertebrate photoreceptors. Shouldn't misrepresent him as a "mere eye-doctor with ideas above his station".

He became interested in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and got headlines in 2000 with a theory that the main cause of ALS was a particular neurotoxin (methionine sulfoximine). That work went nowhere but I guess he got a taste for headlines. His work morphed into Gulf War Syndrome, and aluminium, and that lured him into Exley's circle of Aluminati. Now he has a Theory of Everything that is falsification-proof -- there is no experimental result that it cannot accommodate as further evidence -- and it is not easy to see what will shift him.

@shay

Yeah, if something is wrong, just because you write about it a lot doesn't make it right.

I could write as much as I want about how the world is flat, but that wouldn't make it true.

One issue is the acceptance of log-rolling and mutual-reviewing within Aluminati circles. And the mutual-citation backscratching.
For instance -- "Slow CCL2-dependent translocation of biopersistent particles from muscle to brain", from Gherardi's group (with Exley as a middle co-author): peer-reviewed by Shaw and Perricone.*

"Biopersistence and brain translocation of aluminum adjuvants of vaccines", from Gherardi and Cadusseau -- edited and peer-reviewed by Tomljenovic.

"Why industry propaganda and political interference cannot disguise the inevitable role played by human exposure to aluminum in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease", by Exley -- edited by Shaw, peer-reviewed by Tomljenovic.

"Clinical features in patients with long-lasting macrophagic myofasciitis", Gherardi's group again -- edited by Shaw, peer-reviewed by Tomljenovic.

"The mobilization of aluminum into the biosphere", Pgue & Lukiw -- edited by Shaw, peer-reviewed by Tomljenovic.

For a while Frontiers had a Research Topic on "Aluminum Toxicity and Human Disease" --
https://web.archive.org/web/20161002055704/http://journal.frontiersin.o…
-- allowing Shaw and Tomljenovic to invite papers from their colleagues and send them out to complaisant reviewers, or wield the rubber-stamp themselves. At some point this year the separate papers bcame independent because Frontiers scrubbed all record of the Research Topic.

* An associate of Shoenfeld and regular co-author with Tomljenovic.

@Johnny,

I'm half tempted if only to run it through a plagiarism checker.

"Elevated brain aluminium and early onset Alzheimer’s disease in an individual occupationally exposed to aluminium: a case report", by Exley & Vickers -- peer-reviewed by Shaw and Gherardi.

Dear MJD,

Usually, I never notice any sign of illness on myself unless I'm at the brinks of death door. Let me explain, in simple terms what exactly that entail:

Back 4 years ago (and ~2 months maybe), my appendix started to go south...at some random date of the month of august 2013.

Time passes on and somewhere around 8 days later, it happen to rupture (well, explode would be the proper word at that point). I was in my brother's car at that point and coming back from a visit to my mother. Brother asks if I want to go to the hospital, I said no....no patience to wait.

24 hours later, paramedics bring me to the hospital and still, I end up waiting 3 hours in a wheelchair in the waiting area, relatively asymptomatic (pain...).

Around noon, doc examine me. Test with some kind of hand + digit move, I feel a serious jolt of pain and then, the medical machine get in 6th gear with surgery 12 hours later which they would have done sooner if they could.

Now, if, by some random circumstance I halucinate about these posts:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/10/anti-vaccine-contortions-t…

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/02/mr-michael-dochniak-meet-p…

Then, I will steal a race car if needed to get checked out at the nearest ER because something a metric ton more dangerous than a ruptured appendix is happening to me.

That said, good luck :)

halucinate about these post being retracted...that is :)

Hmm. Sounds like rebound tenderness at McBurney's Point.

Yeah, that's the scary thing about appendicitis. Once it ruptures, a lot of times, the patient feels better. For awhile.

Wow. You had a close shave. I'm glad you're OK. :o

And it really says something about MJD's "work" that you'd consider a hallucination involving it a sign of a major medical emergency worse than what happened to you with appendicitis.

Alain (#34) writes,

halucinate about these post being retracted…that is.

MJD says,

Dearest Orac,

Through the years, I've come to appreciate the respectful insolence reserved for others but continue to languish in the realization that I've somehow stumbled and lost your respect.

It is with the deepest humility and sincerity that I ask you to retract the questionable postings reference by our mutual friend Alain (comment #33).

In satisfaction, a double retraction is the humane reaction

Kindest Regards,

Michael J. Dochniak
(7-year blogger @ RI)

In retrospect, it’s past due for ScienceBlogs and/or Orac to retract the following RI posts

Do fuck off, Doucheniak.

I refuse to read MJD's "writing" on principle. Judging by his comments on this blog, he might actually be worse than Ayn Rand. And Rand's stuff is worse than used toilet paper.

From your description, it sounds like I would be overpaying if I got it for free.

Yeah, I I agree, but between my desire to do a public service (get the silly thing away from the gullible public) and my curiosity to see if it was as bad as I thought it would be, it was well worth the 4 bits.

I recommend it be approached like an MST3K episode.

MJD - you are not a blogger. You are a commenter.

By the way, how's your Go Fund Me?
https://www.gofundme.com/Michael-J-Dochniak

PGP - nothing like that in the book. Just bad science and (believe it or not) even worse poetry.

MJD - when you admit that latex doesn't cause autism, but that it's painfully, painfully obvious that it's genetic - no, even then it's too late.

You lost the right to demand concessions from ORAC years ago -forever.

@MJD

Dear heavens that whole post was so sickeningly, simperingly fake-polite I want to gag myself with a rolled-up paper torn out of your book.

Do yourself a favor and just stop pretending you have any standing or dignity here.

MJD, why do you appreciate our host's insolence when directed at others but don't appreciate when your own work comes under fire?

Thank you HDB for that interesting list.

MJD,

I may address you with respect and you may consider me as a friend but, I never specified that we are or were friends. Please act accordingly.

Many thanks,

Alain

Thank you HDB for that interesting list.

It is somehow ironic that Frontiers have also published a paper on deteching Citation Cartels, and claim that they will not allow that form of mutual backscratching in their own journals.
https://blog.frontiersin.org/2017/01/03/citations-cartels-an-emerging-p…

Dear heavens that whole post was so.

emetic?

“Why industry propaganda and political interference cannot disguise the inevitable role played by human exposure to aluminum in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease“, by Exley

Cool title, bro.

Johnny: I believe it. Any chance there's a free pdf floating around the net?

MJD: Dude, this isn't a scientific conference. No retractions are necessary. Besides, haven't you heard 'the internet is forever'?

^ Jeezums, that Exley item falls apart by the second sentence:

In 1979, the so-called allosteric activity of citrate (and other activators) was found to be the consequence of the contamination of laboratory supplies of ATP by aluminum (2).

Allow me.

Because type I mammalian hexokinase, the predominant form in the brain, has been shown to be stimulated by catecholamines (9) and by citrate (10), it appeared likely that it would share with the yeast hexokinases a sensitivity to Al 3+. In initial experiments with homogenates of mouse brain, 1 μM added Al 3+ caused about 50% inhibition under conditions similar to those in Fig. 2A (Thomas Rand, personal communication). When a partially purified type I rat brain enzyme was used, about 2 μM added Al 3+ caused 50% inhibition (Fig. 6A). As with the yeast enzymes, the Al 3+ must be premixed with the ATP to get the degree of inhibition shown here. The brain enzyme showed the same strong pH dependence as yeast hexokinase for inhibition by Al 3+ (Fig. 6B).

Cool lever arm, bro.

Cool title, bro.
It did strike me as more appropriate for photocopied pages stapled to power-poles than for a scholarly journal, but hey, this was Frontiers.

Keep your eye on Gherardi, by the way, he's going to go far. Word has it that the Italian antivaxxers are building him up to be the new spokesman for the movement -- a Romance-language Wakefield.

I vaccinated eight kids for influenza today. They all had anaphylactic reactions to the latex stopper in the syringe. I then dosed each with epi and benadryl, which of course had latex stoppers inducing even more reactions. Ultimately, they all walked out with a new autism diagnoses. and popsicles, cherry flavored.
Tomorrow I will shoot for a even dozen.
Muster the Rohirrim.
Peace out.

Science Mom (#44) asks,

MJD, why do you appreciate our host’s insolence when directed at others but don’t appreciate when your own work comes under fire?

MJD says,

Understand that Orac's punishment towards me has been the worst kind of insolence.

I've been ceremoniously placed in permanent auto-moderation wherein all comments on a particularly pertinent vaccine-safety issue are stymied.

In essence, Orac has subjected me to a public flogging and any attempt to provide a rebuttal is impossible.

It often gives me great pain to read some of the insidious comments from some of Orac's minions (e.g., MarkN, #54).

You brought it on yourself over several years. Every time I let you out, you revert to form. So stop whining.

Of course you can provide a rebuttal. You can easily start your own blog, respond to anything said here, and do what you can to alert Orac and minions.

Orac doesn't have to allow you to monopolize comments to do that, and not giving you a platform here isn't silencing you.

Given the history of newspaper headlines vs. retractions, I suspect it's more than enough of a victory for antivaxxers to get anything published anywhere, no matter what becomes of the article later.

MJD, the last time I checked you weren't forced to read this blog nor comment here. You were given ample opportunity to rebut the critique of your "work", you continued to hijack every post you commented on with it.

Dorit Reiss (#57) writes,

You can easily start your own blog, respond to anything said here, and do what you can to alert Orac and minions.

MJD says,

Well said Dorit with one exception, I can't respond to anything said here.

Therein lies the problem...

Orac often allows me to answer a direct question (e.g., Science Mom #44) but the minions often present condescending statements (e.g., MarkN #54) that, in combination with Orac's auto-moderation, silence my response.

Q. What is the offspring of respectful insolence.

A. Irreconcilable difference

MJD sort of semi has a point in one limited respect.

It's probably not fair to have commenters mock his latex obsession when he is not permitted to respond on the subject.

There is so much more in his comments deserving of mockery, for instance his habit of referring to himself in the third person.

... I can’t respond to anything said here.

No, you could respond to everything said here if you had your own blog. You are only restricted from responding on this blog.

Just because our host limits you on his forum does not mean you are limited across the entire internet.

In fact, I think your comments would be quite welcome at AoA, AI, the Drinking Moms, and a handful of others, as well as Twitter, and you could have complete control over your own content and all comments at your own freakin’ blog.

I’ve been unceremoniously placed in permanent auto-moderation

FTFY.

In essence, Orac has subjected me to a public flogging and any attempt to provide a rebuttal is impossible.

S. I. W.

Self inflicted wedgie?

Meanwhile, back on topic, Sylvie Coyaud has linked to this post, so I feel I should do the citation-cartel thing and link back to her own discussion of Gherardi's Aluminati contributions.

Gherardi (you will recall) first came to fame by describing MMF, a rare aftermath of vaccination... so rare, in fact, that no-one else has ever oberved it, outside of Gherardi's group. There is a friendly internecine between Gherardi and Shoenfeld, inventor of the ASIA syndrome, with the former claiming that ASIA comes under the rubric of MMF, and the latter making the opposite claim.

Anyway, Gherardi's more recent publications have all been about studying AlOH persistence and brainward migration in animals, not by injecting them with AlOH adjuvants, but by injecting them with hybrid particles, AlOH-marked nanodiamonds, which have the advantages of (1) being completely biopersistant (because the body can't dispose of them in any way), and (2) sufficiently expensive to minimise the danger of anyone else replicating his work.

Anyway, it turns out (thanks, Sylvie) that Gherardi has managed to wrangle funding from the French ANSM -- l’Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des produits de santé -- which is how he can afford the supply of nanodiamond tracers.That's how you do it, people.

Gherardi is now whining to the French media about the ANSM not paying enough attention to his claims, and not giving him more money.

Coming out on October 26 from Elsevier:

Controversies in Vaccine Safety : A Critical Review
Edited by Christopher A. Shaw , Edited by Claire Dwoskin , Edited by Lluis Lujan , Edited by Lucija Tomljenovic

With contributions from Shoenfeld (on ASIA), Gherardi (on MMF), Exley, disgraced fraudster Mikovits, and Vinu Arumugham.
Brian Hooker recycles the "MMR causes autism" story -- evidently Wakefield wasn't available.
Thimerosal is still relevant, with a chapter by Dorea.
Shaw and Tomljenovic get to recycle their current retracted work yet again as "Neurodevelopmental toxicity associated with the use of aluminum vaccine adjuvants".

CAN HAVE REVIEW PLZ?

Does that egotistical loser really think he's being "persecuted" here? Doesnt getting auto-modded require repeated douchiness?

Doesnt getting auto-modded require repeated douchiness?

That's unpossible, for I am on auto-moderation and...
let me think about that.

While the following statement doesn't have anything to do with this so called paper that was retracted, it does deal with issues of not vaccinating. It concerns a large hep A outbreak in MI and is by Bill Marler a food attorney.

In developed countries, children often escape infection in early childhood and reach adulthood without immunity. Ironically, these improved economic and sanitary conditions may lead to an accumulation of adults who have never been infected and who have no immunity. This higher susceptibility in older age groups may lead to higher disease rates and large outbreaks can occur in these communities.

I am afraid I regard all this crap Aluminutti pseudoscience as the equivalent of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XqwQXqUbX8

"Google the words “Dochniak” and “vaccine” for the specifics."

Throw in quack and nonsense. You'll have better luck finding his stuff.

@hdb

Ah, terribly sorry if I inadvertently insulted you. :0

Ars Technica:

Ars made several efforts to get in touch with Li but has received no response. Shaw said she left the lab in 2015 and took the data with her. But she was still listed as being at UBC on the study, which was submitted in January 2017. Shaw said this was an “error in proofreading.”

Dan Li, who also goes by Alice Li, has retained a lawyer, according to Shaw. The lawyer Shaw named did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

As for Shaw, he says the altered images “were not significant anyway.”

Ah, terribly sorry if I inadvertently insulted you. :0

I should think so. I expect to be advertantly insulted.

As someone who spent half an hour this afternoon explaining to an in-house auditor why her figure was every so very slightly different from mine (turned out to be a very small difference in the scale of the y-axis) for a paper that will never be publicly published and if it's read by more than 5 people I will be shocked - I have to say that this blatant image manipulation in a *published* paper really pissed me off.

I'm busting my butt (as is my auditor) for something that very few people will ever see while these academics are *publishing* bullshit? Bah, and a pox on all their houses.

@hdb

Yeah true, but I'd still be miffed if someone seemed to call me a douche, so I just wanted to clarify. And you're a polite dude as far as I know so it would've been rude to just let it hang.

Sometimes my filter doesn't catch all of the dumb stuff that's not right. :/

I would be a little more inclined to feel sorry for MJD if he didn't whine about his treatment in every single post .

And if he had anything useful to say. ...or even amusingto say.

But no. There are no redeeming features in any MJD post.

As to Shaw, his contortions are getting more and more incredible. I wonder in Alice Li will sue. That will be a circus in need of some monkeys.

In essence, Orac has subjected me to a public flogging and any attempt to provide a rebuttal is impossible.

We wouldn't know about it if you didn't keep pointing it out. It's only public because you make it so.

LW is correct.

One issue - ORAC didn't subject you to a public flogging. He subjected your theories to a public flogging. Big difference.

Start your own blog to rebut. You know though, no one will seek it out except the occasional anti vax loon.

Guess what? I've dropped lots of beliefs over the years.Yes, sometimes it hurts a little, but it's healthy.

It was Thanksgiving in Canada last weekend, so I thought the timing of this news was very appropriate.

Shaw must have tenure or pictures of the Dean having an affair. I can’t think of any other reasons why he isn’t long gone.

Shaw is a full professor so doubtless he has tenure. I don't think academic fraud is protected, however. We shall see...

Dan Li, who also goes by Alice Li, has retained a lawyer, according to Shaw...As for Shaw, he says the altered images “were not significant anyway.”

I can smell the flop sweat from here.

But she was still listed as being at UBC on the study, which was submitted in January 2017. Shaw said this was an “error in proofreading.”

Making an "error in proofreading" for the first author on a short list? My children have come up with far better.

I flogged, therefore. I am.

ZDogg is saying Orac is going to do a sit down with him. Sick! I hope you guys get to put a CME on it

Mark: I am SO down for that!

ZDogg isn't as hard core a skeptic as Orac is, but he's no woomeister either. And he's funny as shit.

Jane Ostentatious (#82) writes,

ORAC didn’t subject you to a public flogging. He subjected your theories to a public flogging. Big difference.

MJD says,

That's absurd, here's a quote from Orac:

"According to anti-vaccine zealots, now it’s the packaging and delivery systems used for vaccines that cause autism. It never ends. It never will end. Because, to the anti-vaccine, first and foremost, it’s always about the vaccines. Always. No matter what the evidence shows. Never forget that."

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/10/anti-vaccine-contortions-t…

A public apology from Orac and retraction of the post referenced above would clear the muddy waters.

A public apology from Orac and retraction of the post referenced above would clear the muddy waters.

Why should anyone apologize for telling the truth? On the other hand, it's a good sign that you're finally admitting that you are anti-vaccine.

Chris Preston (#80) writes,

There are no redeeming features in any MJD post.

MJD says,

Orac consistently deletes the posts that would encourage the minions (e.g., Chris Preston) to think independently.

For example, here's a list of allergens that everyone needs to consider before receiving a vaccine.

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/components-Allergens.htm

Q. Is there a science-based explanation for the continued use of latex in vaccine packaging.

Making an “error in proofreading” for the first author on a short list?

That's not even an error. One's affiliation should be listed as where the work was done. If there's some need to indicate that an author has moved on, then one adds a "current address" footnote.

That’s not even an error. One’s affiliation should be listed as where the work was done. If there’s some need to indicate that an author has moved on, then one adds a “current address” footnote.

Indeed, thanks for pointing that out. I still don't have confidence UBC will launch an adequate investigation and/or action against Shaw et al. given the money they bring in.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013417300417#
shows no sign that the paper has been retracted, or that it will be .Do I have unreasonable expectations as to the timeline, or is it just a slow process?

As far as other business - - -

Free to a good home, Vaccine Delivery and Autism (The Latex Connection) by our very own loon, Michael J. Dochniak.

Send an e-mail to iwantthatbook@mail.com and post a note here to let others know it's been claimed.

Writing those "highlights" bullet points for Elsevier journals is a complete pain in the ass, BTW. Li et al. did not do a good job, either.

^ Then again, glass houses and so forth.

MJD - your name was not mentioned.

Stop acting like a fool. You will never get an apology or retraction. You do not merit one.

As for Shaw, he says the altered images “were not significant anyway.”

I can smell the flop sweat from here.

I have a strong suspicion that Shaw and Tomljenovic have included the forged figures in their chapter in the new book, and it's too late to remove them.

MJD: I have a gift for you: an Up sized bunch of balloons!

"an error in proofreading" is when the auditor says "you missed a trailing zero in table 87, column 9 row 53". This is not that.

@MJD

Geez man! Do you know how to post in a thread without talking about your baseless latex conspiracy theories?

That's probably why you're in auto-mod in the first place.

And there's been a taker for the book. I should get it in the mail tomorrow or Saturday.

Keep an eye out, AC. I hope you find some entertainment. But don't say I didn't warn you about the poems.

HDB@76,

I just happen to love that tidbit at the end of the Ars article:

In follow-up questions, Shaw said that if future data does not support a link between autism and aluminum, he would reconsider his hypothesis and research. But there’s reason to be skeptical. When the WHO criticized his work in 2012 and pointed out a large body of research showing vaccine safety, Shaw responded that the WHO is “entitled to its opinion."

I didn't know the WHO was in the business of providing opinions ;)

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/study-claims-vaccines-autism-li…

After the discovery of improperly performed science, it was only a matter of time before this would be retracted. Now if only propagators of misinformation such as anti-vax websites would get the memo and stop promoting this.

MJD #87
I still don't see your name specifically mentioned in that quote you provided.

You will never get an apology and retraction because you don't deserve it. Have the self respect to stop asking for it.

The waters are not "muddied" - they are crystal clear to the rest of us.

Did somebody mention papers about vaccines?

Another disease/problem caused by vaccines to add to the list previously provided by a poster (NWOdiot?): Projectile Spitting.

Just saw that one cited by a "Vaxxed" reviewer on Amazon.

Curiously, Ask Dr. Sears does not cite vaccination as a cause of spitting up, projectile or otherwise (is he being paid by Big Pharma to cover up the connection?). In an online baby forum, one parent claims her infant starting projectile spitting _before_ its shots. Obviously the anticipation of shots caused the problem so it's still vaccine-related. :(

DB,

Did they take cue from this movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140479/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_7 (it does include lot of projectile spitting...)

In an online baby forum, one parent claims her infant starting projectile spitting _before_ its shots.

Bitten by a radioactive llama. Worst superpower EVAH.

CBC is reporting on this today with responses from Shaw.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-autsism-vaccine-pape…

Jane Ostentatious (#95) writes,

You will never get an apology or retraction.

MJD says,

If Orac's respectful-insolence powers are absolute, there can be no justice.

The honorable Dorit Reiss would be the first to admit that Orac's moderation powers are unlimited and therefore could be considered "abusive" based on the absence of any check-and-balance.

With my experience, when Orac is wrong his behaviors approach bipolar in that his demeanor becomes meaner, madder, and moderation happy (MMM).

I note ol' blinken box gets the first citation in the CBC article:

However, subsequent scrutiny has raised questions about the validity of the data, with one doctor calling the paper "anti-vaccine pseudoscience."

Now that a second paper has been pulled I wonder if Shaw is beginning to have nightmares of being pursued by The Grand Cremaster (Imperial Retractor of All Bollocks).

From the CBC item:

Shaw said he's likely finished working on papers concerning vaccines after this retraction.

"I'm honestly not sure at this point that I want to dabble in [vaccines] anymore," he said. "We have some projects that are ongoing that have been funded that we feel duty-bound to complete that are on this topic. Frankly, I doubt if I will do it again after that."

Dabble? An unfortunate word choice, Dr Shaw.
Did Dwoskin et al turn off the money tap after this latest fiasco? Inquiring minds (me) want to know.
I wonder where this leaves Tomljenovic?

Babies spit up. The cardiac sphincter is immature in the newborn. Sometimes the spit up is pretty profound. Or they could have an atresia. There are so many other well recognized causes of spit up in babies and anticipatory vaccination ain't one of them. Even Bob Sears knows if he tries to claim something like that, he'd have the whole pediatric community coming down on him for it.

MJD: It's Orac's blog. He can keep you in auto moderation because you keep breaking his rules. Grow a pair and stop whining about it.

For the anti-vaxer it is quite normal to declare not to have a conflict of interest.. In the line below they then state: The authors thank the Dwoskin Family Foundation for support.

This happens here:
Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23902317

It is also possible, that they give no declaration of conflict of interest here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23932735

But they thank the Dwoskin Family Foundation for support

Also in ths paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23902317 the authors LT,SC, and CP declare not to have any conflict of interest.

However- again- they thank the Dwoskin Family Foundation for support.

Also this paper is seriously flawd: They claim: " Given the persistently infected women seem not to develop cancer if they are regulary screened"
There is enough evidence of the contrary
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/

When a paper should be published the authors are asked many questions (if one has stocks of a pharmaceutical company, if one has received honoraria from vaccine manufacturers etc pp) Obviously this is different for antivaxers- but is a violation of good scientific practise

Panacea (#108) writes,

He can keep you in auto moderation because you keep breaking his rules.

MJD says,

Does that rule apply to everyone (i.e., Latex teachings)?

If Orac is really interested in an open discussion about vaccine safety, he'd allow me to occasionally speak about some of the proactive exclusionary-measures being taken to remove natural rubber latex from vaccine packaging.

@Orac,

If you bend the MJD "rule" once in awhile my sincere thanks!

The last paragraph is very interesting - looks like we might have seen the last of Shaw.....

When it comes to this latest UBC study, Gardam said the university is going to need the original data if it determines an investigation is required.

Shaw said he's likely finished working on papers concerning vaccines after this retraction.

"I'm honestly not sure at this point that I want to dabble in [vaccines] anymore," he said. "We have some projects that are ongoing that have been funded that we feel duty-bound to complete that are on this topic. Frankly, I doubt if I will do it again after that."

With my experience, when Orac is wrong his behaviors approach bipolar in that his demeanor becomes meaner, madder, and moderation happy (MMM).

Oh FFS, the word "bipolar" means something, and it is not that.

hdb: "Bitten by a radioactive llama. Worst superpower EVAH."

I dunno. Assuming proportionate speed/agility and balance came with the bite, someone could actually do a lot with that power set. Not to mention, they'd never fall and could keep their balance in the trickiest of terrain.

MJD: Man, you don't understand the 'net at all, do you? If you don't like the rules, set up your own darn blog where you can whine all you like. Frankly Orac is in the right on this, and you just can't see that boring everyone with your latex fetish gets old.

MJD: Also, you do realize Orac's away right now? He has to set the filters a little higher when he's away, or we'd end up with Trumpanzees everywhere. (Of course, you are one, but that's beside the point.)

“I’m honestly not sure at this point that I want to dabble in [vaccines] anymore,” he said. “We have some projects that are ongoing that have been funded that we feel duty-bound to complete that are on this topic. Frankly, I doubt if I will do it again after that.”

These outta be a hoot to read in light of Shaw/Tomljenovic's latest and most egregious example of anti-vaxx pseudoscience. I'll wager they'll be negative findings if published at all. This is not to say that this was Shaw's plan all along and Tomljenovic will carry the anti-vaxx torch on.

Aside from that, I find his excuses for the manipulated images appalling bollox. Question is will the UBC accept this and let him stay on or sack him and Tomljenovic.

I find it interesting that Shaw used the word dabble. The definition I found of dabble doesn't lead one to believe Shaw was a very serious researcher: take part in an activity in a casual or superficial way. "he dabbled in writing as a young man" synonyms: toy with, dip into, flirt with, tinker with, trifle with, play with, dally with "he dabbled in politics"

MJB, you know there are sites that cater to your latex fetish.

#105 hdb - "Bitten by a radioactive llama. Worst superpower EVAH."
...
Ah yes. I remember Saturday mornings and the sound wafting in from the kids watching TV in the family room:
♪♪♫ Llama-Man, Llama-Man. Does whatever a Llama can... ♪♫
...
It's funny that Hollywood never got round to making a blockbuster ripoff of that particular cartoon for some reason.

@ Richard Bly:

Although I know you may have said it in jest but perhaps you may have unwittingly stumbled upon why MJD so perseverates on latex.

And, no, I am not entirely joking.

The honorable Dorit Reiss would be the first to admit that Orac’s moderation powers are unlimited and therefore could be considered “abusive” based on the absence of any check-and-balance.

No, because unlike you, Reiss understands the law.

Orac is a government?

Respectful Insolence is a government?

Orac has every right to not allow strangers in his home for any reason (barring police officers with a warrant, or other similar official visits).

Orac has a right to allow or disallow comments on his blog however he wants. Nothing abusive in him choosing how to moderate. It's part of his freedom of action. He has rights.

He's the most right-endowed blinky box around.

If Orac’s respectful-insolence powers are absolute, there can be no justice.

His blog, his rules. If you don't like them, go someplace else where you can find "justice."

Michael, since you don't understand, here is a little cartoon to help you along.
https://xkcd.com/1357/

Orac sucker punched me with this:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/10/anti-vaccine-contortions-t…

Then, tried to bully me with this:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/02/mr-michael-dochniak-meet-p…

Now, he auto-moderates me to tears.

@Orac,

You're the only dealer I know who plays with a deck full of jokers and wins EVERYTIME.

Here, Michael. Here's some cheese to go with that whine.

I would note that the first link MJD cites has over 1000 comments, where he completely failed to defend his silly fetish. He was under no moderation at the time, and that he was probably the single largest contributor to that number.

Spoiler: most of his post were ‘buy my book’.

The second link has many fewer comments, but was at a time MJD had flounced out of the discussion, but only for a while.

In short, Mikey, you had a chance, and blew it bigley.

The link to the review by friend Prometheus is no more, but is on the Wayback Machine. I’ve posted it in the past, and will dig it up if anyone asks.

I like turtles

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Burnside_Fountain_-…

Here are two more articles on the Shaw/Tomljenovic poo show:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-vaccine-autism-paper…

Lucija Tomljenovic, Shaw's co-author, said she agreed to the retraction but "had nothing to do with either collecting or analyzing any of the actual data."

Then what in Hades is her name doing on the list of authors?

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/ubc-vows-investi…;

Dr. Shaw also distanced himself and Dr. Tomljenovic from the paper that was withdrawn last year.

Dr. Shaw said he and Dr. Tomljenovic, who once worked in his lab, were only "peripherally involved."

"All of the work was conducted in the lab of the senior author, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld in Tel Aviv. Hence, to make the claim that this work is "ours" is not correct," Dr. Shaw said in the e-mail.

They went to an awful lot of trouble to get it re-published for work they were only "peripherally involved in" and distancing themselves from. This pair of so-called scientists are a disgusting embarrassment to the scientific community. They won't even own their work and conveniently saddle their latest cock-up on someone in China.

Yet here http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/02/16/ubc-prof-defends-stud…

He defends the study and admits Tomljenovic had contributed to the study. The fact they all run in the same Aluminati circle jerk is supposed to escape our attention I suppose.

MJD: You put silly ideas out there, in the public sphere, in the first place. No one put a gun to your head and made you write your silly books. Orac and Prometheus were equally free to read them and critique them.

If they'd gone to your house, opened your files or gotten into your manuscripts, that would obviously be wrong, and you'd be right to be incensed. But, again, you released those books into the public sphere.

If an author gets published, and gets bad reviews, do they demand that the paper of person who reviewed those books retract the review? Nope, they don't. Because that would be stupid. They released their work into a public sphere, and the reviewer is free to say whatever they like about the work.

(Mostly; no newspaper or entertainment blog would accept a review that was just a series of swear words, even if the movie or book was just that bad.)

Some spaces do have limits, such as this blog, because the administrator has to consider how to maintain the best possible environment. Having you bang on endlessly about your fetish is not conducive to having the best possible environment.

Sorry for the serial posts but Shaw's pollyanna routine really chaps my bum. From the second article I posted:

He said they concluded: "It appears as if some of the images, in mostly what were non-significant results, had been flipped."

Bollox. Several bands for PCR and Western Blots were manipulated in both controls and treatments. As for the controls they either a.) didn't run the experiment correctly and had to fudge the controls which invalidates the treatments or b.) there were no differences between the controls and treatments. As for the treatments, they manipulated the images to show differences between males and females. Then there are the statistics. So eff off Shaw and Tomljenovic; UBC should sack the two of you.

Then what in Hades is her name doing on the list of authors?

Collecting a paycheck? It’s nice work, if you can get it.

Dr. Shaw said the lead author on the 2017 retracted paper, Dr. Dan Li, "took her notebooks and original images from the lab when she left in 2015."

If you don't have electronic records of the data, only "notebooks and original images", then you're not doing science, it's some kind of dress-up game.

I would note that the first link MJD cites has over 1000 comments, where he completely failed to defend his silly fetish. He was under no moderation at the time, and that he was probably the single largest contributor to that number.

Spoiler: most of his post were ‘buy my book’.

Yes. That was epic.

In all the wrong ways for MJD.

I remember the Prometheus posts about the book fondly.

I remember the Prometheus posts about the book fondly.

Indeed. As previously noted, I’ve had a chance to compare the book to the review. Friend Prometheus was very kind to MJD. ‘Tis a darn shame MJD doesn’t understand that, and slink quietly away.

Since Shaw evidently pays attention to Pubpeer threads, it is a pity that he hasn't responded to questions about Shaw & Petrik (2009). Questions like "How many mice did you study?"
https://pubpeer.com/publications/C958FC46D73CF8CA59CE59A3414506

That "study" was a hot mess too as you probably already know HDB. That has a laundry list of problematic methods and results.

Then what in Hades is her name doing on the list of authors?

Click bait.

Dr. Shaw said he and Dr. Tomljenovic, who once worked in his lab, were only “peripherally involved.”

So she's gone again? Sorry, I'm still recovering from "doing my taxes," which I suspect are badly screwed up.

I'm just curious how come that Shaw and Tomljenovic's papers are usually retraced after being already published? If the papers have been accepted for publishing, doesn't that mean that they had already been peer-reviewed and gotten the green light? How is it possible that "serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article" are only discovered after some paper had been published in "an international peer-reviewed journal"? I would appreciate the answer very much, thank you.

@Herr Dr Bimler #138

In the paper Shaw & Petric I calculated the volume of the injections they injected in the neck of the mice. And the the mice made their "swimming tests" to detect behavioral abnormalities.

I calculated which volume should be injected in a humans neck with a body weight of 70 kg within this series.

It is between 400 ml and 2400 ml. If this volume will be theoretically injected in my neck,I will be a very bad swimmer.

@Vanessa: the types of journals that they are publishing in are pretty much "pay to publish" journals. And don't always know what they are taking in. After all, why would a journal of inorganic chemistry know anything about aluminium as an adjuvent? It's not their field of expertise.

Thanks for the reply, I understand what you mean. On the other hand, isn't the editor supposed to find reviewers with similar field of expertise as authors'? That's only how peer-reviewing makes sense to me... I mean, why was the disputed paper evaluated by outside experts after it had been published and not before?

Vanessa, this is what has come to be known as postpublication peer review. The initial reviewers assigned by a journal's editor-in-chief (or scientific editor, depending on the size of the publication) generally assume good faith on the part of the authors and, given that they're volunteers, only have so much time. Detecting image manipulation (as but one example in this case) isn't really part of the gig.

Thank you, Narad, for making it clear. In my field (social anthropology) there is no post-publication peer review, hence my confusion :)

In my field (social anthropology) there is no post-publication peer review, hence my confusion

I imagine that there is, except that it takes place within the pages of journals.

I calculated which volume should be injected in a humans neck with a body weight of 70 kg within this series.

It is between 400 ml and 2400 ml. If this volume will be theoretically injected in my neck,I will be a very bad swimmer.

One of the many things missing in the Shaw-Petrik study is the *interval* between injections and testing. They don't say whether the injections happened immediately before behavioural testing (in which case the purported spinal-neuron damage was instant), or whether it was right after birth, as in their later studies. The axis on their graphs is just identified as 'weeks after testing began'.
Nor do they state the N of the experiment. Without that, it's only an anecdote.

If the papers have been accepted for publishing, doesn’t that mean that they had already been peer-reviewed and gotten the green light? How is it possible that “serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article” are only discovered after some paper had been published in “an international peer-reviewed journal”?

Publication was in a Special Issue of the J. Inorg. Biochem., guest-edited by Chris Exley. These are biennial events... Exley organises the Keele Meeting on Aluminium, and presentations from that meeting become papers for J.Inorg.Biochem.
He is a leading light in the anti-aluminium movement, an Aluminary as it were, and he selects his own peer-reviewers.

This article from the Globe and Mail includes some information on Dr. Shaw's funding through the anti-vaxx Dwoskin Foundation:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/ubc-vaccine-stud…;

#151 brian,
Thanks. Interesting last paragraph in that article:
"In an e-mail to The Globe, Neil MacLean – a lawyer representing Dr. Li – on Wednesday said, "we are currently in discussions with Dr. Shaw to address any issues he may have.""
.
I certainly hope UBC vice-president of research Gail Murphy and any ethics committee are in on this email discussion with Li's lawyer and they aren't leaving the fox (Shaw) in charge of the henhouse. If this is intentional fraud there is a definite possibility that Li & Shaw are coconspirators/fraudsters.
.
On top of that all that we've gotten from Shaw are excuses reminiscent of a 3 year old caught by mommy with his hand in the cookie jar and chocolate smeared around his mouth:
"I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
"The dog ate my homework."
"Somebody else did it."
"It doesn't matter because even if it is academic fraud the fraudulent parts were few and inconsequential... trust me on that."
.
It would also seem prudent to go back over the earlier papers from which parts of this current disaster were plagiarized and see if they should be retracted as well. (The image manipulation present? The claimed number of mice consistent? etc.)

It appears that making up sh!t as you go for papers is becoming more common. Here is just a small mistake made by a researcher in a paper about food choice by children: Now Stephanie M. Lee, writing for BuzzFeed News, has revealed that a study published in 2012 in JAMA Pediatrics – already corrected once by Wansink – grossly misrepresented the study’s findings: Although the study claimed that children “ranging from 8-11” years old were more likely to choose apples over cookies if the apples bore an Elmo sticker, BuzzFeed News found that the study was actually conducted on children aged 3 to 5. It’s a shocking “error,” and one that BuzzFeed claims is also true of another 2012 Smarter Lunchrooms study, this one about carrots and published in Preventive Medicine.

How do you confuse 8 to 11 year olds with 3 to 5 year old children when writing a paper?

Oh, I don't know. Based on some of the commenters who pop in from time to time I've mistaken adults for 3 to 5 year old children.

Oh, I don’t know. Based on some of the commenters who pop in from time to time I’ve mistaken adults for 3 to 5 year old children.

- and the reverse is true for a minority of voters in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

How do you confuse 8 to 11 year olds with 3 to 5 year old children when writing a paper?

Wansink now blames the error on the fact that data-collection was out-sourced to someone else, unacknowledged. There remains the problem that Wansick described the study as involving day-care children, in other articles and in his books. And the original (uncorrected) paper concludes that "Just as attractive names have been shown to increase the selection of healthier foods in school lunchrooms, brands and cartoon characters can do the same with preliterate children".

The general impression is that the paper was originally written as a report on a pre-school intervention, but was crudely repurposed as describing a school lunchroom when Wansink needed to cement his place as America's Healthy Living Advisor.

Wansink now blames the error on the fact that data-collection was out-sourced to someone else, unacknowledged.

Really? And Wansink didn't perform any checking of his own to verify that the data collected was accurate?
Even by woo standards, that's an utterly pathetic excuse.

In other antivaccine news, Jake is shocked that Orange Thinskin seems likely to appoint a pharma exec to be HHS Secretary. It might be starting to sink into whatever Jake uses for a brain that Trump will say anything to anybody, but doesn’t necessarily mean a word of it.

His post has already drawn a comment, and not from Hans Litten, as you might think. The first and only comment (so far) under Jake’s post is from Jake himself.

Asked if he was concerned about the spread of allegedly falsified data, Shaw said readers need to remember "this paper was done on mice" and take it with a grain of salt.
"A lot of people that have questions about vaccine safety were making more of this paper than was warranted," he told CBC News. "We try to caution people … don't make more of it than it is, because this is a model system where this data may or may not apply to humans."

The word "disingenuous" comes to mind.

“We try to caution people … don’t make more of it than it is"

An example of Shaw cautioning people would be good. 80% of his research output since 2009 has consisted of extrapolating mouse studies to humans.

In other antivax news, Doctors Gatti and Montanari have taken up the "vaccines are made from freshly-harvested fetuses" blood libel.
http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/10/21/heroes/

How do you confuse 8 to 11 year olds with 3 to 5 year old children when writing a
paper?

The bigger question is how do you confuse 8 to 11 year olds with younger children while Elmo is involved?

Doesn’t anyone in that fiasco know any children? Elmo’s target audience is not grade schoolers. I suspect most 8-year olds would turn down the cookie that had Elmo on it, and take the fruit.

Bimler:An example of Shaw cautioning people would be good. 80% of his research output since 2009 has consisted of extrapolating mouse studies to humans.

Totally absurd. Nobody does that but him. Everyone knows the real point of mouse studies is rodenticide—and the shadenfreude which comes from this. After all, the population of small-furries must be kept in-check, and the more taxdollars which can result from this / the better.

Chemmomo: Elmo’s target audience is not grade schoolers.

It used to be . ..but not since the movies Elmo and Louise, Nightmare on Elm(o) Street, Tickle Me Harder, and the NBC racy sitcom Elmo's Place.

Marionette puppets age too—now they look like they don't, but they do. Telemerase activity has been confirmed; and this is actually scientific consensus now. I've seen the Lineweaver–Burk charts and Southern blots confirming all of this.

Doesn’t anyone in that fiasco know any children?

Somehow the reviewers missed that. Just as they missed the concluding sentence about the study addressing "preliterate children".
OK, Wansink had written a paper using observations of preschool kids, which he revised at the last minute to make it about older kids. And the peer-reviewers didn't notice.

Was it peer-reviewed at all?

In other antivaccine news, Jake is shocked that Orange Thinskin seems likely to appoint a pharma exec to be HHS Secretary.

According to the folks at industry rag FiercePharma, "With Azar in the HHS role [and Scott Gottlieb at FDA], pharma could have two powerful allies at the top of the U.S. regulatory apparatus."

http://www.fiercepharma.com/regulatory/ex-lilly-boss-alex-azar-leads-fi…-

Azar championed Gardasil while Deputy Secretary at HHS (he said: " HHS is committed to advancing critical health measures such as the development of new and promising vaccines to protect and advance the health of all Americans"), while Gottlieb, like CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald, unequivocally supports vaccines.

Of course Jake should clearly understand that people lie: in the post that Johnny mentioned, Jacob Crosby, MPH, wrote that thimerosal "has also been proven to cause autism."

Telemerase activity has been confirmed; and this is actually scientific consensus now. I’ve seen the Lineweaver–Burk charts and Southern blots confirming all of this.

Who ordered the Fucklesworth with anchovies?

The following papers were retracted by the journal vaccine, but published in another Journal

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=inbar+r%2C+weiss+r

Behavioral abnormalities in female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil

Rotem InbarRonen WeissLucija TomljenovicMaria-Teresa ArangoYael DeriChristopher A. ShawJoab ChapmanMiri BlankYehuda Shoenfeld

The title of this paper shows us, that scientific guidelines were violated, why do they test only female mice?

The OECD guideline 452 on chronic toxicity testing claims to have at least 20 mice from each sex.

In addition the authors thank the Dwoskin Family Foundation for support.

In that study Shaw reckoned that only female mice are affected by aluminium adjuvants (because Gardasil). This time he claimed that only male mice were affected (because autism). It is impressive.

Coming out on October 26 from Elsevier:

Controversies in Vaccine Safety : A Critical Review
Edited by Christopher A. Shaw , Edited by Claire Dwoskin , Edited by Lluis Lujan , Edited by Lucija Tomljenovic

With contributions from Shoenfeld (on ASIA), Gherardi (on MMF), Exley, disgraced fraudster Mikovits, and Vinu Arumugham.

No sign of this book-shaped object on the market, several days after publication date. "This book is currently unavailable".

Is there any speculation among the fraternity about the cause of the delay?

Well, until the evil machinations of pHarma are circumvented and the book becomes available, we can make do with the newly released "Vaccines: A Reappraisal" by Richard Moskowitz M.D.

"Richard Moskowitz, MD, is a family physician who received his BA from Harvard, Phi Beta Kappa, his MD from New York University, and a US Steel Fellowship in Philosophy at the University of Colorado. He has been in private practice since 1967. After studying herbs, Japanese acupuncture, and other holistic modalities, he has specialized in homeopathic medicine since 1974, and has written four previous books and over a hundred articles on homeopathy, midwifery, natural healing, and the philosophy of medicine. He resides in Boston, Massachusetts."

Sherry Tenpenny gives his book a "WOW!", and there are kudos from other luminaries like Barbara Loe Fisher and Stephanie "Fear And Loathing Over Glyphosate" Seneff.

https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Reappraisal-Richard-Moskowitz-ebook/dp/…

Well, until the evil machinations of pHarma are circumvented and the book becomes available,

Elsevier are quoted as been telling people that the pHarma-machination delay is indefinite. Perhaps the authors will have to circulate a Samizdat edition.
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1607411#p1607411

I had been hoping for a review from Brian Deer, since the last contribution to "Vaccine Controversies" was to have been by David Lewis... the sewerage-waste expert and Wakefield acolyte, whose main claim to fame was proclaiming that Deer must be a sockpuppet for Big Pharma (because no mere journalist could become so knowledgeable about the background to Wakefield's fraud).

False balance in reporting the case of a local mother jailed for contempt of court for reneging on an agreement to vaccinate her child

oracknows — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 01:38:54 +0000

False balance in reporting the case of a local mother jailed for contempt of court for reneging on an agreement to vaccinate her child

I sometimes like to write about things happening in my neck of the woods that are relevant to the kinds of things I normally blog about every day. This habit of mine dates back at least to the days when investigative reporter Steve Wilson of our local ABC affiliate used to lay down fear mongering barrages of nonsense about mercury in vaccines that would have made Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. proud if he ever knew about them. Then there was a report on "orbs" seen in photographs where the reporter speculated whether they were actual spirits. Then there's the periodic fascination with veterinary quackery that pops up on local newspapers and media from time to time, including reiki and acupuncture for Fido.

This time around, it's about vaccines. It started a week ago, when I saw this headline on the website of one of our own local news stations, basically Wilson's old stomping ground WXYZ, Metro Detroit mom could be thrown behind bars for not getting son vaccinated. Now there's a clickbait title if ever I saw one, guaranteed to inflame antivaxers andeven a lot of people who aren't antivaccine with the image of overweening state power throwing a mother in jail to force her to vaccinate. Hell, ad a couple of apocalyptic adjectives, and this could be a NaturalNews.com headline! Watching the video of the report and reading the text made me wonder if the malign influence of Steve Wilson's antivaccine "reporting" is still hanging around the WXYZ newsroom, even nearly ten years after he left.

So here's the story:

Basically, Rebecca Bredow and Jason Horne are divorced. Horne wants their children vaccinated. Bredow doesn't. A week ago, the case was in court, and Bredow was ordered by the judge to vaccinate her children within a week or face jail. (Spoiler that will surprise no one. She didn't vaccinate her children and yesterday was sent for jail for contempt of court. More on that in a moment.) Now, try not to grind your teeth as you read the first passage of the story:

If you have kids, their health, their safety is your top priority. However, what if doing what you think is best, could land you behind bars?

A Metro Detroit mother is facing jail time because of her beliefs when it comes to vaccinations and her kid.

"I would rather sit behind bars standing up for what I believe in, than giving in to something I strongly don't believe in," says Rebecca Bredow.

This isn't putting the reporter's finger on the scale (or producer's or whoever's responsible for this framing). It's dropping a brick on the scale on the side of the mother. She's basically painted as a martyr for her beliefs, and the portrayal continues throughout the entire story. In the video, there is even a voiceover during the interview, "Wow. Rebecca Bredow, what a position this parent has been put in." Elsewhere, the reporter, Andreana Isom, intones, Some may label this metro Detroit mother as overprotective, stubborn, strong, or...all of the above." Seriously? That voiceover was about as unprofessional as anything I've ever seen, on local or national media. As I watched, I felt a bilious gurgling in the back of my throat.

Then I saw this:

Rebecca tells 7 Action News that she and dad made the decision to space out and delay some their little ones vaccines.

"It wasn’t until they started grouping them together that I backed off of doing vaccines," she says.

Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies. She concluded that waivers were the best way to go, the best for her baby boy. After all, the state of Michigan offers that option, explains Joel Dorfman.

"We’re fortunate in the state of Michigan that’s still permitted, still allow religious, personal and medical exemptions for parents who chose to delay, to skip a vaccine to make various choices," says Doorman.

Rebecca and her ex-husband do not see eye-to-eye. Their conflict has become a court battle.

According to court documents. the child’s father wants their son vaccinated. Rebecca makes it clear where she stands on the issue.

A bloggers at the antivaccine blog Age of Autism or Thinking Moms' Revolution couldn't have portrayed Bredow more heroically themselves. Heck, just look at Ms. Isom at the end of the story, basically touting how brave Ms. Bredow is, about how she will fight going to jail, in order to be there for her children. Gag me with a spoon.

Come to think of it, I'm rather surprised that I haven't seen anything on antivaccine websites about this case, although I expect that will change now that this story has made national news and even international news, with a report on the BBC, which tells a different tale:

Rebecca Bredow would not let her nine-year-old be immunised after initially agreeing with the father to do so.

Her ex-husband has now been awarded temporary primary custody in order to get the boy the jab.

Michigan parents are legally allowed to skip or delay their children's vaccinations due to personal beliefs.

But Bredow fell foul of the law because she reneged on agreements with her former spouse dating back to November 2016 to have the boy immunised.

So now it becomes more clear. Horne and Bredow divorced in 2008 and shared parental custody, although Bredow was the primary caregiver. When they were married, apparently they were of the "Dr. Bob" Sears ilk of vaccine-averse, in which they wanted to "space out" the vaccinations. Reading between the lines, the father remained in that camp, but the mother became more and more antivaccine as the years went by and she did more of her "own research."

Sadly, even the BBC report indulges in false balance of a sort I thought to have been mostly banished from reporting on vaccines and autism in recent years, quoting a woman to whom I refer as the grande dame of the antivaccine movement, Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the Orwellian-named National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). In the case of the WXYZ ABC report, the false balance comes in interviewing a representative of a local antivaccine group, Joel Dorfman, without identifying him as such:

Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies. She concluded that waivers were the best way to go, the best for her baby boy. After all, the state of Michigan offers that option, explains Joel Dorfman.

"We’re fortunate in the state of Michigan that’s still permitted, still allow religious, personal and medical exemptions for parents who chose to delay, to skip a vaccine to make various choices," says Doorman.

Actually, Dorfman is (very) briefly identified in the video in a "blink and you'll miss it" caption as being a representative of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, but not in the accompanying online article.

So, yesterday, having failed to vaccinate her child, Bredow appeared in court again, as described in this Detroit Free Press story, Ferndale mom jailed for refusing to vaccinate her 9-year-old son, where we also learn that Bredow lied about claiming a religious exemption:

The court initially ordered the immunization Nov. 16, 2016, but it still hasn't happened. In between, Bredow cited religious objections.

But Horne's attorney said in court pleadings that the religious objection was phony arguing that both Bredow and her current husband, Gary, "testified that they do not practice the tenets of any organized religion," and calling a waiver document the couple filed with the child's school "a convenient lie."

Bredow said in court pleadings that her ex-husband has long known of her objection to vaccines and is only making an issue of it now because she's been attempting to collect back child support.Last week, McDonald issued an ultimatum, to Bredow.

"You have seven days to get your child vaccinated," McDonald told Bredow Sept. 27. "If not, you will appear here Wednesday and if you have not, I'll send you to jail. Let me say it one more time, you have seven days. It's ridiculous. Don't make me do that."

But when Bredow appeared in court today, the child still had not be vaccinated, and McDonald made good on her promise and ordered Bredow to jail.

First off, I don't understand why Bredow would have lied about religious belief to claim a religious exemption, given that Michigan allows personal belief exemptions to school vaccine mandates. In any case, the story sounds complicated. It also sounds as though Bredow either lied to the judge when she promised to vaccinate or later reneged on a promise to vaccinate. Either way, judges do not take kindly to that; so it's not surprising that Bredow is now spending a week in jail for contempt of court.

But what of Bredow's claim that Horne is only pushing the vaccine issue now because she has been trying to collect back child support? Certainly divorce and custody battles are often complicated, and it's rare that there aren't...issues...on both sides. Who knows? What I do know is that the reporting of this case has been sensationalistic and full of the false balance that used to irritate the hell out of me back in the day, when seemingly any story on vaccines would inevitably have an antivaxer interviewed for "balance." Unfortunately, the Free Press falls prey to this same trope:

Horne will have temporary custody of the child with an opportunity to get the boy vaccinated, a prospect that alarmed Joel Dorfman of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, a group that advocates for parents' rights to refuse vaccines.

"If this child is injured as a result of being given eight immunizations, who do you think is going to take care of the child?" Dorfman told the Free Press. "The judge?"

I've discussed Michigan for Vaccine Choice before. It was one of the sponsors of a visit from Del Bigtree, producer of the antivaccine propaganda movie VAXXED, in which Bigtree got—shall we say?—a bit overwrought, basically calling for armed rebellion against the government for forcing children to be vaccinated. Basically, Michigan for Vaccine Choice is rabidly antivaccine. Unfortunately, local media have elevated its status to that of a legitimate advocacy group, treating it not as the crank group that it is but as a group whose views are as valid as those of scientists and physicians who cite the evidence that vaccines are safe and effective.

Meanwhile,. antivaxers are sliming Jason Horne with memes like this:

As an aside, I can't help but mock the man, Joseph Sikora, for posting things like this:

Dude, it's "laboratories," not "labratories."

And this is his profile pic:

You get the idea.

Basically, local antivaxers are attacking Horne in a most despicable manner by claiming that the reason he wants his child vaccinated is because, if that child dies, he won't have to pay child support any more. Yes, they really are that depraved. Meanwhile, local antivaxers protested outside the court hearing.

It's never a good thing when divorced parents fight over custody issues. The child always loses. In this case, the addition of antivaccine beliefs only makes it worse, as the child's health care hangs in the balance. I suspect that this is only going to get uglier. I also predict that antivaccine groups will latch onto this case to portray vaccine mandates as fascistic assaults on American freedom. Cue Mike Adams. You know it's coming. I'm only surprised it hasn't happened yet. Maybe by the time this post goes live, it will have.

oracknows Wed, 10/04/2017 - 21:38

I saw this on Google News. There was a link to an article by the Washington Times. Even that was riddled with false balance.

New Zealand press reports that Bredlow, through her attorney, had agreed with the November court order to vaccinate. Her attorney also "told ABC last week that the legal dispute was not about vaccinations."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/97568256/us-mum-who-refused-to-f…

As far as I know, Washington Times is still owned by the Moonies and is the farthest thing I can think of from being a source of anything resembling legitimate news. It's a rich trove of crankery and quackery and has had some truly scary facsimiles of health and medical "news." Unfortunately a few desperate pseudo-journalists who obviously need a steady paying gig give it cover so that it's hard to tell that its "news" is coughed-up propaganda from the Unification Church or whatever front group now owns it.

In her court statement Bredow referred to being prolife. Note that the fact that she doesn't belong to an organized religion doesn't make her statement a lie: the question is whether her personal faith is against vaccines. And who knows? She may have bought into the "aborted fetal tissue" myth.

Still seems her main issue is buying into anti vaccines myths about safety, of course.

I think several of them think religious objections are a stronger claim because of the first amendment.

Of course anti-vaxers will turn this into an emotional firestorm....

The child and public health are the losers here.

Maybe Bredow, and hopefully others, will learn that they are court orders, and not court suggestions.

So the dad can't sack up and take his kid to get access to health care?

IN this case it seems the dad the dad's actual access to and time with the child was very limited. One of the thing his lawyer asked, and the judge said she will decide that another time, were more rights in that area, more time together.

It looks like the child will be vaccinated. The comments in the places where I've read this story, were almost 100% in favor of vaccination, which I found encouraging. As far as this ex family? IMO, it's another case of two people hating each other more than they love the child.

"Prolife' usually is code for 'I don't give a rip for living children.' I expect people not to care about other people's kids, but this mom takes it a step further. In my opinion, neither parent should have custody. Hopefully the rest of the child's family isn't as bad.

Reviewing the usual cesspits of woo and anti-vax, I notice that none of the usual suspects is yet writing about this but wait...
@ ginger taylor retweets @ Katie wright with wxyz.

So they'll soon be up and at 'em

There seems to be quite a difference in the coverage that Orac links and the coverage that Stuartg links yet it seems to be the same station.

Am I misreading the TV stations or is the WXYZ newsroom in open civil war?

BTW, labratories are much worse than laboratories. Labratories are members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador who hail from Labrador.

If this woman is worried about the health of her child she wouldn't be in front of a judge for this. I just talked with my doc (I work in a health center) about a rash that my step-daughter has, she is 10,000 miles away in Thailand. Luckily, it is a fairly simple heat rash.

I am 10,000 miles away and I am worried about heat rash and this woman won't protect her child from diseases that could kill him. I know who I think is the better parent and I haven't even held my step-daughter yet (can't wait for Nov 20th).

jrkrideau; My back yard used to be a labratory, I had two black labs.

Come to think of it, I’m rather surprised that I haven’t seen anything on antivaccine websites about this case, although I expect that will change...

It has.

Over at the Bolen Report, Kent Heckenlively calls Bredow ‘the bravest woman in America’, and compares her to Rosa Parks.

Also, it seems he has a new White House petition. This was started 18 Sep, and has a whopping 299 signatories.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/five-year-moratorium-childhoo…

Sticking to your beliefs isn't a virtue when you're wrong, Mrs. Bredow.

"I'm just doing what I think is best." So are suicide bombers. So what?

The mother is getting a lot of support in West Michigan (Grand Rapids area) from a mix of anti-vaccination folks, but also from our infestation of libertarians. Their comments range from "vaccines are bad" to "I don't know about vaccines but children are the property of their parents" bit -- the latter means, apparently, that parents can do whatever they wish because they own the child.

While I didn't see this story emerging yet on NN (mostly they're too busy whooping up a Las Vegas shooting conspiracy), there IS a devastating article on BABY FORESKINS being co-opted by Big Pharma to make vaccines.

NN tells us that a baby boy dies every two days in the U.S. from complications of circumcision, including when "their little lungs burst from crying".

Horrible!*

*the CDC says cirumcision-related deaths are extremely rare, with zero such deaths in one recent year for which they analyzed stats. But we know that's just a coverup. :(

@Politicalguineapig #11: “Prolife’ usually is code for ‘I don’t give a rip for living children.’

As someone who is generally Pro-Life, I don't appreciate this statement. I don't actually know any pro-life person who doesn't care about children; the vast majority of them volunteer at children's (and adult) charities/have adopted children/have foster children/fight for legislation to protect born children.

I'm not trying to get into a debate on this topic, at all, but really, this is quite a wide brush you're painting with, and it doesn't describe any of the people I know who believe abortion is wrong.

As for this woman and the media portrayals for her, it's sadly not surprising. The media no longer even pretends to be unbiased. Portraying this woman as some kind of freedom fighter when she's actually borderline abusive--using her son's health and life to score points against her ex-husband--is SOP for them. I like how they don't really bother to go into what made her switch from "delayed vaccine schedule" to "no vaccine." Couldn't possibly be the level of fawning attention she's received for her ridiculous anti-science stance, could it?

As I pointed out on another site, it wouldn't be as sensational if the header of the article is "Mom jailed for refusing to comply with custody agreement".

Over at Yahoo News, you'll be happy to hear the comments have been overwhelmingly in favor of the correct narrative -- this isn't a "evil government forcing vaccinations" story, it's a "woman makes promise to court and to the father of her children, is given a year to take care of it, reneges, and is surprised this has consequences".

Ms. Mantooth: "I don’t actually know any pro-life person who doesn’t care about children; the vast majority of them volunteer at children’s (and adult) charities/have adopted children/have foster children/fight for legislation to protect born children."

Obviously that does not include the congress critters who were trying to strip maternal and pediatric health care to almost nothing. The poster child for the legislature that care more about the fetus than the living people is the state of Texas. Though it seems they are trying to address:
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/health-care/2017/09/29/effort-save-…

Still does not excuse them from what they did to Planned Parenthood:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1511902#t=article

Oh, I have seen that guy with the memes pop up elsewhere. He also claims that its the water in the vaccine "viles" [sic] causing the poisoning of babies. He seems to think that there are 26 x 0.5 mL vaccines administered at one time.

I doubt WXYZ is anti-vax per se. This strikes me as a faux Fox (faux Faux?) attempt to mine the vein of 'evil big guvmint usurping parents and jailing anyone who dissents from their socialist agenda' ideology for the purpose of, as Orac says, mere clickbait. I'd say the give-away is that the 'news item' just grazed by the child support allegation and focused on the judge, where the AVs are demonizing the Dad, who after all, is the one who took the kid to get his shots.

The relationship between total anti-vax and delayed schedule is kind of interesting. Without a delayed-schedule-willing pediatrician, the Dad may have joined the Mom in denying the child immunizationb. OTOH, while the Dr. Bob-ish approach seems to have satisfied the Dad, it seems to have acted as a sort of 'gateway drug' of full-on hard-core anti-vax for the Mom.

# 20 MI Dawn

“Mom jailed for refusing to comply with custody agreement”.

Worse, it should be “Woman jailed for contempt of court”.
That was not a happy judge.

Calli Arcale's version is better than mine but to long for a headline for TV or newspaper.

"NN tells us that a baby boy dies every two days in the U.S. from complications of circumcision, including when “their little lungs burst from crying”."
If this was true, there wouldn't be many Jews or Muslims left in the world..

Dorothy Mantooth: I tend to think actions speak louder than words. The prolife movement, the people you know, put Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and numerous other bad actors in charge. Your group doesn't fight for health care or believe that maybe babies and their families need food. And the work at baby scoop centers i.e. crisis pregnancy centers does not impress me. And then there's the Pearls and the rehoming problem you guys have.
What would change my mind is if prolifers conceded that women have rights (like voting, working, and expecting to be safe outside the home) rape and abuse are bad things, and that the price of health care might be a factor in what medical care women might access.
Well done on the bearing false witness front though. Just like the commandment said.

@sadmar:

The relationship between total anti-vax and delayed schedule is kind of interesting. Without a delayed-schedule-willing pediatrician, the Dad may have joined the Mom in denying the child immunization

I'm not entirely convinced that Jason Horne is antivaxx. From where I'm standing, while they were married, Horne went along with Bredow, but after they divorced Horne didn't go down the rabbit hole and in fact moved back to rationality. That is, assuming he was antivaxx in the first place, which I'm far from sure about.

"the WXYZ ABC report"

Oh, the ecstasy of alphabetic sequences. I'm a believer.

@Politicalguineapig: Clearly there is no point discussing anything with you; you've gone from telling me I don't care about children to telling me I'm a liar, I don't care about women's right to vote and leave the house, and I think rape and abuse are a good thing (and you've backed that up with a study about maternal mortality and a study about contraception). I'm sure your assumptions make you feel very superior to me, and very convinced that you are a good person and I am a bad one, based on the extremely strong evidence of your feelings. (BTW, I'm not religious at all, and my feelings about abortion come from a very different perspective; I assume your comment about the "commandment" was referring to religion, but I'll go ahead and disregard it, as I will any further rudeness and smugness you care to throw my way.)

Old Rockin' Dave @26: “NN tells us that a baby boy dies every two days in the U.S. from complications of circumcision, including when “their little lungs burst from crying”.”
If this was true, there wouldn’t be many Jews or Muslims left in the world.."

The stupid never ends, does it? Do these people honestly think that if circumcision was killing almost two hundred baby boys every year in the U.S., it wouldn't be news? Do they honestly think this can be happening but nobody knows about it except themselves? I've been alive for forty-four years, and have known a lot of people in that time, and I've never met a single one who ever even *knew* or *heard of* anyone losing a baby boy due to circumcision, least of all because they "burst their little lungs from crying," which I assume was the M.E.'s official verdict on the death certificate. (How many uncircumcised babies have died from this, that Big Pharma haven't told us about? Those baby-sleep-training people must have a LOT of deaths to answer for! There's blood on their hands!)

Hi Dorothy,
I'm guessing you're new here. Just wanted to let you know that PGP tends to express a lot of very black-or-white hand-line opinions here (in case you're wondering why the rest of us aren't responding).

The only incident I've heard of babies dying of circumcision was in a small, hard-line sect in NYC where the person performing the circumcision removed the blood with his mouth (eww), while he had an active herpes outbreak, which was transmitted to the babies, who died of the infection. It's one of those memorable public health stories, mostly because it was so weird and so rare.

Completely off topic, but - - -

I was at the used book store, and I found, for the low, low, price of $.50, a copy of MJD's book Vaccine Delivery and Autism The Latex Connection. It's in surprisingly good shape. I suspect the original owner didn't finish it.

I did my civic duty, and got it out of the store before someone gullable came along and bought it.

I've not had a chance to tuck into it yet, but, so far, I'm inclined to think friend Prometheus was just a little generous.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120222133346/http://photoninthedarkness.c…

@ #32 Johnny

Ssshhhh. Mentioning "he who should not be mentioned" and has a sense of humor that makes my uhm. . . peculiar, singular, idiosyncratic tendencies seem commonplace is likely to cause the imp to appear.

I agree that the coverage has been sensationalized, and some groups have been purposefully misleading. If nothing else, I hope this story will lead parents to discuss these issues before having children. What I would like to know more about is what type of agreement about vaccination did the parents reach before they got divorced? Orac brings this up but then dismisses it with a "Who cares?"...not surprising. This would seem to be at the heart of the matter...if they had an agreement and now the father is going against that, that would seem to suggest that he is acting in bad faith. And if it really were true that this only came up after she had sought child support...would that change anyone's minds?

What is very unfortunate for the child in this case is that since the mother did not comply with her original agreement with the court to vaccinate, now the child will be vaccinated on the court's time. And clearly the court does not believe there is such a thing as vaccine safety issues, which is made perfectly clear when it ordered the mother to fully vaccinate the child within one week's time.

David @34: It seems pretty clear to me that the father has not changed his vaccination position (not on schedule, but do get them) while the mother did change her position to "none".

I think that it is highly unlikely that the court would actually expect or demand 8 years worth of vaccination in a week, but more likely wanted to start on the important stuff and have a plan in place with the child's pediatrician to get the rest on the accelerated "catch up" schedule.

The point of a booster shot is to "boost" the existing immunity, therefore there must be time (usually several months) between the prime (first shot) and the boost.

PGP asserts that the father hates the child -- of course, being PGP -- and that the child should be seized from both parents and cast into the loving arms of the government.

I presume her reasoning (so to speak) is that if the father didn't hate the child, he would have had him vaccinated without need of a court order.

Given the way the case is described, it appears that the mother had primary custody and therefore the legal right to consent to medical treatment. The father might very well have found himself in legal hot water if he had proceeded with vaccination over her objection. Now that *he* has primary custody, he can take proper care of the child.

@LW: "Now that *he* has primary custody, he can take proper care of the child."

Right...by giving him all vaccinations in 4 days.

Mr. Foster, please tell us why that might be a problem. Please provide verifiable citations in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers.

If I had to pick the most unstable antivaxer, Joseph Sikora would be in my top there. Joel Lord and Erwin Alber from Vine would be the other two. That this group is hooking up with him is telling. He espouses ALL THE CRAZY. You name it.

@ Julian

Well, I guess my point is that agreeing to a delayed schedule isn't being 'antivax', which really ought to be reserved for 'none' in the case of parent decisions. I take Orac's position to be that publicly promoting a delayed schedule is broadly 'antivax' in the sense it still advances unsupportable fears about vaccines causing autism...

Of course i'm speculating that Dad MAY have opted for 'none' if 'one at a time, over time' hadn't been available. He may have opted for on-schedule MMR. Or he may have, as you suggest, been leaning toward that himself from the get-go and just agreeing with Mom on an earlier provision from her he could live with.

I'm just willing to consider that physicians who accommodate vax-hesitant parents by providing a delayed schedule MAY be performing a public service at least some of the time by getting kids immunized before school age who otherwise wouldn't be. But I'm also willing to consider that even just accomodating a delayed schedule, even if they do so quietly without any public advocacy of the practice, may harm public health at least some of the time by giving too much credence to vax fears. I'm just saying I doubt this is a black and white thing, and this case just MIGHT be evidence of that. (Or not...)

David Foster: Here in Mormonvile, Utah, the feed store carries vaccination kits for puppies, horses, and the like but, surprising though you might find it, no vaccination kits for people. For vaccines for people-children, there is this class of people with expertise in the ins and outs of that arcane subject: they're called, around here, "pediatricians". Part of their resources (should they need any) is information on how to deal with vaccination for people-children who've been abused by the likes of a Sears-type schedule, or even not having been vaccinated at all.

Such is the case even here in the quackery capital of the US. Is there any reason to believe that Michigan would not have the same advanced features?

What reality are you all living in? This woman was given one week which meant 4 business days to get her son fully vaccinated. Not started on some catch up schedule..."vaccinated". Here is what the Judge said, he was very explicit:

“You have seven days to get your child vaccinated,” McDonald told Bredow Sept. 27. “If not, you will appear here Wednesday and if you have not, I’ll send you to jail. Let me say it one more time, you have seven days. It’s ridiculous. Don’t make me do that.”

At least in the video of the court, the judge referred to the language in the agreement of the parties, which addressed medically necessary vaccines. That's not "give both MMR doses now together." That does suggest "get him started on the catch up studies for the doses he missed" (since the judge also mentioned he was fully vaccinated up to a year of age).

It does mean give him several vaccines. But it doesn't mean not separating out booster doses.

Ok...so all this talk of "false balance" aside. I think the concern is that whether or not the particulars of her decisions to not vaccinate were even mentioned, that is not the issue taken with those who disagree with Vaccinating their children. Its the fact that such a court decision can and may very well create some legal precedent to bar parents from choosing not whether or not to vaccinate. Anyone who says that isn't a serious probability is just simply out of touch with the legalities associated with this case. Furthermore, author of this article seems to be very very biased in their views as though there is no merit to the claims by people who are opposed to the current vaccine schedule as dictated by the CDC. Most of these people are NOT anti-vaccine. They are mostly opposed to the current vaccination schedule that overload's the children's bodies with all sorts of chemicals at such an early stage of development. I just think the author of this article needs to tone it down a bit.

The judge can order fully vaccinated within a week, but I doubt the judge really meant to get completely caught up within a week.

In any case, the pediatrician is probably going to have the kid come in once a month over a two or three months to get all the first doses in, then follow the catch up schedule.

David is just being histrionic.

LW: I don't think the father 'hates' the child and that's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting the judge award custody to a relative. The father didn't seek primary custody in the first place, so why is that? And the fact that he didn't notice the kid wasn't vaccinated for seven years..well, that worries me. It suggests there are a lot of other things he might be oblivious to.

Dorothy: Wow, are you confused. The only reason for opposing abortion is a religious reason, or needing men to rule your life. (Which is religion in a nutshell, but I digress.)

Anyway, own your crap. You and your friends put the crazies in power, and you and your friend want to us to return to the baby-scoop days and the days of women dying in hospital or prison.

What it boils down to is who's life is worth more. God says it's the fetus, but I don't agree. Just because you think your life is worthless, doesn't mean you get to make that decision for every other woman.

David, you know they are not going to give him all the vaccines in 4 days. Quit being dramatic. There is a catch up schedule. The doctors will vax him according to this schedule, with intervals between doses, etc.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/catchup.html

Um, thanks those who mentioned that there is an actual catch up schedule. I kind of knew of that since to get the vaccines I needed to travel to South America when I was ten years old the Army meds gave them over a couple of months. But I was not sure how they applied since they included things like yellow fever and some other one that I forgot (typhoid?).

Just a heads up I've been lurking here for about a year now and have only just worked up the courage to comment.
Orac, I always appreciate the light you shed on these situations and you have showed me that not everything is peaches and cream in the world. I understand how hard it is living with chronic health issues and how it can be a knee-jerk reaction to blame it on the wrong thing. Keep up the good work sir

Back in 2010, I was back in a city where I met an antivax mother whose daughter, today, is training to be a veterinarian doctor.

I didn't try hard enough on her mother but today, the vet doctor apprentice has to be all up to date regarding her vaccines.

I'm glad for that but doesn't mean I can be glad for the whole situation as her mother is still antivaxxine; and has a second daughter who's much younger.

Alain

@David Foster,

And clearly the court does not believe there is such a thing as vaccine safety issues, which is made perfectly clear when it ordered the mother to fully vaccinate the child within one week’s time.

NO. It mean you doesn't care about the four year training medical doctor get after their bachelor degree plus the residency to make medical decision regarding peoples health.

Being a medical doctor include legal requirement which has been verified way before the current case was decided and which jurisprudence dictate that the current juge go along what any previous juge has decided upon the case of vaccines and, matter of fact, every fuck!ngh medical matter having legal incidence.

It ain't for nothing that medicine must be based in science but will never be a science, part of that include legal matter but never is limited to legal matter. There's much more to medicine compared with science and law.

@JustaTech 31: Thank you. I wouldn't say I'm "new" here, but I don't comment often (I think the last time was a year or so ago) and only visit sporadically. I see what you mean now.

And I remember reading about that case when it happened! I guess the blood-removal-by-mouth is some very traditional/old practice rarely done anymore (thankfully). What a horrible thing--but as you said, it made national news because it was so unusual, so the idea that it's an almost-every-day occurrence is ridiculous.

@David Foster 34: I don't think there's any more evidence that the father is acting in bad faith than there is that the mother is, or rather, there is *less* evidence that the father is acting in bad faith, since the mother is the one who agreed to follow a court order and then reneged. And no, it doesn't make a difference if it has anything to do with child support. The father wants the right thing done, and the mother is violating a direct court order because of woo beliefs. I don't care about reasons in this case. The kid needs to be vaccinated. (And isn't it possible that the father used to hold some anti-vax beliefs, but the recent outbreaks and deaths brought him to his senses? Isn't that just as likely as it is that he decided to somehow "get revenge" on his ex by making her ensure their child's health?

And I seriously doubt the judge meant, "Go have them give that child every shot he's missed his whole life, or will ever need later, in the next week."

@Stan44: But there IS no merit to the claims of people who are opposed to the CDC's current vaccination schedule. So why wouldn't a doctor act as though that's the case?

@Stan #44:

Its the fact that such a court decision can and may very well create some legal precedent to bar parents from choosing not whether or not to vaccinate. Anyone who says that isn’t a serious probability is just simply out of touch with the legalities associated with this case.

Um, no it won't. Cases like these (where one parent wants the child vaccinated and the other one doesn't) have come up several times. Every time, the Court has ruled that the child be vaccinated.
When both parents agree that the child should not be vaccinated, the Courts stay out of it.

@sadmar:

I’m just willing to consider that physicians who accommodate vax-hesitant parents by providing a delayed schedule MAY be performing a public service at least some of the time by getting kids immunized before school age who otherwise wouldn’t be.

Fair enough. But consider: Bredow started out "vaccine hesitant" and insisted on a delayed schedule, only to stop vaccinating altogether. One could just as easily argue the opposite: that providing a delayed schedule can lead to further doubts about vaccines and to a parent going the whole antivaccine hog.

@David, #42

The reporting here in New Zealand says the mother, via her attorney, agreed with the court in November to start vaccinating.

My assumption here is that she didn't, and the court, in September, gave her yet another week to start the vaccinations.

She obviously didn't follow the requirements of the court, hence contempt of court.

Since my wife is in jail and can't clarify, she's asked me to help make sure the truth comes out. So for starters, this is probably the most incorrect and inconsistent blog I've ever read. First off, SHE ISNT 'ANTI VAX' she openly says this in just about every interview. She is for 'VACCINE CHOICE.' Meaning, you want to vaccinate your children? Awesome! Do it!! But since it's LEGAL to sign a waiver in Michigan for Religious or philosophical reasons, we like to keep that freedom to CHOOSE. There's nothing 'anti' about wanting to excercise state law. The blog calls her Rachel. Her name is Rebecca. Then, you call him Jason, his name is James. And third, she NEVER signed anything or agreed to anything. And here's the reality of this situation for anyone who actually is interested in fact vs fiction.

The first 'order' was never actually ordered by the judge. Happy to post the transcripts from the court. The judge said that vaccinations would be discussed at an evidentiary hearing. However, the shady ass attorney wrote it in, knowing it would get stamped. So, when Rebecca filed a motion to FULLY VACATE the order, her attorney went in the back room, signed for her and said 'don't worry, you have the waivers for each year of school, they can't force vaccines against state waivers.' So of course, why wouldn't one believe their attorney.. they're all super stand up folks. Fast forward to December.. our 8 year old starts having horrible night terrors tells us that while in his fathers care, he's been exposed to pornography repeatedly on all of his fathers devices since he was around 5 years old.. so, knowing that 'were protected by waivers' our FULL ATTENTION went to filing motions to change custody to protect this kid from an environment he didn't feel safe in. THAT was the top priority. CPS did an investigation and the case was confirmed as a Category 3, with a preponderance of evidence that Our child was in fact exposed on numerous occasions and that he suffered from trauma. So CPS imposed a safety plan on good ole' dad.. safety plan was 'put passcodes on your devices.'
Think that happened? Nope. Our child was exposed again multiple times, resulting in one of the top child abuse psychiatrists in the state calling CPS and telling them the child 'absolutely should not go with the father.'
So we take this to the court with a motion. They say 'the child saw a doctor without the fathers permission and refused to hear anything.'
So now, his scumbag attorney says... hmmm.. how about we file another motion for vaccines, take some of the heat off of this pesky porn stuff that keeps coming up.
Meanwhile, the biological father is $8000 behind in child support.. and is using his NEW FOUND passion for vaccines as a way to distract the court, knowing it's the ONE THING my wife wouldn't do. (Even though he was on the same page for the previous 8 years)
Fast forward to September 22nd. The SIXTH time our son refused to go with his father because he said he 'doesn't feel safe' and it takes 4 Madison Heights cops 2 1/2 hours of the child begging them to not making him go until finally a supervisor calls and says 'you can't force this kid to go.'
We take this to the court last Wednesday, and they 'don't want to hear it.' They want to talk about fucking vaccines.
So finally, when the judge said vaccine or jail, my wife actually made an appointment.. and simply could it do it.
This man does NOT CARE about this child's health. He doesn't give a fuck. My wife, SHE cares, did the research, spoke to countless doctors and took the state required classes at the health department to be in FULL COMPLIANCE with the state. And for the record according to Michigan Law, ONE PARENT CAN CHOOSE EXEMPTION. ONE. so she did everything she was supposed to do.
So here we are, our child stuck with this man he doesn't trust and doesn't feel safe with, evades child support and a CPS case showing that he has a pretty severe porn addiction.. but let's put Rebecca in jail. Sounds fair to me. Here's the video from the 28th at the kids school. Dads a real stand up guy.

Yes, she didn't follow the order. But according to state law, vaccines should've never been ordered in the first place.

And regardless of your stance on Vaccines, the state of Michigan gives us the right to choose. You want to live a fascist country that tells you what to do with your body.. fantastic. Maybe we should overturn Roe V Wade while we're at it! For such a open free thinking community.. I'm shocked to see such a conservative approach to citizens having a right to choose.

I’ve ever read. First off, SHE ISNT ‘ANTI VAX’ she openly says this in just about every interview. She is for ‘VACCINE CHOICE.

No, her rhetoric that I've seen in several interviews clearly indicates that she's definitely antivax. She rattles off every trope, the "I've done my research" trope, the "I'm not 'antivax'; I'm pro-choice" trope; etc. In the WXYZ report, she goes on about what if her child were seriously injured by vaccines ordered by the judge. She clearly believes that vaccines cause autism and a variety of other problems that science clearly shows they do not, in fact, cause. The group speaking out for her, Michigan for Vaccine Choice, is an antivax group masquerading as a "vaccine choice" group, a very common camouflage. She's very intentionally courted press narratives painting her as the Brave Mother Willing To Go To Jail To Protect Her Child From The Evil Vaccines. No, Mr. Bredow, although I cannot comment much on the accuracy of your other claims about Mr. Horne and acknowledged above that family disputes are messy, I can comment very clearly on this: Your wife is antivax. Period. Her claims otherwise are BS. Hell, she is willing to go to jail rather than submit to an order to vaccinate her son. That is about as hard core antivax as it gets.

Another analysis by an actual lawyer:

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/michigan-mom-ja…

In court, too, Ms. Bredow tried to claim she did not agree to the order and the judge called her out and said that was untrue.

The judge also said Ms. Bredow did not appear before her to overturn the order.

And as Orac said, Ms. Bredow is very clearly anti vaccine. She said several times she oppposes vaccines, using multiple arguments, and her younger daughter is completely unvaccinated.

Here's the courtroom vid from WXYZ and a transcript of the judge kicking azz and taking names:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRMNwzxg1eI
.
Mom: "Babbling about being an educated vaccine choice mom and ... Lies, lies, lies. Says she has followed all laws (must've forgot court orders). Starts accusing ex of nefarious activity in adding vaccinations to a 2006 order..."
@1:26 - Judge shuts her down abruptly at this point in exasperation:
Judge: "Ok, ma'am. I'm going to stop you... because the truth matters.
November 30th [2017] you appeared to set that order aside. You never went before me.
- You agreed in a consent order to vaccinate your child. One.
- Two. I understand you love your children, but what I don't think you understand is that your son has two parents and Dad gets a say. And the record - I urge you to review it, and anyone else -
- What you just said, "that he has a new found objection Is Not True. You acknowledge in your own pleadings your child at a year old was up to date on all his vaccinations. You acknowledge that in your own pleadings... [holding hand up to silence Mom] I'm not going to take time, today, to listen to the facts as you see them.
- I just urge you to really read the record... because I have. And what you're saying is just not true.
Contempt is a serious and critical power the court has. It's available to the court so it can enforce orders and so the people before me have confidence that an order means something. And I don't take it lightly.
It's clear to me that you don't care about orders even if you agree to them. WHICH YOU DID. You agreed on Nov. 30th; your attorney signed that order.
- I reviewed your testimony at the FOC hearing where you acknowledged that you enrolled the minor child in a different school without Dad's consent.
- You've admitted in this court previously that you unilaterally changed the child's therapist without the court's approval or Dad's consent.
- You signed a waiver for vaccinations without Dad's consent. [nodding head with each word for emphasis]
- And you've repeatedly stated over the last several days, publicly, that you will not follow this court order. So I am sentencing you to seven days in jail, and I also award Dad temporary physical custody while you are incarcerated and until enough time has passed for him to bring your son's vaccinations up to date as rapidly as medically necessary, which is the language in the order."
.
Judge then instructs Dad to pick up child at school and to set up the vaccinations per the order. She sets a status update hearing in a week.
Mom starts to whine and discuss and judge shuts her down. "No. I'm done here."
Mom's lawyer tries to raise an objection and judge shuts him down... "MR. VITALE, WE ARE DONE HERE."
.
It seems the judge doesn't like to be lied to. Taking away the babbling lie seems to have taken the wind out of anti-vax mommy's sails. Without that tool she, as the judge demonstrated, has no arguments.
.
Note that Dad's temp. custody is for enough time to bring the "son's vaccinations up to date as rapidly as medically necessary". The vaccines will be given according to medical convention and Dad retains custody until that time - not just for 7 days.
.
Note the judge explains the jailing in consideration of Mom's prior abuse of court orders and her unilaterally taking action and cutting Dad out of approval and publicly announcing her intention to disregard the court's current order(s). Not much said about vaccination as a reason... just mommy being dishonest and an outlaw.

Have fun.

All I can think of is "man, what was she thinking?"
Rarely is it a good idea to go against a friggin court order!
Not following through with her agreement probably immediately made her case look even worse, even to those who were unbiased.

@Dean

I don’t know about vaccines but children are the property of their parents” bit — the latter means, apparently, that parents can do whatever they wish because they own the child.

Of course, this is a battle between the mother and father, so even if that were true, it is an issue of which parent can do whatever they wish because own the child. Does the father not own the child, too?

(The correct answer, of course, is that neither parent "owns" their child)

I’m not entirely convinced that Jason Horne is antivaxx. From where I’m standing, while they were married, Horne went along with Bredow, but after they divorced Horne didn’t go down the rabbit hole and in fact moved back to rationality.

My understanding is that the child is 9. That means when this came up, they were talking about vaccinating him when he was 8. There are no vaccines on the standard schedule at 8, so it sounds to me like this is a case where they agreed to space them out, and then she went full bore denial. But that means he agreed to space them out.

She is for ‘VACCINE CHOICE.’ Meaning, you want to vaccinate your children? Awesome! Do it!!

But she doesn't want to. Why not? Does she have something against vaccines or something?

"Choice" is manifested in the ability to choose, not in the choices that are made. She can be pro-choice and vaccinate, or she can be pro-choice and not vaccinate. She refuses to vaccinate. Why would she do that if she was not anti-vax?

Quote PGP: "The father didn’t seek primary custody in the first place, so why is that?" If the dates given are correct, they divorced in 2008 and the child is now nine; that means he was a baby. The father might have thought a baby belonged with his mother, or his lawyer told him not to fight because no court would take a baby from a mother who wasn't murderously unfit and fighting would make matters worse.

" And the fact that he didn’t notice the kid wasn’t vaccinated for seven years..well, that worries me." They've been fighting in court over this for a year now (order entered in Nov). He may very well have noticed but, given her intransigence, didn't want to spend his savings for the child's college tuition on this fight. He may have calculated that the child could hide in the herd until he was old enough to make his own decisions. Who knows?

Who knows why the father started fighting this in court a year ago. Maybe he got alarmed at the outbreaks. Maybe he personally knew someone affected by the outbreaks. Maybe a trusted person sat him down and explained things. Maybe he started reading RI.

I think most situations are less black-and-white than PGP imagines.

Alain #51: I know what you mean. I've had a couple of nursing students whose parents are antivax, and the students were raised that way. We require vaccination for DPT, MMR, polio, Hep B, and varicella to enter our program, and you have to get a flu shot every year you are in our program. The students tried to resist getting the vaccines (which they'd never had), but this is non-negotiable in our program. You either provide a titer proving immunity, or you provide documentation of vaccination.

They tried appealing it to the President of the college, who knows nothing about nursing and has been known to override our best judgement as a result. He didn't on this, however, and really couldn't as our hospital partners require this of us in any event.

Mr. Bredow seems to think that because a parent obtains a waiver for vaccines in Michigan, that means a judge can't issue a court order to vaccinate if the other joint custodial parent requests it.

He also seems to think that just because one parent can choose exemption, that a judge can't override that either.

The judge can, if Ms. Bredow had agreed in a consent order to vaccinate. The rest is all smoke and mirrors: if she agrees to do something in a consent order, then she must comply or she is in contempt of court and that is why she's in jail.

Honestly, Mr. Bredow, I don't know why you think airing your family's dirty laundry here is doing your wife's position on this matter any good.

The "exemption laws mean we win in family court" argument has been raised by anti vaccine lawyers in the past, occasionally successfully.

Apologies for the self plug, but I wrote a short law review article explaining why it's incorrect - yes, sounds obvious, but seemed worth doing, since the argument was in use.

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol58/iss6/2/

I think it's strange that only the Bredows talk about a CPS case. I'm quite certain that the judge wouldn't have put the child with his father if there was a high level CPS case - wouldn't she be made aware of this?

I agree that the CPS story, given the judge's decision, is suspicious.

It does show that the relationship is at a very acrimonious stage.

@gary bredow - Thanks for bringing some addition background information into the conversation. Nice of you to inform us of the additional issues at play in this case. In this forum, if you voice any disagreement with the current CDC vaccine schedule or support for vaccine choice you will be considered anti-vaccine.

You're implying it's unfair to describe this particular case as anti vaccines. But the comment your accept so readily describes vaccines as evil. Do you think it's unfair to describe it as anti vaccine, when it does that?

@Dorit: indeed. And while I don't approve of missing child support payments, the whole comment from Mr Bredow seems to be written to make Mr Horne to be totally unfit as a parent and dangerous. So, I'm going to take everything with many grains of salt, knowing we don't have the full story but the judge presumably does.

And does anyone else feel sorry for this poor child? He's been probably so programmed to fear vaccines that the very thought of getting any has him petrified.

@Johnny (#32),

Going "comlpetely" off topic, and admitting it, is an act of kindness in this post.

@Gary Bredow (#57),

Thanks for sharing your perspective in this very controversial blog.

When Orac calls your wife "antivax" understand that such a term has never been clearly defined and the associated "tropes" (comment #58) are often wordplay in an effort to distract and confuse.

Future happiness and good health to you and your family, Gary

Thanks for the link, Dorit. It was a good read, and I've bookmarked it. :)

Beth Clarkson's reaction is what Mr. Bredow was hoping for when he posted here. He's posted the same dreck on other web forums, mostly anti vax friendly. It's a blatant grab for sympathy.

He came to the wrong place for that. While I certainly sympathize with the child, I have none for the step father or the mother.

When MJD says that the term "antivax" has never been clearly defined, he's engaging in his own "effort to distract and confuse." Orac has written several long (but then this is Orac, after all!) posts laying out his reasoning and justification for applying the "antivax" label to those who would rather use different labels. MJD knows this.

Ms. Mantooth: “I don’t actually know any pro-life person who doesn’t care about children ..."

Chris: "Obviously that does not include the congress critters ..."

Well, she did specify "person"

Sorry, couldn't help it. Will go back to lurking now.

@gary bredow – Thanks for bringing some addition background information into the conversation. Nice of you to inform us of the additional issues at play in this case. In this forum, if you voice any disagreement with the current CDC vaccine schedule or support for vaccine choice you will be considered anti-vaccine.

And thank you Beth Clarkson for further demonstrating what an uncritical, biased dupe you are by accepting, at face-value, the rantings of the current husband because he says what you want to hear and believe. It sounds like the lot of them are a bunch of a-holes. My sympathies go to the child who has to deal with the fallout of these "parents".

@Dorit #72 - The implication you ask about was not my intention. Different forums use different definitions of the term anti-vaccine. I was telling someone who is new to this forum that here the term is applied to people who vaccinate themselves and their children while supporting the right of others to choose otherwise. IMO, that is not anti-vaccine.

@Science Mom - This may be foreign concept to you, but it's possible to be open and friendly to someone without necessarily "accepting, at face-value, the rantings" of that someone. In fact, it's not only possible to be nice to people with whom you disagree, but doing so increases the likelihood they might listen to you and consider your differing opinion on the matter.

Science Mom: I have no doubt this kid has been suffering serious psychological harm as a result of this contentious divorce. Hence, Mr. Bredow's comment about the kid crying and resisting visits with Dad. There is no question in my mind the mother and stepfather have scared this kid to death with bovine excrement about being tortured at the doctor's office.

It would explain why the judge was so unhappy about mom moving the kid to a different therapist without the court's consent. The original therapist probably saw this too and was either having success in addressing it, or reporting unfavorable information to the court on the kid's progress.

@Panacea: yeah, I can imagine mom and step-dad telling the kid, if you go to your dad's, he's going to drag you to a doctor who is going to give you 76 shots in 1 day, and then you'll get really sick and miserable and he won't care. I'm sure the kid is scared silly to go to dad's and it's no wonder he has nightmares. Interesting how they started around age 5 - right around time for getting UTD for school.

(sadly, I've seen this kind of mental brainwashing in divorces, and it's really depressing that 2 so-called adults can't be civil about each other regarding their child.)

It's ridiculous to say that someone willing to defy a judge and go to jail to keep her child from getting a vaccine is "antivaccine." Obviously, she's just going this far for the pure principle of choice: the plain and simple right that every American has to use their child as a petri-dish for disease. Shame on those who call her "anti-vaccine"!

TonyLurker: "Well, she did specify “person”"

:-)

Especially after the soon to be ex-congress critter from Pennsylvania blatant display of hypocrisy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/sex-sanctimony-and-congress…

@Science Mom – This may be foreign concept to you, but it’s possible to be open and friendly to someone without necessarily “accepting, at face-value, the rantings” of that someone. In fact, it’s not only possible to be nice to people with whom you disagree, but doing so increases the likelihood they might listen to you and consider your differing opinion on the matter.

Oh please, you thanked him for providing "addition [sic] background information". He said what you wanted to believe; you didn't disagree one damn bit.

I was telling someone who is new to this forum that here the term is applied to people who vaccinate themselves and their children while supporting the right of others to choose otherwise.

Another right load of bollocks. Anti-vaxx is applied to to those who make all the anti-vaxx squawky noises and actions thinly-veiled behind "vaccine choice". Persecution complex?

Doesn't matter whatcha call 'em they're still inconsiderate to the plights of those who cannot vaccinate like newborns and people with immune deficiencies. :/
You could call rotting vegetables fertilizer but that wouldn't make it smell any better.

Beth Clarkson: "In this forum, if you voice any disagreement with the current CDC vaccine schedule or support for vaccine choice you will be considered anti-vaccine."

No, in this forum if one repeatedly regurgitates classic antivax tropes while posing as someone who's Just Asking Questions (while disregarding contrary evidence) - that person will be recognized as antivaccine, and deservedly so. Beth has behaved in this manner repeatedly.

Antivaxers hate to be called out as antivaccine and go to ridiculous lengths to pretend they're not. Thus we get the spectacle of fans insisting that the movie "Vaxxed" is not antivaccine, Andrew Wakefield is not antivaccine etc.

MI Dawn: The kid becomes a pawn in a power struggle. Sadly, I've seen it too. When one parent brings a kid in for a medical screen alleging all kinds of shit that more often than not ain't true.

She’s a nutcase and an arrogant one at that. Why does she have custody of the kid at all, for any amount of time ?

Different forums use different definitions of the term anti-vaccine. I was telling someone who is new to this forum that here the term is applied to people who vaccinate themselves and their children while supporting the right of others to choose otherwise.

I could have sworn that this was the comments secton of a blog, rather than a "forum." (More seriously, whatever is left of the MDC stuff is closer to the mark. Rectification of names, and all that.)

Just to reiterate: she wouldn't go to jail over the non-vaccinating issue alone. The judge had an easy way to deal with that, and did: give custody to the father and order vaccinating. That took care of vaccinating.

She went to jail over repeated defiance and ignoring of court orders.

The local CBS station in Los Angeles ran the story of the mother being sent to jail for a week. It was clear that the sentence was based on violation of a court order. There was no discussion of anti-vaccine tropes and no anti-vaccine spokesmen were presented. Based on how this station used to handle stories such as Burzynski, I think this suggests that KCBS is improving. I wonder whether this improvement is just the fallout of budgetary constraints on their part, or whether it is partly the result of protests against their previous unscientific approach.

389 compensable vaccine claims vs. 2.8 billion doses of vaccines given in the US between 2008 - 2015. She's a hair dresser for crying out loud. She can't even figure out that the odds of her son suffering a severe side effect from being given a vaccine are far less than teeny-tiny. The woman may be a very good hair dresser and it appears that her business is thriving - but she is NOT an epidemiologist. She shouldn't have signed that court order in November 2016 if she wasn't going to follow through with it. I'm glad her ex-husband now has custody of their son. She had been denying him visitation too. Stupid woman. Well, she'll make all sorts of interesting friends in jail. Maybe she won't be hassled too much if she tends to her fellow inmates tresses.

@Dagian you arrogant SOB. "She’s a hair dresser for crying out loud." Right. And a hair dresser couldn't possibly figure out that the risks of vaccines have been drastically underestimated, and the benefits wildly exaggerated, right? So somehow an epidemiologist is the Gold Standard of scientific inquiry? Good grief, haven't you learned yet that epidemiology is the easiest way to make inconvenient truths go away? We've been watching this for years.

@David Foster:

And a hair dresser couldn’t possibly figure out that the risks of vaccines have been drastically underestimated...

Citation/supporting evidence needed for this claim.

...and the benefits wildly exaggerated, right?

Citation/supporting evidence needed for this claim too.

Good grief, haven’t you learned yet that epidemiology is the easiest way to make inconvenient truths go away?

Translation: I can't refute the evidence, so I will accuse the experts of gross incompetence and gross malfeasance.
Amusing how you and that hairdresser are convinced that you know better than people who do this for a living.

Lol.. what a bunch of keyboard commandos we have on here! A 'hair dresser?' I think you meant business owner. She doesn't actually work as a 'hair dresser.' I can't help but think that these posts are coming from a couple pimple faced teenagers down in their parents basement being paid to think of cool 'burns' or just copy and paste 'scientific evidence' from big studies done over long periods by the folks who profit from our illness, but either way, hats off to you moxie! I never really found myself wrapped in reading responses from insignificant people, but this is downright entertaining. Keep up the great work kids. And please, keep being sheep! These companies REALLY need folks like you. Especially now.

Oh, no! Mr. Bredow's unleashed the dreaded, "You must be pimple-faced teenagers living in their parents' basement" burn. How will we ever recover?

Seriously, though, dude, There's only one person sounding childish here, and it isn't any of my regular commenters. I do appreciate your resisting the urge to use the word "sheeple," though.

Oh, boy! The Pharma Shill Gambit! As if we hadn't seen that one hundreds of times, and still none of us has ever gotten any of that massive lucre.

A ‘hair dresser?’ I think you meant business owner. She doesn’t actually work as a ‘hair dresser.’

Interesting. In the states where The Wife owned several beauty shops and nail shops, the business owner was required by law to be licensed in the field. Have you just bragged that your wife is violating your state's health codes, in addition to the damage she's doing to her kid's health??

And again, I 100% encourage all of you to PLEASE take your kids and TRIPLE CHECK that can't squeeze in a few more vaccinations. I mean, how can you be sure? How do know they have enough? You all should maybe even double up the dose so you'll be that much more safe and protected from our gross, walking infections of children. And as all of you are HIGHLY EDUCATED, I'm talking 'top of class' type of people, you already that you need to OBEY whatever the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies tell you, you need to comply, and comply without question immediately. They care about you. They care about your children. And you being sick does NOT help their bottom line at all in any way shape or form. But I know you already know all this. NOW GO!! Get those flu shots up to date! There is new strain of flu going around and it's killing people by the thousands in your area. Get TWO flu shots, it can't hurt. And make sure those kids are UP TO DATE. See.. I'm not antivax! I just really want all of you and your children on this 'blog' to be safe and free from all illness. Now GO! Times a wastin'!

That's amusing. You claim your wife is not antivax, even though she spouts every antivax trope known to antivaxers. Now you join in. I can see how you two were made for each other: Antivax peas in a pod.

The crap you're posting here isn't doing your wife's case a bit of good, you know. It's just convincing us that the court decision was absolutely correct, so far as it went, but that it probably should have gone further.

With regard to Ms. Bredow's woes, are you cause or effect?

“Not anti-vax” - first and best sign that a person is, in fact, anti-vax.

A ‘hair dresser?’ I think you meant business owner.

minor nitpick: Trump is also a business owner. It remain to be seen if being a business owner makes one a better epidemiologist as opposed to a hair dresser :)

Alain

Gary: "OBEY whatever the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies tell you, you need to comply, and comply without question immediately. They care about you. They care about your children."

Most importantly, they care about their own children. It may come as a shock to Mr. Bredow, but there are millions of human beings employed in healthcare and working for drug companies, who want to protect their kids as well as those of other people.
As a physician, I get an annual flu shot not just to lower my odds of getting the flu, but also to protect patients and visitors to the hospitals I work at, who don't really want to contract influenza from caregivers.

Ok, now I'm not sure if you're pimple faced teenagers in a basement or 'troll bots' because no one is THIS stupid. No wonder this irrelavent blog is on the 8th page of the google search. I'm out.

Of course, you clicked way down to the 8th page of your Google search looking for places to whine. So what does that say about you?

Dude I am nowhere near talented to be a pharma shill, or repetitive enough to be a bot. Also, that flu vaccine post reeked of sarcasm so much you could bottle it and sell it as a perfume.

Rebecca Lynn Bredow is a licensed cosmetologist in the state of Michigan. She is also a business owner. I noted both in my post.

https://www.lara.michigan.gov/colaLicVerify/controller

She's also terrible at math.

Date range 01/01/2006 - 12/31/2015

(379/2,845,946,816)(100) = ?
(2,824/2,845,946,816)(100) = ?

https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/data/vicpm…

Any particular reason she's sitting in the Oakland County jail under her maiden name, rather than Bredow?

I did get my flu shot last week, thanks. I get one every year. I'm also planning on getting vaccinated against shingles as it's no joke. A family member has scarred corneas due to shingles. It's a shame they make people wait until they are a certain age as shingles can strike anytime after someone has suffered a bout of chicken pox.

No, he probably received up to four shots last week and in one month, he will receive two more. It depends on what immunizations he received already. The judge noted that he was fully vaccinated when he was a year old.

If the boy is to stay with his father until he's caught up with his vaccinations, then he may be living with him for a month. It may not be that long, of course.

No wonder this irrelavent blog is on the 8th page of the google search.

It all comes down to search terms.

For example, I downloaded Chrome on an iPad, so that I had a fresh browser that had nothing in it’s history or cache, and putting in the search terms ‘Gary bredow’ (no quotes) brings up a lot of articles about a producer. Changing the terms to ‘Gary Bredow vaccine’ (again, no quotes) brings this page up as the 3rd result.

Searching ‘Rebecca bredow’ (no quotes) brings this up on the 4th page. Note that the first 3 pages are mostly news articles from multiple media outlets.

Enjoy the google juice you’ve made for yourself, Gary.

Having had a bit of time this morning to review the record, I find it curious that Gary Bredow's comment simultaneously invokes "our child" and whines about not getting eight grand from "the biological father."

Narad: that probably explains why Ms. Bredow is in jail under another name. If she remarried, her ex might be able to petition for a reduction in child support, or alimony if he's paying that as well.

Mr. Bredow . . . he doth protest too much.

Hmmmm...pimples - not for many years. I'm far from a teenager, own my own house (well, the bank and I own it) and since it doesn't have a basement, I'm not living in one.

Mr Bredow shows he's really classy with his comments. Nope, I'm not a pharma shill. I am up-to-date on most vaccines (flu shot coming Tuesday, woo hoo!!) but no, I don't need more than one, sir. If you were truly educated about vaccines, you'd understand a little more about how the immune system works.

As for my kids - they are both fully up-to-date with vaccines, and since they show immune titres, they don't need to renew any at this time.

"Having had a bit of time this morning to review the record, I find it curious that Gary Bredow’s comment simultaneously invokes “our child” and whines about not getting eight grand from “the biological father.”

@Narad

I think that is actually very slightly in his favor. He's an involved stepfather. I disagree with not vaccinating the boy and yes, his biological father gets a say, but at least he loves the child. I think from things I've read that they've been refusing to let the boy see his father and probably winding him up too, which isn't good at all. Even if Mr. Horne is behind on his child support payments (and he damn well should be making those payments!), that doesn't mean they can deny him his time with his son and expect the court to go along with their decisions. If they're scaring the kid on top of it, that may also bite them in the butt.

It's very sad.

Becoming a child's stepfather does not remove the fatherhood of child's living father. Perhaps Mr. Bredow should rethink his role in the child's life, and actually listen to the judge.

@Chris #117

I agree, it doesn't deprive Mr. Horne of being the boy's father. I was trying to find something in this whole sordid mess that was in Mr. Bredow's favor. He loves his stepson. That's good. He's trying to deny Mr. Horne his rights as a parent by fiat. That's not in his favor.

Mr. Horne may be a mess (and I have no way of knowing either way), but that doesn't mean he's always wrong. Rebecca may regret her marriage to him, but at this point they need to focus on the fact that they all love this boy more than they hate one another. They haven't reached it yet. I hope they do soon.

"...but at this point they need to focus on the fact that they all love this boy more than they hate one another. They haven’t reached it yet. I hope they do soon."

Exactly.

I became a part of a stepfamily when I was eleven. Except it was because the death of my mother. Since her family did not like my father they were going to petition to remove my father's rights, and take myself and my sister away from him. This prompted him to marry a friend of my mother, a single woman with a daughter, very quickly.

Trust me, things got very interesting over the next few years, and not in a good way. So, yeah, folks: don't make it harder on the kids.

I think that is actually very slightly in his favor. He’s an involved stepfather. I disagree with not vaccinating the boy and yes, his biological father gets a say, but at least he loves the child.

For certain values of "involved."

If she remarried, her ex might be able to petition for a reduction in child support, or alimony if he’s paying that as well.

Quoth Gary Bredow: "Since my wife is in jail and can’t clarify . . . ."

I don't know what the law is like in Michigan,* but if he's going to publicly assert some sort of property interest in the child, he should damn well not be complaining about funding it. I mean, he's a big shot, semiliterate prose stylings notwithstanding.

* It can't be as bad as Massachussetts, where they still burn witches.

'For certain values of “involved.”

Yes, very true. I was looking for the pony somewhere around the mountain of manure. James Horne and Rebecca Bredow love their son. Gary Bredow loves his stepson. They don't seem to agree on anything else.

You know what else drives me crazy about anti-vaxxers? They are applying their craziness to their pets. There is a NASTY strain of canine flu going around and there are idiots who are refusing to get their dog immunized. Despite the vaccine being extremely effective. They would rather see their dog incredibly sick, possibly die, or go through extensive expensive support therapy than go get their pet vaccinated.

It's also interfering with making vaccines for other animals. Did you know that gorillas can get Ebola? So developing Ebola vaccine for humans has also led to the development of an effective Ebola vaccine for great apes. But there are idiots who are ballyhooing protecting gorillas from Ebola. *disclaimer - I participated in an Ebola vaccine trial. It worked quite nicely (my titer is high).

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/ebola-vaccine-great-apes-shows-p…

She was released from jail yesterday. I hope that she and her ex-husband resolve to be better co-parents.

Did you know that gorillas can get Ebola?

Of course. Did you know that the massive ZEBOV outbreak in West Africa was actually a false-flag operation to forcibly vaccinate people and that RT-PCR is a fake, because Kary Mullis? I read it at AoA, so it must be true.

Narad - Gorillas can get Ebola and it isn't funny. Rhesus macaques can get measles, so we test them regularly to ensure their titers are still high enough.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/7/2987.abstract (our friend, the rhesus)

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39229625 (gorillas and Ebola)

Here comes another one: http://www.wxyz.com/news/metro-detroit-mom-in-court-over-not-vaccinatin…

Dagain, I think you misread Narad; he's being sarcastic about the ludicrous "reporting" that goes on at AoA.

OH! Sorry, Narad. Sometimes I don't catch tone very well.

@Dagian

Hey at least you know that you'll have a good response in the horrifying case that someone was actually serious about that.

And yeah it is pretty scary how easily Ebola can spread and it's awesome they've gotten a vaccine made for it.

Update

http://www.wxyz.com/news/metro-detroit-mom-jailed-for-not-vaccinating-s…

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2017/10/11/mom-j…

Jailed mom 'devastated' to learn son was vaccinated

"You have seven days to get your child vaccinated," McDonald told Bredow Sept. 27. "If not, you will appear here Wednesday and if you have not, I'll send you to jail. Let me say it one more time, you have seven days. It's ridiculous. Don't make me do that."

Bredow said she couldn't bring herself to have the child immunized. McDonald said Bredow had consented to the shots in court pleadings in November 2016. Her refusal to do so amounted to contempt of court, McDonald ruled."

Well, the judge also told the father to pick up the child and make arrangements to have his vaccination series restarted, I don't know why she is surprised it happened. If she can go to jail for not doing what she agreed to do, so could her ex-husband. He didn't want to go to jail and he wanted his child vaccinated.

@Dagian: I've noticed the story has changed (gotta love the Freep...) and now the boy was unvaccinated since birth.

I'd go with the Judge on that (which, as you all know - but to remind those that came in late - said the child was fully vaccinate up to a year old).

Sometimes I don’t catch tone very well.

My understanding is that I don't convey it very well.

Well apparently Judge McDonald has another nutcase in her court trying to get out of an agreement to vaccinate a child.

Mom wants genetic testing to identify any "predisposition" to a vaccine reaction, which is nonsense. But even if there is none, Mom wants to avoid vaccination because of "aborted fetal cells" which even the Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with.

Mom wants genetic testing to identify any “predisposition” to a vaccine reaction, which is nonsense.

Of course it's nonsense, especially since she's relying on the results of a 23 and Me test. The judge will hear from the mother's "expert" before ruling. I can't wait to see who that "expert" is going to be.

I wonder if she will have one, or will try again to impress the judge with her personal knowledge.

Mom wants genetic testing to identify any “predisposition” to a vaccine reaction

And I would like a pony.

Hopefully her lawyer isn't that stupid to try and pass off testimony as science without an expert. Because Judge McDonald made it pretty clear to me that isn't going to fly.

I say hopefully because no one should have incompetent legal representation, and I'm not too impressed with this mother's lawyer given the very public fracas with another defendant over the same issue that led to a client spending nearly a week in jail.

I didn't realize she was relying on 23 and me. It doesn't give that kind of evidence and even the company (which has had its own issues with the FDA) isn't claiming that, to my knowledge.

"In a separate case, Lori Matheson and her ex-husband, Michael Schmitt, are arguing in front of McDonald on whether or not to vaccinate their 2-year-old daughter. Matheson testified on Tuesday that she objects to vaccines on both religious and medical grounds."

"Judge McDonald stated during the hearings, "I was expecting you to bring forth a medical professional so that the court could make a meaningful determination." So far in the case there has been no medical testimony."

Yes, that's the exchange I was referring to. Her lawyer was foolish to let her client try to pass off opinion as expert evidence.

She's incompetent if she tries it again.

I'd just qualify that with "unless the lawyer clearly warned against but client insisted."

Like adult patients in sound mind, adult clients in sound mind have the right to reject advice and do things detrimental to their case.

I would also add that if that was the initial situation, it may be hard to find a doctor willing to testify in short notice that can come. Though there are, of course, anti vaccine doctors, they may not be readily available to her for this.

Fair enough. I should have made that clear in my last post.

As for anti vax docs: she also may not be able to afford them. They would at least expect her to pay for the plane ticket and hotel, and I expect at least $500/hour to testify.

According to USA Today, Bredow was released from jail after 5 days and was DEVASTATED to learn that her son was vaccinated ( 4 times yet),
Seriously, it's not like he was hit by a truck.

She was hoping his father would defy the court order and go to jail, I guess.

She's also shocked - SHOCKED - that she and her ex-husband now have joint custody instead of her having primary custody.

Here is the link DW speaks of:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/12/a-moth…

Not sure what she expected given the judge's order.

In the second case, court adjourned after rejecting the qualifications of Dr. Toni Bark to serve as an expert witness: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2017/10/12/v…

Dr. Bark, here, is showing, I think, why she is not a great expert witness.

https://www.facebook.com/jack.knight.9022?ref=br_rs

Oh this is rich:

Asked about her qualifications, Bark told the court she is an expert on “adversinomics,” the study of adverse reactions to vaccines.

Judge McDonald responded:
“I’m not even sure if adversinomics is a proper field of study, and you haven’t shown that,” McDonald said. “Do not come in here again without looking at the case law and the court rules and knowing what you’re doing. This is just not how I conduct court proceedings.”
"Andversinomics" is not a recognised field despite an appearance by Dr. Hyphen in the comment section claiming it is because there's a single paper on it. One wonders where Dr. Bark would have received the training to deem herself an expert in that field.

In the video she claimed she is an expert because she used to give vaccines when she was in residency and because she "treats vaccine injuries" constantly.

Her website makes it clear she practices homeopathy.

Also from that article:

“We need the right to choose which vaccines your child gets,” Kallis said. “Parents should have the right to selectively choose vaccines, delay vaccines or skip vaccines, based on their research and beliefs.

Only the rights of parents who refuse vaccinations should be respected?

One of the anti-vaccine protesters in the video says the moms have done their research and the dads haven't, implying, yes, that only the anti-vaccine parent knows what's what.

Of course it’s nonsense, especially since she’s relying on the results of a 23 and Me test.

While 23andme doesn't 'identify any “predisposition” to a vaccine reaction' as part of their service, they do allow you to download and examine your genome bit by bit.

Of course, I still haven't heard that they identified the genes responsible for vaccine reactions, but I freely admit I'm not an expert.

I’m not even sure if adversinomics is a proper field of study...

The great Google is no help. Plugging in 'adversinomics vaccine' turns up the Detroit news article Dorit posted.

WHY is Dr Bark an expert?

Well, according to the woo-meister-in-charge @ prn.fm, she, her anti-vax colleagues ( Drs Banks, Tenpenny, Humphries, etc) and the aforementioned woo-meister have all spent
" over 14000 hours" each studying/ researching vaccines.

( So if you spent 40 hours a week times 50 weeks a year...
oh you get the idea..) heh

In other news...
I know that Someone-We-Know is writing about the new AJW so-called docu elsewhere

and I know how the "un-baised" film maker, Miranda Bailey met Andy.
It was through Louise Kuo Habakus

Look at her site, Fearless Parent ( or Fearless Parent Radio) and you'll see a recent interview with Bailey and AJW prefaced by LKH's written intro that she herself hooked them up.

If LKH is a source...
we then know lots about Bailey if she knows her for 10 years

I think the Poland et al. paper Dr. Hyphen invoked spelt it "adversnomics". In any event, it's not a field, just a concept and there are no experts in it.

Somewhat off topic, but relating to another strident anti-vaccine activist. I'm watching CNN and they keep posting a tweet from Trump quoting Sharyl Attkisson (who they insist on calling "Atkinson"). It's related to Puerto Rico and has nothing to do with vaccines, but it alarms me (but doesn't surprise me) that she has the ear of the POTUS.

Of course, I still haven’t heard that they identified the genes responsible for vaccine reactions, but I freely admit I’m not an expert.

There aren't any per se. There are conditions, that can be of genetic aetiology but you can't look at a 23andMe test and proclaim a gene alteration in isolation is indicative of a vaccine reaction. That is not to say a numpty like Tony Bark wouldn't try.

Not entirely off topic, as it concerns another "journalist" who shills for the anti-vaccine movement. I'm watching CNN and all day they've been showing a tweet from Trump quoting Sharyl Attkisson (who the CNN anchors keep calling "Atkinson"). The subject is Puerto Rico relief and has nothing to do with vaccines, but it disturbs me (although it doesn't surprise me) that she has the ear of the POTUS.

I think the Poland et al. paper Dr. Hyphen invoked spelt it “adversnomics”. In any event, it’s not a field, just a concept and there are no experts in it.

Coining a marketing label for one's speciality grift does not make it a science.

Did y'all hear that after the judge granted the father one additional day with the child, the father up and left with his lawyer to go to Los Angeles so they could be on The Doctors TV show?

Del Bigtree was on the same flight and asked them some questions at the airport while taking cell phone video. Questions like why are you abandoning your son after the boy's mother has been in jail for a week? The guy is exactly how I imagined him.

Rebecca and Gary Bredow and anti-vaxxers are taking a drubbing over at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/12/a-moth…

It's pretty interesting to read.

Rebecca Bredow and anti-vaxxers are getting a drubbing at The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/12/a-moth…

23andme can only sell genetic testing for 10 conditions, and vaccine reactions are not among them. And the test doesn't prove you'll get the disease, it only identifies genetic markers that may tell you that you have risk.

I just can't imagine why this woman's attorney goes along with this.

23andme is not even as useful as the similarly-effective genetic tests that can be invoked to indicate that a dog isn't part pit bull so that it can be allowed into an apartment.

Slightly OT, but in the comments in an article elsewhere about this woman and child, I mentioned that there were antivaxxers who thought disease was a way to thin the herd, and prove survival of the fittest. I was challenged to prove that, so gave the person quotes from and a link to AoA, but was pooh poohed because it was "only one person." Once upon a time, I would have endeavored to provide more information, but I've learned (particularly from here) that it would be spitting in the wind.

I like Judge McDonald.

I think the Poland et al. paper Dr. Hyphen invoked spelt it “adversnomics”.

Google found it, 'adversomics'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843136/

...which we have called adversomics (the immunogenetics and immunogenomics of vaccine adverse events at the individual and population level, respectively).

23andme can only sell genetic testing for 10 conditions, and vaccine reactions are not among them.

They've approval for a few more than that. Nothing about vaccines, of course.

Genetic Health Risk reports

Age-Related Macular Degeneration
2 variants in the ARMS2 and CFH genes; relevant for European descent

Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency
2 variants in the SERPINA1 gene; relevant for European descent

Hereditary Hemochromatosis (HFE-Related)
2 variants in the HFE gene; relevant for European descent

Hereditary Thrombophilia
2 variants in the F2 and F5 genes; relevant for European descent

Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease
1 variant in the APOE gene; variant found and studied in many ethnicities

Parkinson's Disease
2 variants in the LRRK2 and GBA genes; relevant for European, Ashkenazi Jewish, North African Berber descent

Carrier Status reports

ARSACS
1 variant in the SACS gene; relevant for French Canadian descent

Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum with Peripheral Neuropathy
1 variant in the SLC12A6 gene; relevant for French Canadian descent

Autosomal Recessive Polycystic Kidney Disease
3 variants in the PKHD1 gene

Beta Thalassemia and Related Hemoglobinopathies
10 variants in the HBB gene; relevant for Cypriot, Greek, Italian, Sardinian descent

Bloom Syndrome
1 variant in the BLM gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Canavan Disease
3 variants in the ASPA gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Congenital Disorder of Glycosylation Type 1a (PMM2-CDG)
2 variants in the PMM2 gene; relevant for Danish descent

Cystic Fibrosis
28 variants in the CFTR gene; relevant for European, Hispanic/Latino, Ashkenazi Jewish descent

D-Bifunctional Protein Deficiency
2 variants in the HSD17B4 gene

Dihydrolipoamide Dehydrogenase Deficiency
1 variant in the DLD gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Familial Dysautonomia
1 variant in the IKBKAP gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Fanconi Anemia Group C
3 variants in the FANCC gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

GRACILE Syndrome
1 variant in the BCS1L gene; relevant for Finnish descent

Gaucher Disease Type 1
3 variants in the GBA gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Glycogen Storage Disease Type Ia
1 variant in the G6PC gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Glycogen Storage Disease Type Ib
2 variants in the SLC37A4 gene

Hereditary Fructose Intolerance
3 variants in the ALDOB gene; relevant for European descent

Herlitz Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa (LAMB3-related)
3 variants in the LAMB3 gene

Leigh Syndrome, French Canadian Type
1 variant in the LRPPRC gene; relevant for French Canadian descent

Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2D
1 variant in the SGCA gene; relevant for Finnish descent

Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2E
1 variant in the SGCB gene; relevant for Southern Indiana
Amish descent

Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2I
1 variant in the FKRP gene; relevant for European descent

MCAD Deficiency
3 variants in the ACADM gene; relevant for Northern European descent

Maple Syrup Urine Disease Type 1B
2 variants in the BCKDHB gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Mucolipidosis Type IV
1 variant in the MCOLN1 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (CLN5-Related)
1 variant in the CLN5 gene; relevant for Finnish descent

Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (PPT1-Related)
3 variants in the PPT1 gene; relevant for Finnish descent

Niemann-Pick Disease Type A
3 variants in the SMPD1 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Nijmegen Breakage Syndrome
1 variant in the NBN gene; relevant for Eastern European descent

Nonsyndromic Hearing Loss and Deafness, DFNB1 (GJB2-Related)
2 variants in the GJB2 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish, European descent

Pendred Syndrome and DFNB4 Hearing Loss
6 variants in the SLC26A4 gene

Phenylketonuria and Related Disorders
23 variants in the PAH gene; relevant for Northern European descent

Primary Hyperoxaluria Type 2
1 variant in the GRHPR gene; relevant for European descent

Rhizomelic Chondrodysplasia Punctata Type 1
1 variant in the PEX7 gene

Salla Disease
1 variant in the SLC17A5 gene; relevant for Finnish, Swedish descent

Sickle Cell Anemia
1 variant in the HBB gene; relevant for African descent

Sjögren-Larsson Syndrome
1 variant in the ALDH3A2 gene; relevant for Swedish descent

Tay-Sachs Disease
4 variants in the HEXA gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish, Cajun descent

Tyrosinemia Type I
4 variants in the FAH gene; relevant for French Canadian, Finnish descent

Usher Syndrome Type 1F
1 variant in the PCDH15 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Usher Syndrome Type 3A
1 variant in the CLRN1 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent

Zellweger Syndrome Spectrum (PEX1-Related)
1 variant in the PEX1 gene

they do allow you to download and examine your genome bit by bit.

Freaking awesome if they allow for that. I think I'll do mine.

Alain

Alain - note this -

"23andMe performs a process called SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) genotyping. The raw data provided by 23andMe is an advanced view of all the uninterpreted raw genotype data (the A’s, T’s, C’s, and G’s), including data that is not used in 23andMe reports. This data has undergone a general quality review however only a subset of markers have been individually validated for accuracy. As such, the data included in the Browse Raw Data feature is suitable only for research, educational, and informational use and not for medical or other use."

You might be interested to know the following:

1. For years the two parents had both agreed to not vaccinate the child.
2. The father had previously attempted to get 50% custody of the child, but failed several attempts. Do you wonder why?
3. This current case was rushed by the father, with a new judge and new lawyer, and their first court appearance was not communicated to the mother. His lawyer berated the mother for not appearing, saying it was typical behavior for her.
4. There were at least three previous CPS reports, one of which was for the father watching porn in front of the child, which for some reason were thrown out by this judge. The police had to be called to the school when the father went to pick up his son...because he was afraid to go with his father.
5. While the mother was in jail the father was awarded joint custody. He was given an extra day with the child the day after the mother got out of jail.
6. On that extra day the father was given with his son, he left his son to travel to Los Angeles...with his lawyer...so he could appear on The Doctors TV show. He was paid for this appearance.

I've posted a comment but its not showing up. Have I been blocked?

I really, really like Judge McDonald.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan-judges-patience-tested-as-…

This "testing for susceptibility" for vaccine reactions was something pushed by Professional Ignoramus Lawrence Solomon before he suddenly stopped talking about vaccines. Of course, the fact that such testing does not exist was a mere detail. Also, a convenient reason not to get vaccinated.

Thank you for that Shay. I can't believe that two crucial questions weren't asked.
1.) Is Adversnomics a recognised field and by what body? And
2.) What research have you performed on the subject and your list of studies?
Even though Bark was disqualified as an expert witness, that is important information to have as it goes to her credibility since she claims she sees "vaccine injured children and adults" in her practice. I also can't find anything supporting her claim she is an expert witness for the NVICP. She may have written some rubbish for a petitioner but that doesn't qualify her as an expert. Hopefully the ex's witness will have this information.

Followup story on abcnews.com with Rebecca Bredow interview:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mother-jailed-refusing-vaccinate-son/story?id=…

"Bredow said she has received an "overwhelming amount of support" from her community. "It's helped me get through this, truly," she added."

I can't tell if by "community" she is referring to the antivax community or her neighbors.

Interesting that the ex-husband's lawyer claims this kerfuffle isn't really about vaccination, but instead about trying to skirt court orders and frustrate the ex's parental rights.

Child custody cases must be a treat to adjudicate.

Wow! What a clusterf***.

She claims to study "adversomics" but she can't even pronounce it correctly. It's not a recognized field of study and she has no training in immunology or virology.

She claims to have written articles that she can't produce or even remember their titles or what journals they were published in.

Did anyone notice she said one journal might be the Journal of Translational Science? That's a predatory journal IIRC.

And the bullshitting is so obvious . . . no wonder the judge just up and walked out on it.

Dr. Bark is a horrible witness. If opposing counsel brings his own witness, he'll demolish Bark on cross examination.

My fears about the mother's attorney are bearing fruit, because either she doesn't know how to qualify a witness, or she's deliberately skirting the process because she knows how bad this witness is.

When I'm qualified as an expert witness (and I have been qualified by a court), the attorney asks about 30 questions just exploring my professional background, and the generalities of the specific field of nursing practice I'm to testify in (a field in which I've actively practiced nursing and/or teach), and one of the first questions is about my licensure and my CV.

I have to tell the court what states I'm licensed in. That information is on every formal report I write for the court, and in ever affidavit I submit. The attorney in this case never asked that question.

I update my CV as soon as possible to include a new publication, certification, committee work, and so on. And you know, you don't have to be published in anything specific, though it helps if you're testifying about a very narrow topic. I probably update my CV several times a year (though, to be clear, that's as much a part of my tenure bid as anything else).

I looks like the judge is going to let Bark testify about the "vaccine injured" patients she personally sees, but most of the diagnoses are either BS or are gross distortions of real pathologies not associated with vaccines.

I hope the dad's lawyer has looked at this woman's web page. He can challenge her credibility by attacking her use of homeopathy. And he needs to get an expert and make sure the expert sees the footage of Bark's "testimony" because it can quickly be rebutted by anyone with a real background in immunology, virology, or vaccine science.

This is the only article of Dr. Bark I know of -
Tomljenovic, L., Wilyman, J., Vanamee, E., Bark, T., and Shaw, C. (2013). HPV Prevention Series. Infectious Agents and Cancer, 8(6): 37.
https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1750-937…

It's a letter to the editor. Of course, I might be missing something, so if anyone knows, please add.

For someone who proudly claimed to have repeatedly served as an expert witness, she is not very familiar with what to do.

I don't have speakers on my computer. I suspect this is Bigtree's usual hatchet job. Maybe someone else can listen and hit the "highlights".

https://www.facebook.com/HighWireTalk/videos/496088100767187/

Wow. Even more wow.

I read Bark's LTE. I'm surprised the editors even published it, given it's inaccuracies. Then again, maybe they just wanted to liven up that issue of the journal.

Bark claims, with her cronies, that Gardasil doesn't meet criteria for fast track FDA approval, because "Gardasil is demonstrably neither safer nor more effective than Pap screening combined with the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) in preventing cervical cancer . . . ."

Uh . . . Pap smears and LEEP don't prevent cervical cancer. The former is a screening tool, the latter treatment. Neither prevent cervical cancer.

" nor can it improve the diagnosis of serious cervical cancer outcomes "

I have no idea what that even means.

Their safety claims are not backed up by anything remotely resembling peer reviewed clinical trial data, but by an article Shaw and Tomljenovic wrote in a law journal, which tortures data from the VAERS database.

In any case, Bark cannot claim to have published peer reviewed research based on this letter. This is why the judge said adequate notice is important: so opposing counsel can prepare a rebuttal. Without a history of actual research in the field, an expert who does have those credentials will be taken seriously by the judge, while Dr. Bark will not be. Credibility matters.

This is why Bark tried to avoid the qualification questions and just start testifying, and why the mom's attorney let her do that.

I don't have the strength to go on with this:

Dr. Bark has been the medical director for various departments and hospitals and has extensive post-residency training in aesthetic medicine, nutritional medicine, and classical homeopathy with the top trainers in the various fields.

^ OK, I couldn't help myself. This is what I'd want from an expert witness:

Doctor Bark is an athlete and a dancer and works intimately with other movers and shakers.

"I've never claimed to be anything but a nice guy and an athlete."—HST

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of bulls***ing she tried to pull in court; vague claims at expertise without providing specifics of what departments at which hospitals when, or who her top trainers were.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M

^^ I also note that one can see the mascara on the right side from the left profile on the video. Very natchrul.

Here we go:

I trained as a pediatric intern at Bellevue NYU and then in Rehab medicine. I quickly was offered the directorship of the pediatric emergency room at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago.

I'm somewhat mesmerized by that construction, but anyway:

Dr. Bark completed her Pediatric Residency training at the University of Illinois, Chicago, in 1991, and trained at New York University in Pediatrics from 1986 through 1987 and Rehabilitation Medicine from 1987 through 1988. Immediately post-residency, Dr. Bark worked as attending staff in the Neo-Natal Intensive Care Unit at Michael Reese Hospital. She then took a position as the Director of the Pediatric Emergency Room at Michael Reese Hospital until 1993 when her commitment to natural remedies led her to begin her study of Holistic Medicine.

She has maintained a private practice in Homeopathy for more than fifteen years and was the Medical Director for the integrative Medicine department of Advocate Health Care Systems at Good Shepherd Hospital from June of 2000 until July of 2003.

In 2012 Dr. Bark was bestowed the honor of becoming the 2nd Vice President of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH). She also received her Masters in Healthcare Emergency Management (MHEM) from Boston University Medical School that same year.

Note that the "source" link back to Bark's site is 404. I'm really not going looking for more this time.

^ But happily archived.

Dr. Bark has studied extensively with internationally renowned Homeopaths such as Massimo Mangialavori, Vasillies Ghegas, Rajan Sarkaran, Divya Chabra, Jan Scholten, Paul Herscu and Louis Klein.

She initially studied homeopathy at The New England School of Homeopathy in Massachusetts and completed her initial training at The National Center for Homeopathy in Virginia. She finished her training in Hypnotherapy with Dr. Ericca Fromm and with the American society for Clinical Hypnosis.

Hi, I'm an Expert Witness! You are getting sleepy, very sleepy . . . .

Interesting how she wrote this to a state senator in Oregon when she lives in Illinois.

Unfortunately she is "flying out of the country" when the Oregon state senate is holding hearings apparently on removing vaccine exemptions, or she'd "fly out" there.

It's probably a good thing. She was such a disaster as a witness in court, she'd really look foolish speaking before a legislative body. She must realize how poorly she did on the stand in Michigan, and I suspect it's why she's "unavailable."

Oh, interesting. She's American Loon 1345.

Did anyone notice she said one journal might be the Journal of Translational Science? That’s a predatory journal IIRC.

That's the OAText parasites who took Dwoskin money to give Mawson's retracted survey a home; then unpublished it, and extorted additional $$$ if the authors wanted to see it again.

No record of a Bark-authored paper in their archives. But she thinks she might have published there. OK.

Looking at the defunct Michael Reese Hospital, she was probably hired because she would take the job and was cheap to hire. I bet better qualified doctors ran away from the facility.

Dr Bark previously came to the attention of RI in the context of the narrowly-titled "Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge", after the IPAK leadership started pimping Mawson's opinion poll.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/02/24/another-zombie-antivaccine…

It is not easy to find stuff at the IPAK website because they keep changing it to insert more grifting, but there was this from 2008:

Dine with Dr. Obukhanych, Dr. Bark, Dr. Theresa Deisher and Dr. Lyons-Weiler. All proceeds are donations to The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge.

At one point she was listed as a speaker at the 2017 IPAK FOCUS meeting (with Shoenfeld as Plenary Speaker -- they're all aboard the Aluminium-toxicity scamwagon), but the full program seems to have vanished now.

Yes, IPAK have claimed the term "Adverscomics", and would like your donations to help them work out what it means:
http://ipaknowledge.org/Adversomics.php

In other antivax news, the Oakland Public Library is disgracing itself by hosting a showing of "Vaxxed" later this month, organized by a Dr. Benjamin Benulis.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/vaxxed-from-cover-up-to-catastrophe-showin…

Benulis is a chiropractor who aside from being an antivaxer, is into a variety of woo that just has to be better than your garden variety neck and back-cracking:

"As a chiropractor, he practices a technique called Network Spinal Analysis (NSA) which treats tension patterns in the body as potential energy that when released in the proper manner can be transformed into fuel for creating healthier habits and a better life."

https://www.plantbaseddoctors.org/benjamin-benulis

@Panacea - the next hearing is on the 14th of November.

Not Horne/Bredow - the other couple. With Toni Bark.

Did anyone catch the 7 minute "interview" by Bigtree with Mr. Horne? I don't have sound at the moment and it's not closed-captioned. It's on Del Bigtree's FB page. The poutrage exhibited by the commentators is fierce. Maybe they're upset that Rebecca Bredow isn't flying out to be taped for an episode of "The Doctors".

Yes, IPAK have claimed the term “Adverscomics”, and would like your donations to help them work out what it means:

I thought your spelling AdversComics was a typo. Then I looked at the website and now I'm not so sure.

*testing*

Is there any particular reason my comments haven't posted in a few days? Is it something I said?

Daigan: yes, should be entertaining. I hope the local news tapes the hearing again (I assume that's where it came from) because the last bit was pure comedy gold.

It gives the dad's attorney plenty of time to find a medical expert to refute Bark.

Popcorn is on the ready. https://i.imgur.com/NnoGhN1.gif

Just a warning, we take our knowledge of anti-vaxx Illuminati and arguments for granted. A local expert may be completely unaware of Bark and her nonsense and come off as canned. We can only hope the dad's expert is a reader of this blog.

It's a real concern. I know of at least one case Dr. Bark appeared to have had an impact in the trial level (decision overturned on appeal).

I hope the lawyer considers reaching out to the local immunization coalition which can help him find someone who is also versed in anti-vaccine claims.

That'll all depend on what kind of expert dad's lawyer hires.

He knows mom is anti vax; that's the crux of the whole case. He's probably read the news coverage. So hopefully he has the wherewithal to hire an immunologist, virologist, or vaccine expert who can explain how Bark is barking mad, and how badly she distorts her "expertise" with adversomics and misappropriated Dr. Poland's original work (which is solid science and has nothing to do with anti vax lunacy).

But if dad's lawyer simply hires a pediatrician or general medicine doc, then it becomes the battle of the experts and the water will get badly muddied.

I predict if Bark returns to the stand she will persist in trying to present herself as an expert, and give inappropriate testimony (as in outside her real area of expertise, which is general medicine and surgery).

Maybe a real expert in the field will volunteer their time and testify on the father's behalf. I know, wishful thinking on my part, but it does happen sometimes.

It would be doubly great if they were able to get Dr. Poland to testify and out Dr. Bark as a real idiot. Dr. Poland may be very annoyed with how that paper and research has been mangled by the confederacy of dunces.

Dr. Henneke sure was pissed off when he came to testify, for free, years ago on behalf of Marsha Parkinson.

@ Science Mom:

You are correct.
We know a lot about woo and its meisters.
Perhaps someone should inform the father and his legal rep about Bark.

True story-
a well-known economist/ prof/ political figure was a guest on prn-
the hoary old host kowtowed to the guy and played economist himself as usual- ( later he spoke as though the prof agreed with his nonsense)
I believe that the prof did NOT know who this idiot was or his sordid history and he agreed to come back as a guest.

I wrote to him and told him what I knew including how this person was using him to make himself credible to his fans-
but how he always spewed fake medical theories, fake social sci and frankly sickening politics - which I detailed
( the idiot in charge especially hates the prof's political colleagues, university etc) and I cited Quackwatch and Orac.

AFAIK the gentleman never appeared again and I did check it out well on the net.

Occasionally, woo-meisters fool legitimate experts and the latter may appear in films or shows usually misrepresented.

You might be interested to know the following:

1. For over 8 years the two parents had both agreed to not vaccinate the child.

2. The father had previously attempted several times to get 50% custody of the child, but failed. That usually doesn't happen unless there are some serious underlying circumstances. Do you wonder why?

3. This current case was rushed by the father, with a new judge and new lawyer, and their first court appearance was not communicated to the mother. His lawyer then berated the mother for not appearing, saying it was typical behavior for her.

4. There were at least three earlier CPS reports, one of which was for the father watching porn in front of the child, which for some reason were thrown out by this judge. The police had to be called to the school when the father went to pick up his son...because the boy was afraid to go with his father.

5. The day the mother was let out of jail the father was awarded joint custody at a hearing which was not even supposed to be about custody. He was also given an extra day with the child the day after the mother got out of jail.

6. On that extra day he left his son to travel to Los Angeles...with his lawyer...so he could appear on The Doctors TV show.

It's possible that an expert would testify for free but not very likely. Experts are very expensive. I highly doubt Dr. Bark is donating her time.

At one point [Bark] was listed as a speaker at the 2017 IPAK FOCUS meeting (with Shoenfeld as Plenary Speaker — they’re all aboard the Aluminium-toxicity scamwagon), but the full program seems to have vanished now.

No sign of her in the clown-car-crew listed in the press release:
http://www.wherevent.com/detail/Institute-for-Pure-Ipak-Focus-2017-Vacc…

FOCUS 2017:VACCINE SAFETY SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

Join us as we share knowledge. June 15-17, 2017.

WYNDHAM GRAND HOTEL, PITTSBURGH PA

CONFIRMED INVITED SPEAKERS

Dr. Yehuda Schoenfeld, Plenary Speaker

Dr. Paul Thomas, MD FAAP ABAM ABIHM, Physicians for Informed Consent, Oregonians for Medical Freedom
Autism: Causes, Informed Consent and The Future

Mary Holland, J.D., New York University School of Law
Vaccine Law, International Human Rights and Common Sense

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge
Safe or Effective? The Future of Artificial Immunity

Dr. Bob Sears, MD, Immunity Education Group
How to Counter the Lies Politicians and the Media Use to Pass Mandatory Vaccination Laws

...but that could just be an omission by the IPAK nimrods, who could not even spell the name of their plenary speaker correctly ("you had just one job...").

The meeting was four months ago, but no record of the proceedings at the IPAK website, which is focussed more on selling the remaining tickets. Grifters gotta grift.

Oh I know the odds are against it, but it has happened once in a great while. It would make great viewing too.

Vinu is busy being a pest at the WaPo site. He's not making much headway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/12/a-moth…

Vinu is busy being a pest at the WaPo site. He’s not making much headway.

Which is a good time to remind everyone that Vinu contributed a chapter to Shaw & Dwoskin's forthcoming exercise in manufactrovery:
https://www.elsevier.com/books/controversies-in-vaccine-safety/shaw/978…

8. Vaccine Induced Allergies
Vinu Arumugham

Pre-order price was US$140 but already reduced to $119.

Well, with any luck, the father has a better attorney who understands that a GOOD expert witness - as opposed to Quack Bark - is necessary.

Wow. Elsevier is publishing this dreck?

My already low opinion of them just dropped.

I mentioned in another comment above that Kent Heckenlively had a new White House petition to stop vaccines (his 4th, I believe). Well, the signing window has closed, and he didn't get 7000 signatures, nor 6000, or even 1000. The final total was 458.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/five-year-moratorium-childhoo…

I wonder if most of the loons are smart enough to know it's a waste of time to sign his petitions, or if they are to dumb to not understand that these are all separate petitions, and the signatures don't carry over.

Kent doesn't have a new one up yet, but there is this one from 'J.A.'

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/perform-double-blind-research…

President Trump,
The vitriol stemming from the topic of vaccination is far-reaching. Many parents believe that their children have been injured by vaccines, while others insist that the unvaccinated population puts others at risk.

Parents have requested that a study be performed which compares a vaccinated pediatric population with an unvaccinated population. The CDC denies this request, citing danger to the control group.

The time has come to perform a double-blind, placebo-based study that evaluates the vaccine schedule. The only acceptable study compares vaccines with an inert substance, and not with adjuvants. It must not be based on ICD-10 coding or rely on data mining tactics. No mincing words; just a fair review.

Please hold the CDC accountable for performing this study.

It has a deadline of 24 October, and needs 99,771 more signatures. I don't think they will make it.

Antivaxers on Twitter: Fake news and Twitter bots

oracknows — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 05:00:00 +0000

Antivaxers on Twitter: Fake news and Twitter bots

Two years ago, I wrote about a study that demonstrated how the antivaccine movement had learned to use Twitter to amplify their antiscience message. At the time, I noted how in 2014, when the whole "CDC whistleblower" conspiracy theory was first hatched, antivaxers were so bad at Twitter, so obvious, so naive. The Tweeted inane claims at government officials, scientists, legislators, and whoever else might have influence on vaccine policy, using hashtags like #CDCwhistleblower and #hearmewell. (These hashtags are still in use, but much less active.) However they did get better, to the point where the study that I discussed pointed out how antivax Twitter accounts formed large networks Tweeting opposition to California SB 277, the bill (now law) that eliminated personal belief exemptions to school vaccine mandates.

All of this was before the 2016 election, even before Donald Trump came gliding down the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President. It was right around the time that fake news was beginning to be appreciated as the huge problem that it ultimately became. More importantly, it was long before it became appreciated how Twitter bots and hordes of Twitter trolls were engaged in an active effort to influence U.S. politics and the 2016 election, and how Facebook was weaponized for the same purpose.

An inestimably important tool in the armamentarium of tools used by those seeking to influence election politics were bots. A bot is an automated program that posts to social media according to an algorithm. Twitter bots are the ones that most people are familiar with; chances are very good that if you're on Twitter for any length of time you'll come into contact with bots, which are used to distribute Tweets en masse, sometimes in an attempt to influence Twitter's trending topics, sometimes just to give the appearance of way more support for people or policies than there actually is. If you're on Twitter long enough, you'll start to learn the telltale signs that an account might be run by a bot, although accounts that combine a mixture of human-generated and automated Tweets are also common.

It turns out that bots are everywhere. It turns out that there is evidence that Twitter is using them too. I shouldn't be surprised, and I wasn't really that surprised, but I was disturbed. Earlier this week I came across an article, SocialBots are Pouring the Pseudo into Science. #Vaccines. It was the product of Mentionmapp Analytics, a company that runs a website called Mentionmapp, which is a tool that looks at connections between accounts and advertises itself as making "finding Twitter's great stuff easier." It begins:

There’s no immunity. Computational propaganda is infecting every significant online socio-political conversation. Algorithms are directly influencing the content populating social feeds, and people with ill-intentions are using software automation tools to spread digital pathogens. There’s no escaping that the number of likes, re-tweets, shares, and views are the foundations of our “filter bubbles.”

These key social indicators are easily manipulated. They’re like micro-events and discerning human from non-human engagement is nearly impossible to detect. Detecting SocialBots at work and seeing concentrated efforts to influence public opinion and perceptions leaves us wondering how civil discourse will survive this spreading digital black death.

OK, so the article starts out a bit apocalyptic and overdramatic. It's a company that exists to sell its services analyzing Twitter networks. Still, that doesn't mean that the computer-automated manipulation of social networks isn't a massive problem. In any case, the company notes that the hashtags #vaccines and #antivax came to its attention recently, which made it curious to see how SocialBots are involved in online conversations about science and public health. Not surprisingly these days, the answer is: Heavily.

Mentionmapp notes that it's hard to do an analysis of what it calls SocialBots without getting pulled into the misinformation being spread by those bots, which, as it turns out, is a lot. Here's the story:

For this case-study we observed 23 different daily Twitter maps. Each map captures the last 200 tweets and the profiles that tweeted using a the hashtag #Vaccines. Before separating real profiles from the fakes, the first map we reviewed (above) seemingly highlights the divisiveness of this issue. We also noted the volume of tweets from those profiles staking an anti-vaccine position subsequently flow to high profile and politically partisan secondary profiles.

After reviewing the 23 separate maps of the hashtag #Vaccines, we documented 284 profile as SocialBots with one dominant participant emerging above the rest. Day in and day out @LotusOak is at the center of this conversation.

A short video is included to visually illustrate this phenomenon:

Regular Twitter users might also recognized prominent antivaccine activists and the pro-vaccine activists who make prodigious efforts to counter their misinformation. What some of those pro-vaccine advocates might be unhappy to learn if they've been countering Twitter users @LotusOak (name: Vera Burnayev, who, as far as Mentionmapp can tell, doesn't exist as a real, identifiable person), @eTweeetz, or @draintheswamp55, they've almost certainly been arguing with bots Tweeting antivaccine misinformation.

Mentionmapp also noted:

Out of the 23 maps we also noted the presence these four profiles re-tweeting @LotusOak on multiple days —

@SNCCLA = 11 days
@8greatyears = 5 days
@Marmy2c = 5 day
@theruralists = 5 days

We classify them as SocialBots. As well as noting 284 SocialBot profiles tweeting the hashtag #Vaccine, we also documented every hashtag used in conjunction with it. A total of 609 secondary hashtags were used. Here are the top 30 hashtags.

The authors also documented every hashtag used in conjunction with the #vaccine hashtag. those of you out there on Twitter will recognize a lot of them that came up in the top thirty: #LearnTheRisk, #CDCTruth, #homeoprophylaxis, #aluminum, #mercury, #GMO, and more. There are also some pro-vaccine hashtags in there but those are often used by pro-vaccine Twitter users along with #vaccines. I do note that I did find one thing about this list very puzzling. Anyone who's on Twitter and deals with antivaccine misinformation will know that, over the last few months, among the favorite hashtags used by antivaxers are those related to the antivaccine propaganda movie VAXXED, like #wearevaxxed (of course) and #praybig (I have no idea why antivaxers adopted this hashtag).

Why didn't these hashtags get flagged? I can think of a few possible reasons. One is that maybe the "VAXXED" contingent of the antivaccine movement is not as prominent as Andrew Wakefield would like everyone to believe. I'd like to think that, but there are other possible reasons. One possible reason is that, although #vaccines might be heavily influenced by bots, discussions using VAXXED-related hashtags are not. After all, why would they be? There are so many Wakefield groupies willing to use #wearevaxxed and #praybig to try to influence Twitter conversations. Alternatively, whoever is behind accounts like @LotusOak are not interested in promoting VAXXED and affiliated antivaccine viewpoints.

From my perspective, one of the weaknesses in the Mentionapp analysis flows from a lack of knowledge about the antivaccine movement. That's not surprising, as Mentionapp is not noted for its expertise regarding pseudoscientific arguments about vaccines or, more importantly, about the main players in the antivaccine movement. As a result, what I see as a key flaw is that Mentionapp's analysis focused on #vaccines as the main hashtag to study. As a first pass, that probably sounds reasonable, but there are so many more major hashtags used by antivaxers. Arguably, #vaccines isn't even the most important. No, I don't have quantitative data to support that conclusion and thus could be wrong, but my impression in the trenches in Twitter is that most antivaxers rarely use the #vaccines hashtag. In other words, real humans who are antivaccine probably don't use #vaccines that much, but it makes sense that bots would. That makes me wonder if this analysis overestimates the influence of bots in social media interactions on Twitter. That's not to say that bots are unimportant. Even if this analysis does overestimate their influence, it wouldn't surprise me if antivaxers are using Twitter bots to influence discussions about vaccines and to give the impression that antivaccine viewpoints are more prevalent than they in fact are.

I realize that my readers include a number of people who are active combatting antivaccine misinformation on social media, particularly Twitter. It's a hard and thankless job that subjects one to potential online abuse and stalking, particularly for women. I know that I hadn't really considered the possibility that antivaxers might be adopting the same tactics as political activists, namely using bots to try to influence the conversation on Twitter. At least, I didn't think it was likely to be happening on a large scale. The current article doesn't really answer the question of how prevalent these bots are, but it does suggest that it behooves science advocates to be aware of bots and have an idea how to identify them. Also, we should realize that not all bots are malicious. Some just post poetry, photography, or news, with no distorting effects on social media conversations.

There are several characteristics of Twitter accounts that should make you suspect you're dealing with a bot. One of the most glaring traits of Twitter bots is the frequency with which they Tweet. Benchmarks vary, but one commonly accepted benchmark is more than 50 Tweets per day. Some bots produce hundreds of Tweets a day, something real humans cannot do, at least not on a sustained basis. Another characteristic of a bot is that it frequently produces far more retweets than original Tweets. Remember, one of the main purposes of bots is amplification, to boost the signal from others by retweeting, liking, or quoting others. Another amplification technique is to program a bot to share news stories from selected sites without comment. This is particularly true if the content is always very similar, because bots are often programmed to post similar content.

There are, of course, other characteristics suggestive of a bot, such as not having an avatar or having an avatar that is a stolen or shared photo, having a random string of numbers at the end of its handle, and choice of URL shortener. Basically, after a while on Twitter, one starts to be able to "smell" a bot. Personally, I block any account I suspect of being a bot. I'm willing to accept the "collateral damage" of potentially blocking legitimate Twitter users.

Thanks to bots, social media has been weaponized. I might have some quibbles with Mentionapp's analysis, btu I also have to admit that part 2 hasn't been released yet. Maybe the deficiencies I've noted in this discussion will be considered and discussed in part 2. Maybe not. Even if they aren't, it's hard not to conclude that antivaxers aren't using bots to promote their point of view. It's the new reality. I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't have bots of our own.

oracknows Thu, 09/28/2017 - 01:00

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

Pseudoscience

Quackery

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

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

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

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

The paper in question came out of the lab of Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia. As I note every time I examine a paper by these two warriors for antivaccine pseudoscience, both have a long history of publishing antivaccine “research,” mainly falsely blaming the aluminum adjuvants in vaccines for autism and, well, just about any health problem children have and blaming Gardasil for premature ovarian failure and all manner of woes up to and including death. Shaw was even prominently featured in the rabidly antivaccine movie The Greater Good. Not surprisingly, they’ve had a paper retracted, as well.

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

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

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

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

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

It was immediately noted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some comments from PubPeer:

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

And:

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

Here is the direct link to 2014 Fig. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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.

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 ...

Another antivaccine conspiracy theory, flu vaccine edition

oracknows — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 05:00:54 +0000

Another antivaccine conspiracy theory, flu vaccine edition

It's Friday, and it's been a rough week. So, after digging into an epidemiology study yesterday, I'm in the mood for something a bit less...heavy. Antivaxers sometimes call me to task when I point out what to me is a simple fact, namely that antivaxers are basically conspiracy theorists. In essence, to believe many antivax views, you have to believe that there is a vast conspiracy among big pharma, the government, and the media to hide great harm from vaccines because...well, it's never quite clear. To protect pharma profits? Really, this is no different than the cancer quacks who claim that a cure for cancer is being suppressed in order to protect big pharma's profits. Rarely do the purveyors of such conspiracy theories consider that employees of pharma are human too. How many of them would be able to stay silent and keep up the conspiracy if one of their family members had a cancer that could be cured by one of these "suppressed cures," particularly high ranking executives who are presumably in on the conspiracy? It's the same with vaccines. How many "in the know" would stay silent if vaccines really were causing so much damage to so many children and one or more of their children or grandchildren happened to be affected?

I mention the conspiratorial mindset of the antivaccine movement because I was pointed to a beautiful example of it. It comes from—who else?—Levi Quackenboss, the pseudonymous antivaccine blogger whom we've encountered before, doxing and attacking a 12-year-old Mexican boy who posted a pro-vaccine video and gloating about the meeting between then-candidate Donald Trump and Andrew Wakefield during the campaign in August and, after Trump's victory in November, reiterating antivaxer demands to Trump. This time around, she sees conspiracies everywhere. I did briefly wonder if this was some misguided attempt at satire, but, no, it looks as though Quackenboss is serious.

Basically, Quackenboss has made two observations. First, she thinks there's a conspiracy involving the media to spike or minimize stories in which vaccines fail or are suspected of causing harm. Indeed, get a load of how her post starts:

We all know by now that our “free press” has deeply embedded editors and producers who take their marching orders directly from pharmaceutical companies and the CDC. Their job is to postpone, water down, spin, or kill stories that hurt public health profits.

Whenever you see a vaccine article that strikes you as negative– or hell, even fair and balanced– it’s a red flag that big wheels are in motion behind the scenes; you just don’t know what the outcome is going to be yet.

Got that? Basically, to Quackanboss any story that tries to be balanced or nuanced in any way (unless it's a pro-vaccine story that is "balanced" by including antivaccine viewpoints) and that doesn't paint a completely negative picture of vaccine safety and effectiveness is proof that the big pharma conspiracy theory is suppressing, spinning, or otherwise downplaying the unacceptable news.

Then she mentions two examples of stories that seem to undermine her very thesis, except that they don't, because she uses them to head down the antivaccine conspiracy rabbit hole. The stories involve the meningitis B vaccine. One was about two young women who were vaccinated against meningitis but contracted the disease and died anyway. One girl, Emily Stillman, contracted serotype B meningitis despite having been vaccinated against meningitis because there was not yet a vaccine against serotype B approved in the US. The vaccine required by most colleges only covers serotypes , C, W and Y, and B is a much less common serotype. Meningitis B vaccination is a "permissive" recommendation (doctors are free to recommend it and patients to take it, but it is not generally recommended for everyone, although those at higher risk should receive it) because of how uncommon the serotype is. Quackenboss basically marveled that the press would publish such an article.

The second story is about skepticism over whether the meningitis B vaccine is being promoted unnecessarily. It's a reasonably balanced article that clearly puzzled Quackenboss mightily. Actually, the article didn't puzzle her. The fact that the article was published did:

Then on September 7th the New York Times, of all newspapers, wrote about men b outbreaks, describing them as “small” and “extremely rare,” and said men b vaccines are “lucrative” and “pricey” and “playing to parents’ fears.” They pointed out that making vaccines for less rare diseases has the potential to make the vaccine industry into a “cash cow” and they didn’t mean it in a good way. Mmmm-hmmm. I mean duh, but still. Not what you’d expect them to say.

The Times even included a quote from a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The risk, he said, “is not a large enough problem to warrant routine vaccination.”

So why are Pfizer’s and GSK’s men b vaccines on the media chopping block? I don’t know, but we’re not reading investigative vaccine journalism on NBC and in the Times. Keep your eyes peeled for the Godsent explanation the overlords will provide us with. They don’t usually announce the problem more than 30 days before announcing the solution, so it should be any day now.

So, basically, Quackenboss sees some deeper, darker strategy by pharma in "allowing" these two articles on meningitis B vaccines to be published and expects that the pharma strategy behind permitting them will become apparent soon. I can hardly wait to hear from Quackenboss what that nefarious scheme is whenever Quackenboss finally figures it out. I'm sure it will be epically hilarious.

Quackenboss then moves on to the flu vaccine, noting a couple of stories about studies questioning the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in certain circumstances. Then, of course, the story earlier this week about a certain study finding a potentially increased risk of miscarriage associated with having received the H1N1 vaccine the year before and the seasonal flu vaccine within 28 days of miscarriage caught Quackenboss' attention. (It's the same study I deconstructed yesterday in detail, showing how it didn't really show what antivaxers were touting it to show, something the authors themselves pointed out.) She's practically giddy, the way JFK conspiracy theorists are giddy when they discover some new new anomaly noted in a blurry black and white photograph of the grassy knoll around the time Kennedy's motorcade drove by:

Then! On September 13th the Washington Post wrote about a new study that linked the flu vaccine to a 7.7x increased chance or a 670% increase in miscarriages. I know that one of my favorite bloggers has written an incredibly researched piece about WaPo’s bullshit spin of 7.7x being just a “hint” of increased fetal death, but I’m seeing this a little differently.

Of course, that's not what the study found. It was a a case control study, and what that study found is that women who suffered a miscarriage were 7.7 times more likely to have received the flu vaccine within 28 days and to have been vaccinated against H1N1 the year before. The magnitude of the increased risk can't really be inferred that way. But, hey, who expects an antivaxer to understand the difference between a case control study and a cohort study.

Quackenboss is just getting warmed up, though:

If protecting the flu vaccine was WaPo’s goal, I don’t think the press would even bother with the spin when they could just ignore the study completely, a la William Thompson. So the fact that this finding– in a study I can’t believe was conducted by the CDC’s Frank Mothereffing DeStefano and published in the journal Vaccine— is getting mainstream coverage is spelling death for the annual flu vaccine as we currently know it.

Yes, this one study, which resulted in a questionable finding linking the flu vaccine with miscarriage is going to "spell death for the annual flu vaccine as we currently know it." I don't think so, but Quackenboss does. Even more amusing, she thinks she knows why:

I might have the answer: the universal flu vaccine is about to arrive.

The universal flu vaccine is supposed to offer long lasting broad protection against the constantly-mutating flu. You know, since most of America doesn’t want the good-for-nothing annual vaccine anyway, it doesn’t work in the elderly, and it’s killing the babies of women who get it while pregnant.

Four years ago an FDA scientist was in a Congressional committee hearing and he testified that a “universal flu vaccine was 5 to 10 years away.” I think that day is here.

That's right. According to Quackenboss' conspiracy theory, big pharma and its lackeys in the media are letting the "truth" about the current annual seasonal flu vaccine out, the better to pave the way for the new, universal flu vaccine! Its approval by the FDA and its marketing must be imminent! Otherwise, why on earth would big pharma allow so many negative stories about the flu vaccine? She seems blissfully aware with the holes in her conspiracy theory. For example:

A quick scan of Google News tells me that BiondVax, an Israeli company working on a universal flu vaccine, just voluntarily de-listed from the Tel Aviv stock exchange two weeks ago. The reason given is that the universal flu vaccine needs an international presence, so forget about little ol’ Tel Aviv; they’re sticking with the big boys at NASDAQ. Just three months ago BiondVax got an exciting $23.8 million investment as they enter phase 3 trials for their universal flu vaccine, so things are heating up.

But get this! The new universal flu vaccine isn’t just a replacement for the annual shot. They’re also seeking approval as a flu shot “primer.” This shit is endless! So depending on what they get approval for, your elderly parents might get a primer universal vaccine and then get the season’s regular flu vaccine, but women of child bearing age will be told to get the stand-alone universal flu shot before they get pregnant. But that’s just my guess.

It's true. BiondVax is taking a two-pronged approach: Testing its vaccine as a single universal flu vaccine but also testing it as a "primer" to be used with the annual seasonal flu vaccine. That latter approach makes me think that big pharma as portrayed by Quackenboss isn't that smart if it's trashing the seasonal flu vaccine. After all, if its approach using its universal flu vaccine as a primary flu vaccine fails but its combining its universal vaccine as a primer to boost the efficacy of the annual flu vaccine it sure wouldn't make much sense to "allow" pharma's lackeys in the press to start publishing articles about studies like the miscarriage study.

But, then, whoever said antivaxers were consistent in their conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists are rarely consistent, and Quackenboss is a conspiracy theorist.

oracknows Fri, 09/15/2017 - 01:00

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

Pseudoscience

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/3/16069204/vaccine-fines-…

Obviously, there is a severe level of delusion there.

It must be a very sick, sad little world that she inhabits.

I think this woman was at the Neighborhood Block Party on Labor Day--disguised as an old hippie guy! I had to leave. I survived through the cancer and vax conspiracies, but lost it with “aliens made the pyramids”. When I told him that I had a degree in anthropology, the response was that “universities only teach you what they want you to know”.

It ticks me off when people imply that tolerance is the answer to this bullshit. I am trying to be “normal” by attending these gatherings, but there has got to be a limit. I’m also tired of the “pot is a harmless weed and it’s so good its going legal” meme that seems to go along with a lot of this. Yet, when I point out that the evidence is simply not in on safety/medical potential, I am the one who gets howled at.

Nope, no more parties.

I think Princeton University learned its lesson a few years ago when it had an outbreak of meningitis B in the student population. They now ask for everyone to get that vaccine. At the time, they even went to the trouble of getting an IND waiver so they could begin vaccinating everyone before the FDA had approved the vaccine.

That's the kind of behavior that I appreciate (disclaimer: my daughter is a student there).

The risk may be small, but the consequences can be severe if the organism becomes established in a large population living in a confined area.

Anything but admit that maybe issues with vaccine aren't hidden, just rare.

After all, if she did admit that, her whole belief system would have to be rejected.

Perhaps Quackenboss will start to question why all the big pharma/big medicine powers that be even allow anti-vaxxers to live rather than send ninja hit squads after them. It couldn't possibly be because there are no ninja hit squads, so there must be some insanely convoluted explanation as to why they are allowed to say what they say.

It's the same story with all these conspiracy folks...

For the anti-vaxxers "Big Pharma" controls the media, the government (every government!), everything.

For the anti-modern ag folks, Monsanto controls those things.

For the anti-semitic folks, Jews control all those things.

For David Icke, reptilians control all those things.

Well, this ought to send the Quack off the deep end (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41269196):

Every childhood vaccine may go into a single jab

A technology that could eventually see every childhood vaccine delivered in a single injection has been developed by US researchers.

Their one-shot solution stores the vaccine in microscopic capsules that release the initial dose and then boosters at specific times.

The approach has been shown to work in mouse studies, described in the journal Science.

The researchers say the technology could help patients around the world.

...Heheheh. Stuff that under your tinfoil hat, Quackenboss.

What amazing timing...

I wish I had seen that when I was writing this post. I might have to add a snarky comment about it.

@ Chris Hickie
I can hear the antivax-people scream "nanoparticles" if they read about microscopic capsules.

Huh. I didn't realize, Dr Finfer, that you were that local to me! I pass Edison several days a week when I go into the office to work.

If that actually comes to fruition, a person could receive but a single injection in the lifetime, with built in boosters which are released at proscribed intervals during their life......

Anti-vax heads would explode all over the world.

There are times when I wonder how the Quackenboss, and people like her, can function in society on a daily basis. Seeing links of conspiracy everywhere must surely interfere with everyday life.

What I find interesting is that all pharma is lumped into on giant vat of conspiracy. When in the real world, companies take shots at other companies to try to decrease their profit to increase their own.

A good non-pharma example of this are ads that compare ford and chevy pickups. Each company disses the other's product.

A little PR for the CDC:

Join CDC and NFID’s Flu Thunderclap
September 28, 2017 marks the annual kickoff of the flu vaccination awareness campaign, emphasizing the importance of annual flu vaccination for everyone 6 months of age and older. Join CDC and NFID’s Thunderclap to help spread the word that flu season is around the corner, which means it’s time to get your annual flu vaccine.

If influenza vaccinations were part of some grand conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies to harm/reduce the population, then why would it be mandatory for all healthcare workers including doctors and nurses who prescribe and administer their products to receive one? This wouldn't be consistent with a grand conspiracy now would it?

@Internal Medicine Resident -- are you familiar with the term "useful dupe"?

“…few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem…Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive..." Doshi P. Influenze: Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease. BMJ 2013;346:f3037

In other words, the medical industry is almost as clueless today about what causes "flu" as they were back in 1918, when they were peddling those vaccines against a flu bacteria--all fully backed by the latest psyentific research, of course. See Eyler J. The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(Suppl 3): 27-36.

But hey, we all know conspiracies don't happen--especially conspiracies to keep the population sick, weak and obedient consumers. Repeating the word "conspiracy" 14 times disparagingly in a blog post proves it!

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible." -- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952)

@NWO Reporter

The burden of proof is on the one asserting the legitimacy of a "conspiracy theory." Those who promulgate the theories often don't comprehend the vast magnitude of the theory which essentially reduces the probability of said theory being accurate (of course this doesn't prove that it's a mere theory). Often there are simple explanations for why these theories are simply not true. The medical industry has not escaped from being targeted by proponents of these implausible theories. It's quite unfortunate to witness patients suffering from poor decisions which were influenced by these inaccuracies. This is why I am quite passionate about the issue of vaccinations and primary prevention of disease.

Now wait just a minute...

NWOR is saying that the flu shot doesn't protect against diseases that aren't the flu.

Can this possibly be true? Is Ginny revealing here for the first time anywhere that if I get a flu shot, that I can still get sick from some other unrelated infection?

My goodness, if this is true, it will shake big pharma to the core, and the entire house of cards that is the vaccine industry will come crashing DOWN!!!!!11!

or something

@Internal Medicine Resident is "quite passionate about the issue of vaccinations," yet totally ignores the evidence presented that flu vaccines do not protect against 84% of all illnesses that receive an eyeball diagnosis of "flu." How many people who are not sick at all also test positive for an influenza virus? How many people with "flu" also test positive for the bacteria believed in 1918 to cause flu?

Of course @Johnny prefers not to contemplate these issues either.

@Internal Medicine Resident -- if you are really interested in whether proof of a conspiracy to keep the population sick, weak and obedient exists, don't expect it to be offered up in the comment section of a blog. You'd best be prepared to do a lot of independent reading. Maybe start with the book Rockefeller Medicine Men.

Ah yes the Gish Gallop technique so often used by science denialists.....Shifting the burden of proof is also a common logical fallacy. Moreover using data from almost 100 years ago is probably not relevant to the present (estimated efficacy now is around 48-50%). Something that reduces my probability of contracting a disease by 50% is certainly reasonable. And one more thing, the argument that an intervention is not 100% effective is not enough to conclude that an intervention has no effect or is harmful.

NWO Reporter

There is a nice reference book called Diseases of Man. Find a copy and see how many diseases are described as having flu like symptoms. You will be surprised by the number.

As Johnny stated: flu vaccine will not protect you from other viruses that have flu like symptoms.

And yes we all know here that the flu vaccine is not as effective as we would want but it protects better than no vaccine.

So saying throwing a number out, 84% I think you said, that pass the eyeball test for the flu is unsupportable.

@NWO Reporter #19:

flu vaccines do not protect against 84% of all illnesses that receive an eyeball diagnosis of “flu.”

Given that most illnesses that "receive an eyeball diagnosis of flu" are not flu, why is this even surprising? Or even an attack on flu vaccination.
The fact that you think this is a valid criticism speaks volumes.

@Internal Medicine Resident -- I love science. It is psyence I don't like. I don't "deny" either. "Science denialist" is doublespeak.

NWO here is a list of diseases that least begin with flu like symptoms (from Wikipedia)

Anthrax, Brucellosis, Cat scratch fever, Legionellosis, Leptospirosis, Listeriosis, Lyme disease
Lymphogranuloma venereum, Mastitis, Salmonellosis
Toxic Shock Syndrome, Syphilis, Tuberculosis
Scrub typhus, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever

Viral[edit]
Bornholm disease (Coxsackie B virus), Chickenpox
Cytomegalovirus, Eastern equine encephalitis virus
California encephalitis virus, Enteroviruses, Hendra virus
Hepatitis A, B, C, D, E, Herpes, HIV-1, -2
Newcastle disease, Human parainfluenza viruses
Human rhinovirus, Measles, MERS coronavirus
Human respiratory syncytial virus, Rubella
SARS coronavirus, Slapped cheek syndrome, Smallpox
Togaviridae, Venezuelan equine encephalitis

Fungal[edit]
Blastomycosis, Coccidioidomycosis, Histoplasmosis
Stachybotrys chartarum

Protozoan[edit]
Babesiosis, Leishmaniasis, Malaria
Toxoplasmosis

One that I know was left on this list is hanta virus.

It is a nice long list isn't it.

Wow, the resident conspiracy theorist recognizes that things that look like the Flu, aren't the Flu?

Call them conspiracy fantasists. Theory has a precise and valuable definition which is inaccurately used to describe them.

are you familiar with the term “useful dupe”?

You mean like an antivaccine conspiracy crank who also includes the Moon landing and gravity in her repertoire?

@rs (#27)

Excellent point!

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” -- Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928), Chapter One.

And Bernays should know--he was one their most useful minions.

NWOrthless poster mistakenly thinks Internal Medicine Resident will somehow fall for his/her moronic arguments, which is good for a yuk or two. NWOrthless poster's arguments come in at the level of the 2nd grader at best.

Of course @Johnny prefers not to contemplate these issues either.

This isn't Twatter, johnnycakes. Don't embarrass your lower-ups.

@NWOR: Just in case you were saying something meaningful, I looked up your word psyence. I found four references via Google:
1) an album by a Japanese performer;
2) a British performance group;
3) an Australian (by its url) company that characterizes itself as Psychology + Science;
4) a Colombian url with the same characterization.

Which definition of psyence are we to understand when you use the word, or is it just a meaningless, idiosyncratic usage?

Well, the practice where I'm doing my clinical hours this semester has had two confirmed cases of Influzena A in two days.

I'm getting my flu shot tomorrow.

Se Habla Espol:

I believe this comes from the Mike Adams/Alex Jones delusion that everything is a psy-op. False flags, vaccines, fake news: all forms of government manipulation to control the masses.

Many of us are familiar with Bernays and Russell, but realize a) propaganda is not the same as conspiracy, and more importantly b) there is no demonstrated relevance to the matter under discussion here.

Yes there is an 'invisible government'; no it's not a conspiracy, and no there is not any reason to suppose that Big Pharma agents have any particular control over mass media.

Instructing others to read certain books is strong evidence of not being able to make a coherent argument. There are those who are happy to believe they are somehow in the know in a way that makes them superior to others; indeed, this is likely the main motivation for conspiracy-beliefs.

RJ, on what evidence have you concluded that the invisible government, which you acknowledge exists, doesn't engage in criminal conspiracies? If its actions are benevolent, why operate under a cloak of invisibility?

Because they don't operate under a cloak of invisibility.

They operate while being ignored by the populace. Most people pay little attention to how their government really works, while bitching freely about it as they go.

If you think they engage in conspiracies, you need to provide evidence.

Correct - people, in general, give little thought to the various Departments of Public Works & Transportation which keep the streets clean, pick up the trash or just repair pot holes.

In general, I find people like NWOR to reside in their own sad, sick little worlds - because they can't handle that the real world is not nearly as interesting as the fantasies they've built for themselves.

LOL. The people who come here to learn about conspiracies are way past of the point of needing proof of their existence. Panacea, you sure seem to buy into the idea that humanity is too incompetent for self-determination, and needs "the best of the brightest" to covertly guide their beliefs and behavior "for the greater good." You're either naive enough, and desperate enough for the approval of authority, to believe it; or mercenary enough not to care.

The people who come here to learn about conspiracies are way past of the point of needing proof of their existence.

Who need proof of their existence when one can invents its own proof?

Panacea, you sure seem to buy into the idea that humanity is too incompetent for self-determination, and needs “the best of the brightest” to covertly guide their beliefs and behavior “for the greater good.” You’re either naive enough, and desperate enough for the approval of authority, to believe it; or mercenary enough not to care.

Assertion fabricated from one's own proof?

Alain

darwinslapdog, don't feel bad. You are not alone. David Brin (davidbrin.wordpress.com) refers to the "fevered spite against all fact-users" coming from the right that's popular right now.

Okay, NitWit Ordure Distorter, the time has come. Put up or shut up. Put your money where your mouth is. Put your ass on the table.
You made the claim, you provide the proof. That's how these things work. No pithy irrelevant quotations. No reference to the state of medicine a century past and gone. No naming of books that you only read because they tell you what you already believe.
Facts. Real evidence. Nothing but certifiable statements of fact from credible sources. Facts well-attested to. Nothing else. No assertions without evidence. No but-what-abouts.
If you can do that, I have no doubt that Orac will give you the space you need. If you can't, then go bother some more credulous crowd. If you can link "big pharma" to chemtrails or tacmars, you might even make a living out of it.

Alain, I know you didn't misunderstand my comment. I hope you don't imagine that people won't notice how you twisted it around to suit your agenda. Or that it took 3 of you to try to clean up the mess RJ created by acknowledging we have an invisible government. :D

Dear ginny,

Can you tell which agenda I do have? :)

Alain

"Panacea, you sure seem to buy into the idea that humanity is too incompetent for self-determination, and needs “the best of the brightest” to covertly guide their beliefs and behavior “for the greater good.”

Really. And just where did I ever say that humanity is too incompetent for self determination? Understanding that many people can't be bothered to understand their own government cannot be extrapolated to mean I think people are too incompetent for self determination and require the NWO in your name to run things for us.

Your comment ignores the thousands of people who do get involved in one way or another: people who attend city council meetings, volunteer with community boards, form watchdog groups, and do real activism to maintain transparency.

Humans are social beings. We form groups to collectively solve problems, and groups need leaders. When we appoint good leaders, great things can happen. When we appoint incompetent leaders (like Trump, who not only does not understand how government, he does not care and is openly willing to subvert the process for his own ends) horrific things can happen.

You are a child. Grow up.

Panacea, the leaders of an invisible government are not "appointed" by the people they govern--if they were, the government wouldn't be invisible. But nice try at making an invisible government sound like something wholesome, rather than a gaggle of parasitic psychopaths.

NWOR: you really do live in a scary place, don't you? Conspiracies everywhere! Why don't you come out and join us in The Real World (tm)? It's not as scary as you think.

MESSAGE BEGINS—————————-

Shills & Minions

Well, I suppose that it was to be expected that in my absence things would spin out of control. My time subjugating a few developing backwaters in the Outer Rim was unchallenging and remarkable only for its dreadful tedium. The reason? No primates! Just a few planets with middling avian and amphibian species staggering about in their early technological phases. Easy to ply with drugs and subjugate. Dull, dull, dull!

No real adversaries to consider, certainly nobody with the keen insight to quote Bertrand Russel! I don't think the amphibians even had a Bertrand Russel. So, you're all terribly fortunate to have an adversary so brilliant of mind and wit as this NWA creature. NWX? O? Ah, yes. O. Well, whatever it's called, it's clearly discovered our "invisible government" and even found our scare quote supply. Of course, someone will pay for that with their head for not guarding them more jealously, but I digress.

I just want you to appreciate how fortunate you are to be badgered by such a staggering intellect. Warm blooded. Full of itself. Fulminating in some fragrant primate nest, banging away at its tiny, grease-smuged keyboard. No slow, watery amphibian mind, this! It's simply bursting with monkey hubris and verve! So certain of its rightness!

Oh, how I have missed you, my shills and minions! Your devotion to The Great Egg Mother (may she kill with mercy), PharmaLucre, and your willingness to sell out your fellow chimps for a life of luxury and revenge would warm my hearts (if that were possible). Looking forward to settling back in on this fractious world.

Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7ihL
Forward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Author, The Purpose Driven Knife

Glaxxon PharmaCOM Orbital
010011000111000011110000011111000000111111

———————————————————MESSAGE ENDS

It is telling how conspiracy mongers like NWOR never provide any evidence to support their statements and deflect obvious rebuttals for their conspiracies by referencing "cloaks of invisibility" and other crap, which apparently only they have penetrated.

There are actually countries in the world that really try to kill their own populace. Weirdly enough, they prefer to spend their money on weapons, not some painfully slow and inefficient health care initiative. America! Look outside your borders. It's the future!

Lord Draconis! You have been greatly missed in these parts. Good to have you back, my Lord. I hope all the hatchlings are well fed before my next visit (the ankles have finally healed, thank you).

a gaggle of parasitic psychopaths

I don't know that Ginny, Rappoport, and Ginny's day job constitute a gaggle, but it's close. Maybe a gurgle of parasitic parasites.

^ psychopathic, that is

Australia and some European countries levying fines on parents who won't vaccinate:

I can't really read the Vox story on my phone, but if they're referring to the Family Tax Benefit, it's obviously not a fine.

Here's the money quote (heh) from the article -

Here’s a quick roundup of the global crackdown on vaccine-refusing parents:

Italy’s parliament passed a law this summer that makes 10 childhood vaccinations mandatory for kids up to age 16, and requires parents to prove their children are immunized before entering school or else face a €500 (about $600 USD) noncompliance fine.

Germany is also cracking down on vaccine-refusing parents: Its parliament approved a law that obliges administrators at kindergartens to report parents who refuse counseling from their doctors about vaccines. Health ministries can then also fine the vaccine-hesitant parents up to €2,500 (about $3,000 USD).

In France, the health ministry is making 11 vaccines — up from the current three (diphtheria, tetanus, and polio) — mandatory for children by 2018, though there’s no talk of a fine there yet.
In Romania, the government recently adopted a draft bill that requires parents prove their children are vaccinated before kids can go to school.

Further afield, New South Wales Australia passed “no jab, no play” legislation in September: Effective January, the law bans unvaccinated kids from preschool and day care and fine the directors of schools that admit un-immunized children $5,500 Australian dollars ($4,400 USD). The law in South Australia is modeled on similarly stringent laws in other Australian states, and across the country, parents with children who aren’t immunized aren’t eligible for child care benefits.

It's a pity that those countries (and NSW) had to learn the hard way. But sometimes that's the only way they will learn. As the saying crudely puts it, "some fellers have to piss on the electric fence themselves".

Folks like NWO don't like to have their preferred narratives, in which they personally are star human beings, questioned. It seems to make that person uncomfortable to learn that others here actually know about their sources.

Let's be straight - 'invisible government' absolutely does engaged in criminal conspiracies, such as Iran-Contra. It is to America's lasting shame that the 'masterminds' of this crime are not in prison for life.

But again, that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. The fact that there have been and are criminal conspiracies is not evidence that any arbitrary, particular conspiracy is ongoing. Sure the CIA does evil things, but that does not prove that they are doing all the (often mutually inconsistent) evil things of which they are accused.

A serious claimant to some particular conspiracy will bring evidence of conspiracy, not shadowy claims that there are conspiracies. Absent such evidence, unserious. And present inane requests to read selected books, also unserious.

@ RJ

Careful with your wording, many concepts - conspiracy, invisible gov' - don't mean the same thing for you and for the likes of NWOR - and you end up feeding her storytelling.
By example, you use "conspiracy" as in "criminal conspiracy" - a bunch of people occupying a legitimate position in society and engaging in behaviors which are very likely to be illegal, at the very least immoral, and would in a ideal world lead to prosecution and jail terms, but legal authorities are looking the other way. In short, Jack Bauer and his handlers, the Corleone family, and the like.
For NWOR, the conspiracists are a nebulous hive group of thousands of people sharing the same agenda, and secretly governing everything. In short, the Illuminati, or the Elders of Zion.

And please don't talk about our secret handshake. Lord Draconis is upset enough as it is, and I'm still cleaning the subbasement 4F of our secret underground arctic base after last month's visit from His Lordship's sub-sub-secretary, following a minor breach of protocol involving Sir H*** and some wandering hatchlings.

Flu vaccine causes infectious illnesses and immune dysfunction.

http://vaccinepapers.org/influenza-vaccine-immune-suppression/

@Johnny, aka "Heh! The money quotes."

How much can the lives of plebeian children be worth? If Italian parents decide the risks of illness are preferable to the risks of vaccines, it will cost them $600. Is it worth it?

I suppose German doctors get about the same 10 pages of vaccine training in medical school as US doctors. If German parents read, say, 500 pages, and decide they don't need a doctor's opinion, it'll cost them $3000. Heck, for that kind of money, I'd probably humor the doctor, even if I had to pay $150 for an office visit.

For the first time in history, France is being more polite than the rest of the world. It's just asking parents nicely to give their children 11 vaccines instead of 3. There's no price for refusing--yet.

Romanian parents have it easy. No vaccines, no education. It's like a kiddie lottery: A shot at being a doctor or lawyer instead of a beggar or whore, in exchange for a small risk of lifelong disability. What parent wouldn't roll the dice?

New South Whales and Australia got it right: Make the price of refusing vaccination so high, only the wealthiest parents can afford to pay it. It's a great way to weed out the plebeian riff-raff.

Effective January, the law bans unvaccinated kids from preschool and day care and fine the directors of schools that admit un-immunized children $5,500 Australian dollars ($4,400 USD).

Why is Vox author including a fine on schools under the rubric of "penalising parents"?

Conspiracy fantasists, like our troll above, do live in a world completely separate from our own. They believe that millions of people, all over the world, can be involved in complex and decades-long global conspiracies, yet even our own government can't keep its deepest, darkest secrets from making front-page headlines.

The NSA, one of the most highly-secretive agencies on the planet, can't even keep its most prized hacking tools from ending up on the Dark Web. (not to mention the Snowden Affair).

Of course, all of this becomes more fodder for their fantasies - because they will claim that all of this other "stuff" being released is just cover for what's "really going on."

If your entire worldview is based on enormous and complicated conspiracies, then perhaps the problem isn't with the world, its with you.

You've probably covered this question somewhere no doubt, but can anyone tell me if vaccines are so fantastic, why did large numbers of NY health care workers(2009, I think) refuse mandated flu and swine shots ? Even if it meant losing their jobs, large numbers responded with doubts of the effectiveness and safety of these vaccines.
And all you on here that are pro-vaccines, do you always get your shots each year ?
For the record I've never had a flu shot, and can only remember having the flu about 14 years ago, for around 3 days.
And numerous people I know that get the flu shot annually, the majority of them get the flu soon after.

@Fat cat: Yes, I've gotten the flu shot every year for many years and will get it again next month. No, most people don't "get the flu soon after". It's not possible for an inactivated virus to make someone sick with the flu. If they have the actual flu, they either caught it before they got the shot (it takes several days for you to become ill after exposure) or they caught a version not covered by the vaccine.

The flu vaccine may cause you to have a mild fever, mild aches and pains for a day or so as your immune system ramps up. That is in no way, shape, or form like having the actual flu.

Also: if you had the flu only for 3 days, it wasn't the actual influenza virus. Even with clean living and good health, most people are sick for at least a week, 3-4 of those days unable to get out of bed sick.

@Fat Cat:

why did large numbers of NY health care workers(2009, I think) refuse mandated flu and swine shots

Citation needed.

@Fat cat #65:

Of course most of us in the medical profession follow what we preach and get our influenza vaccine each year because it's a scientifically sound thing to do and not merely because it's compulsory. And please stop promulgating the misinformation that "flu vaccines cause flu." It is biologically implausible to acquire an influenza caused illness from the components of the standard IM influenza vaccine. Please see MI Dawn's comment (#66).

...and will get it again next month.

I got mine a few hours ago.

I've had the flu. Do not want again.

Speaking of health care workers refusing flu shots, some misguided ninnies in the Ohio Legislature are trying to pass a law prohibiting employers from sanctioning employees who won't get flu shots (the bill is obviously aimed at hospitals and clinics with mandatory flu vaccination policies to protect patients).

Rep. Hagan and seven co-sponsoring nitwits are behind the bill (HB193), which is now in the House Health Committee. It contains the following incredible clause:

"It is the intent of the general assembly that the
prohibition described in division (B) of this section shall not
be expanded to include vaccination against any disease or
illness other than influenza until the overwhelming scientific
consensus clearly indicates a present and immediate danger to
members of the public who receive the vaccination."

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA1…

One is left to wonder what "present and immediate danger" is presented by influenza vaccination. I know of one nurse in my area who's active in fearmongering on this subject, claiming that she's seen all kinds of Guillain-Barre cases due to flu vaccination (but curiously has never observed GBS due to influenza itself or other etiologies).

Now I have to waste time contacting my state rep to oppose this asinine bill.

And oh yes, I get an annual flu shot, to protect myself and family (as well as patients).

If I come down with flu-like symptoms, I would rather it be the flu than almost anything else that presents with flu-like symptoms.

@Julian Frost, type those key words into a search engine, and dozens and dozens of stories can be seen regarding Healthcare workers refusing Flu shots.
But we all know you knew that, and the fact nobody commenting on this topic has even mentioned this query of mine, just makes me think you haven't got an argument for Healthcare workers refusing flu shots.
Citation needed ? You got nothing eh Frosty ? Lol

Fat cat, since you refuse to give specifics of the alleged incident your referring to, the only comment that in any way appropriate or even possible is "[citation required]", or a less polite version like "what are you babbling about?". Your refusal to reply with specific citations shows that you're just another shill for the anti-vax industry.

@Fat cat:

type those key words into a search engine, and dozens and dozens of stories can be seen regarding Healthcare workers refusing Flu shots.

Nope, that's not how it works. You claimed that in 2009, Health Care Workers in New York systematically refused vaccinations, so you stump up the proof that it happened.

I'm proudly anti-vaccine, and this is totally based on the evidence. I read something a while back somewhere that demonstrated without a doubt that vaccines are useless and dangerous - can you refute this definitive study. No, you monsters, I'm not going to give you a link or a citation of what this evidence is or where it is - it's your job to do so. Obviously, your request for a citation is evidence that you're totally defeated by my mighty blast of truth.

By the way, later today, can you pre-chew my food, and massage my throat to help me swallow?

https://www.facebook.com/vaccinetruth/posts/10153448927772989

Hope the link above worked and you can see that a Facebook page showing 22,000 nurses are against mandatory flu shots.
Why would they be against flu shots ?
Don't think they work ?
Don't think they're safe ?
Don't care enough about patients ?
Not many other reasons for refusal.

To quote Jessica on tha page

There's no evidence whatsoever that Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines has 22,000 members, and however few or many have actually paid their $20 a year, you don't have to be a nurse to join. You can go to their website and have your dog join right now if you like! This is masterful propaganda use of the web by non-medical professionals who spread fairy tale fears as a fund-raising scheme, supposing more people sign up their dogs for $20.

@Se Habla espol, Since you have no idea about the issue I raise regarding Healthcare workers refusing mandatory flu shots, I really don't need any input from you on the matter, or from anyone else that are oblivious to the issue.
I know plenty of people that make comments here are aware of the issue, and it's their thoughts on the matter I'm seeking.

Since you have no idea about the issue I raise regarding Healthcare workers refusing mandatory flu shots,

The question is not really what story, but which story: was it one of the anti-vax fabrications, and which one, or perhaps it's yet another one you just invented yourself.

The issue I point out is your responsibility to provide evidence supporting claims that you make, and your failure to do so.

plenty of people that make comments here are aware of the issue, and it’s their thoughts on the matter I’m seeking.

I'm aware of the issue. I note, however, that you did not identify which of the anti-vax inventions you were referring to. However, you seem to have resolved that question by linking to a fakebook claim about an apparent anti-vax attempt to do what the anti-vax industry is so good at, inventing propaganda.

@Fat cat, a link to a Facebook group is not proof. As squirrelelite points out, there's no evidence the group has 22,000 members, and no proof that all of its members are nurses.
What I want is the following: proof that "large numbers of NY health care workers refused mandated flu and swine shots" in the same year. It doesn't even have to be 2009.
I am not going to blindly take the word of a commenter whose pseudonym is the name of one of the main villains from Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers.

Smells like Travis.....

Since you have no idea about the issue I raise regarding Healthcare workers refusing mandatory flu shots, I really don’t need any input from you on the matter, or from anyone else that are oblivious to the issue.

The irony here is that there's a much better argument that you could have made (to charitably describe your efforts so far), but you've apparently had your snout in the trough for so long that you're, ah, oblivious to the issue. Get cipherin'.

Hope the link above worked and you can see that a Facebook page showing 22,000 nurses are against mandatory flu shots.

Umm, link is to a VacTruth page which link to the equally-Orwellian "Naturalsociety" as the source of the claim.
Following that Society's link leads to the EventChronicle... which in turn points to "Nurses against Mandatory Vaccines" as the source of the claim.
The fourth link to the NAMV FB page leads nowhere, because the page is dead or invitation-only.

In short, no, there is not "a Facebook page showing 22,000 nurses are against mandatory flu shots."

It is not even a claim without evidence... it is a claim with no origin... but evidently you are inclined to believe it anyway, simply because it has been flltered through four stages of human centipede.

I see that Patty "Can't Win" Finn tried to get in on the 2009 action, but I'm too tired to go after it.

You know, there are Facebook pages supporting the existence of Alien Abductions that have more than 22,000 members....doesn't make it any more real or true.

I have a sneaking sense of how the number was whomped up, but I just don't care enough to do this individual's homework.

This minion in chief went to chomp on some brain and was ecstatic at the thought of chomping on 22 000 only to land at:

http://www.namv.org/

only to be graced with....this:

Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.

braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnn....snif

(Sad) Minion in chief

I know plenty of people that make comments here are aware of the issue, and it’s their thoughts on the matter I’m seeking.

My thoughts on the matter are that a healthcare professional who refuses a flu shot should find another line of work.

Hmmm. I do remember health care workers reluctant to take small pox jab.

Although more than half of the respondents thought the likelihood of a bioterrorist smallpox attack was intermediate or high, less than 10% of the group slated for vaccination has actually accepted it at this time. Unless new information about the threat of a smallpox attack becomes available, healthcare workers' perceptions of the vaccine's risks will likely continue to drive their ongoing decisions about smallpox vaccination.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-3-…

Fewer than 100 of about 13,000 eligible health care workers across the state have decided to roll up their sleeves to receive injections of the smallpox vaccination, a state official said Wednesday.

Nationally, less than 1 percent of the expected 450,000 health care workers have become inoculated with the vaccine during the program's first month, the official said.

http://newsok.com/article/1917368

Maybe they all had eczema.

Maybe they all had eczema.

Or maybe they just had better sense than to fall for the scary story of the week from the pols and the media.

As ORAC said in a his blog a couple of years ago," Every year even with the most careful deliberations going into making the choice of strains of flu virus to include in the vaccine, it's always a bit of a crapshoot.
That sums up all of medical science really, a CRAPSHOOT.

That sums up all of medical science really, a CRAPSHOOT.

Argument by assertion again?
You've just proven you have nothing.

Actually, it's the best decision made based on available evidence and research into circulating strains in Asia (which invariably spread worldwide each year).

While the current Influenza vaccine isn't always the best, there are high hopes for the new series of "Universal" Flu vaccine which are reaching the later stages of development and testing.

Research into the virus itself has helped identify areas which don't mutate at the same rate and provide commonality across most, if not all, of the circulating strains....so, we'll see.

That sums up all of medical science really, a CRAPSHOOT,

And that crapshoot is why I am alive today to call you an effing idiot.

In the middle of massive flooding in Texas, antivaxers fear...school vaccine mandates?

oracknows — Wed, 06 Sep 2017 05:00:38 +0000

In the middle of massive flooding in Texas, antivaxers fear...school vaccine mandates?

I've frequently distinguished between those who are vaccine-averse and the true, hard core antivaxers. The vaccine-averse tend to fear vaccines because of what they've heard about their supposed adverse effects, while it is the hard core antivaxers who are really originating and spreading the misinformation claiming that vaccines cause autism, autoimmune diseases, chronic disease, neurologic damage, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), just to name some. There are even those who claim that shaken baby syndrome is a "misdiagnosis" for vaccine injury. To them, it is, above all, always all about the vaccines. Always.

Even in a massive natural disaster like Hurricane Harvey, which flooded southeast Texas and devastated Houston in late August.

What on earth am I referring to? Take a look at what the antivaccine group, the as-always Orwellian-named National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) posted information that, apparently to its members, would be the most important thing to think of in the aftermath of a hurricane, Texas Parents: Know Your Vaccine Choice Rights During Hurricane Harvey Flood Emergency. You read that right. While everyone else is concerned about finding housing for hundreds of thousands of people whose homes have been destroyed or otherwise rendered uninhabitable by flooding, preventing the spread of disease, and getting relief to those affected by the hurricane and flooding over a huge swath of Texas, the NVIC is concerned about parents being able to refuse vaccines for their children and thereby leave them vulnerable to serious vaccine-preventable diseases. Get a load of how Dawn Richardson in Austin and Rebecca Rex in Houston, who co-wrote this article, frame their question:

Many parts of Texas have suffered severe flooding and damage where families within our community have had their lives drastically affected. This is just the start of a challenging journey ahead recovering from Hurricane Harvey.

If your family has been displaced and/or your property damaged and need to find new health care practitioners that will take care of your family and respect your vaccine refusal or delay decisions, we can check in with our community to find you the referrals you need where you need them. If you are reading this and have a great referral for a health care provider that is supportive of your rights to decline or delay vaccines, please let us know their names, contact information, and location so we can pass that information on to families in need.

That's right. Their primary concern appears not to be getting shelter, food, and clean water to those who need it, but rather finding health care providers who will take care of the unvaccinated. They're also encouraging parents to take advantage of an order by the State of Texas designed to facilitate the enrollment of children rendered homeless or otherwise displaced by Harvey in other school districts:

If you have become temporarily homeless or your school has become damaged and your child needs to re-enroll somewhere else, please know you have rights.

Students who are experiencing homelessness are to be enrolled immediately. Districts cannot require students experiencing homelessness to provide proof of residency, immunizations, birth certificates guardianship documents, or any other sort of required paperwork before enrolling. Requiring missing paperwork or any other delay to enrollment is a violation of the McKinney-Vento Act.

Basically, NVIC is urging parents to take advantage of a law designed for what is normally a much smaller number of children who are homeless to be enrolled in school immediately in order to enroll their displaced children without the requirement for documentation of vaccine status. The NVIC cites a letter issued by the Texas Department of State Health Services:

The Texas Department of State Health Services issued a letter on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 regarding immunization records and enrollment of students displaced by Hurricane Harvey. As a reminder, students displaced by the hurricane are considered homeless and receive immediate enrollment even without the normally required paperwork (including immunizations). The text of the letter is as follows:

The purpose of this letter is to remind school districts of the current immunization rules that affect students displaced by Hurricane Harvey and to provide information on how schools can obtain immunization histories for transfer students.

The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) rules relating to immunization requirements for school entry allow a student transferring from one Texas school to another to be provisionally enrolled without proof of required immunizations for up to 30 days. (Texas Administrative Code, Title 25, Part I, Chapter 97, Subchapter B, Section 97.69.) As the 30-day period draws closer to an end, if there appears to be a significant number of displaced students who are still having trouble obtaining their immunization records, DSHS will consider whether a short additional provisional enrollment period is possible.

In other words, the NVIC is encouraging parents to take advantage of the disaster to "stand up for their rights" not to vaccinate their children.

Of course, the more I read this letter, the more I wondered why on earth the NVIC is doing it. After all, as it points out in the latter part of this article, the NVIC tells parents how to obtain a personal belief exemption to school vaccine mandates, and Texas has a very easy process for claiming such an exemption. All it requires is for the parent to request an affidavit form online or by mail and to submit it to the Texas Department of State Health Services. Those of you who are regular readers also know that, if anything, Texas is politically very sympathetic to "personal rights" that allow parents to refuse vaccines. Indeed, as I've recorded, groups like Texans for Vaccine Choice have been very active in the state, scuttling even common-sense legislation that would have required school-level reporting of vaccine exemption rates, so that parents interested in not sending their children to a school with high exemption rates could choose. (Yes, antivaxers are incredibly hypocritical, touting they tout "transparency" and a "right to know" about fantastical imagined "vaccine injury" but denying real transparency to parents concerned about putting their children in a school where an outbreak is more likely.)

I can't help but think that the NVIC, seeing how big a news story Harvey is, for the simple reason that it's caused so much devastation, damaged so much of Texas, and displaced so many people, latched on to a problem that's not really a problem (requests for vaccine "papers" by bureaucratic school officials standing in the way of homeless and displaced children being able to attend school in different school districts) and used it to encourage antivaxers to claim their "rights."

Elsewhere, in response to questions about whether those living in flood zones ought to get a tetanus booster and a response by the CDC that it is generally not necessary (although I can't help but point out that it's always a good idea to stay up-to-date on your tetanus vaccine status regardless of whether you've been exposed to flood waters or not), another antivaxer is .

Meanwhile, ever unable to resist an opportunity, antivaxers plan on heading down to Houston on September 18 and 19 to protest the 20th Global Vaccine and Immunization Summit, which apparently has not been canceled, to protest—because that's just what Houston needs. There'll be a veritable who's who of antivax "luminaries" there, although, oddly enough, it doesn't look as though Andrew Wakefield will be attending.

Again, that's because, even in a natural disaster on a massive scale, to antivaxers, it's always about the vaccines. It has always been about the vaccines. It will always be about the vaccines.

oracknows Wed, 09/06/2017 - 01:00

Tags

autism