Antivaccine nonsense

Pseudoscience

Quackery

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

Categories

Policy

among the favorite hashtags used by antivaxers are those related to the antivaccine propaganda movie VAXXED, like #wearevaxxed

LOLOLOLOL!!! Did they not realise that that hashtag could mean the opposite of what they meant it to?

I wonder if it matters to the supporters that they're retweeting boys.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what I'm reading here. I think perhaps there are sometimes parts of speech (verbs, prepositions etc) missing from the text. I've glanced through it several times, and still don't really get the point of all this.

Is it just saying that there are a few people who RT a lot, or something?

Brian, have you thought about doing an expose on the Tomljenovic and Shaw fakery?
Methinks you'd be a great person to take it to the press/media?

No, Brian. It shows that the accounts responsible for the most antivaccine tweets and retweets aren’t actual people at all, but are automated accounts - that is robots, or “bots”.

They were able to identify about 300 accounts that appear to be antivaccine bots.

Darn it.

I went to Mentionmapp to play around and see what I could see. They want you to create an account with them, which is fine, I guess. They ask for an e-mail address, and send a link to complete the signup. Completing the signup involves giving them yourr Twitter account name.

I don’t have one, but I know those who do. I’ll just use a friends account (with her permission, of course).

But no. It isn’t just telling them you have an account, you authorize them to -

This application will be able to:
Read Tweets from your timeline.
See who you follow, and follow new people.
Update your profile.
Post Tweets for you.
Will not be able to:
Access your direct messages.
See your email address.
See your Twitter password.

It looks like it would be fun to play around with, but I wouldn’t do this with an account I created just for this purpose.

I've worked in a field related to identifying automatons online before. It's not that hard to identify bots, so Twitter must have some other motivation for not rooting out this problem, even though it clearly seems to decrease the value of their platform. Maybe their idea is just that volume is all-important.

Orac writes,

I can’t help but wonder if we shouldn’t have bots of our own.

MJD says,

The Orac minion PGP is suspected of being a bot (Bothersome, Obnoxious, and Tenacious).

@ Johnny (#5),

Thanks for the summary, I appreciate that clarification.

With that act of kindness, you've dropped off the top 25 list for Orac's minions.

With that act of kindness, you’ve dropped off the top 25 list for Orac’s minions.

Challenge accepted.

I think that Johnny is a spectacular commenter/ minion because he frequently highlights SB material whilst simultaneously insulting and deriding woo-meisters and others of that ilk including MJD.

No need to thank me, Johnny. My approval will put you back in the rarified environment of Top 5ers.

I do not think science skeptics should respond with bots.

The noise bots create would make any true dialogue impossible.

Hmm. @LotusOak joined Twitter in November 2011 and sends out an average of 18-19 tweets a day. @eTweets joined in April 2014 and sends out an average of 14-15 tweets a day. @draintheswamp55 has the volume of a bot at 72-73 tweets a day, but all I see on their Twitter page are posts about geoengineering and weather manipulation.

Compare to the pro-vax @doritmi, who joined Twitter long before any of them in July 2009 and sends out an average of 32-33 a day. Most of them seem to be retweets, or sharing news stories from selected sites (like this one!) without comment--two of the indications of a bot, according your post.

Doesn't seem like you made a great case here for a Twitter takeover by anti-vax bots. :D

In other anti-vax (networking) news...

I just listened to
( although I skipped around after 25 minutes or so- after al,l I'm not Wonder Woman- my tolerance has limits),

an interview with Miranda Bailey and AJW about their new film, "The Pathological Researcher... I mean OPTIMIST"
( see Fearless Parent.org/ yesterday/ episode 106)
and learned how the two protagonists met up- it was via show host, Louise Kuo Habakus "nearly 10 years ago"

So I suppose Bailey is so TOTALLY neutral as a film maker

Other BS within about Brian Deer etc.

@panacea #11

I do not think science skeptics should respond with bots.

I agree. The short-gamers are willing to lie and manipulate; the long-gamers have to take a more principled stand.

Unfortunately things may get a bit rough in the short to medium term.

I have 27 bots about infectious diseases. They’re not very active lately because I don’t have the time to update each time that Twitter updates their terms. But, at their height, they got into actual arguments with other bots. It was a sight to see.
The funniest bit is that a certain “gnat” has my official @EpiRen account blocked, but I’ve had plenty of discussions with him with the other accounts. The fool doesn’t know it’s me although I drop plenty of hints.
Twitter is such a weird place.

I think that Johnny is a spectacular commenter/ minion because he frequently highlights SB material whilst simultaneously insulting and deriding woo-meisters and others of that ilk including MJD.

Yeah, I agree, I could learn a thing or two but recently, I've become way too ranty because of personnal circumstances which I chalk it up to a pissing matches between my current shrink (MD/PhD Frenchmen) and the previous one (also MD/PhD and also, Frenchmen) over my diagnostic.

Disclaimer: my shrink may not see it as a pissing math. Entirely my own op...rant.

Also, the brother (ya know, the one with 15 000 questions in an 8 hours timeframe). It's been weeks my phone is unplugged.

Al (whose current shrink doesn't believe is autistic).

Oh, and before anyone asks:

The reason for the diagnostic workup which has been going for the last 7 years and my shrink is expected to come up with a dx is entirely mandated by tax credits (30 000$ at my last count), work stuff and a few other governmental (both QC and Canadian ones) which are due next year because this is the standing limitation over both tax credits agencies to redo my last 10 years of taxes which I have paid a significant (and some huge) amount of taxes.

Otherwise, everything's fine regarding the medication and I really dont give a rat a** about the dx.

Alain

@Alain:

My therapist (among others) suspected that I might be an "Aspie," so I ended up taking some sort of test and scored in the range of what used to be called Asperger's. It is definitely not the diagnosis of concern, though, and personally I consider it more of a personality quirk.

Actually, not long ago I got into a passionate linguistic argument with a friend from Olympia (he is a major prescriptivist) over the use of singular "they," and at some point he called me an "Aspie libertarian," (libertarian in terms of English language "rules") so I told him his French was showing. (He has an MA in French literature.)

JP,

it's entirely possible that you come up with an Asperger profile but it may not be for the reasons that the test envisioned it (poor wording choice on my part).

getting past the point of usual psychometric involve the learning abilities of the brain. I'll take an example, Addiction:

DSM-I chalk it up to a personality disorder (again, bad choice of word for "disorder"). I don't know how many DSM revision it took to take it out of the personality disorder axis but one can take a look at rehab center today to see it being treated as a personality disorder (and even ex-addict perpetuate the myth that it is a personality disorder) but then, an alternative hypothesis is the learning one proposed by Maia Szalavitz.

We're at this point, my shrink and me. to help complete the work, I have to contact many different workplace and work placement agency to file the Canadian equivalent of a FOIA request regarding my work review in the various place that I have worked over my life and write down a resume for my shrink.

Basically, I'm doing a census over all my symptoms; all of them. He'll do the differential but I am definitely inclined to review the literature to come up with my own differential at this point; if only for my own sake.

Panacea: The noise bots create would make any true dialogue impossible.

Why bother with a dialogue? Fence-sitters don't exist, everyone's minds are made up already.

Yeah, I dunno. I mean, maybe I have obsessive niche interests just because I have obsessive niche interests. And maybe I largely hide my feelings (except with certain people) because coming off as "ice cold" is a way to deal with emotional abuse.

On the other hand, every therapist I've ever seen has commented on my "flat affect" when discussing really heavy stuff.

My current therapist is really big on these d@mn "feeling word" sheets that I'm supposed to remember and use. When it comes to my general daily mood, I'm often like "I dunno, is 'numb' a feeling?" Although I suppose "despair" often fits as well.

^ "alexithymia" is a word I have heard quite a few times in a mental health context.

I had a few beers, maybe I shouldn't comment because of that but what spring to mind is homeostasis and alexithymia is born out of that because the unknown could trigger feelings way outside that comfort zone. hypothesis one out of many other possible candidates.

Alexei Thymia could be the name of your Bulgarian ballad-singing alter ego, JP.

"I had a few beers"

You and me both, friend. Don't worry about it, comment freely. (For the record, I have had a couple of Rainiers, the once local American p!sswater beer. Hey, I ain't made of money.)

I'm really not supposed to, but well, oh well.

mines come from http://www.archibaldmicrobrasserie.ca/index.php/fr/ (sorry, no LC_ALL=en_CA version of the website). That said, previous ones where from one of my previous employers: http://mabrasserie.com/

Well, I know the owners and various staff workers from both breweries.

JP and Alain, I love you both. Keep well, and keep going on.

I just read two books by John Elder Robison: Look Me in the Eye, and Raising Cubby. You would all fit together: humor, confusion, uber intelligence and the whole mess.

As would much of my family. Fortunately one of the best things my stepmother ever did was get me into therapy when I was very young (and dealing with the death of my mother, who was a childhood friend of my stepmother, a weird story). She had her own issues, and at least she recognized when I needed help.

Thanks you very much Chris,

I did speak to John once 2-3 years ago and yeah, we'd all fit very well and I do plan to buy his books (all of them? maybe). One thing's for sure is that, I should write my biography.

I wish I could stay up but 5am is coming up soon enough (currently 22:55 so ~6 hours of sleep time). I'll catch up on sleep time this weekend.

And BTW, once 30 000$'in, I'm booking a tour of the US of A.

Alain: "I do plan to buy his books (all of them? maybe)."

Both books were at my local library. It did not cost me anything to borrow them.

I'm honored that my modest efforts to help in the good fight have been noticed, but I have to admit that I have been a bit soft on MJD lately.

Part of the reason is my recent back and forth with NWOR - not that she laid a finger on me argument-wise, but dealing with the dishonesty and childish arguments she brought out makes me think that it's probably a good thing I never had kids. I'd expect more from them. To those who are still exposing her general unfitness to be here (or even claim the title of 'Adult'), I lift an adult beverage in your honor, and say that in dealing with her, I believe you're tougher than woodpecker lips. Not that it's hard work, but even swatting gnats gets tiring.

I've also been distracted by the Ken Burns Viet Nam series. Dad was there back in the day, and when they put an end to the draft, my draft sequence number was 3 (translated to english, I was next up for the meat grinder). Having had a teacher whose husband was shot down (they found a few pieces of him), and several friends whose fathers were killed there, I thought I'd paid attention to what was going on at the time. Boy, howdy, was I wrong. The biggest surprise is how worthless and corrupt the SVN government was at the time. I learn a lot here, but lately I've been learning a lot somewhere else.

Another part is that MJD pissed me right the H3LL off with his hospice post. It still makes me stabby to see his name.

And another part is just laziness. I made his 'enemies list', so why bother carrying on. Apparently it's like being King. Just because you're on top today doesn't mean someone doesn't want your crown.

I see my error. As I said at #9 "challenge accepted".

@Chris:

Thanks. I will look up those books (I finally got a library card, my old one from growing up was no longer valid; that's where I got the Palestinian cookbook that I love and keep renewing.)

Yeah, if I had been in therapy at a younger age, after my dad died, things might have turned out better, but honestly who knows. Some of my stuff is from life experiences I think, but some of it is also from "chemicals in the brain" or whatever.

Neither side of my family is exactly emotionally expensive (well, my dad was with my mom and us kids.) And they are all uncomfortable with "that stuff," that is, psychology and psychiatry.

Speaking of fake news on social media:

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

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

"It was later revealed she never had the disease."

Did anyone actually come up with any anti-vax Twitter pages that fit the profile of a bot?

Any to top pro-vax Twitter bots...I mean pages...like @doritmi, averaging 32-33 tweets a day since 2009, or @ADAdultimmDoc, averaging 27-28 tweets a day since 2014--both characterized by an abundance of retweets and/or links to selected pro-vax sites without comment?

Just curious. :)

JP: "Neither side of my family is exactly emotionally expensive ..."

It probably helped that my stepmother had taken some college psyche classes. She was trying to get her life together by living with her oldest brother, raising her daughter (who has no idea who her father was), and other things... like her last conversation with my mother before she left on the plane that crashed.

Um, my dad remarried six months after my mother died because her cousin was going to sue for custody of me and my five year old sister. So, yeah, weird family dynamics are not unusual in my world.

My stepmother had her issues. This includes my stepsister tears when she recounts the frustration in finding out information about her unknown father. But at least I got the psychological conversations to get me through puberty. Trust me, it was not pretty.

NWO Ginny, you need to answer some questions with real honesty. You have failing in that department in spades. You do not understand how to take a basic ratio, nor do your understand the legal term "settlement"... and you were a lawyer!

Here is something you should be able to answer. During the last flu season over a hundred American kids died from flu:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/reported-flu-deaths-children.htm

Now you need to come up with the PubMed indexed studies that show any influenza vaccine approved for pediatric use in the United States of America caused more harm than those one hundred deaths during the last flu season.

By the, I do not use twitter, nor do I have a facebook account. Social media is a time suck.

Johnny: I'm still not convinced that NWO isn't actually a pair of kids using their Mom's computer. "Her" posts smack of an attempt to be 'edgy,' she doesn't seem to be remotely smart enough to be a lawyer (to the point that I wonder if she didn't offer 'personal services' to pass the bar, or more likely, came from a rich family), and she uses emojis all the time. Adults simply don't do that.

Also, I realize a lot of lawyers have honesty issues, but NWO is almost Trumpian in her disregard for the facts. Even Nixon told the truth once in a blue moon.

So, according to Chris and PGP, the answer to my question--which it is possible to ferret out amidst the personal insults, derision,and faulty assumptions--is no, they have not been able to find any anti-vax Twitter pages that fit the profile of a bot. Anyone else?

NWO Ginny, your question is just a dodge. A way of moving goal posts.

It would be amusing if it was not so sad.

...she doesn’t seem to be remotely smart enough to be a lawyer...

Hey, I’m sure she’s just as good a lawyer as she is an artist.
http://www.virginiastoner.com/

I would agree that her arguments are childish. For example, who else would comment in an article that states “...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”, and claim for all to hear “...no, they have not been able to find any anti-vax Twitter pages that fit the profile of a bot”.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

and she uses emojis all the time. Adults simply don’t do that.

Clearly you do not follow Chelsea Manning on the electric Twitter machine.

Oh, dear. I have been known to use emojis from time to time. I wonder how frequent the use of emojis has to be before you invoke the "adults simply don't do that" rule.

I, too, use emojis a lot. But then, I'm old enough that I don't have to adult if I don't want to. :)

Again, Johnny: @LotusOak -- 18-19 tweets a day. @eTweeetz -- 14-15 tweets a day. @draintheswamp55 could be a bot based on tweet volume, but its focus is on geoengineering and weather manipulation, not vaccination.

Compare to pro-vax pages: @doritmi -- 32-33 tweets a day. @ADAdultimmDoc -- 27-28 tweets a day.

Your personal insults can't hide which look more like bots.

I do not think science skeptics should respond with bots.

I'm not sure I completely agree with you.

Consider that the anti-vaccine camp recycles a lot of well debunked arguments. A bot could dress those, and leave people time to address any new arguments that come up.

For example, when they claim that mercury in the MMR caused their kid's autism, a real person shouldn't have to take time to say 'no, the MMR was a live virus vaccine, so it never had thiomersal'.

Of course, the down side is that all the time saved debunking the antivaxers repetitive claims would be spent maintaining the bots.

Did anyone actually come up with any anti-vax Twitter pages that fit the profile of a bot?

Ginny dear, aren't you getting enough attention in other threads? Do you really need to troll every fresh thread with demands that people respond to your demands or else concede defeat?

Daaaaaaaaaamn! That's some good art, Ginny. Pro tip: Stick to art.

Although I know I really shouldn't get involved....

Notice how NWOR fixates on one characteristic of what Orac wrote about how to distinguish a bot**-
number of tweets per day- ONLY
whereas there are other important markers-
how they link to others, how there are less originals, content

This reminds me a bit of what Jake does - fixates on what a person says without context ( e.g. recently sarcasm about getting rid of whiteys) or how he misuses what Orac writes

It seems as though paritsans of woo often get fixated on details without seeing the big picture
.
I wonder why that is? ( I ask with tongue firmly in cheek)

** see Tannersdad for frequency SRSLY

JP: I don't tweet at all. For largely the same reason I don't do reddit.

Orac: Every post though?

@PGP

Well shoot, you're missing out on the absolute best and worst of what the Internet has to offer. Where else can you see Ted Cruz "like" a porno clip that would be quite pedestrian if it weren't for the incestuous voyeur angle? Or Charlie Daniels protest the NFL by not watching Thursday night football on a Wednesday?

Personally I particularly enjoy Weird Twitter and Left Twitter, especially when they overlap, which is often.

Totally OT, but everyone here should go listen to the album "Lost Causes" by Daniel Kahn & The Painted Bird.

Also hell yeah emojis ❤️??????

@JP

Emojis? You silly millennials.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Emojis? Arghh! (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Dictatorship of the millennials, baby!

JP: "Well shoot, you’re missing out on the absolute best and worst of what the Internet has to offer. "

I don't need the 'net to follow me home, thanks. Twitter and Reddit are absolute cesspits- I don't need to go wading in sewage to know that it's there.

I don’t need the ‘net to follow me home, thanks.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

The 'net is only taking photographs through your windows because it cares about you very very much and wants to be with you all the time.

I wonder how frequent the use of emojis has to be before you invoke the “adults simply don’t do that” rule.

Gindo uses them in the style of spastic colon. On the other hand, I just block that sh*t entirely when possible.

Gindo uses them in the style of spastic colon.

When mine gets like that I usually figure I've been drinking too much coffee.

Ok, so my response might have been over the top, but I still maintain that Twitter and Reddit are trashheaps. Twitter has only one use- keeping a certain orange someone occupied, while Reddit is marginally more useful in that it can tell people what men are really thinking.

Also, isn't art, even NWO's attempts, illegal in Texas? There might be a loophole for works by Thomas Kinkade, but that ain't art.

@ PGP:

Texas "Ort".

Very Rev: Hilarious, thank you! Kinda proves my point though- most of those statues aren't art.

You are totally crazy and this article is totally baseless like you scientist of the vax cartel that started by Bayer and friends responsible for Hitler's holocaust. FACTS and HISTORY can't be wiped clean so everyone look up Bayer+Hitler+AIDS+murder

@Sheeple101, could you repeat that in English, please? My "Paranoid rant to English" Translator blew out when I put your comment through it.

Almost, but not entirely off topic - it does involve an antivaxer -

Jake has a post, which, like many others he's done, is just massive amounts of copy pasta with a new headline.

It seems RFKjr is pushing for the extradition of Poul Thorson, which Jake, as you would expect, is much in favor of. But being Jake, he has to show how much he doesn't really understand by calling on Trump to extradite Thorson. Exactly how the US President is suppose to force another soverign nation to ship one of their citizens to the USA is left unclear.

But here's the thing - we already have requested extradition. We did that back when he was indicted, as you would expect. Who was leading the effort to extradite Thorson? Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General that Trump fired.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/gan/press/2011/04-13-11.html

United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said of the case, “Grant money for disease research is a precious commodity. When grant funds are stolen, we lose not only the money, but also the opportunity to better understand and cure debilitating diseases. This defendant is alleged to have orchestrated a scheme to steal over $1 million in CDC grant money earmarked for autism research. We will now seek the defendant’s extradition for him to face federal charges in the United States.”

The RFKjr article that Jake reposted ends with -

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, stated, “World Mercury Project calls upon Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to extradite Thorsen back to the U.S. to face prosecution. We also call upon Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, to retract the Thorsen-affiliated autism research papers that are the fruit of illegally conducted research.”

Gee, Trump fired Price, too (well, Trump let him resign), and while Sessions still has a job, his chances for long term employment aren't looking too good.

We also call upon Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, to retract the Thorsen-affiliated autism research papers that are the fruit of illegally conducted research.”

I'm going out on a limb here to speculate that RFK Jnr has no idea what papers, if any, came out of the project with the allegedly misspent funds, and that he is enough of a dumbarse to think that they're the earlier Danish studies.

WTF does he mean by "illegally conducted research"? Does he think that misuse of CDC funds means that any research involving the non-misused funds becomes "illegal"? Isn't this nimrod supposed to be a lawyer?

Still, if he wants to declare the entire Trump administration "illegal" because one of its members misused funds, go for it!

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Denial and desperate excuses probably signal the ending of the first stage and the beginning of the second. WeAreVaxxed

Dear ifigureditout2,

Agreed, all truth passes the three stages. Arthur Schopenhauer did not speak about falsehood :)

Do falsehood passes the same three stages?

Where does "regurging fictitious quotations" fit into the system?

"Every fabricated quotation passes through three stages. First, it is passed around true-believing nimrods who feel that its truthiness is enhanced by a fraudulent attribution. Second, it is adopted by med-scammers with merchandise to sell. Third, it is ridiculed." -- Herr Doktor Bimler.

NWO: You do know sockpuppeting is a bannable offense in these parts, right?

We also call upon Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, to retract the Thorsen-affiliated autism research papers that are the fruit of illegally conducted research.”,/I.

I think Price has other things on his mind right now.

I'm pretty sure that Sheeple101 and ifigureditout2 are just random cockwombles determined to prove that human commenters can be every bit as predictable and cognition-free as a twitter-bot.

The guys from the Th1Th2bot service center are mostly just tooling around in RVs at this point, but care and feeding can be a lot of work from what I hear.

And in more Jake news...

AI has been down a coupla hours. Just a page that suggest the site has been ‘suspended’, and a note that “If you're the site owner, contact us at 1-480-505-8855.”

That smells like a TOS violation somewhere along the line. Or maybe mommy is tired of paying the bills.

Hah! Maybe she read one of Jake's screeds. Though I wouldn't think there'd be any line too appalling to cross for a Crosby. It might sting that she won't have grandchildren ever.

And AI is back, darn it.

Ah rats.

Some real news from CBC:
Quebec barber finds special connection with 6-year-old client with autism

Doug,

Thanks, I'm reading it but yes, I'm autistic and need to have a barber; each week.

Alain

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

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

Categories

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

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

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

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

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

Orac writes,

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

MJD says,

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

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

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

Just sayin"...

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

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

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

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

It tends to get pinned on the most junior researcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or use actin as a housekeeper, ffs.

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

Yeah, lousy paper even from just skimming it.

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

Orac,

Thanks

Just plain thanks for all you do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was later revealed she never had the disease."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a day between friends?

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

Perhaps it has got too embarrassing.

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

Even without the fakery it was a crap paper.

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

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

In the 2017 account:

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

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

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

@ #28 Chris Preston

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

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

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

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

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

Once again a study shows that vaccines improve health:

Contact: CDC Media Relations
(404) 639-3286

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

Orac is correct. The paper was a fraud.

Of course, there should be an investigation ASAP.

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

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

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

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

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

The programm of this symposium can be found here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Dawson, JIB Editor"

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

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

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

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

I wonder how they will explain this particular retraction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For antivaxers, aluminum is the new mercury.

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

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

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

Which brings us to aluminum.

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

Also: Challenge accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what are we left with?

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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.

Does the flu vaccine cause miscarriages?

oracknows — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 06:50:50 +0000

Does the flu vaccine cause miscarriages?

The reason there wasn't a post yesterday is simple. The night before, I was feeling a bit under the weather. As a result, I went to bed early, neglecting my blogly responsibilities. As I result, I missed the release of a whopper of a study that normally would have been all over like...well...choose your metaphor. On the other hand, the one day delay isn't necessarily all bad because it lets me see the reaction of cranks to this study, the better to apply some not-so-Respectful Insolence to it. The crankiest of these cranks, of course, is Mike Adams, a grifter deep in the thrall of any form of pseudoscience that he can sell to burnish his brand and keep the rubes buying and who knows how to whip his minions into a fine frothy head of anti-pharma conspiracy mongering. In actuality, though, I was a little bit disappointed, as Adams was almost restrained, at least by his usual crazed standards:

A CDC-funded medical study being published by the medical journal Vaccine has confirmed a shocking link between flu shots and spontaneous abortions in pregnant women. The study was rejected by two previous medical journals before Vaccine agreed to publish it, further underscoring the tendency for medical journals to censor any science that doesn’t agree with their pro-vaccine narratives.
“A study published today in Vaccine suggests a strong association between receiving repeated doses of the seasonal influenza vaccine and miscarriage,” writes CIDRAP, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

“A puzzling study of U.S. pregnancies found that women who had miscarriages between 2010 and 2012 were more likely to have had back-to-back annual flu shots that included protection against swine flu,” reports Medical Xpress, a pro-vaccine news site that promotes vaccine industry interests. Notice that the opening paragraph of their study assumed the study couldn’t possibly be true. It’s “puzzling” that mercury in flu shots could cause spontaneous abortions, you see, because these people have no understanding of biochemistry and the laws of cause and effect.

Actually, as has been documented so many times before, it is Mike Adams who has no understanding of biochemistry—or any other science—other than what it takes for him to portray himself to his gullible followers as a "real scientist." As for the "laws of cause and effect," whenever someone says something like that in reference to an epidemiological study, I know he's really, really clueless, because if there's anything that's very difficult to do in an epidemiological study with reliability it's determining cause-and-effect. That's why the cardinal rule of epidemiology is that correlation does not equal causation. It might, but usually it doesn't, and it usually takes a whole lot more than just one study with a correlation to start to suggest causation. This is particularly true when a study like the one Adams is gloating about is such an outlier, which this study most definitely is, as you will see. It's also an exercise in data dredging that illustrates the danger of small numbers in studies like this.

Let's go to the study itself. I can't help but note that Frank DeStefano of the CDC is a co-author. DeStefano, as you might recall, is one of those CDC investigators that antivax conspiracy theorists like those who made the propaganda film VAXXED portray as one of the main villains in the "CDC whistleblower" conspiracy theory. Also, several of the authors receive pharma money for research support. Nicola Klein, for instance, receives research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Merck, MedImmune, Novartis, and Protein Science, while Allison Naleway receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, and Pfizer. Others receive support from MedImmune and Novavax. So basically, this was a study funded by the CDC and carried out by CDC scientists and scientists receiving significant pharma funding. I just couldn't resist pointing that out. I know, I know, antivaxers will claim that the findings were so compelling that not even the CDC and pharma shills could hide them, but it would amuse me to point these things out to antivaxers.

Yet, here we see Del Bigtree, producer of VAXXED, gleefully citing J.B. Handley gloating over this study:

Tough breaking news for @ChelseaClinton @DrPanMD @doritmi FLU SHOT linked to MISCARRIAGE! #endvaxinjury https://t.co/6JwjnsAviY

— Del Bigtree (@delbigtree) September 13, 2017

I wonder if he knows that DeStefano is a co-author. He probably doesn't care, because DeStefano, like any scientist, can be a hero or a villain depending solely upon whether he produces information or studies that agrees with the antivaccine narrative that the flu vaccine is not just useless but dangerous. Be that as it may, the article above is a typical bit of Handley's Dunning-Krugger arrogance of ignorance, even more full of hyperbole and nonsense than the usual Mike Adams' endeavors in that area. Indeed, Handley even uses the argumentum ad package insert gambit. (Whenever I see that gambit used by an antivaxer, my estimation of his cluelessness goes up several notches, which for Handley is really saying something.) In any case, you can get a feel for how much the authors of this study are stretching to find a correlation—any correlation—between influenza vaccines and miscarriages that they're looking at combinations of vaccines by their brief justification for the study:

Since 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and other organizations have recommended routine influenza vaccination for pregnant women regardless of gestational age [1,2]. Influenza in pregnancy can cause serious, life-threatening illness in both the mother and fetus, as demonstrated during the 2009 pandemic [3,4]. Numerous studies of influenza vaccine during pregnancy have not identified serious safety concerns [5–12], but relatively few investigations have evaluated vaccination in the first trimester, a period when the embryo is highly vulnerable to teratogens and other factors [5,13]. A case-control study conducted by the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) demonstrated that influenza vaccination during early pregnancy in the 2005–06 and 2006–07 influenza seasons was not associated with spontaneous abortion (SAB) [14].

The emergence of a pandemic influenza virus, A/California/ 7/2009 (H1N1)pdm09 (pH1N1), led to rapid development and widespread use of vaccines containing pH1N1 antigens. Several studies have evaluated the safety of vaccines containing pH1N1 in pregnancy, but few have focused on outcomes in early pregnancy [15–19]. Using a design and protocol similar to the previous study [14], we conducted a case-control study to determine if receipt of influenza vaccine containing pH1N1 was associated with SAB.

Notice the eight studies cited (references 5-12) that failed to find significant safety issues with the vaccine in pregnancy, and a study (reference 14) using VSD data failed to find an association between flu vaccination with spontaneous abortion. That's actually a lot of data for the safety of the flu vaccine during pregnancy, which makes me wonder what the justification for yet another study looking for an association between influenza vaccination and miscarriages. If I were a funding agency and received a grant application to do a study like this with text above in the "Background and Significance" or the "Impact" section, my first reaction would be: Why on earth would we fund this? It's all been done before, many, many times. Yet the CDC funded this study. So much for antivax claims about the CDC not being concerned about vaccine safety and not being willing to look for adverse reactions due to vaccines.

I also find it rather odd that the authors would say that few studies have been done looking for a correlation between vaccination against influenza, when in fact there have been a lot, many well-designed, and they've pretty much all been negative. Whenever you see a study that finds something a lot different from the bulk of the studies that have been done before, the first question to be asked is: Are the results of the current study so robust that they indicate a hole in the existing data addressing the question asked that we should begin to question the cumulative results of all the studies that have gone before? Keep that question in mind as I continue.

Also consider the bias that exists in journals to publish novel findings. As this news report points out, this is the "first study to identify a potential link between miscarriage and the flu vaccine." That's almost certainly the reason that it was published. Adams, in his haste to portray as a conspiracy to silence, inadvertently tells me something. That this paper was rejected by two previous journals is not surprising to me. What is surprising is that Vaccine ultimately accepted it. Of course, how Adams would know that this paper was submitted elsewhere and rejected, I don't know, which is why I have my doubts about Adams' claims.

So what about the study itself? First, it's a case-control study. Basically, that means that the authors found a cohort of women who had miscarriages (the cases) and compared them to a cohort of women who didn't have miscarriages but instead delivered full term infants or had stillbirths during the study period (the controls). The authors chose two flu seasons (2010 to 2012) and asked if women who had miscarriages were more likely to have been vaccinated for influenza within 28 days prior to miscarriage, as well as for different time periods before miscarriage.

The most critical aspect of any case control study if, of course, the matching of cases to controls. The idea is to match them as closely as possible on all relevant factors other than the condition under investigation (in this case, miscarriage). Not uncommonly, investigators will do a 2:1 match, controls to cases, in order to make the comparison more robust. It's not mandatory, and Donohue et al chose not to do this. In this study, cases had SAB and controls had live births or stillbirths and were matched on site, date of last menstrual period, and age. I also note that the database they used was the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). As I like to say, the VSD is an excellent rebuke to antivaxers who claim that doctors don't care about vaccine safety. It's a database designed to document adverse events associated with vaccination, and it's a huge database. I've discussed it before on more than one occasion.

So what did the study find? Here's a summary of the cases analyzed:

if you look at the tables in the paper, the first thing you will notice is that the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for miscarriage as a function of having received the flu vaccine are nearly all around 1.0 or not statistically different from 1.0. Obviously, there are exceptions. Basically, the study found that, if a woman had consecutively received a flu vaccine containing the 2009 H1N1 virus the season before and had the flu vaccine in one of the two seasons studied, the aOR in the 1–28 days was 7.7 (95% CI 2.2–27.3). Otherwise, the aOR was 1.3 (95% CI 0.7–2.7) among women not vaccinated in the previous season; i.e., not statistically significant from 1.0, meaning no detectable difference in miscarriage rates compared to women who had not been vaccinated. This effect was noted in both seasons.

Now here's where you should be skeptical.

This study has several important limitations. First, the most striking findings relate to the association between SAB and IIV [inactivated influenza vaccine] in women who previously received pH1N1-containing vaccine. This interaction effect was not an a priori hypothesis; the results were generated in a post hoc analysis with small numbers of women in the various subgroups. Although the interaction was observed in each of the two seasons studied, the point estimates were substantially larger (though not statistically different) in the first season for reasons that are unclear. Second, although most cases had an ultrasound, assignment of a precise date of SAB was challenging. With guidance from an obstetrician we integrated different types of information from the medical record (e.g., ultrasound results, clinical and laboratory findings, provider notes) to estimate the timing of the SAB. Estimation of SAB dates was independent of vaccination status so any error should bias the results toward the null (i.e., non-differential misclassification). Third, we studied only women who had clinically confirmed SAB; the proportion of women with clinically unrecognized pregnancy loss is uncertain but may be substantial [50,51]. Our results could be biased if women who sought care for SAB were more likely to be vaccinated in the 28-day exposure window.

So what we're looking at is an association, nothing more. It's an association with a lot of caveats, too. Basically, having found nothing more than one association with an aOR of 2.0 for the 1-28 day window of exposure to the influenza vaccine before miscarriage that was barely statistically significant (95% confidence interval: 1.1-3.6), the authors did a post hoc analysis looking for other associations. (Never mind that the "association" they found was eminently unimpressive given the size of the confidence intervals.) "Post hoc" means that they did additional analyses not originally specified. Basically investigators don't usually do post hoc analyses if there is a robust association in their data. They do it when they fail to find an association or only find an unimpressive association that is not robust. Also, post hoc analyses are prone to type 1 errors, which means finding a statistically significant "association" where there is none; i.e., finding a false positive. When the numbers in the subgroup are so small and the study is observational (i.e., retrospective), that tendency is even stronger. Then there was the issue that the cases and controls were not as comparable as one would like in a case control study. For example, cases were significantly older than controls and more likely to be African-American, to have a history of 2 spontaneous abortions, and to have smoked during pregnancy. The authors did some correcting for age and history of spontaneous abortions, but it's questionable to me whether it was adequate.

Basically, the authors did what we refer to as a subgroup analysis, in this case the subgroup being women who had received H1N1 vaccination the season before they received the flu vaccination in the seasons examined? That clearly wasn't a primary hypothesis being tested. Rather, it was a hypothesis the authors clearly came up with while doing the study. One wonders if this analysis was prespecified or whether the protocol was changed midway through. I only ask that because antivaxers went wild over claims by the "CDC whistleblower" that the Atlanta MMR study changed its protocol part way through the study, but, here, where the analysis seems to suggest such an "adjustment" during the study (although it is certainly possible that the H1N1 analysis was prespecified in the original protocol, given the choice of the 2010-11 and 2011-12 flu seasons), we hear...silence. Whatever the case, there clearly was post hoc analysis strongly resembling p-hacking going on here, in which the investigators, having failed to find much, started looking at other potential associations. Certainly, it smells that way.

Speculations about the protocol aside, the investigators found what they found, namely an aOR of 7.7 for cases versus controls for exposure to the H1N1 vaccine the year before plus the flu vaccine within 1-28 days before their miscarriages. This was based on some very small numbers, though, namely 14 miscarriages and 4 controls. In other words, this is almost certainly a statistical fluke, given that it was only found for women who had received H1N1 the season before and had received the flu vaccine within 28 days of their miscarriage, and that the association was not observed for pretty much any other time window or combination. When considering such a result, one also has to consider biological mechanism and plausibility, and it is just not very plausible from a biological or immunological standpoint that this combination of flu vaccines—and only this combination—given only during a specific time window will cause miscarriages. Like Dr. Gregory Poland, the editor of Vaccine, I don't believe these findings, either.

I particularly don't believe them in light of what we already know, based on studies Tara Haelle summarized the data with respect to flu vaccines and miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects in 2014, using mainly studies published during the prior two years, and the results were very consistent and overwhelming: There was no association between vaccination for influenza and adverse fetal outcomes. Just for yucks, I did some PubMed searches myself for more recent studies, and found basically the same thing, but instead of listing those studies, I'll just refer you to a recent large meta-analysis that found that the risk of stillbirth was actually lower in women vaccinated against influenza and no difference in the risk of spontaneous abortion. In other words, this new study is an outlier. It's such an outlier, that scientists are correct to be very skeptical of its results. Heck, even the authors are skeptical of its results. Unfortunately, they're not so skeptical that they don't resist making the call for "more research." They'll probably get the funding for that "more research," and then when the inevitable negative study is finally published, no one will remember it. They'll all remember this study, and, of course, the antivaccine movement will be flogging it for years to come.

oracknows Thu, 09/14/2017 - 02:50

Tags

Categories

Me. Adams seems to have taken the point about two rejections from this article. Which did a reasonable job at pointing out the nuances, though without your more in depth analysis of the science.

https://t.co/qBGRBZKaJk?amp=1

And just to add, miscarriage can certainly follow H1N1 infection. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21345415/

Thanks you for this review. As I suspected, the confidence intervals include 0 in which one with a basic understanding of statistics would realize the association is more likely due to chance and therefore is not significant.

Anti-vax sites are already spreading this as "evidence" for the evils of the influenza vaccines. Yet one would have to believe a sub-group analysis of a tiny group of patients(which is prone to bias and error as mentioned above) over meta-analyses with much larger number of patients which reveal the opposite trends. This is an immense error in deductive reasoning and is a classic example of "cherry-picking."

As a retired epidemiologist, according to my education, training and experience, post hoc analyses can only be used to generate hypotheses to be possibly tested in additional research which is exactly what the authors concluded with: "This study does not and cannot establish a causal relationship between repeated influenza vaccination and SAB, but further research is warranted." I guess Mike Adams and the gaggle of morons at Age of Autism missed this part.

However, as you said, the sample size was too small, as can also be seen by the wide confidence intervals. In addition, as the number of analyses of any research increases, multiple comparisons, the risk of "randomly" finding something significant increases. So, given the strength of the already existing evidence, I disagree, as you do, with the authors that "further research is warranted."

Typical also of antivaccinationists is downplaying the risks from the actual disease: "Certainly the risk is far worse than the sickness." (Yesterday's article, Flu Vaccine and Miscarriage, in Age of Autism). I guess in their minds that getting flu while pregnant doesn't pose a risk. Sometimes, when reading them, I ask the question: "What planet are they from?"

I don't recall where I read it, but didn't the group with more miscarriages have women at higher risk, anyway, than the controls? IIRC, there were more smokers, older women, diabetics in that group. And they are statistically more likely to miscarry anyway. (If I wasn't working, I'd go search my home computer for the item).

Dawn, it was included in a comment I made yesterday, quoting from this source -

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/09/study-signals-associ…

I'm in my first trimester and I'm getting my flu shot.

Thanks, Johnny!

Refresh my memory here: is the VSD the database that includes a rather generous definition of vaccine-associated injuries, or is that some other database? Because if it is the database I am thinking of, then the failure of earlier studies to find an association is especially damning, given that database's bias toward overreporting adverse reactions to vaccines (which presumably would include miscarriage).

So it's another case of picking out the one outlier and deciding that it must be proof of absolutely everything evil they believe about vaccines?

And of course that's without even bearing in mind that people who get flu vaccines are more likely to have health conditions that put them at greater risk of miscarriage to begin with, such as smokers, asthmatics, people with COPD, people with heart disease, advanced maternal age, etc.

To Adams, of course, rejection by two journals is evidence of a conspiracy. To the rest of us, it's reason to ask why the paper got rejected twice. Since the paper gave a whisper of evidence that he desired, he skipped that question and just went straight for the conspiracy theory.

The obligatory XKCD on statistically significant outliers: https://xkcd.com/882/

I'm throwing this study out to the epidemiology students to see who can point out the most sources of bias and confounding. I would say that this a jump-off to more studies, but, truth be told, there is a lot of understanding of what the flu vaccine does for pregnant women at a population level: IT PREVENTS COMPLICATIONS FROM INFLUENZA. And that understanding comes from better studies than this one as well as observational studies gained from outbreak investigations.

Those sources of bias and confounding don't happen to include the older age, higher rate of smoking, and higher proportion of African-American women among the cases compared to controls, now would it?

I was actually wondering: Why is it that the investigators couldn't match their controls to cases better? Why didn't they do a 2:1 match, which could have decreased this problem?

Side note: JB Handley has blocked me on medium.com from seeing his posts... If I'm signed in. I've been very critical of his pseudo-science, and he seemed to have difficulties replying to the facts I've prevented. So much for transparency and open discussion. Then again, it's JB. He compared Wakefield to Jesus, so...

-A few days ago, AoA ran an article by Ginger Taylor which claimed that the CDC placed a ' gag order' on its employees so that they wouldn't speak to the media...
NOW WE KNOW WHY!!!1!

- TMR's 'Professor' O'Toole has been ranting against the AAP's position on Hep B vaccines at birth
-btw- TMR has much less posts recently.

- Just before the article quoted above, Mikey Boy fumed about celebrities' support of Planned Parenthood (which is solely abortion, in his mind).

Knowing Mike as I do I can imagine a parody he might write:

" Hello LADIES!
Are you bothered by one of those pesky unwanted pregnancies? Are you worried about the HIGH price of abortions over at BabyKillers, LTD?
Well, here at HexAll drugs, your local toxin pusher, we have a great solution for your problems! Get one of our flu vaccines and you can dodge both a minor illness and 18 years od caretaking all in one shot! **

** I know, I know my grammar is too good

He compared Wakefield to Jesus, so…

Both Handley and Wakefield are legends in their own minds. So it makes sense for them to compare each other with a certain first century CE carpenter-turned-rabbi.

@Eric Lund #9, I think you are referring to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Vaccine Safety Datalink uses data from AVERS and other sources to monitor Vaccine safety.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/index.h…

"an aOR of 2.0 for the 1-28 day window of exposure to the influenza vaccine before miscarriage that was not statistically significant"

It was: "The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.6) for vaccine receipt in the 28-day exposure window"

Both Handley and Wakefield are legends in their own minds. So it makes sense for them to compare each other with a certain first century CE carpenter-turned-rabbi.

Or Gene Simmons, but even that's probably too charitable.

OK, Jake. Now explain to us all, as someone who *should* understand statistics, why that's not statistically significant. (Hint...I hated, loathed, despised stats and I can do it).

The text was originally intended to read "barely statistically significant," which is accurate. I have altered the text to be in line with my intent. When one writes blog posts in one's spare time late at night, such things occasionally happen; one occasionally makes mistakes. The difference between a certain Gnat and me is that I correct my editing errors.

In any event, "statistically significant" or not, given the very wide confidence intervals, the lack of robustness, and the differences between the cases and the controls in the frequency of known risk factors for spontaneous abortion (the cases being older, more likely to smoke, and more likely to have had a history of >2 spontaneous abortions) the association reported is eminently unimpressive. Hmmm. I think I'll add some text very much like that to the post. :-)

My only comment today is going to be this: To all Orac minions a virtual cigar. My Daughter was born at about 6am PDT in Chiang Mia. She is healthy and weighed 6.2 lbs and was 19 inches long.

Everyone have a very good day; I am going to.

Rich

Mazal tov!!!

Congrats!

Congratulations Rich, but please keep those cigars very far away. I really hate that smell.

Renate, that is why I said virtual cigars. I don't like them myself.

Thanks Dorit

Congratulations, Rich! Honored to share a virtual cigar with you.

@MI Dawn:

I won't, because it is statistically significant. Orac is wrong and should retract.

Congrats, Rich! May you know much joy in your daughter. They are wonderful things to have (I know - I have 2 of them.)

@Jake: barely, as Orac noted. My stats prof (to whom I showed this) said I was wrong, it is statistically significant. And if I tried to use such a wide CI and pass it off as significant, she'd mark me wrong unless I noted it was barely significant, as Orac noted above.

And hey, unlike you, I can actually admit it if I'm wrong. Provided I ask people whose opinion I respect, and who point out my errors honestly.

Amusingly, The Gnat has nothing to say about the rest of my discussion, particularly the part about the post hoc subgroup analyses. If there's one thing physicians are appropriately taught about statistics, it's to distrust post hoc subgroup analyses.

“an aOR of 2.0 for the 1-28 day window of exposure to the influenza vaccine before miscarriage that was not statistically significant”

It was: “The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.6) for vaccine receipt in the 28-day exposure window”

That is an error (which seems to derive from CIDRAP; they will eventually fix things if E-mailed), but you're also grasping at a single clause while missing the point, which is that there's no reason why two specific seasons would amount to something when neither does on its own. (P = 0.03 on that CI, for those scoring at home.)

I think I was confusing a passage for individual seasons with the combined seasons, which explains the text slip. Oddly enough, I looked at my saved versions in BBEdit and saw that I originally had it right, then for some reason in an edit it changed. Ah, well. I stand by what I said about its being "barely" statistically significant, and I also note that robustness is important. This finding just isn't robust. It barely achieves statistical significance, and only then for one analysis. That's the sort of result that screams false positive.

There is nothing magical about using p<0.05 as a threshold for statistical significance. It is frequently done because there are many fields where one rarely has enough data to use a more stringent criterion, but the downside is the danger of false positives. Remember that if you are drawing data from something that has no correlation, you have a 5% chance of your sample producing p<0.05. See the obligatory XKCD link.

That's even before we get into issues of systematic bias, which statistical tools generally don't handle well. The assumption is that the case group and control group are equally likely to suffer an adverse result in the absence of whatever intervention you are testing to see if it changes the risk. It sounds like the case and control groups here are not well matched, such that one would expect a priori that the case group would have more miscarriages than the control group. When that's the case, you shouldn't be surprised that the case group actually does have more miscarriages.

So no, Jake, Orac is not wrong to say it's not statistically significant, just because it barely meets an arbitrary threshold.

Heheh. Thanks. I'm aware of all these issues, of course, but didn't see this post as the place to discuss them. For instance, in the context of discussing John Ioannidis' work, I've pointed out on at least a couple of occasions that setting the threshold for statistical significance at p≤0.05 means at least a 5% chance of a false positive but that it's actually a much higher chance than that, even in randomized clinical trials, due to undetected biases and shortcomings in carrying out the studies. In retrospective studies like this one, it's higher still. In post hoc subgroup analyses, it's the highest of all.

Thanks, Rich, but I will pass on the virtual cheroot, and instead hoist an actual adult beverage this evening in honor or the young Miss Bly.

Orac is wrong and should retract.

How's your batting average with that routine lately, Jake. It might be time to outgrow amounting to basically just being a whiny little shit.

There is nothing magical about using p<0.05 as a threshold for statistical significance. It is frequently done because there are many fields where one rarely has enough data to use a more stringent criterion,

There is that, but there is also the point that a small p-value is not any evidence against your null, as its calculation is based on the null being precisely true.

The original intention of a small p-value was that it was a signal of something that might be worth further investigation. We (statisticians) got off course when Neyman and Pearson ritualized classical hypothesis testing, and the teaching of p-values and their meaning has been generally poor ever since.

And -- there is no a single bit wrong with Orac's take on the "significant" result here (as he knows, others know, and anyone who claims to understand statistics and is honest should know).

The difference between a certain Gnat and me is that I correct my editing errors.

Lord Jake Whorfin: When's the PNAS paper coming?

Red Socktroids: Real soon!

Congrats Rich!
May Baby Bly long continue to be healthy and happy...

I have a virtual cigar joke, but I'll leave it to the minions' imaginations. :-)

For those of you seeking a moment of comic relief, Levi Quackenboss suggested that this was published by the media - who, in her world, is of course controlled by pharma (that's why they didn't publish articles when flu mist was shown ineffective, or about the problems with mumps vaccines, and so on - oh, wait) because a universal flu vaccine is nearing completion.

https://leviquackenboss.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/why-is-the-media-attac…

I don't think she's joking, even though it reads like satire to me.

@ Jake:

Too bad you don't understand what statistical significance actually means or how it differs from clinical significance. Quite simply, if one were to randomly sample from the same population an "infinite" number of times, based on known probability distributions, one can estimate the probabilities of various outcomes, e.g. only 5% of time will a certain outcome occur and, assuming that the sampling and, in the case of a case-control study, the matching, was well done, then one assumes that the outcome relates to the hypothesized variable(s); but 5% of the time the outcome could have been brought about by variables not controlled for/random chance, regardless of how well the study was done. However, it is an artificial cut-off point for decision making and in this case as the matching was poorly done, the sample size small, it was a post-hoc analysis subject to multiple comparison problems in deciding statistical significance, and there are numerous well-done studies that do not agree, it is meaningless. But, given your rigid bias, whatever even remotely fits your ideology becomes significant.

I find it hard to believe that you were accepted in a doctoral program at the University of Texas School of Public Health; but, then again, over the years I've met people who managed to learn things and pass exams without really understanding them.

I suggest, to start with, you read the following:

Merwyn Susser (1973). Causal Thinking in the Health Sciences: Concepts and Strategies in Epidemiology.

Any bets on how long it will be until some random gibberish about original antigenic sin starts making the rounds?

That's a sucker bet....

The Gnat should go back to his self-copulatory Milo fantasies.

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter, Rich!

That one big finding wasn't even 17 cases and controls. It was 14 cases and 4 controls! Four! This is just an astoundingly weak study and I wonder why DeStefano keeps doing these kinds of post hoc subanalyses.

I'm also not convinced they controlled adequately. Their matching was very poor. Age groups (+/- 30 years) are far too broad. Matching by region does not account for variation within regions. If cases are more likely to be African-American, they're more likely to be worse on SES measures. I'm in one of these regions and I can tell you that we are so segregated, a random sample of AAs and whites would not be remotely comparable.

I'm glad someone posted the jelly bean comic. That's on the outside of my cubicle wall, which I put up there after the "whistleblower" brouhaha. So much irresponsible science.

If you torture any dataset enough with post-hoc/subroup analyses, eventually it will give you an answer you want to hear.

But like all other forms of torture, that answer is rarely correct.

To those of us at the coalface, diagnosing, treating and attempting to prevent life-threatening vaccine-preventable diseases, studies such as this are never considered clinically applicable.

@ Joel A Harrison, PhD, MPH:

Thanks for attempting to educate Jake:
Lord knows, I tried and got nowhere. But it showed his bent.

Seriously, he should have got stat basics years ago and he didn't. Needless to say, he is clueless in other ways. As well as resistant to new info/ reality.

I would hope that other minions would chime in too. Like when people do an intervention: many voices saying the same thing in diverse ways.

"I find it hard to believe that you were accepted in a doctoral program at the University of Texas School of Public Health; but, then again, over the years I’ve met people who managed to learn things and pass exams without really understanding them."

Well, he's not there anymore. According to Jake's "About" page on the White Rose and Hans Litten blog: "He was dismissed from the Ph.D. Epidemiology program of the University of Texas School of Public Health, due to academic misconduct by the school’s administration."

But I digress...

Yes, one of the things that academic epidemiologists keep getting wrong is translating their findings into meaningful action/practice/policy. The first thing you ask when presented with any finding is, "So what?" Then you tease it apart.

In the case of this study, I'd ask, "So what? Actual influenza causes way more death and disability, and miscarriages, in pregnant women than the vaccine would if this study were valid." Even the authors of this study, the editors of the journal, and everyone worth their salt (and not kicked out of a doctoral program in epidemiology) have pointed out that this is not a finding on which flu vaccine policy/recommendations in women should be changed. I'd take it a step further and ask why, oh why did they publish this?

As Orac pointed out, a matched case-control study would have been stronger. One-to-one like this, and if you draw them from a similar population, you might control so much that you stratify on a collider and get a whole new bias in there. (We saw this when they drew cases and controls from the same medical setting for the coffee-pancreatic cancer study back in the day.)

These are very complicated issues to understand in epidemiology, so you really can't blame the public for now getting confused over this. Now, we are going to have to go get a more robust study done to explain the association seen in this one, which is a waste of time and resources. And you're going to have women who will choose to forgo the influenza vaccine in what promises to be a very active flu season if the "as Australia goes, we go" rule kicks in this winter.

@ Ren:

Wow, thanks for the info on Jake being kicked out of doctoral program. After I finished my PhD at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, I received a post-doctoral fellowship from the National Institutes of Health in a program at the University of Houston, applying social psychology to preventing cardiovascular disease. As part of my training, I took at MPH and then an MS in biostatistics and epidemiology at the UT School of Public Health in Houston. I still have friends there 35 years later; but, Jake was at the UT Austin campus. Still, it's a good school and hard to believe he ever even got into the program.

And I do remember the coffee-pancreatic cancer study, published in the top journal, New England Journal of Medicine if I recall.

By the way, even if there was a rare chance of the flu vaccine contributing to a miscarriage, though there isn't, full blown flu in the first trimester would affect far more with devastating consequences. As I mentioned above, antivaccinationists, thanks to vaccines and never having seen the results of the vaccine preventable diseases, downplay the risks from them. I remember kids with iron braces and one in an iron lung. Not memories I cherish and I was in first cohort to get the Salk vaccine in 1955.

I believe MI Dawn may have touched on this and I am probably veering horribly outside my lane, but wouldn't women with a prior history of problem pregnancies (including miscarriages) be more likely to also be getting flu vaccines? I would think their physicians would strongly recommend it as part of a regimen of risk reduction.

I'll return to betting whether I can persuade the niece and nephew to eat bell peppers stuffed with sauteed garlic chicken livers, black beans with feta. My guess is not. There's a reason for that bag of chicken nuggets in the freezer.

due to academic misconduct by the school’s administration.

Roughly translated: "Failure to recognise my genius and originality".

Where do you get garlic chickens?

I’ll return to betting whether I can persuade the niece and nephew to eat bell peppers stuffed with sauteed garlic chicken livers, black beans with feta. My guess is not.

Oh man, that sounds good. My host granny in Russia used to make chicken livers with some kind of garlic sour cream sauce and serve it over buckwheat. I love that.

I have a few things planned: chana masala, fattoush with homemade Arabic bread, a spicy Palestinian shrimp recipe. Jambalaya for company at some point after this part of hunting season is over (my brother has been requesting it.) Plus I'm sure typical stuff like pizza and some sort of meat-and-potatoes.

I hear you on the nephews. I made a bunch of Palestinian food a while back and, well, at least they liked the bread and the rice-and-vermicelli pilaf.

Honestly, my brother can be almost as much of a challenge sometimes.

I mean, if we're going to devolve to talking about food... :-)

I hear you on the nephews. I made a bunch of Palestinian food a while back and, well, at least they liked the bread and the rice-and-vermicelli pilaf.

M'judra/mujaddara is a pretty popular comfort food; the Palestinian fellow at the Cornell Dollar says his kids love it.

@ JP #52

Like most kids, they sometimes have a limited view of what foods they will even try. Unfortunately, at ages of about seven and six for the niece and nephew, we and their parents made a few mistakes on a vacation - raw oysters, fresh lobster, mussels, and softshell crab. Do not, I say again, do not give children the chance to acquire expensive tastes. We thought the texture of the oysters would put them off and the others would be too strong a flavor. We were very wrong and they could both pack those items in like harvest hands, given the chance, even at those few years. Do you have any idea how embarrassing and unseemly it was to squabble with a seven-year-old for my fair share those things at my age?

/thread hijack mode off

M’judra/mujaddara is a pretty popular comfort food; the Palestinian fellow at the Cornell Dollar says his kids love it.

The baby/toddler actually ate a little of everything, including the fish and the fattoush; it's the four year old who is impossibly picky. (He definitely gets it from his dad.)

@sirhcton:

I can empathise with the kids when it comes to seafood; I'm a big fan of shellfish. Probably picked it up from when we used to go to the coast when I was a kid and harvest tons of them and cook and eat them outdoors. (With butter and garlic or course.)

I haven't had oysters since the last time I was at the coast a year ago. Dang it, now I will be thinking of them!

I guess Mike Adams and the gaggle of morons at Age of Autism missed this part.

This did at least elicit a Gerg classic, in which he apparently accidentally throws Thompson under the bus.

@Rich Bly,
Congrats and hope the mom & baby are doing well.

More on Mike ( Natural News, yesterday):

Not only do vaccines cause miscarriages but they complement a covert depopulation plan involving spiked foods as well as other vaccines' dire effects, Planned Parenthood's focus on aborting non-whites and other monstrous atrocities.

He read it in the NYT ( 1969 article quoted)

I couldn't find a copy of the entire paper (for free), so I've just read the abstract. It's not clear from reading the abstract whether the authors adjusted for procedures known to increase SAB, such as amniocentesis. Additionally, given the short interval of follow-up, it seems like a cohort study would have been a much stronger study design.

So Jake is right for once, and, as you would expect, he handles it with all the grace and composure you would expect.

http://www.autisminvestigated.com/david-gorski-vaccine-miscarriage/

I've a comment in moderation, and I expect that y'all will say there is too much expectation for such a simple post. Don't expect me to disagree.

Can a brother get a preview button up in this place? Or am I expected to just scroll back and re-read what I type to see if it meets my own expectations? I expect I know the answer.

I don't know if it does cause flu vaccines, but all I know is that all the good chemistry jokes argon. ?

https://m.facebook.com/pg/3MPhilippines/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav…

Can a brother get a preview button up in this place?

I suspect that, in your heart of hearts, you already know the answer to that question.

@ Johnny:

Thanks for that link.

I think Jake is attempting to rescue his self esteem after being booted... I mean DISMISSED from UT:

-Notice that he himself found an error which Orac, PhD MD and two epis ( PhD Joel and PhD C Ren) missed.
- he includes a video of his triumphant ( heh) debate with Orac.
- he introduces Orac in Mike Adamsian fashion
- he grandiosely refers to himself in the third person as editor
- and didn't get the point of what Orac and commenters wrote

A few years ago, just prior to his study at GW, I warned him that his web activities and woo positions might doom his chances at a career in SB professions.

So I suppose I was right:

he won't ever work legitimately and has to be content editing/ writing a childish web project whilst pretending to be both a journalist and a scientist.

His family has enough money that he may eventually become a film maker *a la* AJW or Gary Null or even hit the big time with a web scandal sheet like dear old Mikey or Bolen .Maybe he'll write an expose tome published at Skyhorse.

BUT like Kim and Mark and others at AoA, their 'careers" don't exist outside a very narrow internet niche of partisans.

Do any of them teach anywhere? Or work as reporters? Or have clients/ patients**? I don't think so.

** Unfortunately, some real woo-meisters do have clients who pay for quackery. Not a goal anyone should aspire to.

I didn't bother to look at The Gnat's little tirade; so thanks for the summary. (Why waste time and brain cells, after all?) I used to feel sorry for The Gnat because he's just so damned pathetic, but over the last couple of years, his complete embrace of the alt right (including its racism and misogyny) along with his continued embrace of antivaccine pseudoscience (not to mention his general nastiness) has led me to cease to have any sympathy or empathy for him. He's just not worth it. He's an adult; he's made his choices; and those choices are, by and large, despicable.

I'm sure The Gnat's little rant will soon find its way to Natural News; that's how low The Gnat has fallen.

This sentence is also wrong: "Basically, the study found zero (that’s right: zero, nada, zilch) association between miscarriage and flu vaccination—with one exception: if the woman had consecutively received a flu vaccine containing the 2009 H1N1 virus."

Hmm. I hear The Gnat buzzing again. Amazing how he focuses in on one single sentence. It's certainly because he can't deconstruct the whole post or otherwise show why this study's result is not a statistical fluke when even the authors of the study admit that it almost certainly is, even as they ask for more funding to do a followup study. To humor The Gnat, I deleted that sentence, which was a holdover that I forgot to delete the first mistake.

That's because, unlike The Gnat, I am intellectually honest.

Orac talks about how JC "focuses in on one single sentence" and " can't deconstruct the whole" :
believe me there's a name for that but I'm not allowed to say that / too much like a diagnosis.

Now that Jacob Crosby, MPH, has been expunged from the Ph.D. program at the University of Texas I suppose that he, as an advocate of accuracy in media, will have many hours available to correct the misstatements that he has promulgated.

Indeed, as Narad suggested, it might be time for Toxic Boy to update his readers on the expected publication date of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article in which, Crosby claimed, William Thompson would (in May 2016!) repudiate his statements that MMR was associated with an increased risk of ASD in a subset of African-American boys because Thompson was bribed with a “huge bonus” and the promise of “his own autism research foundation.” Etc.

Orac (#67) writes,

I am intellectually honest.

MJD says,

And intellectually adaptive.

I really appreciate the picture you used at the beginning of this post.

You could have used this dreadful image from Naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/640/Medical/Background-Vaccine-Latex…

"That’s because, unlike The Gnat, I am intellectually honest."

There is that. There is also the fact that you have an understanding of statistics, which he does not.

I think Jake is attempting to rescue his self esteem after being booted…

Jake has always had delusions of adequacy, stretching back to his AoA days. Sure, the rise of Orange Thinskin brought out a bit of a darker side in the lad. But I haven't noticed any changes in his posts after his departure from UT to suggest that it had that big of an effect on him.

A few years ago, just prior to his study at GW, I warned him that his web activities and woo positions might doom his chances at a career in SB professions.

DW, I love you like a sister, and you're right, you did warn him. But that's like predicting that the sun will come up in the morning - it didn't take any real skill. Everybody knew he was torpedoing his chances for any real job in the science or health industry, and his current on line activities, much like Captain Sockpuppet, will limit his employment in about any other job.

Of course, while everyone knew it, you did try to honestly warn him, and that counts for something. I also remember that he dismissed your warnings.

Some people learn from others. Some people have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

His family has enough money...

The question is, will mommy ever get tired of giving him handouts? Will he ever realize that he's never earned a thing for himself? Will he ever think that (after what? 30 years?) 'maybe I should be able to live on my own'? Mommy and daddy have bought him a fine education (fine credentials, anyway), and he should be at least filing his own income taxes, not being carried as a dependent. But other than maybe earning a few hundred cross posting his 'work' at Epoch, he's never mentioned having a job.

Someday, that might bother him. Or not. He might be happy being a sponge.

"Notice that he himself found an error which Orac, PhD MD and two epis ( PhD Joel and PhD C Ren) missed."

That would be DrPH C Ren. Unlike the PhD types -- with all due respect -- I'm not too interested in academic research. I'm more about taking that research and putting it into practice... If I finish. The thesis has taken a life of its own.

Maybe I should keep it simple?

I note that Jake has let a post by the lovely and talented Rebecca Fisher appear under her own name. I believe it's the first in quite a while that he hasn't edited to change her name to 'Brian Deer'.

http://www.autisminvestigated.com/david-gorski-vaccine-miscarriage/#com…

Another antivaccine film disguised as a documentary, this time lying about HPV vaccines

oracknows — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 01:50:36 +0000

Another antivaccine film disguised as a documentary, this time lying about HPV vaccines

Humans are visual creatures. That's why one of the most effective methods to communicate a message is through visual means, and among the most powerful visual media are movies and television shows. Cranks, quacks, and antivaxers know this, and, unfortunately, they've increasingly been taking advantage of this by making their own propaganda movies disguised (thinly) as documentaries to promote their message. I've documented a number of such movies, ranging from The Beautiful Truth (a film promoting the cancer quackery known as the Gerson protocol), The Greater Good and VAXXED: From Coverup to Catastrophe (both antivaccine propaganda films), Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days, and the two movies by Eric Merola about Stanislaw Burzynski's special brand of cancer quackery. Most of the movies are pretty amateurish and crude, but even the crude and amateurish combining of words and images, along with emotional music, can induce a powerful emotional response, particularly in an audience predisposed to believe the narrative presented and to accept that whom the film portrays as villains and heros are, in fact, actually the villains and heros.

I just became aware of another such propaganda film disguised as a documentary. It's actually a bit low budget even for the antivaccine crowd, as it's an effort released in three parts, the first having been released to YouTube yesterday. The title of the video is quite telling. It's called Sacrificial Virgins: Not for the Greater Good, and here's the first part:

Before I discuss the actual content of this first part of the series, I can't resist commenting on the title of the propaganda video: Sacrificial Virgins. Anyone who's followed the antivaccine movement can guess immediately which vaccine this is about, namely the HPV vaccine, which is administered to preadolescent girls. That age is chosen because it is before the vast majority of girls become sexually active, and HPV is primarily a sexually transmitted disease. So the best time to achieve immunity is before girls (and, according to the latest recommendations, boys too) become sexually active. The term "virgin" is clearly designed to play on this timing. If a woman is immune to the proper serotypes of HPV before she becomes sexually active, then the cervical cancer caused by those serotypes can be prevented. That's how HPV vaccines work, and they are very effective.

Basically, antivaxers arguably hate and fear the HPV vaccine more than any other vaccine, with the possible exception of the MMR vaccine, because of it prevents a disease that is sexually transmitted and they do not like that at all. For instance, the more religiously-inclined among them will claim that HPV vaccination encourages promiscuity, an incredibly implausible and ridiculous claim. Teens, when presented with the opportunity to have sex, do not generally think of a cancer that they might develop 20 or 30 years later as a result. Basically, the claim that HPV vaccination leads to promiscuity is pure nonsense.

Of course, the imagery in the title is not about a loss of innocence, but a sacrifice of innocence, an image that resonates deeply in human myth, history, religion, and literature. The next question becomes: Sacrifice to what? In general, the implication of human sacrifice, particularly virgin sacrifice, is of ancient, pagan religion, and that's clearly the imagery the video makers went for here. The implication is that vaccination for HPV is based not on science, but rather on some form of irrational, religious belief system that demands a virgin sacrifice. No one ever accused antivaxers of being subtle.

So who made these videos? Surprise! Surprise! The anti-HPV vaccine group SaneVax is responsible, along with a British group, UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID):

UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID) and SaneVax Inc. (http://sanevax.org/) are pleased to announce the release of a new HPV vaccine documentary co-produced by Joan Shenton, Meditel Productions and Yellow Entertainment. Sacrificial Virgins is a series in three parts written and narrated by Joan Shenton and directed by Andi Reiss.

I've written about SaneVax before on several occasions. It's a specialized antivaccine group in that, although it not infrequently parrots pseudsocience and misinformation used by many antivaxers, SaneVax is focused almost exclusively on peddling misinformation and fear about HPV vaccines, particularly Gardasil. In particular, SaneVax has engaged in fear mongering about infinitesimally tiny amounts of HPV DNA in the vaccine and claiming that this DNA can somehow pass the blood-brain barrier in a manner that can induce autoimmunity through "microcompetition."

I had never heard of Joan Shenton before, however. A quick Google search showed that she started out reporting for the BBC World Service. She eventually started her own production company, Meditel, and made a number of respected documentaries. In the 1980s, however, she started being attracted to pseudoscience. Specifically, she started to believe Peter Duesberg and others who denied that HIV causes AIDS, making films questioning the link. Now, or so it would appear, she's discovered antivaccine pseudoscience late in her life. She still runs an HIV/AIDS denialist website and last year had a film of hers canceled by the London Film Festival. I hadn't heard of Andi Reiss, either, but he's a director who has apparently made several films with Shenton.

So let's see what Reiss and Shenton have done.

The film starts out with an image of a girl named Ruby, who has apparently developed a neurological condition that left her mostly paralyzed. She notes that only her left arm works. Not surprisingly, we find out immediately:

Nobody knows exactly what why Ruby has developed this serious neurological damage after a healthy and active life. But it all started after she had her first of three injections of the HPV human papillomavirus vaccine—injections that are given in the hope that they’ll prevent cervical cancer.

This girl appears to be Ruby Shallom. More on her later. First, I note that the very next segment shows a bunch of pictures of girls who have supposedly died as a result of HPV. Of course, as I've explained many times before, when you look at these girls' stories, the narrative that antivaxers provide is rarely particularly convincing for a causative role of the HPV vaccine in the deaths of these girls or the diseases of girls like Ruby. Shelton drones on about how "hundreds" have died and "thousands" have suffered severe adverse reactions. Never mind that this isn't true, that large epidemiological studies have failed to find an increased death rate attributable to HPV vaccination. In any case, the film is about as subtle as a brick, showing images of virgin sacrifice throughout history, and likening HPV to them, a sacrifice for the greater good.

Next up is someone named Christian Fiala, who, not surprisingly, is an HIV/AIDS denialist and a Board member of the HIV/AIDS denialst group Rethinking AIDS. Yes, this film is heavy with HIV/AIDS denialists turned HPV vaccine denialists. As far back as 2011 he was making statements like this in WorldNetDaily:

In an email, Fiala called the HPV vaccination plan "a money-making machine without any benefit for patients. But some inherent risks."

Officials report that there have been 17,500 or more "adverse" incident reports that have been made over the last few years because of the use of the vaccination.

Fiala, who fought the idea of vaccination with Gardasil as part of a national health standard in Austria, says he was targeted by the vaccine developers for his findings.

"The doctors involved in vaccine development submitted an official complaint ... accusing me of doing harm to the image of doctors," Fiala said. "The investigation did not go far, because I could show that I fully respect evidence based on medicine. Therefore, the investigation was closed. But it could have cost me the right to [practice] medicine. It was meant as a threat."

He basically says the same things in the video. It's nonsense, of course, because we know the HPV vaccine is very effective at preventing the HPV serotypes it's aimed at, the main serotypes causing cancer. His argument that it hasn't yet been proven to decrease the rate of cervical cancer is a disingenuous one. Cervical cancer takes 20+ years to develop after HPV infection, and the HPV vaccine hasn't been around long enough or a high enough proportion of girls vaccinated to produce a measurable decline in cervical cancer rates—yet. Six years later it's also not true that there is no evidence that it prevents cancer. Indeed, evidence has been nicely summarized here. He's joined by another HIV/AIDS denialist, the granddaddy of them all actually, Peter Duesberg. Amazingly, he claims, against everything we understand, that HPV does not play a causal role in cervical cancer, while Fiala blathers about how there is "no proof" that HPV causes cervical cancer. It's an unbelievable, breathtaking display of denial of a finding that is very well supported by science.

In fact, we do know that HPV causes cervical cancer. In fact, we know that HPV causes nearly all cervical cancers. We know which serotypes do it, and which ones are most common. (Two serotypes https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-a….) We know a lot about how HPV causes cancer, mainly by causing precancerous changes, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Both Duesberg and Fiala seem to think because most CIN goes away spontaneously, thanks to the immune system, means that HPV isn't the cause of cervical cancer. We know this not to be the case.

Fiala also claims to have identified a 19-year-old woman whose death was caused by HPV vaccination. Shenton interviews the pathologist who did the autopsy on the young woman, Prof. Dr. Johan Missliwetz. In the interview, he pointed out that his first autopsy left him unable to find a cause of death, leading him to suspect a genetic heart defect, which is, of course, one of the most common cause of unexplained deaths in young adults. Previous interviews by him don't really show him saying vaccinations caused the woman's death. However, in this interview, he claims that his other thought about the cause of death, besides the genetic heart defect, was HPV vaccination, even though it was three weeks after the woman's second dose of HPV vaccine.

As for Ruby Sallom, I found an article about her rather quickly in—where else?—The Daily Mail:

A 16-year-old girl has been left paralysed in three limbs and is in hospital on a drip after having the controversial HPV jab, her parents claim.

Ruby Shallom was vaccinated at school to protect her against cervical cancer as part of the routine NHS programme.

But just weeks later, the keen horse-rider and runner started to suffer from stomach spasms, dizziness, pain, headaches and fatigue.

Her muscles became weaker and in May - two years after she was given the jab - she woke up with no feelings in her legs whatsoever.

She has since lost all sensation in both her legs and one of her arms and is virtually bed-bound - unable to eat, lift or dress herself, incontinent and often too weak to lift her head.

Doctors have been unable to diagnose her with anything and have dismissed it as being psychological, refusing to acknowledge any link to the jab.

As you can see, this is not a very compelling story. Her symptoms developed weeks (it's not clear how many) after her HPV vaccination, and she didn't start to develop muscle weakness until two years after having received the HPV vaccine. I also note that doctors do not suggest lightly that symptoms like this are psychosomatic. Such a conclusion is almost always a diagnosis of extreme exclusion, only after a complete investigation has been done. Also, who knows if that's what doctors actually said? As I've learned from experience is that what parents say about what doctors say does not always reflect what the doctors actually said. Be that as it may, although I have great empathy for a family like this whose daughter is suffering so, whatever the cause is, I fear that the parents and Ruby are engaging in the all-too-human activity of confusing correlation with causation, based on the even more human need to find a cause for their daughter's suffering.

Sadly, there are two more parts of this "documentary" to come. I somehow doubt that it will be as popular or influential (at least among antivaxers and the vaccine-averse) as VAXXED for the simple reason that it doesn't have anyone as famous as Andrew Wakefield in it. However, it will likely perpetuate many of the myths SaneVax and other antivaccine groups have promulgated about HPV vaccination. They want to scare parents and girls away from the vaccine, even though it is safe and effective. Same as it ever was.

oracknows Mon, 09/11/2017 - 21:50

Tags

autism

http://nordic.cochrane.org/sites/nordic.cochrane.org/files/public/uploa…

SaneVax is focused almost exclusively on peddling misinformation and fear about HPV vaccines, particularly Gardasil.

I disagree. They focus on profiting from misinformation and fear about HPV vaccines, by selling that charlatan Sin Hang Lee's worthless DNA 'tests'.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100920005586/en/S.A.N.E.-Vax-Si…

Grifters gotta grift.
Speaking of grifting, I had forgotten all about Dr Polansky and his microcompetition concept... not to forget his Computer Intuition software that could plough through reams of scientific literature and boil it all down to a new diet-supplement scam.

Peter Duesberg [...] claims [...] that HPV does not play a causal role in cervical cancer, while Fiala blathers about how there is “no proof” that HPV causes cervical cancer.

Because I'm a glutton for punishment and incoherence, I would love to know their position on the debate about SV40 being a cause for cancer in humans.
Urgh. I guess their answer would be the standard "the is harmful only when injected with a vaccine".

Lets know their position

Interesting that your headline picture is grabbed from RT. Anyone who has not had the pleasure of tuning in should do so once in a while. Quite frightening the level of conspiratorial claptrap spewed from a major government media outlet. How anyone can work for RT and call themselves journalists without embarrassment is a mystery; but then I suppose money talks and they do seem to have a high level of staff who appear to be straight out of college.

A vaccine that prevents cancer and they can't even get behind that. The latest version Gardasil 9 covers 90% of HPV-caused cancers and I suspect future and competing versions will cover more.Remarkable science versus fear and lies.

Teens, when presented with the opportunity to have sex, do not generally think of a cancer that they might develop 20 or 30 years later as a result.

But the anti-Gardasil crowd do. In their view, sluts must be punished for having unapproved sex, even if it takes 20 or 30 years for the punishment to become apparent.

Not that abstinence before marriage would ensure that these girls don't get HPV. The double standard is alive and well among the sluts-must-be-punished crowd, so their husbands might get HPV from extracurricular partners and pass it on to them. Logic is not their strong suit.

Oh, they have an answer to that, Eric. You see, a really *good* girl, whose parents are doing a really *good* job of looking after her, would only marry a virgin. There's a lot of misogyny in that as well, which they're generally oblivious to -- it's couched in the assumption that a good girl lets her parents choose her husband for her, which would be necessary for the parents to be able to protect her from this route of HPV infection.

That's the underlying thread behind a lot of antivax arguments -- that it is the parent's job to protect the child from all threats, and if the parent is good at it, they'll be successful. Healthy living, pure morals, obedience . . . the fact that getting sick means punishment fits right in with that mindset. It also carries the assumption that children do not have agency of their own, treating them as extensions of the parent or even as the parent's property. As with the latent misogyny in assuming a parent will always be able to protect a daughter from a bad spouse, it denies the child's own rights. That, to me, is the most disturbing thread in all of the antivax movement, and why it is such close bedfellows to groups engaged in other forms of medical neglect of children.

The fundamental problem isn't that they think vaccines will hurt their children. The fundamental problem is that they think their children are their property, and always will be. Everything else devolves from that.

Also, who knows if that’s what doctors actually said? As I’ve learned from experience is that what parents say about what doctors say does not always reflect what the doctors actually said.

And with the Mail, it is not guaranteed that what it says reflects, even tangentially, what the parents said.

There's a pretty good rule in the UK, that if it's printed in the Daily Mail, it isn't true. I check the date on the front cover against a calendar if I ever have to go near a copy.

I think it might have more influence than we hope in countries where the roots of misinformation about hpv vaccines are already strong, like Ireland, Japan, and less sure about Denmark.

By the way, the Denmark scientists complaint to the Ombudsman about HPV studies and the EMA was rejected as unfounded.

Any day now I will have a stepdaughter (birth is due this week). When she is old enough she will get the HPV shot, as will get all the rest of the recommended vaccine schedule.

These people have a right to their opinion until it causes harm to others.

It's easy enough for us to see what execrable pieces of crap these anti-vaccine fraudumentaries are. Problem is AVers keep plopping these turds their sphincters of misinformation and lies and these keep slowly chipping away at vaccination rates. Next up in a couple of weeks will be the "The Pathological Optimist" which supposedly gives a fair balance (whatever that is) regarding Andrew Wakfefraud. Alas, the promo text on IMDB notes:

In the center of the recent Tribeca Film Festival scandal surrounding his film VAXXED: From Cover-up to Controversy stands Andrew Wakefield, discredited and stripped of his medical license for his infamous study suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine, bowel disease, and autism. THE PATHOLOGICAL OPTIMIST takes us into the inner sanctum of Wakefield and his family from 2011- 2016 as he fights for his day in court in a little known defamation case against the British Medical Journal. Wakefield attempts to clear his name as the media-appointed Father of the Anti-vaccine movement. Director Miranda Bailey weaves a delicate portrait of a man who is THE PATHOLOGICAL OPTIMIST utilizing a never-before-seen, full access look at the man at the center of one of the biggest medical and media controversies of our times.

Note to anybody calling the mess Wakfefraud made a controversy: It's not a controversy when it's a fraud.

AVers are some of the biggest liars, crooks and frauds out there, and here is a much better portrait of Wakefraud, which properly calls him "the most corrupt and crooked scientist ever known?" --https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-most-corrupt-and-crooked-scientist-eve…

Joan Shenton has spent more than 30 years failing to persuade the world that Aids isn't an infectious disease, much less caused by HIV. In short, she has wasted her life, blown any professional credibility, and, in my opinion, cheered gay men and black people to their deaths.

Back in the 1990s, I met with Peter Duesberg when I was living in San Francisco. It is the greatest regret of my professional life that I never wrote up the interview. It was worth 800 words.

Because of my failure, The Sunday Times's then medical correspondent (a member of a reincarnationist sect, which believes that Aids is the consequence of wrongdoing in previous lives) was able to persuade the editor to run one of the most misleading and destructive campaigns in the newspaper's history.

She was part of all that, persuading Mbeki's government in South Africa that Aids wasn't infectious.

In my opinion, Joan Shenton isn't only the Queen of Denial, she is a harbinger of death.

IiRC there have been a few hiv/ aids denialists who become anti-vax proselytisers - Ruggiero is one who's shown up at anti-vax conventions. Unfortunately aids realist-turned denialist Luc Montagnier is another. Perhaps Orac or his minions can recall others.

They move on to greener fields since aids denialism has become nearly totally unacceptable , even in woo-centric enclaves.

[Joan Shenton] was part of all that, persuading Mbeki’s government in South Africa that Aids wasn’t infectious.

You give her too much credit. Mbeki did not need persuading. He was an AIDS denialist even before he became President. He hosted Shelton, Duesberg and the other denialists BECAUSE he himself didn't believe HIV caused AIDS.
Mbeki was (and still is) an exceptionally intelligent man. Unfortunately, like a lot of very intelligent people he was also an exceptionally arrogant man who believed he knew better than everybody else, even the experts. His AIDS denialism was not the only time he got it wrong, but it was certainly the most damaging.
A few months ago, he wrote various letters to the Press "explaining" his "reasoning" on AIDS and on other bad decisions he made. The letter on AIDS rehashed the same arguments that were rejected by the Courts when the Treatment Action Campaign brought suit against the South African Government to force it to supply antiretrovirals to HIV-positive individuals. The TAC won.
Mbeki always was and still is an AIDS denialist.

In Part I (9:28 mark) of the video the Professor said we have been dealing with the HPV for several hundreds of millions of years (Jurassic Period: 200-145 million years ago).

In the Jurassic Park movie (1993), they show a lawyer being eaten by a T-Rex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMzfrod7hcE

In contradiction, archeological evidence indicates that mankind was not present during the Jurassic Period.

Q. Does the Professor maintain any sense of credibility when he says we've been dealing with HPV for several hundreds of millions of years.

Q. Does the Professor maintain any sense of credibility when he says we’ve been dealing with HPV for several hundreds of millions of years.

The Professor has as much credibility as you do.

Sorry, I just couldn't let such an easy one go.

Johnny (#16) says,

The Professor has as much credibility as you do.

MJD says,

No harm done, Johnny.

BTW, I'm working on a new and refreshing book titled, Patents and Artificial Intelligence - Thinking Computers.

That'll cause some nasty insolence from NARAD in that he has boasted about studying such a thing in grade school or graduate school.

Marketing Paragraph:

Inventors continue to make substantial progress in advancing artificial intelligence. Since the year 1987, at least one hundred forty-eight artificial intelligence related patents have been granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This original and important book thus provides an easy-to-read summary of such patents. Within many of the summaries, there are inventor profiles and news articles that are insightful and thought-provoking. Pioneering inventors hail from many locations including Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and Taiwan. At the beginning of several chapters, perspectives on artificial intelligence are provided in the form of quotes. Chapter ten describes patent applications that may affect the essence of artificial intelligence. In the final chapter, the issue of artificial intelligence as an inventor is explored. Most importantly, Patents and Artificial Intelligence – Thinking Computers is about the evolution of mankind’s genius to invent.

It may be fully illustrated based on Orac's visual-effect teachings!

Any suggestions?

Yes, of course--anti-vaccine "propaganda," funded by masochists who enjoy wearing targets on their backs, while using their tricksy wiles to find ways to make a living. Meanwhile, a selfless medical industry backed by trillions of dollars and every media outlet and government bureaucrat on the planet despairs at lost opportunities to benefit humanity. LOL. This blog is best read with a sense of humor.

"It's not the vaccines. It couldn't be the vaccines. Vaccines are a medical miracle." If you repeat this 3 times while tapping the heels of your ruby slippers, you'll be transported to the magical land of Psyence, where nothing is what it appears and everyone loves you.

I was reading about the 'Spanish Flu' of 1918 that killed so many people. Seems the medical industry had been working overtime developing flu vaccines that year, spitting out study after study extolling their wonders, and tempting more people than ever to get them. For someone in the real world, that might seem odd--given that, in retrospect, we realize they had no idea why people got influenza. But in the land of Psyence, anything is possible when it comes to vaccines--and mistakes and corruption only exist in the past. See Eyler J. The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(Suppl 3): 27-36.

Have you looked at the many studies about HPV vaccines? When this article points out that the claims in the movie are unconvincing, it's drawing on large scale studies done by scholars from different countries. You may want to consider that data.

However sincere many of the suffering people portrayed here may be, the evidence suggests their claims about HPV vaccines are mistaken.

We didn't have a working influenza vaccine until the 1940s. But why do you think it was wrong or strange that people faced with an epidemic that was killing many tried to make one? Do you think they shouldn't have tried to find a solution?

@NWO Reporter:

I was reading about the ‘Spanish Flu’ of 1918 that killed so many people. Seems the medical industry had been working overtime developing flu vaccines that year

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Were you reading whale.to? Vaccination against flu began in the 1930s, over a DECADE after 1918!
You've just proved that to antivaxxers like yourself, it's ALWAYS the vaccines, even when it can't possibly be.

NWO regurgitator: gravity is a scam, too. You can jump off a cliff and fly. Since you deny everything else, consider a cliff test. Wear a go-pro and video it to show us your triumph over us.

I remember the ads that showed a frying egg and saying this is your brain on drugs.

We need to bring back the visual: this is your child with chickenpox and this is your child that has been vaccinated. If a picture is worth a thousand words maybe the idiots may get the message.

Of course we haven't come up with a vaccine for stupid yet.

Chris Hickie, of course gravity is a scam until that last little bit before you hit something solid.

@Julian Frost: well, according to the article NWOR quoted, many companies promoted a "flu" vaccine in 1918 and 1919. However, the fact that there was no regulation of the product, and they thought flu was caused by a bacteria, the vaccines weren't very effective. So yes, in those pre-FDA years, she's actually probably right.

Added Note - the author, John Eyler, is a historian, professor emeritus at U of Minnesota. He seems to do a lot of writing on the history of vaccines.

What's up with Duesberg? Why is he still relevant. I know he tried a comeback after his HIV-AIDS denialism (htt_p://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/15-aids-dissident-seeks-redemption-and-a-cure-for-cancer) but has been getting caught up in denialism over and over again. Why can't he call it a day and go away?

Mbeki did not need persuading. He was an AIDS denialist even before he became President. He hosted Shelton, Duesberg and the other denialists BECAUSE he himself didn’t believe HIV caused AIDS.

One man's lethal epidemic is another man's business opportunity, and Rath made a fortune selling worthless "anti-AIDS" vitamin pills.
I saw in the Whackyweedia that Rath is turning his attention to Russia as the new business opportunity, where the next big AIDS epidemic is getting off the ground. All the antivaxxers and AIDS-denialists and vitamin-pill scammers are making appearances there.

Interesting that your headline picture is grabbed from RT. Quite frightening the level of conspiratorial claptrap spewed from a major government media outlet.

Bonus RT: David Noakes -- the failed UKIP politician who turned cancer-cure charlatan -- has been making appearances on RT,s website. As "political commentator", i.e. quoted for his neo-Nazi politics.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/311647-migrants-eu-policy-uk/
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/345222-britain-debates-donald-trump/

The nexus between antivaxxers, the Alt-Med charlatans and Alt-Right neo-nationalist political movements is noteworthy.

hiv/ aids denialists who become anti-vax proselytisers – Ruggiero is one who’s shown up at anti-vax conventions.

Ruggiero is a regular at AutismOne scamferences, but mainly to peddle his latest cure for autism (coincidentally, it is always the same as his latest cure for cancer, ME/CFS, and chronic Lyme disease).
He generally tries to work both sides of the street, and present himself not as a vulgar "HIV-denialist", but Just Asking Questions... "Oh, I am merely pointing out weaknesses in AIDS campaigns so that they can be improved". At the same time as claiming that HIV is really a human symbiote which evolved to cure cancer, I am not making this up.

Now he's trying the same sort of above-the-fray tergiversation with vaccines... "Oh, I'm nothing as vulgar as an antivaxxer, I am merely pointing out weaknesses in the rhetoric of vaccination campaigns."
http://madridge.org/journal-of-vaccines/MJV-2017-104.php

Sadly, Ruggiero's intellectual pretensions no longer work as well and he is reduced to editing fourth-tier predatory journals from bottom-feeders like "Madridge" in order to publish his Deep Thoughts.

@Dorit Reiss -- The "flu vaccines" weren't developed in response to the epidemic of 1918-1919--they were already around before then. They were heavily promoted during that time, though. I wonder which came first: the heavy promotion, or the widespread death? We know now the vaccines were useless--but they could very well have been much worse than useless.

Who was promoting them? Homeopathy, water treatments, colonics, mystery elixirs and other treatments were also promoted. It does not mean they actually were by folks who were competent or even honest.

On cue, David Crowe of the HIV-denial fraternity is promoting Shelton's opuscule:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RethinkingAIDS/permalink/10155623979513…

Of course Crowe rejects germ-theory in general, so no surprises there.

I saw in the Whackyweedia that Rath is turning his attention to Russia as the new business opportunity, where the next big AIDS epidemic is getting off the ground.

I'm afraid the AIDS epidemic has more than gotten off the ground - it was already a concern some ten years ago at least, so I went to check and it looks like about 1% of the population (about 1.4-1.5 million people) is HIV positive at this point.

Of course, given who's in charge of the Russian government, even less is likely to be done about it than was done about the American AIDS epidemic under Ronald Reagan. 'Cause, y'know, "gay men, drug addicts, prostitutes," etc.

No harm done...

Oh, that was an apology to our host and the minions.

BTW, I’m working on a new and refreshing book...

Did the others sell that well? I mean, enough for you to break even?

Johnny (#35) asks,

Did the others sell that well? I mean, enough for you to break even?

MJD says,

Thanks for asking, Johnny.

I'm hoping that Orac recognizes my writing propensity and asks me to be a ghostwriter here at RI.

@ Orac,

Send me an e-mail and let's put together a mutually beneficial contract.

At the very least, the long-term risks of the HPV vaccine are unknown. There have been a disproportionate number of serious adverse events reported to VAERS following HPV vaccination. The benefits are theoretical and speculative--it's unknown whether the vaccine will actually prevent cancer at all. It carries risk without any proven benefit, even if one trusts the supporting evidence offered by the manufacturers. It makes sense that weighing these factors could prompt even the most ardent vaccine believer to forego the HPV vaccine. No one wants to play Russian Roulette with their child.

"HPV vaccines have not been demonstrated to be more effective or safer than Pap screening in the prevention of cervical cancer and Pap screening will still be required even in vaccinated women. ... In 2002 scientists concluded that HPV 16 and 18 were the central and independent cause of most cervical cancer. This conclusion was based on molecular technology. If HPV 16 and 18 infections are the central and independent cause of most cervical cancer then the incidence of HPV 16 and 18 should vary with the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer worldwide. This correlation does not exist. It is also observed that the majority of HPV 16/18 infections do not lead to cervical cancer. This indicates that other etiological or 'risk' factors are necessary for persistent HPV infection to progress to cancer. ... Clinical trials have only provided speculative benefits for the efficacy of HPV vaccines against cancer and the long-term risks of the vaccine have not been established..." Wilyman J. HPV vaccination programs have not been shown to be cost-effective in countries with cost effective Pap screening and surgery. Infect. Agent Cancer; 2013 June 12;8(1):21

Of course in 1918, they still thought influenze was caused by H. influenzae . . . a bacterium. Sure, we knew about viruses then, but immunology was in its infancy, and so were things like peer review and clinical trials.

What Ginny tries to insinuate is that we always did things they way we do them now. We didn't. There was a lot of trial and error. What science acknowledges, and conspiracy theorists refuse to, is that new information and and should change your approach.

NWO Troll: "There have been a disproportionate number of serious adverse events reported to VAERS following HPV vaccination."

And has the same weight as the historical use of "flu vaccines" in the first couple of decades of the 20th Century: absolutely zero.

VAERS is a self-reported survey, and is useful after an official investigation.

Of course, given who’s in charge of the Russian government, even less is likely to be done about it than was done about the American AIDS epidemic under Ronald Reagan. ‘Cause, y’know, “gay men, drug addicts, prostitutes,” etc.

Welp, the Russian gubblement is propped up by fellow-authoritarians from the Orthodox Church in a collaboration of kleptocrats, so they follow the official position that Russians are too moral to catch a decadent Western disease like AIDS. And everyone is angling for a share of the moneyteat when vitamin pills take the place of antiretroviral drugs.

How's your Italian? "Dora" at HIVinfo was exploring the connections between Scott Tips from the Big Supplement lobby-group NHF, who's been over in Italy to support antivaxxers there and to network with Alt-Right politicians; and the antivax, HIV-denial movement in Russia.
http://www.hivforum.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=90708#p90708
http://www.hivforum.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=90764#p90764

Another useful HIVinfo thread:

Interesting that your headline picture is grabbed from RT.
http://www.hivforum.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80273#p80273

I had no idea that RT are so committed to promoting the HIV-denial cause.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2EBA509EAE4601C7

I recall Masha Gessen relating in the Russian magazine Snob, which I used to read, about traveling to Russia in the 90s, when AIDS was pretty full blown in the US and getting off the ground in Russia. (She'd been pretty heavily involved in ACT UP, if I recall correctly.)

She had a pram or something folded up in a suitcase, but filled the pockets of the pram with condoms (and stuffed the suitcase with them in various places.) She got stopped by security and they went through her luggage; upon opening that suitcase, hundreds of condoms fell out.

The security guy looks inquiringly at Masha.

"They're for personal use," she says.

Intensely scrutinizing look.

"Well I'm here for three weeks!"

(I actually got to meet Ms. Gessen at a lunch when she was at UM some time back. She is as brilliant in person as in writing. I was a few minutes late, I remember, because I was teaching; my advisor saved me a seat next to him and across from her. Masha's brother and Ben know each other from way back, it turns out.)

Speaking of Masha, this is well worth watching.

"The “flu vaccines” weren’t developed in response to the epidemic of 1918-1919–they were already around before then. They were heavily promoted during that time, though."

HAHAHAHAHA. This idiot calls himself a reporter? The flu virus was not discovered until the 1930s, so how could anyone have a flu vaccine in 1918? What, did they jump into a time machine and travel to 1918 with the vaccine made in the 40s and 50s?

Seriously, who is this hack? Why does anyone believe him? I've seen better lies by the Health Danger than this fool.

NWO: You do know that as an anti-vaxxer, Wakefield has made a hundred times the money he would have as a surgeon, don't you? I notice that most of the people mentioned in this article aren't exactly hurting for cash, while real doctors have to fight tooth and nail for so much as a dollar. It suggests that once again, the facts from your rump are wrong.

JF: I've never really thought of Mbeki as intelligent. He honestly seems like your country's Trump, with a better vocabulary and a few more brain cells.

Ren: they had flu vaccines in 1918. NWO Troll is right about that.

However, at the time, they mistakenly still believed influenza was caused by a bacterial. Virology was in its infancy. They were making a not very effective flu vaccine from the serum of influenza patients during the epidemic.

I'm researching the matter as part of a project I'm working on related to my grandfather, who was in the Army during WWI and who I believe had Spanish flu in August of 1918.

NWO Troll isn't wrong that there were vaccines, or that they weren't very good. What's she's wrong about is that they weren't very good because of corruption or poor science. They weren't good vaccines because we didn't know enough about the disease at the time . . . but it was a devastating epidemic in the middle of a terrible war and we had to try something. Doing nothing was not an option.

We did the same thing with AZT during the AIDS epidemic in the mid 80's. We fast tracked the drug because activists were demanding we do something. We lucked out: it worked better than we could have dreamed and put us on a path of successfull long term management of the disease.

I'm a vociferous advocate of the power of vaccines. But let's not be disingenuous and forgot that sometimes we get lucky (as with AIDS) and sometimes we don't (as in 1918).

Our clinical trial processes are light years away from what we had 100 years ago. When we approve a new vaccine now, we have the data to show safety and efficacy. That we didn't 100 years ago is not a reason to distrust vaccines now.

J. Wilyman. Really? That's the source of NWO #37 "research" on HPV?
Orac has already written about this on multiple occasions. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy

What an idiot - the first Flu vaccine wasn't even developed until 1938.....

The first vaccine against the influenza virus was developed in 1938. Before that, flu was thought to be caused by Bacillus influenzae, now known as Hib. Scientists tried to develop vaccines for that, which of course were useless against Spanish flu.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/spanish-influenza-pandem…

Panacea: When I was doing research on the 1918 flu, I stumbled across an Italian doctor who recommended copious amounts of alcohol for all his patients suffering from the 'flu', in the spirit of 'doing something.' He had a pretty high survival rate, though I suspect it worked because the pickled patients simply stayed in bed.

There were a lot of 'cures' like that. Including the vaccine. Like you said, doing nothing wasn't acceptable.

JP: Just out of curiosity, was Ms. Gessen able to make any headway in Russia? Just from observation, in addition to the problems the religious population and the powers that be pose, Russians in general seem to be uninvested in health and medicine.

Oh goodness, I'll have to say no, sadly. She lived in Russia for quite some time, but had to move back to the US a few years ago because of threats against not only her, but her wife and child.

I myself haven't been to Ruseia since 2012, and things have gotten much worse there since then for the opposition and LGBTQ folks. At that point and previously, I had been participating in protests and frequenting lesbian and generally gay clubs in Mosocw and Petersburg, but as I said, things have gotten much worse. Even if I had the opportunity to go back, I might be chicken. (My travels since then were largely to Poland and so on. Well, Poland is becoming quite scary politically as well.)

The situation with health care and medicine in Russia is rather different from that in the USA and always has been. I'm not going to write a dissertation about it here as I'm on my phone outside, but I can't elaborate if anybody is interested.

Basically, in the USSR, health care was sub par in many ways compared to the West, but it was socialized and accessible. Now it is a mix of public care and private practices; basically it's better now if you have money, buy much worse if you do not.

Specifically regarding HIV, the problem isn't so much with the health care system itself (although that is part of it), it is the new state ideology, which runs along the lines of "morality" and "family values." Basically if you have HIV, you must be a degenerate, so who cares.

JP: I kinda guessed that would be your answer. I think if anything, Russia's actually gone backwards on rights (especially those of minorities) since the '90s. Eastern Europe in general has been pretty unanimously deciding that democracy is a bad deal- particularly Hungary and Poland lately.

So, their health care system is pretty much like ours, then.

Much like ours in certain ways now, yes.

And they have definitely gone backwards in terms of rights since the 90s. The 90s were a hopeful and exciting time in that sense (although the transition to "shock capitalism," largely on the advise of the US and the IMF, was absolutely disastrous), and even the 2000s, when I first got into Russian studies, were not quite so scary and hopeless.

But the anti-Gardasil crowd do. In their view, sluts must be punished for having unapproved sex, even if it takes 20 or 30 years for the punishment to become apparent.

Nobody agrees with me as far as I can tell, but I still think this mantra fruitlessly ignores the issue of potentially creating a positive attitude toward vaccines among those who are supposed to be the next generation of antivaccine crazies. The "opposition" is pretty much all coming from the usual suspects, none of whom stand out to me as being known for either religiosity or upholding some proud tradition of chastity.

@ Panacea
"I’m a vociferous advocate of the power of vaccines. But let’s not be disingenuous and forgot that sometimes we get lucky (as with AIDS) and sometimes we don’t (as in 1918)."
Yet, with AIDS, we still don't have a vaccine after 30 years, much money, and success claims in scientific journals. One has to wonder why there is such a discrepancy between people expectations and reality.

The fundamental problem isn’t that they think vaccines will hurt their children. The fundamental problem is that they think their children are their property, and always will be. Everything else devolves from that.

Similarly, I don't buy this "they"; it falls flat against the "we were obviously provaccine before the harm" routine, at very
least. It's a back-formation.

@PGP #45:

JF: I’ve never really thought of Mbeki as intelligent. He honestly seems like your country’s Trump, with a better vocabulary and a few more brain cells.

Do not make the mistake of confusing intelligence for wisdom. Mbeki is the former, not the latter.

^ Cases in point being good ol' Jake "it's somebody else's fault I can't get laid" Crosby and the apparently barren Virginia "NWO Reporter" Stoner. Olmsted was probably in it for lack of options. Schecter clearly fits the proposed type, though, but he seems to have become about as irrelevant as Pattimmy.

@NWO Reporter #37:

At the very least, the long-term risks of the HPV vaccine are unknown

False. We have been vaccinating for years.

The benefits are theoretical and speculative–it’s unknown whether the vaccine will actually prevent cancer at all.

Lie. It has already started reducing the instances of cervical cancer.
As for citing Judith Wilyman, Elliot #47 has it right. Wilyman is a known antivaxxer.

Random memory:

When I lived in St. Petersburg for the longest period of time, I was staying with a host "granny." (Extremely cool lady, an old dissident.)

We had a habit of staying up until the wee hours smoking a million cigarettes and talking about everything, and fairly early on we got to the subject of romantic affairs, and she started asking questions.

"Well, really, Marina Markovna...I prefer girls."

"Oh." ... "What's the word for that? Lesbian?"

"Yeah."

"Oh. Cool."

She used to introduce me to her friends as a "real dissidentka."

My mother claimed that she was forced, by my Russian grandmother, to wear garlic during the winter to ward off colds & flu. This was during the 1930s. I hope that Russian medicine has advanced since then.

# 61 Elliott

Well garlic may have some medicinal properties and with enough garlic the risk of infection may have been reduced. I remember reading somewhere that hermits seldom get colds.

With enough garlic, people stay away from you and reduce the chance that they can infect you. And it's probably easier than hanging a durian around your neck.

JK
The hermits don't get sick because they're, well, ...hermits.

Mel Brooks fully explained the medicinal properties of garlic in the classic comedy routine: "the 2000 yr old man"

Carl Reiner (as interviewer): "how did you get to be 2000 years old?"
Mel (as 2k yr old man): "every night before I go to bed, I eat a nice pound and a half of garlic. When the Angel of Death knocks at the door, I open it and say: "whooo's there?"

Daniel: There are a lot of issues with producing an AIDs vaccine. You should already know that AIDS is not a virus, it is a retrovirus. Most vaccines are for relatively straightforward viruses and bacterial infections. Even the flu vaccine doesn't work all the time and AIDs is a hundred times more complicated than that.

And then of course, AIDs is linked with sex and drugs, which means that the powers that be don't like funding research or cures.
The fact that we have Gardasil available is a gigantic fluke. I guarantee you that no one will ever make a herpes vaccine or a chlymadia vaccine.

Ahem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_simplex_research

@ PGP
"And then of course, AIDs is linked with sex and drugs, which means that the powers that be don’t like funding research or cures."
There is a lot of funding for HIV vaccines, and HBV vaccines have been implemented inchildren, although HBV is transmitted mostly like HIV.
The point that I wanted to make is that the efficiency of vaccines is overestimated.

Ahem x 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36837934

NWO reporter #37 is probably the only reason I write in this otherwise useless blog. However, if you value irrefutable evidence you will leave it here.
In the UK the HPV vaccine was introducedin 2008 for 12/13 year old school girls with c.90% take-up. In the same year there was a 3 year catch-up programme for girls up to 18 which was so successful it was completed in 2 years.
The UK governments publish statistics on the ONS (england) and ISD (Scotland) websites including cases of cervical cancer by age group eg <20, 20-24, etc and also Pap screening rates. So in the last few years we should have seen cases of cervical cancer reducing in the 20-24 year age group, but no, they are increasing. In fact in Scotland the cases of cervical cancer in this age group have increased to almost 4 times what they were before the vaccine was introduced.
Going back on Scotland's earlier statistics on the ISD web site I noticed that the total cases of cervical cancer had come down consistently and progressively from approx. 500 in 1990 to less than 300 between 2002-2007 but since introduction of the HPV vaccine it has risen consistently and progressively to 400 cases per year. Not only has the HPV vaccine contributed at the lower age range but almost certainly to the all-age/total as well. How can I claim this? Well, because the Scottish government and NHS have allowed the screening rate to drop as they focus their attention on vaccination, expecting it to be successful. Even the manufacturers insist that it is necessary to do screening after vaccination - for good reason.

@Steve Hinks #70, supporting evidence needed for your claims that cervical cancer rates have increased. And they must be from reliable sources.

In other anti-vax news...

-A NJ doctor will charge for vaccine refusal ( see AoA, today)

- Consecutive flu vaccines cause miscarriage ( Natural News)

Vaccine apologists will concoct stories to explain that says Mikey.

Scotish Government source at http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Cancer/Cancer-Statistics/Femal…
You need to download the Excel file for 'Cancer of the cervix uteri: ICD-10 C53, Incidence:
Annual incidence (most recent 25 years) by age, sex, network and health board.
When I did my analysis the 2015 results had not been published.They have recently been added and show a very slight improvement but still following a very concerning trend.

DC: Well, you have an investment in believing that and disliking vaccines. So, no matter what I say, you're just going to hold to that line. Like I said, vaccines work fine for viruses. AIDS isn't technically a virus, though it behaves like one.

Rebecca Fisher: Implementation is still a long way away. And the herpes thing was funded by Peter Thiel who is very invested in being a horrible person. So either those vaccines will never see the light of day, or they'll be priced too high to make any difference.

"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. " - The Doctor

@Steve Hinks #73, I couldn't help noticing two things.
Firstly, there were multiple files at that website. How do we know you didn't attempt to cherry pick one that you believed looked bad.
Secondly, I did statistical analysis at University. There is too much variance in the numbers to draw a conclusion that things have become worse since vaccination began.
Pretty weak tea, I must say. It raises and falls.

Consecutive flu vaccines cause miscarriage ( Natural News)

About that - from
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-prompts-call-examine-flu-v…

They found 17 of 485 miscarriages they studied involved women whose vaccinations followed that pattern. Just four of a comparable 485 healthy pregnancies involved women who were vaccinated that way.

The first group also had more women who were at higher risk for miscarriage, like older moms and smokers and those with diabetes. The researchers tried to make statistical adjustments to level out some of those differences but some researchers don't think they completely succeeded.

Also see http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/09/study-signals-associ…

A study published today in Vaccine suggests a strong association between receiving repeated doses of the seasonal influenza vaccine and miscarriage.

The authors said the study is an unexpected signal that calls for deeper investigation and highlights the challenges of monitoring the safety of annual vaccines.

"We are not saying this is a causal relationship," said James Donahue, DVM, PhD, MPH, a senior epidemiologist at the Marshfield Clinic and the lead author of the study, meaning the data don't necessarily show that the flu vaccine causes miscarriages. "There's no biological basis for this phenomenon, so the study represents something that wasn't expected."

...

Lone Simonsen, PhD, a research professor of global health at George Washington University, said the timing of the study interests her. She has conducted her own research showing that in 1918, when the world saw another H1N1 pandemic that was more severe than in 2009, as many as 1 in 10 women miscarried.

"In this case getting the flu vaccine can be like being introduced to a virus that was evolutionarily quite similar to the virus from 1918," she told CIDRAP News.

But she also said the new study included only women with documented miscarriage. "Who are the women that document a miscarriage at 5 weeks?" asked Simonsen. "Probably someone who is also likely to get a flu shot." If true, that would skew the numbers toward an association.

In an accompanying commentary in the same journal, three US experts not involved in the study said miscarriage is one of the most difficult birth outcomes to study in observational research.

"Among other factors, the high proportion of [spontaneous] abortions [SAbs] that take place in clinically-unrecognized pregnancies and the lack of consistency in accurate capture of these events in medical records when SAbs do occur, make such research difficult to carry out," they write.

"After pointing out what they see as limitations of the study, such as possible unmeasured confounding (as illustrated by Simonsen's question) and the implausibility of the prime-boost hypothesis, the experts write, "One important take-away message from this study is that seasonal vaccine formulations are not all the same.

"As with other studies of drug safety in pregnancy, specific drugs require targeted post-marketing surveillance studies to monitor for safety, and the challenges are even greater for influenza vaccines, whose antigens and other components typically change each year."

The experts are Christina D. Chambers, PhD, MPH, and Ronghui Xu, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, and Allen A. Mitchell, MD, with the Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University.

The World Health Organisation recommend the HPV vaccine and quote "the benefits outweigh the risks" but there are no established benefits. Even the vaccine manufacturers only claim it is 'expected to' or 'intended to' reduce cervical cancers and warts. They didn't even assess it for carcinogenicity even though it is one of the first of a new. generation of genetically engineered (GM) vaccines. The risks are ramping up enormously in the WHO's own global database of adverse drug reactions at www.vigiaccess.org with 400 deaths and 897 neoplasms (inc. cervical cancers and pre-cancers) amongst the 212,020 adverse reactions. They even acknowledge only approx. 10% get reported.

So I went to VigiAccess. What is the very first sentence on the website?

This database allows you to browse and view data on suspected side-effects from various medicinal products (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions (“ADRs”)).

The operative word, as for VAERS, is "suspected". Not "confirmed as having been caused by the medication".
SUSPECTED.

@Julian Frost #76 reduction of cervical cancers (C53) is the prime 'expectation' of the vaccine manufacturers even though Gardasil only targets 4 HPV strains out of the 40 or so 'involved' in cancers. Merck more recently marketed Gardasil 9 targeted at 9 strains of HPV but they still have a long way to go. There is at the very least no improvement in cases of cervical cancer in Scotland. I hope you also looked at the all-age/total data for cervical cancers. If you chart them from 1999 to 2004 it is virtually a straight line trend which, if it had continued, would have led to zero cases of cancer by 2020. This would be feasible if you could achieve 100% screening, identify pre-cancerous lesions and take appropriate action. This was actually happening as screening was ramping up but Scotland let the screening slip as it focused attention on the vaccine.

@Steve Hinks #80:

If you chart them from 1999 to 2004 it is virtually a straight line trend which, if it had continued, would have led to zero cases of cancer by 2020

You have just shown that you do not understand statistics. Random trends happen due to chance. Somebody once looked at the increase in autism diagnoses and calculated that over 100% of children would be diagnosed as autistic by 2050.

Julian Frost, you are a hoot. So 400 deaths and 897 neoplasms (inc. cervical cancers and pre-cancers of vaccinated women) amongst 212,020 adverse reactions reported as being suspected that they were due to the vaccine and contemporaneous to vaccination are all a coincidence. AE reporting was introduced after the Thalidomide scandal but failed to prevent the Vioxx scandal. With people like you around I can understand why.

@Julian Frost. #81 Sincere apologies for my typing error. it should have read from 1990 to 2004 and that would be statistically significant. Please check the data and chart it. However, when all men are autistic and all women have died of cancer because the HPV vaccine didn't do what it was 'intended to' do, discussions about statistics will be meaningless.

@Steve Hicks: did you even LOOK at the VigiAccess site? FFS, it's REPORTED adverse events. Please explain to me how the MMR can lead to anthropod bites. And how it can lead to adoption as an adverse event. Something tells me you don't understand voluntary reporting.

And, by the way...even with screening, ain't no way you'd ever get to NO cervical cancer by 2020. You really don't understand statistics.

I'll be long dead before all men are autistic and all women dead from HPV vaccine failure. I will, however, have grandchildren because my daughters didn't die from cervical cancer before having children.

So 400 deaths and 897 neoplasms (inc. cervical cancers and pre-cancers of vaccinated women) amongst 212,020 adverse reactions reported as being suspected that they were due to the vaccine and contemporaneous to vaccination are all a coincidence.

How many women were vaccinated to get 212,020 adverse reactions? How long were the timelines for the adverse events to be reported? How do these numbers compare to a control group that didn't receive HPV vaccination?
In the 1970's the DTP triple vaccine was suspected of causing various harmful side effects. Later statistical analysis confirmed that the adverse events were due to random chance. Recently, influenza vaccine was suspected of causing narcolepsy. It was then discovered that the flu was many times more likely to induce narcolepsy.
VAERS has been undermined by antivaccine individuals loading reports that are unverified, and loading multiple reports of the same alleged incident. Without proper verification and comparison to a randomised control group, it is impossible to make the claims you are making.

MI Dawn #84 & 85 The vigiaccess database isn't mine, it belongs to the WHO. Just because there are a handful of silly entries doesn't mean it isn't the best data available. They also acknowledge that approx. 90% of all entries come from health professionals.
P.S. I'm really pleased for your grandchildren. Your daughter must nave made an appropriate INFORMED decision on the HPV vaccine.
P.P.S. draw the chart for the data from Scotland governments ISD web site, it is very compelling.

[I]t should have read from 1990 to 2004 and that would be statistically significant.

Um, what?
Given that HPV Vaccination only started in Scotland in 2007, how could a chart that ended in 2004 tell us anything about the effect that vaccination had on disease?

@Julian Frost #84 Hang on all of the evidence indicates GSK's Pandemrix flu vaccine does cause narcolepsy.
I totally support proper verification and comparison to a randomised control group but even Merck didn't do that in the clinical trials for Gardasil. In the clinical safety studies a saline placebo was actually used. However, the three groups of subjects were broken down as follows: 13,686 received GARDASIL, 11,004 received AAHS control, and 584 received the saline placebo.
AAHS is Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate. Therefore 24,690 subjects received an active substance and 584 received the placebo. The greater problem is that they did not compare the three groups separately, but compared the GARDASIL group to the AAHS group and the placebo together.
Furthermore, AAHS is the adjuvant (the portion of the vaccine that triggers the immune response) in GARDASIL, so the clinical studies were merely comparing GARDASIL to a toxic portion of itself.
There were 24 deaths in the clinical studies. The authors stated the events were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adults populations. I don't think so.

@PGP
A retrovirus is a virus. HPV is a virus too, and as explained by Steve Hinks, the efficacy of the vaccine is poor (two or three years more may be needed to know exactly). I declare no conflict of interest.

@Julian Frost #84
Sorry Julian, are you are losing the plot? The point I was making is that cases of cervical cancer in scotland from 1990 to 2004 showed a consistent and progressive improvement from 500 cases per year to 300 cases per year. This was almost certainly due to the government's improving rates of cervical screening. Plot the data from the ISD website (link already provided) and plot the trend. It is only since the vaccine was introduced that the trend has changed completely and the trend is onwards and upwards with 400 cases of cervical cancer per year.

@Steve Hinks: Yes, my daughters made intelligent, informed decisions. I gave them the literature and let them decide for themselves, as they were teens when the vaccine was new. So they got vaccinated. 24 deaths. Teens die. They die of weird things. VAERS has several deaths after HPV vaccination - car accidents, drowning, suicide. Unless you can prove the vaccine caused those things, your concern is noted but not needed.

And...OH NOES....TEH TOXINZZZ of the adjuvent. Seriously, dude? You HAD to go there?

AAHS is the adjuvant (the portion of the vaccine that triggers the immune response) in GARDASIL

Adjuvants heighten immune response. They do not trigger it. That you get this basic fact wrong raises a lot of questions about what you know.

There were 24 deaths in the clinical studies. The authors stated the events were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adults populations. I don’t think so.

It doesn't matter what you "think", or more correctly, what you assume/believe. The authors would have looked at long term statistical evidence to state with confidence that "the events were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations."

@Steve Hinks #90:

It is only since the vaccine was introduced that the trend has changed completely and the trend is onwards and upwards with 400 cases of cervical cancer per year.

False. The vaccine was only introduced in 2007. The upward trend starts in 2004, which is a full three years before that. And once again, I'd like to point out that you used the datasheet for only one type of cervical cancer, which leads to questions about whether you cherry picked.
I'm going to bed. Would someone else download the rest of the charts and check if other cervical cancers are rising or falling, please.

MI Dawn & Julian Frost, OK it doesn't matter what I think but I do respect the extensive work of expert witness Professor Chris Exley of Keele University. He is an authority on body burden and toxicity of aluminium. He has several peer-reviewed articles on aluminium adjuvant toxicity and featured in the documentary.
p.s. I have zero income from the use or sale of vaccines can you both say the same.

Enjoyed the challenge but time for some family time.

Oh geez, Steve Hinks. No, I have no income from the use or sale of vaccines. But the fact that you pulled the pharma shill tactic means you have no other ammunition and you lose.

And Professor Exley has written on aluminium. He is a biologist. Not an immunologist. And he believes aluminium causes Alzheimer's. So major fail (besides quoting studies from antivax quacks like Shoenfeld and Shaw). Put him against Dr Paul Offit and see who knows more about aluminium and humans.

Enjoy your family time.

I do respect the extensive work of expert witness Professor Chris Exley of Keele University. He is an authority on body burden and toxicity of aluminium.

Being a professional Expert Witness is not normally regarded as a qualification in itself.

The fact that we have Gardasil available is a gigantic fluke.

No no no. This is a gigantic fluke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Host_(The_X-Files)

My mother claimed that she was forced, by my Russian grandmother, to wear garlic during the winter to ward off colds & flu. This was during the 1930s. I hope that Russian medicine has advanced since then.

Well, Russians definitely still have their folk medicine, but it's pretty harmless; "cough & cold" type stuff and hangover remedies, mostly. It's not seen as a replacement for real medicine when it comes to serious stuff.

One more random and off topic memory:

Marina Markovna had very good taste in literature, and tons of books everywhere.

"You kids, you can just walk into a bookstore these days and buy books by any author you want. You can buy Mandelstam. You have no idea."

It is often not possible to prove or disprove that an adverse event was caused by a vaccine--nor is any effort made to do so in the vast majority of cases. An absence of proof does not prove there is no association. How much weight to accord to the reports is up to each individual. But to actually advise people to disregard them altogether is either irresponsible out of ignorance, or intentionally deceptive.

Irony much, Ginny?

I wouldn't worry about most of these films. The odds they'll move the vax uptake needle are slim and none. I'd divide this type of doco production into two categories.

The first serves a small niche group as a form of identity affirmation. It thus perpetuates myths in this case, but doesn't extend them to a wider audience. This kind of piece can actually generate revenue, as that niche audience will pay for screenings, video copies, and donate funds to the makers, either for pre-production or for future endeavors. Or, to echo hdb, grifters know how to grift.

The second are passion/vanity projects, born of hubris, aimed at a wider audience they have zippo chance of attracting. Literally thousands of such docos are started every year on all sorts of topics (you'd be amazed how many, really). Most are never completed, and of those that are, few are ever seen by more than a handful of people. Whoever put up the money in the great hope of becoming famous and influential inevitably looses their nut.

Given Shenton's background, the fact the thing is on YouTube, and Orac's note that it's low budget, I'd guess this fits the first category – and will serve only to coax more $$ out of religious conservatives into the coffers of SaneVax, and AHVID. Which they will they spend on more projects to preach to the already converted, and continue the windmill-tilt/grift.

The rough description and maker bios of The Pathological Optimist suggest it might have a chance to be an exception to the norm, and actually get out to a wider audience. But I still wouldn't bet on it.

FWIW, propaganda and documentary are anything but mutually exclusive, and 'propaganda' isn't necessarily a pejorative. The term 'documentary' was coined by John Grierson, head of the British Labor government propaganda film unit (it was a division of the Postal Service, actually) in the 30s and 40s. It has never carried any connotations whatsoever of 'balance', 'objective journalism', etc. Of course, a highly 'biased' film may disguise itself as 'balanced' or 'objective inquiry' in some scurrilous way, but that just makes it a bad documentary. I would suggest substituting something like 'pernicious propaganda documentary' for "propaganda film disguised as a documentary". And. no, I don't think the distinction is pedantic at all...

There is also a fleeting Acknowledgement in the Credits to Fiala and Robert Leppo:
https://i.imgur.com/nfzr07s.png

Leppo being the venture capitalist with surplus money and an AIDS-denial fixation, who has funded
1. Duesberg's post-science career.
2. the 'Rethinking AIDS' group
3. The "House of Numbers" fillum [distributed by 'Rethinking AIDS', whose members lied for a while about no-one knowing the source of Leung's funding, until the minutes came to light where they had signed off on Leppo's donation].
4. An earlier film, "The Other Side of AIDS".
5. Clive Baker's legal costs -- Baker (OMSJ) being the RWNJ who used to run legal and extra-legal campaigns of thuggery, intimidation and character assassination against people who found their way onto their "Rethinking AIDS" Enemies List.

So the film is more than "top-heavy" with HIV-denialists, it is NOTHING BUT the old Rethinking AIDS group, trying to get the band together for a reunion tour.

I had never heard of Joan Shenton before, however.
"Rethinking AIDS" have heard of her, though; she's on the board.

Although SaneVAX and AHVID are promoting the film and doing their best to claim credit for it, I can't see if they were actually involved in it. Conceivably they helped by providing Shelton with a list of sob stories.

JF: Do not make the mistake of confusing intelligence for wisdom. Mbeki is the former, not the latter.

I always thought the two were the same. As far as Mbeki goes, he talks a good game and he is fairly good at politics, but there isn't much else there, and he doesn't seem to have much substance to him.

Daniel: so you're hanging your claim that vaccines aren't efficient (your word) on the fact we haven't come up for a vaccine for ONE pathogen yet?

Yes, retroviruses are viruses. But, as the saying goes, all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles. Retroviruses have enough differences from the viral diseases we have created vaccines for, that we have yet to be successful with HIV yet. It mutates rapidly, as do some other viruses, making vaccine development difficult.

That fact doesn't impact the safety or efficacy of other vaccines for other viral illnesses.

Hep B is not a retrovirus. We've had an effective vaccine for that for a long time. False equivalency.

It is often not possible to prove or disprove that an adverse event was caused by witchcraft–nor is any effort made to do so in the vast majority of cases. An absence of proof does not prove there is no association.

The scientific method can be useful.

Just FWIW, according to the CDC

From 2003 to 2012 in the United States, the incidence rate of cervical cancer—

Decreased significantly by 1.3% per year among women.
Decreased significantly by 1.1% per year among white women.
Decreased significantly by 2.3% per year among black women.
Decreased significantly by 3.9% per year among Hispanic women.
Remained level among American Indian/Alaska Native women.
Decreased significantly by 3.0% per year among Asian/Pacific Islander women.

and

<blockquoteHPV vaccines work extremely well. Clinical trials showed HPV vaccines provide close to 100% protection against cervical precancers and genital warts. Since the first HPV vaccine was recommended in 2006, there has been a 64% reduction in vaccine-type HPV infections among teen girls in the United States. Studies have shown that fewer teens are getting genital warts and cervical precancers are decreasing. In other countries, such as Australia, where HPV vaccination coverage is higher than in the United States, large decreases have been observed in these HPV-associated outcomes. HPV vaccines offer long-lasting protection against HPV infection and HPV disease. There has been no evidence to suggest that HPV vaccine loses any ability to provide protection over time. Data are available for about 10 years of follow-up after vaccination.

Most of the cancer reduction has been due to pap smear screening. Because it takes 15 to 20 years for cervical cancer to develop and the vaccine was introduced in 2006, it is too early to measure the final effect on cancer incidence. But of course, a good researcher like Daniel is well aware of that.

@PGP #106:

I always thought [intelligence and wisdom] were the same.

To paraphrase:
Knowledge is knowing a fruit is a seed-bearing structure that develops from the ovary of a flowering plant.
Intelligence is applying that knowledge to realise that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is knowing you don't put a tomato in a fruit salad.

As far as Mbeki goes, he talks a good game and he is fairly good at politics, but there isn’t much else there, and he doesn’t seem to have much substance to him.

That is a very apt summary of him. I have to ask, do you have a special interest in South African politics?

@ Panacea
Concerning HBV, you misquote what I was saying: I was responding to PGP, who said "AIDs is linked with sex and drugs, which means that the powers that be don’t like funding research or cures".
What I was meaning is that many people believe that "vaccines provide close to 100% protection" (Squirellite), when it is not true.
@ Squirellite
"Because it takes 15 to 20 years for cervical cancer to develop and the vaccine was introduced in 2006, it is too early to measure the final effect on cancer incidence"
When you analyze the incidence of CIN in the age group 20-24, you don't have to wait 15 years for a sexually transmitted disease. And the incidence of CIN is already high in this age group. So, the absence of decrease in CIN incidence in 2014 is puzzling, but I think we would have a clearer picture in 3 years (because it's not 2006 but 2009, which should be considered)

I apologize to the regulars who know this.
HPV helps cause head and neck cancers, mostly in men, and penile cancers, and anal cancers in men and women. I'm not a student of the second and third, but have seen dozens, and studied hundreds, of the first. It is very, very bad, and it is increasing!
Get your girls AND BOYS vaxxed, dammit. The entire herd. The rest of you, weaponize your computers - mine says "This computer kills tumors", but prevention is even better, and easier. This vaccine is nearly a miracle.

Julian: I follow global politics in general. Mbeki just stands out because he was the first of the current crop of malevolent zeppelins.

DC: Sigh. I am aware that a retrovirus is a virus. I was wondering if YOU were aware of that. And as Panacea says, the two may be similar, but there are enough differences to make engineering a vaccine difficult.

As far as HPV goes, it's too soon for a verdict really. It's only been a decade and uptake is poor. The one point I agree on is that people shouldn't rely on the vaccine alone, but we do live in the US, where the populace has decided 'we don't need no steenking sex ed.'

And yes, you do have a conflict of interest. You are really invested in your belief that vaccines just don't work any of the time.

I don't know if it's a personal thing, you have friends who don't vaccinate or maybe you have a lot of anti-vaccine clients who come in so you can make soothing noises at them. Frankly, I don't care, I just think you should maybe get out of the medical game.

Steve HIcks

Your link to the Scotland data is down ATM so I cant see your statistics.

There is plenty of evidence that the HPV vaccine is effective for preventing genital warts caused by the vaccine strains. Data demonstrating the vaccines reduce genital warts on a population level is starting to come in:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27365492
"Decline in genital warts diagnoses among young women and young men since the introduction of the bivalent HPV (16/18) vaccination programme in England: an ecological analysis."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5144106/
"Population-level impact and herd effects following human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis"

The evidence that cervical cancer is caused by HPV infection is also overwhelming. The discovery of the connection between HPV and cervical cancer by Harald zur Hausen led to the award of a Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 2008.

Your inability or refusal to understand how preventing HPV infection will, over time, prevent cervical cancer bespeaks of either faulty logic, or, more likely, a fixed ideological mindset.

Your arguments are prime examples of motivated reasoning and cherry picking data. If you think your data is so compelling, you need to write it up and submit it for peer reviewed publication.

I predict that when the incidence of cervical cancer starts to plummet in 10 years, you will be pointing to cherry picked data sets to argue that the disease was already in decline prior to introduction of the vaccine.

Yes, Daniel, I get you were responding to PGP. I should point out that I don't agree with her view that HIV is not well funded simply because it is an STD, but it wasn't germane to the last line of that post, to wit:

"The point that I wanted to make is that the efficiency of vaccines is overestimated"

And it's not. Not one bit over estimated.

@PGP
"You are really invested in your belief that vaccines just don’t work any of the time."
No I am not. My two daughters are vaccinated.
And, ;-) I am not antivax, some of my best friends are vaccinated (sorry, I could not help).
@Panacea
My point is that: all the risks and benefits should be evaluated carefully, it should not be a battle between pro-vax and at-vax.
I have pointed to evidence showing that claims for high efficacy were not justified: the claim that we had a promising vaccine against AIDS, and the claim that HPV vaccines are 100% efficient. Similarly, if a surgeon explains me that statistical significance does not mean what it means because it indicates a risk, or that a renowned immunologist is a fraudster, I am skeptical.

read anti-vax, instead for at-vax (I don't know how it happened).

@Daniel Corcos #116:

My point is that: all the risks and benefits should be evaluated carefully, it should not be a battle between pro-vax and [anti]-vax.

They are carefully evaluated. As has been pointed out before, antivaxxers downplay the risks of vaccine preventable diseases, downplay the effectiveness of vaccination and grossly exaggerate the side effects.

the claim that HPV vaccines are 100% efficient

Um, what?
I have never seen that claim made. Either provide a link to where it was claimed that HPV Vaccination is 100% effective, or I will dismiss your claim as a straw man.

@ Julian Frost
1) I am not here on behalf of the antivaxxers
2) "Clinical trials showed HPV vaccines provide close to 100% protection against cervical precancers" Squirellite # 109.

All of the so called HPV vaccine "anti-vaxxers" that I know (several hundred) all had their children vaccinated and they then suffered serious debilitating long-term illnesses. So we were all pro-vaxx and are now only anti HPV vaxx. This vaccine was fast-tracked and is amongst the first of a new generation of genetically engineered (GM) vaccines with high aluminium adjuvants and the controls in the clinical trials were similar vaccines and 'aluminium adjuvant', not placebo's. Serious adverse events (SAE) were c.2,500/100,000 immunised in both the vaccine and control groups in the clinical trials. Rates of cervical cancers in developed countries using Pap screening are 8/100,000 with screening rates of 80% at best. Deaths due to cervical cancer have come down from 8 to 2/100,000 over 40 years before the vaccine was introduced. Pap screening is still considered necessary by the vaccine manufacturers after vaccination. Reporting systems were introduced to prevent another repeat of the Thalidomide scandal but many bury their heads and insist the high levels of SAE are a coincidence. Hence Vioxx and Pandemrix caused so much suffering before it was accepted that they had caused considerable harm.

"close to 100% protection" is NOT the same as 100% effective. You said "the claim that HPV vaccines are 100% efficient". That was NOT what Squirrelelite said. Stop twisting others' words.

@Julian Frost
"close to 100% protection” is NOT the same as 100% effective". Capital letters do no make an argument valid.

Wow, Steve Hinks! You know several hundred antivaxxers with damaged children from HPV vaccine??? Where are all the reports with their serious, long-term debilitating illnesses? Are they all related to the antivaxxers who saw the light vanish from their children's eyes after getting the MMR?

I will place my children and their friends, and many others (several thousands - I can pull records on them) who have had NO effect - barring protection from common HPV strains - from the vaccine against your several hundred with damaged children.

Note: I am NOT claiming the vaccine never has an adverse event.They are not perfect. But if Steve has proof, then there would be a lot more reports validated. BTW - according to VAERS, there are 866 events listed to 6/14/17 for HPV leading to death or life threatening events. Scrolling through them, I see reports of allergic reaction (anaphylactic events) with the first vaccine, with the second and third being given without problems. So, Steve, where does THAT fall in your grouping?

Daniel Corcos: No I am not. My two daughters are vaccinated.

Sure. And I'm sure you own a lovely bit of beachland in Arizona too. If you aren't an anti-vaxxer, why do you trot out all their talking points?

MIDawn: I think Mr. Hinks's friends are of the mindset that being a teenager (and all the attitude and risktaking that go with it.) is a side-effect of the HPV vaccine.

@ PGP
I do not trot all their talking points. It happens that some points raised by scientists and used by antivaxxers are right, and that there are bad guys in both camps.

Daniel Corcos: "It happens that some points raised by scientists and used by antivaxxers are right"

No, you're weaseling and you're wrong. Anti-vaxxers demand an imaginary perfection and assume that every reaction ever is the fault of a vaccine.

Seriously, there were a couple of cases of drowning after the HPV cases that were considered 'side-effects.' How? Is forgetting how to swim or misjudging a current a side-effect?

Nothing in nature is 100%. And unless I'm misjudging your age, you had the smallpox vaccine, yes? Which had a lot more side effects than ANY vaccine on the marketplace today. But guess what? Even with the side-effects, even though it was less than perfect, it WORKED.

And there was a man whose son got hurt really badly by a polio vaccine. He didn't start campaigning to end all vaccines. Even though, by your lights he should have.

Instead, he alerted the authorities, said 'this is a problem, here's what happened." Problem got fixed, people still vaccinate for polio. Again, according to you, the polio vaccinating program should have ended immediately and all the labs should have shut down because of an imperfection.

Sacrificial Virgins has had over 10,000 views in 4 and a half days. Must be some interest out there.

There must now be at least 9,999 very disappointed pr0n surfers.

@rs &#1f923; &#1f923; &#1f923; &#1f923;
@Steve Hinks: 10,000 views in only four and a half days? Wow! Impressive...not.
A film on general release in South Africa alone can easily have several times that number watching it in its first week.

Crumbs. Those four pieces of code next to rs were supposed to be the emoji for rolling on the floor laughing out loud.

Personally, I'd have made the assumption of at least R rated film from the title... I didn't think then (and don't now) think of my children as sacrificial virgins, regardless of the purported state of their hyman and/or contact with sexual organs of another person. I'm much happier knowing that no matter what, they are protected from the scene I had in one office of a wife and husband screaming at each other because her pap came back with HPV and they were both SURE the other had been cheating... (Nope, sorry....one or the other probably exposed long before marriage, just much better testing).

I also think that Dear Steve should have seen the poor early teen-age girl I saw at another job, who had severe urinary retention due to HPV warts so numerous you couldn't even visualize her perineum and she bled every time you touched them. I changed jobs before they got her fully treated and you could see her perineal area, 6 months later.

Interesting article and insightful commentary. Thank you!
There does seem to be a lot of controversy around this HPV vaccine because:
1) it was fast-tracked despite not responding to an epidemic
2) it does not contain wild virus types, but genetically engineered "virus-like" particles made through recombinant DNA technology, which is still relatively new
3) it contains Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate created thanks to nanotechnology...do we know how this affects metabolism?
4) there are over 200'000 adverse reports, including 298 deaths, on VAERS from 2007-2017 which represents 30% of all adverse reports ever recorded. While correlation does not prove causation, it certainly should raise an eyebrow.

Also there is contradictory information in the scientific literature – some studies will claim HPV is responsible for all cervical cancers, others say this isn't so. So who knows? One thing is for sure, all concerns shouldn't be categorically ridiculed or discarded as anti-vaccine madness. Science doesn't have all the answers...it's not a religion after all.....or is it?

Steve Hicks #45:

p.s. I have zero income from the use or sale of vaccines can you both say the same.

I'd wager that MI Dawn and Julian Frost have zero income from production or promotion of anti-vaccine propaganda videos like Sacrificial Virgins, and certainly no relationship with Sanevax or AHVID. Can you say the same?It might've done to disclose your own association, Mr Vice Chair and Press Officer, AHVID, given your haste to deploy the shill gambit.

Pay attention to the tags::forget to double-check the content . . . gets me every time. Bugger.That would be @Steve Hinks #95.

there are over 200’000 adverse reports, including 298 deaths, on VAERS from 2007-2017

There is a correlation between "Grifters from SaneVax and AHVID urging their followers to swamp the VAERS system with spurious adverse reports" and "consequent rise in number of reports".
Of course this does not establish causation.

Wow, Steve Hinks! You know several hundred antivaxxers with damaged children from HPV vaccine???

Don't forget how he introduced himself. Should've tried harder to stick the flounce.

Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate created thanks to nanotechnology

I think this is the first time I have seen "adding alkali to a solution of aluminium salts and waiting for them to form a colloid" described as nanotechnology. Just saying, if your nanotech is giving you an amorphous result then you should probably take it back to the shop.

MIDawn: He'd probably think your patient was a slut and 'deserved it.' (You can't see it, but every time I read that comment I wince. That poor kid. I hope the person she caught it from got run over by a bus.)

recombinant DNA technology, which is still relatively new

To whom?

@Narad
Recombinant DNA technology has been used since the late 1970s, with the Hepatitis B being the first vaccine using this technique, released in the late 1980s.
Despite these milestones, it would seem that science has ploughed ahead in areas without a full understanding. After all, back in 2001, science was still claiming that 98% of our DNA was "non-coding" junk. Shows there is still a lot to learn with regards to DNA and how it codes for life. Despite being on the market for almost 40 years, I would argue DNA recombinant technology is still relatively new and likely to evolve as knowledge and understanding on the subject increases.

So I was on Facebook and I was going though my "On this day" feed.
Lo and behold, how germane is this?
http://www.thejournal.ie/hpv-vaccine-ireland-regret-gardasil-facts-2970…

Steve said, "There were 24 deaths in the clinical studies. The authors stated the events were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adults populations. I don’t think so."

From the clinical trials https://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf

"There were eleven deaths in subjects who received Gardasil™: six were attributed to traumatic injuries or drug overdose, one death attributed to pancreatic cancer, one death attributed to cardiac arrhythmia, one death attributed to DVT/PE, one death attributed to DIC with possible sepsis, and one death attributed to pneumonia and sepsis.

Of the seven deaths in subjects who received placebo, five were attributed to traumatic injuries or
suicide, one death attributed to complications of labor and delivery, and one death attributed to pulmonary embolism. Most deaths occurred months or years after the third vaccination and thus there were no obvious temporal associations between deaths and administration of study vaccine"

So, car accidents, suicide, death in childbirth... those are expected events in healthy adolescent and adult populations.

@Steve

You don't think deaths happen in adolescents and adult populations?

From the clinical trial data:

Of the seven deaths in subjects who received placebo, five were attributed to traumatic injuries or suicide, one death attributed to complications of labor and delivery, and one death attributed to pulmonary embolism. Most deaths occurred months or years after the third vaccination and thus there were no obvious temporal associations between deaths and administration of study vaccine"

Recipients died of motor vehicle accidents, suicide, drug overdose, childbirth, etc.

Those events happen in a normal population.

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/health/medical-examiner-girls-death-no…
"A much-touted vaccine given to teens and preteens to prevent cancers caused by a sexually transmitted virus did not cause or contribute to the death of a 12-year-old Waukesha girl whose mother found her unresponsive in their home on July 30, the Waukesha County medical examiner said Wednesday."

Trolling the antivaccine trolls

oracknows — Thu, 31 Aug 2017 04:00:00 +0000

Trolling the antivaccine trolls

There are many ways to combat antivaccine pseudoscience. Personally, I've chosen my favored methods, namely blogging, giving talks, and generally combatting pseudoscience on social media wherever I find it. That's not all I do (for example, I do have a couple of papers in the peer-reviewed medical literature designed to combat the infiltration of pseudoscience into academia), but it is where I put most of my effort. For one thing, I'm good at it. For another thing, it's fun. Also, it's something I can work into my busy schedule more easily. It even brings me a bit of notoriety now and then, such as when I had a strange interaction with William Shatner or when various news organizations, for some reason, want to interview and quote me for various stories.

None of this is to say that what I do is the only way to combat pseudoscience. Heck, it's probably not even the most effective, but it does play to my strengths. Indeed, I very much admire people who can go a more conventional route, forming organizations, lobbying, and doing outreach. I also can't help but have some respect for people who use more—shall we say?—in your face tactics, people like those who go out and protest showings of antivaccine documentaries like VAXXED. The movie was released well over a year ago, and, unfortunately, the film's producers and director, Andrew Wakefield, Polly Tommey, and Del Bigtree, are still promoting it for all it's worth. They've even bought an old buss, painted it up with the film's logo, and went on tour to promote the movie, rally the antivaccine faithful, and try to influence legislators, both at the federal and state level—even in my state of Michigan. Throughout it all, they've tried to make it a memorial to the "vaccine-injured," with parents writing the names of the "victims" on the bus. It's all rather ghoulish, actually.

Indeed, the VAXXED crew is so blatant that just last week they were in Minneapolis, the epicenter of a massive measles outbreak among the Somali immigrant community in Hennepin County that Andrew Wakefield himself, with the help of his acolytes, directly caused through their fear mongering about vaccines and autism. Even worse, even after having drawn national attention to their role in endangering the children of Minnesota through promoting antivaccine misinformation, antivaxers aren't ashamed. They're proud. They're doubling down and still promoting their pseudoscience among the vulnerable population they harmed in the first place. The VAXXED bus visit is just part of that. Basically, Wakefield is making another movie, and his crew is filming interviews wherever the VAXXED bus goes.

That's why I'm glad there's someone like Craig Egan, who started a GoFundMe page in order to raise money so that he could travel across the country, report on where the VAXXED bus is going and what the VAXXED crew is doing, protest, and raise money for Voices For Vaccines:

The Vaxxed bus is on tour, spreading fear and disinformation about vaccines. I will be following their route, refuting them with facts and evidence and sometimes lulz at every stop. I will also be using this adventure as a fundraiser for a great organization, Voices for Vaccines. One third of all donations will be budgeted to go directly to V4V . Each goal will get me to another stop on the tour and a larger V4V donation.

He's even made the news as the "Internet's most prolific troll of anti-vaxxers":

Online, his approach is textbook trolling, which is defined by the Urban Dictionary as posting a “deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”

That’s exactly what he does, needling staunch, conspiratorial anti-vaccine types to an uncomfortable point of hilarity or harassment, depending on your point of view.

He has a certain skill set, and he’s not shy about using it, employing take-down-style arguments based in science and medicine in a bizarre digital realm that largely seeks to discredit both.

Online, his many foes know him well. He’s routinely referred to as a bully, or worse.

Egan targets those who believe immunizations are responsible for a host of medical conditions, ailments and disabilities, and that there’s a widespread cover-up orchestrated by the government and large pharmaceutical companies to keep the truth hidden.

Specifically, Egan specializes in making online life miserable for the handful of doctors and authors who deal in this junk science.

Yes, there's Insolence I can approve of. He also follows an approach I try to follow in my blogging, namely ruthless mockery of the hard core antivaxers but a much softer approach with those on the fence. Antivaxers hate him, of course, probably more than they hate me. They portray him (and Karen Ernst of V4V) as "stalkers and "mockers," which is not entirely inaccurate but doesn't really truly catch the flavor of what he's doing. In any case, Egan is very effective, because he's basically driven the VAXXED bus underground:

Basically, because of Egan, the locations of where the VAXXED bus will be have been kept as secret as possible, and some appearances have been moved to private homes, where Egan can't go. In particular, I like how Egan turned the tables on the VAXXED crew in Minneapolis by calling the police on them for not having a permit to film a movie in a public park. The same sort of thing happened in Bettendorf, IA and St. Louis: No bus, or the event was moved to a private house:

Here he noted that Suzanne Humphries stopped showing up, as did Polly Tommey. I really have to wonder how fragile the message of VAXXED is if one person (or, sometimes, a handful of people) respectfully protesting, drives the whole crew and bus underground. I can't help but think of similar behavior that I've noticed elsewhere...

Trolling is not all that Egan does, though. As he's done his tour, he's interviewed various physicians and vaccine researchers about the importance of vaccines, thus providing a positive message as well.

So how do antivaxers view him? The Age of Autism crew, specifically Nancy Hokkanen, was not happy:

Organizers of the Minneapolis VaxXed stop withheld its Mississippi River stop location publicly because of troublemakers. One was Craig Egan, a miscreant with suspect funding who boasts online about his national stalking of the bus and its grieving visitors. Nonetheless he and a handful of protesters appeared brandishing a few signs (such as the inapplicable “Mutant and Proud”), but left after some sprinkles of rain. Someone even attempted to shut down the VaxXed event by calling park police, though event organizers had a permit.

"I wonder why Craig Egan and the rest of his trolls are trying to intimidate families who have vaccine injured children?” asked Wayne Rohde of the Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota. “He has no heart or conscience for understanding others who are living and struggling with disabilities."

Another empathy-challenged intruder was Karen Ernst of the faux consumer group Voices for Vaccines, who showed up to lurk and smirk. Though the VaxXed bus is a travelling monument recognizing health damage and deaths caused by vaccines, photos taken that day indicate she found the gathering amusing. Her disturbingly inappropriate affect is profoundly disrespectful at an event commemorating the sick and dead, their caregivers, and their mourners.

I don't presume to speak for Craig, but I do have empathy for parents who have to deal with a special needs child. I really do. Back when I was in college, I worked part time at a group home with children with severe mental retardation, two of which had classic severe autism. I can partially (but never completely) imagine what it would be like to take care of such children 24/7/365. However, having a special needs child does not give you a pass if you spread antivaccine misinformation of the sort that resulted in the recent measles outbreak in Minnesota, nor does it give you a pass if you have, in essence, made a career of spreading such misinformation, as Polly Tommey and several of the leaders of the antivaccine movement have done.

That being said, it is a fine line to tread. Antivaxers use their belief that their children were horribly injured by vaccines as a shield against any criticism of their antivaccine beliefs. Basically, if you criticize their antivaccine beliefs, you are risking falling into the trap of being portrayed as "attacking mothers." The flip side of their use of their pain as their shield is that, at the same time, as they take self-righteous umbrage at any criticism pro-vaccine advocates might level at their antivaccine pseudoscience, they feel they have every right to use all manner of personal attacks, doxxing, trying to get their critics fired (or at least harassing them at work), and even using violent imagery aimed at their perceived enemies.

Fortunately, Craig treads that line well.

oracknows Thu, 08/31/2017 - 00:00

Tags

Quackery