Both Age of Autism and David Kirby have recently reported on a new review paper with Age of Autism describing it as ‘pretty interesting’ and David repeating a part of the abstract:
Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination.
So, should we all in the skeptic camp be reaching for our humble pie and our knife and fork? Not exactly. Lets take a look at the contents of this paper. Lets start here:
The vaccine organism itself could be a culprit. For example, one hypothesis of the cause of autism is that the pertussis toxin in the DPT vaccine causes a separation of the G-alpha protein from retinoid receptors in genetically at-risk children (Farfel et al., 1999; Megson, 2000). The pertussis toxin creates a chronic autoimmune monocytic infiltration of the gut mucosa lamina propia and may disconnect the G-alpha protein pathways, leaving some G-alphamodulated pathways unopposed. In turn, the non-specific branch of the immune system is turned on and, without retinoid switching, cannot be down regulated.
Wow, blinded with the cool science yet? No, me neither. Go back to line one where it says ‘one hypothesis’. All that follows from that point is mere opinion. There’s no science to back it up.
Another organism of suspect is the live measles virus…
Yeah except its really not. The issues with the Wakefield hypothesis are so many and so thoroughly debunked, it really isn;t worth my time or yours going through them again and again.
There is evidence that Thimerosal (which is 49% ethyl mercury) is indeed harmful. Since the 1930s, Thimerosal has been extensively used as an antibacterial agent in vaccines (Geier et al., 2007). Thimerosal has been implicated as a cause of autism. Not only is every major symptom of autism documented in cases of mercury poisoning but also biological
abnormalities in autism are very similar to the side effects of mercury poisoning itself (Bernard et al., 2001)
Oh dear. Reliance on more thoroughly debunked rubbish in the form of well, anything by the Geier’s and the ridiculous Bernard ‘paper’. I’m happy to go through why these are rubbish but I think I’d be preaching to the converted.
The rest of the paper is a rogues gallery of debunked and fringe science. Helen Ratajczak cites the Geier’s numerous times, DeSoto and Hitlan, Nataf and Rossignol to name but a few. This isn’t a paper so much as an advert for the sort of poor science that was examined in the Autism Omnibus proceedings and roundly rejected by the Special Masters. For goodness sake, she even cites David Ayoub of the Black Helicopter infamy.
When it comes to this paper – handle with extreme caution. Its toxic rubbish.
Left Brain Right Brain 
psPS
[chris say] especially when used with erroneous examples (including the use of engineering failures do to forces they were not designed for)
science determined the design criteria.
stanley seigler
Mr. Seigler, the tobacco science analogy is particularly wrong in this case as well.
In the original tobacco-science saga, an increasing body of evidence was emerging indicating the significant role of tobacco in a number of cancers. The tobacco industry funded research into genetic (and other) causes for these conditions, and encouraged research (and lots of publicity) which generally cast doubt upon tobacco as a main or sole carcinogen. Eventually the weight of evidence against tobacco was undeniable, but the industry had bought time.
The weight of scientific evidence shows no link between vaccines and autism. There is much stronger evidence for genetic factors and some pre-natal factors and a possible combination of genetic and yet-to-be-discovered environmental factors. If vaccines are involved, their contribution is so minimal that it cannot be detected using very sophisticated epidemiological methods. There simply isn’t any emerging body of research into a vaccine-autism link even remotely comparable to the beginnings of the research into the tobacco-cancer link. And not for want of trying.
In this case the situation is reversed. It is the vaccine-damage laywers and cure-hucksters of the anti-vaccine movement who are marketing doubt.
While big-pharma are not exactly a charming example of corporate charity, they are relatively aloof from the fray. Think about it. Is this really a plot to foist vaccines onto the public for money?
Wouldn’t they make more money out of leaving the diseases in place?
Think of the logic that the tin-foil hat brigade use with cancer – “if they wanted to, they could cure cancer, but they make so much money from the drugs for treating it that they let it persist”. Well, in this case, Evil Big pharma were on the verge of wiping out some diseases that would otherwise be very lucrative for them what with ongoing sales of drugs and anti-biotics and stuff. My nephew was hospitalized with chickenpox last year, the shot is not on the schedule here and the evil bastards charge $70 for it. His hospitalization cost a lot more than $70, my sister was personally out of pocket for hundreds for transportation, food and sundries, and childcare for the other child.
If the bottom line were money, then it makes no sense to get rid of so many diseases, they would be doing themselves out of a job.
(unless, the anti-vax crowd are actually secret deep-cover pharma shills who are trying to prevent the eradication of disease!, cripes, that explains ChildHealthSafety! it is all becoming clear to me now! where’s the tin foil?)
Actually Big-Pharma’s bread is buttered on both sides – most of them have a raft of subsidiary companies flogging off supplements and homeopathic nonsense, some of which is produced under contract for third companies, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it advertised on AoA. Check the fine print on your bottle of sugar pills.
And then, we are expected to believe that big pharma somehow lobbied the government into letting them do themselves out of some profitable business by foisting vaccines on to the kids. It seems to me that big pharma were only to happy to get out of Dodge at the first sign of trouble (do they care if they have to go back to making scads more money treating diseases, not preventing them?), hence Vaccine court was established by government to ensure the availability of vaccines.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168
Then they let in the lawyers. The vaccine-autism link was hatched in a UK lawyer’s office long before Wakers saw any patients. And as I noted several posts above, there were no autism claims in vaccine court before Wakers published his paper.
The guys to watch here are the insurance companies. They fund vaccinations, because vaccinations reduce the ongoing cost to the company for that client. You can bet your retirement fund that those guys are not going to pay for their clients to be shot up with substances which will then expose the insurance company to some very very expensive therapy payouts. What are they telling their clients?:
http://www.bcbs.com/news/wellness/doctor-faked-data-linking-autism-to-vaccines-british-medical-journal-says.html
the below has disappeared from LBRB…pls advise so i can move on if LBRB thunks it inappropiate
the below
[chris say] Science Was Wrong Before Fallacy is not appropriate…the below has disappeared from LBRB…pls advise so i can move if LBRB thunks it inappropriate
[chris say] Science Was Wrong Before Fallacy is not appropriate…
really…this seems like a true believer’s opine vice fact. you are certainly entitled to your opine as i to mine…doesn’t make either of us right or wrong…ie;
yo link say: “Both their ideas and science may be wrong; but science is highly likely to be far less wrong than they are.” and
“Contrary to what many believe, neither skeptics nor science claim to know the absolute truth on matters. They claim to hold provisional truths: answers that are the best explanation for things at the present time.
i agree with above statements (provisional truths, present time, the operative words)…do you…i have not made up any facts…just recorded events.
have to add “true” science to be less wrong than promotional/sloppy science…sad many true believers and others dont know the difference…they cant acknowledge science is “just less likely” to be wrong…
stanley seigler
As usual, the question put has not been answered. [Sullivan
April 4th, 2011 @ 22:54, 23:02, 23:29].
The question was “If you and Chris cannot find anywhere where those who post as ChildHealthSafety have identified themselves openly”.
Nowhere is there any statement of who the people are who use that pseudonym. Nowhere is there any list of contributors to ChildHealthSafety. Nowhere has it been disclosed who are the people who post as ChildHealthSafety.
And the double standard from Sullivan:
“I have made it clear a number of times that I use a pseudonym for privacy. In specific, the privacy of my kid.”
So Sullivan chooses not to respect the privacy of others and in particular, the privacy of the children of others.
It is irrelevant that people have openly published articles either under their own names or been identified as contributors to ChildHealthSafety. It is not for Sullivan or anyone else to claim all that is published under the ChildHealthSafety brand or is posted here or anywhere else under that nom de plume is by particular individuals simply because one or two may have chosen to identify themselves on particular occasions for any particular item.
If Sullivan wants to claim he knows who posts as whom, then he should post openly under his own name, identifying himself and so should all the others here who pretend to claim they know who posts under whatever pseudonym. This is particularly the case where people like “McD” pretend to be arbiters of what is and is not valid evidence of anything [and to defame by making patently false accusations of lying just because s/he has lost the argument]. What is their status to do so? What is their standing? No one knows.
Sullivan claims David Gorski was unfairly “outed”. Bearing in mind his financial interests in the drug industry – their money pays his salary – and bearing in mind the often vitriolic nature of what he posts and the personal attacks he makes on named individuals – was that or was that not fair?
Sullivan suggests not – but he does not mind the double standard he sets in so suggesting. Was there a public interest to be served in Gorski’s identity being revealed? Some may say so.
Is Sullivan really a parent concerned for the privacy of his own child? Or is Sullivan someone else who has taken over the running of Kev Leitch’s blog. The latter clearly is the case.
And another question is who pays to run LeftBrainRightBrain? And who has all the time Sullivan has to post articles and comments and review comments of others here. It looks pretty much like a fulltime job.
So Sullivan, there are unanswered questions and by attempting to claim you know the identities of those who post under whatever pseudonym, you should clearly identify yourself too so everyone knows where you stand and who you are.
Isn’t that fair? Yes it is.
ChildHealthSafety,
I see that you wish to play the same games. That time has passed. Read back on what I wrote. Those conditions are not an offer, they are a statement. Mr. Stone and Mr. Miller have made public their participation in the blog you represent. I’ve shown that.
Goodbye.
[McD say] the tobacco science analogy is particularly wrong in this case as well.
Don’t think so…the analogy was to question science…promotional science and that even good science can be wrong and may not be forever…not to compare big pharma to the tobacco industry…
I am concerned re promotional science used to prove/disprove positions, whether used by dawson’s autism-ABA folks, the tobacco industry, or pro/con VAXers.
And as said several times I am not an anti-Vaxer and do not believe vaccinations cause autism
That said, agree with your evaluation/opines re the ills of the pro/con VAX movement. thanks.
stanley seigler
Mr. Seigler:
Than why even comment? Why bother posting things like: “have to add “true” science to be less wrong than promotional/sloppy science…sad many true believers and others dont know the difference…they cant acknowledge science is “just less likely” to be wrong…”
Which is very hard to understand.
You keep posting things you think where “science was wrong before” like it actually matters. But you forget that real science corrects itself, and moves on.
Which is very unlike the folks like CHS, the Age of Autism guys, Kirby and Ratajczak (who seems to think the MMR contained thimerosal at one time, it did not). They are still banging on about thimerosal ten years after all pediatric vaccines were made available without (including influenza!), and some mystery link to the MMR based on one fraudulent study!
Wakefield’s case study of a dozen children did not find a link to either MMR they had received. He has also been found to have severe conflicts of interests and lack of ethics, and is no longer allowed to practice medicine. He was never qualified to treat children in the first place. Yet, his fan club clings on.
Mr. Seigler, science moves on… it is time that you, CHS, Kirby and the rest of you do the same.
ChildHealthSafety Said “This is particularly the case where people like “McD” pretend to be arbiters of what is and is not valid evidence of anything [and to defame by making patently false accusations of lying just because s/he has lost the argument]. What is their status to do so? What is their standing? No one knows.”
I am not making arguments from authority, or offering expert opinion based on accumulated experience. So it doesn’t matter who I am or what my day job is. I am the mother of a severely autistic son, which is why I lurk about here on and off.
I laid out my arguments and showed where you clearly misrepresented the paper you were pretending to analyze. You, on the other hand, are attempting to employ rhetorical sleights of hand to conceal the fact that you are deliberately misleading parents. And simply bouncing up and down repeating the same old falsehoods, trying to shout down the opposition. Science isn’t a game or a varsity debate, and science doesn’t happen in court-rooms.
LBRB owner pls delete my april 5th, 2011; 21:09:34 post…posted my file by mistake…thanks
stanley seigler
[chris say] Than why even comment?
why do you…
[chris say] Why bother posting things like: “have to add “true” science to be less wrong than promotional/sloppy science…sad many true believers and others dont know the difference…they cant acknowledge science is “just less likely” to be wrong…”Which is very hard to understand.
Well because it seems there are those who “they cant acknowledge science is “just less likely” to be wrong…which in turn makes it less likely to be right…
[chris say] science was wrong before” like it actually matters. But you forget that real science corrects itself, and moves on
it does actually matter…least we forget history/science repeats its mistakes.
[chris say] science moves on…it is time that you, CHS, Kirby and the rest of you do the same.
ditto for all pro/con VAXers…very little new re the pro/con VAX debate…same old, same old, time worn statements.
stanley seigler
“it does actually matter…least we forget history/science repeats its mistakes.”
Over 120 Americans died from measles between 1989 and 1991.
The science has been done, the link between vaccines and autism does not exist. It is a dead link… “It’s not pinin’! ‘It’s passed on! This link is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now ‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-LINK!! ” (hat-tip to Monty Python and the dead parrot sketch)
Moving on… but will continue to remind you that the diseases are worse than the MMR.
[chris say] Moving on…but will continue to remind you that the diseases are worse than the MMR…will continue to remind you that the diseases are worse than the MMR.
dont need to be reminded. not sure why you continue to bring up (and remind)…it has never been my opinion vaxes are worse than (or cause autism) the disease…OTOH seems you need to be reminded:
“Contrary to what many believe, neither skeptics nor science claim to know the absolute truth on matters. They claim to hold provisional truths: answers that are the best explanation for things at the present time.”
sadly some do claim to know the absolute truth…do you know anyone like that…
thanks for your link (Science Was Wrong Before Fallacy) that provided the above statement. http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=science_has_been_wrong_before.php
stanley seigler
@Chris, that is the best use of a Monty Python skit I have seen in a long time. Bravo, very funny.
@Chris- You said, “Also, remember that the MMR vaccine has been used in the USA since 1971. If you are an American under the age of 41, you may have had it as a toddler. Why was there only an issue after Wakefield’s fraud in 1998? Why not in the 1970s, or even the 1980s (when Barbara Loe Fisher was fanning the flames over the DTP vaccine)?”
One thing I would like to point out in the cbsnews article covering this story, was this:
“Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn’t been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That’s right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidence corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.
Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: “Because it’s human DNA and recipients are humans, there’s homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it’s changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it’s an ongoing inflammation. It doesn’t stop, it continues through the life of that individual.”
Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, “It does not matter…Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism.” Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open. ”
So, to me, the most important part of this review is that a RETIRED SENIOR Scientist for a vaccine manufacturer now has the muzzle off (As she indicated in the article), and decides to fill us in on her opinion about Human DNA in the vaccines and its possible role in autism. So to answer your question, the MMR vaccine that you (assuming you are 25 or older..) is not the same vaccine that kids in 1995 and later have recieved because of the addition of Human DNA.
Obviously this is not a scientific fact, but it is a major difference in how the MMR vaccine has changed over the years and happens to coincide with the uptick of autism. It is worth investigating. And….Dr. Strom is a bonehead.
“the most important part of this review is that a RETIRED SENIOR Scientist for a vaccine manufacturer”
If this is the most important part of the review, you must be disappointed. It’s a weak review and there is no insider information implicating vaccines. Did she work on vaccines?
At the risk of being labeled a “bonehead”, could you answer a question for me: hasn’t the Rubella vaccine always been cultured in human cell lines? Wouldn’t that mean that human DNA has been in vaccines since, what, the 1960’s?
From this link:
Emphasis added.
Ken,
“Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidence corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked.”
What did she write in her paper
OK-
first, the old MMR didn’t contain thimerosal either, did it?
I love the overuse of the dramatic term “spiked”. Not accurately applied at all in this case. Take a look at the figure from the paper she herself cites (McDonald 2010). Not a great paper, in my opinion, but it doesn’t support a “spike” in autism prevalence after the introduction of the human cell line MMR in 1979. Note that the data are for birth year, so the
“Also, in 1988, MMR II was used in the United Kingdom, which reported a dramatic increase in prevalence of autism to 1/64 (noted above)”
And people wonder why the author has been criticized. In 1998 MMR was used in the UK and, 20 years later, the prevalence was reported to be high.
She makes the same mistake that many, including myself, have made: confusing incidence and prevalence.
She fails to note that in Japan, the MMR combination vaccine is no longer given and that people are also avoiding the individual vaccines in large numbers (e.g. 2003, 7 million Japanese school girls were unvaccinated against Rubella)
I am not sure where she gets the “23” vaccines that “currently use” human tissue (nice wording there, isn’t it). The source I checked states that 1 version of rabies, the Hepatitis A vaccine, chicken pox and the rubella vaccine are cultured in human cells.
[sharon say] that is the best use of a Monty Python skit I have seen in a long time. Bravo, very funny.
indeed funny…but not best use of monty p…bares little if any semblance to the issue of: absolute truths v provisional truths”…ie, not a good analogy.
not as funny but more to the point…nietzsche say: “…concluding that in the face of so much that is inexplicable there is no scientific or moral truth.”
stanley seigler
If DNA fragments can so easily incorporate into a host genome, someone should tell gene therapists so they can quit trying to develop effective vectors.
Tom,
Human DNA travels to the brain and causes symptoms of mercury poisoning….no, it travels to the intestines and causes a persistent measles infection which causes a leaky gut which causes autism….And keep in mind, human DNA avoids all other cells except neurons. It is not incorporated into the muscle cells near the injection site.
A few more points…
First off, what increase in autism for kids born in 1995?
Data in this graph are from 2007, the National Children’s Health Survey (NCHS). Kids born in 1995 would be 12 years old. There’s a spike up, but I don’t believe it to be real. Why? Because the prevalence in this survey data goes back down for the 11 year olds (born 1996) and stays lower until 7 year olds (born 2000). During this period of time, uptake in the chicken pox vaccine was increasing. Were the “chicken pox vaccine contains human DNA, therefore it causes autism by some mechanism unknown to modern medicine” theory were to hold, there would be a very different trend.
Chicken pox vaccination was notably higher in minorities (Hispanics and African Americans, especially Hispanics) than in whites. But the reported autism prevalence data are normally lower for minorities. Again, doesn’t fit the model.
Chicken pox vaccine uptake is similar in many states. Notably, New Jersey (with a CDC reported high prevalence) and Alabama (with a CDC reported low prevalence).
So, aside from the lack of biological plausibility, the “human DNA from chicken pox vaccine” hypothesis doesn’t fit the actual data available.
@Ken: you are correct to be heading down this path of questioning and reasoning, finallY…some sanity here!
Taking this concept of ” gene tinkering” a step further then, the first of the human DNA vaccine recipients are now the parents of the biggest wave of autism spectrum children. Animal studies have clearly shown that even male genetic mutations such as diabetes and obesity due to external factors such as diet, can be passed down and influence second generation daughters(grand daughters) which right up until the actual study had been deemed
” impossible” !
It is then only fair to wonder how an ” actual, deliberate internal” placement of foreign DNA might affect a person, a child. One step further then, THAT child, now grown up, passing on ” damaged/ altered” DNA….along with the maternal portion of
” damaged/altered” DNA….the next generation is exponentially unduly genetically influenced….and so on, and so on, and so forth.
There are no absolute truths in medicine as Science, merely a preponderance of evidence which is based more closely upon the prevailing ” knowledge at that time” than anyone would like to admit. Craig Venter from the Human Genome Project has stated this, adding, ” it is with some sadness and a moribund humility that I am confounded by our own, our very lack of, as it turns out, simple understandings of things to which we have adamently claimed broad and sweeping knowledge in the past, and which we now know that we know oh so very little about after all”.
It is in part the undue pressures and monolithic infrastructure of our modern society that has placed such rigidity upon the questions so as to render any questioning voices as fools or worse.
Dumbed down works equally well in the ghettos as in the halls of pseudo intellectual ” pursuit”. The adherance to the notion of ” absolutes” has no place in Science then, nor Medicine if medicine is to truly benefit the many without doing harm ( to the few?).
I question that notion of ” the few” because MANY are harmed by medicine…, disease mongering by pharma has led to drug induced illness cascades that plague mostly nations that can afford the plethora of pills in the first place.
Another thing: DTP vax has a larger and longer list of table injuries, including death, than MMR vax and children overall are more likely to be ” mildly” sick from DTP or DTaP than from any of the other vaccines.
Dinah Everett Snyder
dinaheverettsnyder@hotmail.com
Ah, Helen Ratajczak. The woman who apparently thinks the MMR once contained thimerosal. The woman who is apparently unaware that SINCE THE 1960S the rubella vaccine has been cultured in human tissue. The woman who uses the GEIERS for reference. The woman who would prefer that we go back to the “good old days” when whole families could die from measles, or diptheria.
And Dinah. How nice to see you back. Are you ever going to give us any references besides “buy my book”?
@ken, there are many demographics that have been receiving products with human or animal DNA for some reason or other, in infancy and otherwise, for decades.
Do you know of any correlation between, say, hemophilia and autism?
And as Sullivan points out, Rubella at least has been grown in fetal cells since the 60s. I am also sure that Poliovax, which is also cultured in fetal tissue, has been around for decades as well, but I can’t find a definitive link.
There is also a considerable flaw in your senior whistle-blower’s logic:
As I noted in a little anecdote above, the chickenpox vaccine isn’t on the schedule in NZ.
I checked, and it is also not on the schedule for Japan, the UK, or Denmark. Other countries where there is supposedly an epidemic underway.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/464057.html
http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/Vaccinationchecklist.aspx
Click to access Vaccprg_dk_okt07-eng.pdf
oops
“1) it does not matter whether we used “and” or “or”;”
Anyone who is a lawyer (if it is the lawyer guy) and can actually say – and believe – that is bound to be a shit lawyer!
English language comprehension FAIL!
There’s not so much wrong with that statement that couldn’t be remedied by consulting introductory textbooks in genetics, developmental biology, and molecular biology. I happen to have begun research in genetic recombination mechanisms several decades ago, and I’ve been exceptionally interested in techniques related to expressing the genes of one species in other organisms since I first accomplished that back in the early 1980s. None of what you write makes any sense at all to me, but then I suppose that you’re writing for rather different audience.
@sullivan and others
I certainly understand most of the points you are making and there is some flaws in what she(Ratajczak) stated. My main point was to Chris to just indicate that what I receieved as an MMR is not what kids are now recieving.
I personally would love to hear Ratajczak interviewed and hear what she has to say about her paper and what she actually did a the Pharmaceutical company. She did make it clear that she was muzzled while working there and can now speak. If she was working on vaccines, I want to hear what she has to say.
I’m not sure why she needs to be character assisinated by some of you because you don’t like some of the stuff she had to say. It seems most don’t know anything about her other than this paper and are making sweeping generalities because of it.
Brian
Not exactly correct a link worth a read from 1997
http://www.whale.to/drugs/thalidomide.html
Sniffer,
You’ve just made a fool of yourself. John Scudamore, the creator of whale.to, believes that dolphins can manipulate gravity and that satanic ley lines burnt him on his backside. In addition, whale.to hosts “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”, an antisemitic pack of lies that was exposed as fraudulent decades ago.
Scopie’s Law states “In any debate about science or medicine, citing whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the forum.” Please consider that before posting garbage from fail boo here.
Julian Frost
Extremely sorry , please accept my apologies I never thought that the messenger was an evil as you purport. One would have thought the subject on Thalidomide content to be more prevalent than the messenger in this discussion?.
What are your thoughts on 2nd generation Thalidomide?
The idea that human DNA in vaccines somehow, someway, somewhere contributes to autism is nonsense. If there were even a slight effect, infants who receive blood transfusions would all have autism.
If there is a dose-response effect from the human DNA in a few vaccines, then injection of gigantic amounts of human DNA via blood transfusion would be many orders of magnitude higher than the vaccine schedule.
In other words, if zero human DNA in vaccines causes 1 in 5000 autism, trace human DNA in 23 vaccines causes 1 in 100 autism, then bulk human DNA in a blood transfusion (conservatively estimated at 10,000x higher) would cause ~ 1 in 1.01 autism.
The idea is just data-free and science-free scare mongering by someone who doesn’t know what DNA is and doesn’t know how it works. It is just a scary buzz-word to them, something to scare other people who don’t know what DNA is and how it works.
Ken:
Evidence? Like links to the PubMed articles showing the changes to the MMR vaccine that you had as a child, and that are in use now. In the UK the change in the MMR vaccine in 1992 was in the mumps strain, from Urabe to Jeryl Lynn (the later being the strain that was used in the MMR vaccine since 1971, the name being that of the child the strain was derived from, Maurice Hilleman’s daughter).
Sniffer, exactly how many babies in the USA were affected by thalidomide? How many laws were created because of what happened?
What does it have to do with Ratajczak sloppy paper?
It is still evidence that science moves on, while folks like Scudamore are stuck in the past.
An empty appeal to authority. She never worked for a pharmaceutical company, she worked for ITT Research Institute, an independent group who performs independent testing for numerous industries. The rubella and measles vaccine seed strains of the original vaccines were developed using human cell cultures, and then batch grown in chicken and duck cell cultures, they were licensed in 1963 and 1969 respectively. Those were also used in the original MMR licensed in 1971. So there was human, chicken and duck DNA in those. Where was all that autism? Then measles and rubella strains were batch grown using human foetal cell lines to make MMR-II in 1979. Where was all the autism then? As daedalus stated, human blood products are widely used, where is all of this “inflammation” and autism in recipients?
Do you even understand what she is proposing? Do you understand that you don’t just bang random DNA fragments together and get recombination? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to manipulate cells to integrate DNA into their nuclei?
@Science Mom You said,
“An empty appeal to authority. She never worked for a pharmaceutical company, she worked for ITT Research Institute, an independent group who performs independent testing for numerous industries.”
She worked here: http://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com/
You can easily find this by reviewing her 40 research papers she has authored or participated in on Pubmed.
Where would you come up with this notion that she did not work for a drug company? She currently is RETIRED. Not sure if you caught that part.
You said, “Do you even understand what she is proposing? Do you understand that you don’t just bang random DNA fragments together and get recombination? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to manipulate cells to integrate DNA into their nuclei?”
Do you? She clearly has the credentials to make the statement she did. I don’t claim to be qualified to say she is right or wrong, but clearly you feel like you are qualified. Perhaps you could point me to some of your research papers so I can get a better feel for what you actually know? It certainly makes sense to me that a rapidly developing infant could “bang random DNA fragments together” and Helen seems to think this as well. How many decades ago did our illustrious government “bang together” Spiders and Goat DNA to create spider goats? How about this new “banging” of Human DNA with Cows to create Human Cow Milk in Cows?
Really hard stuff here…
Ken:
So did Wakefield, and look what he did.
Try reading the above article, and then go mosey over to this medical blog written by actual medical doctors and/or researchers. And as Science Mom said: go pick up a book on basic biology and learn about the stuff.
No, she doesn’t. That’s obvious from both her listed publications and from her ridiculous statements, which reveal her ignorance of an area far removed from her research interests.
@ Chris You said,
“So did Wakefield, and look what he did. Try reading the above article, and then go mosey over to this medical blog written by actual medical doctors and/or researchers. And as Science Mom said: go pick up a book on basic biology and learn about the stuff.
”
Ya, he didn’t do anything wrong. I’m still trying to figure that one out. He has no more special interest in villifying mmr than Gorski does in preventing Oncology from being discovered as the murderous death cult that it is. My wife had cancer and I would never let this Big Pharma lackey near her. Notice I said…had. I knew enough even 8 years ago that people like Gorski would put her 6 feet under with the barbaric treatments and toxic concoctions he peddles as being based on “science”.
Here is what Gorski thinks is really scientific ‘medicine’ because a study says it works: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/why-almost-everything-you-hear-about-medicine-is-wrong.html
I read his blog post and I have to ask, why is a Medical Doctor qualified to comment on what a Senior Scientist who obviously has worked on the very vaccines he blindly administers? He is a medical doctor who knows what the vaccine inserts tell him, if he even reads them. I am sure that he actually does because he is actively defending them, but most don’t. I also did not come away with a feeling like he convinced me that Helen’s work was bunk. Most of it was just rehashing old studies, I think I and most who actually read it get that. It is basically throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. The Human DNA angle is kind of new I think. When you combine her hypothosis with the fact that there is a clear relationship between Autism and Mitochondrial Dysfunction, I think it needs to be studied. Especially when you look at the fact that in this disordor of the Mitochondria, the DNA is DAMAGED. Now…does this happen before vaccination or after is what needs to be explored.
To answer your and Science Mom’s assertion, I have taken college level Biology classes and have at least a few dozen hours in an actual laboratory environment. I am not completely blind here. To have it thrown out time and again that this is really “hard” to have Human DNA recombine. Well, where is the study that says these human embryonic stem cell’s in these vaccine conconctions do not recombine in children either with Mitochondrial Dysfunction or that it does not have a role in causing Mitochondrial dysfunction?
Answer: it doesn’t exist and this should be looked at because it is a valid hypothosis.
“Ya, he didn’t do anything wrong. I’m still trying to figure that one out.”
Sorry, but this says a lot. When you figure out what is obvious to the layman, you can then move on to science. Let’s see, just for starters: he performed invasive procedures on disabled children which were not clinically indicated and were not approved by the ethics board of his hospital. Those were to produce data for his litigation-driven research. He didn’t disclose that his work was litigation driven until forced to, much later. He didn’t disclose his financial conflicts of interests. Those COI’s included working as a paid expert for litigation, creating multiple companies to profit from his research and not disclosing this. He buried data that did not support the conclusions he promoted. That data would have hurt his business interests and the litigation he was being funded to assist. He told the press at the press conference for his paper that he had enough data to recommend pulling a vaccine, promoting fear and endangering public health. When asked about how much he was paid, he tried to dodge and when pressed lied and quoted a much smaller amount. When asked by congress how his research was funded he didn’t disclose the facts. He gathered blood samples from non-disabled children without obtaining ethical approval. He ordered clinical procedures even though his position clearly disallowed such work.
I am missing a lot, but that is enough and more to warrant his loss of his job and his license.
“He has no more special interest in villifying mmr…”
Except to repair the damage that he did to his reputation. He had many special interests, undisclosed, when he did vilify MMR 13 years ago.
“To answer your and Science Mom’s assertion, I have taken college level Biology classes and have at least a few dozen hours in an actual laboratory environment. I am not completely blind here.”
You have already demonstrated that the biology discussed here is beyond your abilities. For example:
Wow. Not in a good way. Wow. Show me a vaccine that has human embryonic stem cells.
I think there is a quote from Abraham Lincoln that applies here. You’d have done better to have remained silent on this subject.
Ken:
Which DNA is damaged? The cell or mitochondria?
Ken, is I think speaking in broad-term and is right.
“it doesn’t exist and this should be looked at because it is a valid hypothosis.”
The tricky thing about DNA testing is that, like any kind of medical testing, interpretation of the results is not an exact science. Have you ever had a medical diagnostic procedure performed, then read the pathologist’s report? They often look something like this: “Well, it looks like Mr. Sullivan could have such-and-such disease, but it could also be this other disease, or it may be nothing at all.” In other words, the doctors are taking their best guess as to what might be wrong with you, based on the conditions other people with similar test results have had in the past. Sometimes the doctors are right—sometimes they’re wrong. Sometimes you need more testing, and sometimes the tests never help your doctor devise a treatment.
It needs to be looked at, anyone working in genuine “Science” can see that.I am new to the whole blogging ,sphere and correct me if I am butting in.
Way to go, science!
@sullivan You wrote:
“Wow. Not in a good way. Wow. Show me a vaccine that has human embryonic stem cells.
I think there is a quote from Abraham Lincoln that applies here. You’d have done better to have remained silent on this subject.”
Sorry, I mispoke on the “stem cell” part. Human Cell line derived from Embryonic lung tissue, as taken from Helen’s paper.
“It is important to note that unlike the former MMR, the rubella component of MMR II was propagated in a human cell line derived from embryonic lung tissue (Merck and Co., Inc., 2010). The MMR II vaccine is contaminated with human DNA from the cell line. This human DNA could be the cause of the spikes in incidence. An additional increased spike in incidence of autism occurred in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue (Merck and Co., Inc., 2001; Breuer, 2003).”
“This human DNA could be the cause of the spikes in incidence. An additional increased spike in incidence of autism occurred in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue (Merck and Co., Inc., 2001; Breuer, 2003).” ”
And, yet, there is no spike in incidence in the data she relies upon. Neither is there a spike from 1979 when the human-cell cultured rubella vaccine went into use, nor in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was put into use.
Her hypothesis is wrong. Plain and simple. It isn’t biologically plausible (nor even well fleshed out). It isn’t supported by the epidemiological data.
@chris You said,
“Which DNA is damaged? The cell or mitochondria?”
The mitochondria. Here is a good write up about it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130161521.htm
“The mitochondria. Here is a good write up about it:”
Good, at least you know that little factoid. Now, what sort of DNA is present (if/when it is present at all) in a vaccine? Nuclear or mitochondrial? If nDNA, how does this combine with mDNA?
Much more to the point, what quantity of human DNA is in the vaccine with the most DNA? Tell us the mechanism whereby this small number of DNA (or fragments more likely) cause damage on millions or billions of mitochondrial DNA.
@sullivan
“Sorry, but this says a lot. When you figure out what is obvious to the layman, you can then move on to science. Let’s see, just for starters: he performed invasive procedures on disabled children which were not clinically indicated and were not approved by the ethics board of his hospital.”
They were all clinically indicated. Wakefield based all of his findings and procedures based off of them. How did Brian Deer get hold of private clinical records for these patients is the better question?
“Those were to produce data for his litigation-driven research. He didn’t disclose that his work was litigation driven until forced to, much later.”
He was in legal proceedings with the GMC. He couldn’t talk about anything during this time. What does litigation have to do with his findings?
“He didn’t disclose his financial conflicts of interests. Those COI’s included working as a paid expert for litigation, creating multiple companies to profit from his research and not disclosing this.”
Ok, I’m actually going to be a paid expert in a legal case in my industry I work in. I wouldn’t take the position if I didn’t agree with the side of the arguement and I certainly wouldn’t purger myself in the court of law to make a few bucks. This is absurd. You do realize you are basing all of what you know on what Brian Deer has ‘uncovered’, correct? You do know that he was also being funded by the vaccine manufactuer’s, correct? You also realize that his boss took a high level position at one of the vaccine manufacturer’s, correct? You also realize that the BMJ took Deer’s analysis as gospel and didn’t look into any of his allegations, correct?
“He buried data that did not support the conclusions he promoted. That data would have hurt his business interests and the litigation he was being funded to assist. He told the press at the press conference for his paper that he had enough data to recommend pulling a vaccine, promoting fear and endangering public health.”
I have not seen anything other than Deer’s allegations of ‘changing’ data that he did this. In addition, that ‘change’ was based off of Deer’s inability to understand the data he was looking at. Keep in mind, there was a WHOLE TEAM of respected doctors and scientist that worked on this with Wakefield. It wasn’t just him. How exactly do you explain his findings being replicated in multiple countries?
“When asked about how much he was paid, he tried to dodge and when pressed lied and quoted a much smaller amount. When asked by congress how his research was funded he didn’t disclose the facts.”
He lied about how much he was paid to conduct a study. Wow…he is a horrible person.
“He gathered blood samples from non-disabled children without obtaining ethical approval. He ordered clinical procedures even though his position clearly disallowed such work.”
He had parental consent and not one parent, regardless of what Deer alleges, has complained or had issuew with the testing that Wakefield and his team performed. IF you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.
Ken,
he started working as a paid expert for the MMR litigation in the UK in the mid-late 1990’s. He wasn’t involved with the GMC until over 10 years later. Second, “what does this have to do with his findings” isn’t the position you took. You stated that he didn’t do anything wrong. That is clearly not the case.
“I have not seen anything other than Deer’s allegations of ‘changing’ data that he did this.”
Then you should read the Autism Omnibus Proceedings transcripts. In specific, read when Nicholas Chadwick spoke. He was a grad student working for Andrew Wakefield during the MMR research at the Royal Free. He found that the tissue samples from the children in the program were negative for measles virus. Mr. Wakefield hid those results.
“Keep in mind, there was a WHOLE TEAM of respected doctors and scientist that worked on this with Wakefield. ”
Most of whom retracted the interpretation placed on the results.
“He lied about how much he was paid to conduct a study. Wow…he is a horrible person.”
He was paid as an expert witness for ongoing litigation. That is a major conflict of interest. Again, I will point you to your statement that Wakefield did nothing wrong. It is a false statement, even with whatever efforts you make to downplay what he did.
A parent can not make informed consent if the researcher is not informing them of the details. When a researcher says, “will you participate in this study” and hides the fact that he never tried to get ethical approval for that, he is lying to the subjects.
You don’t get it at all–Wakefield needed to get his projects approved by an ethics panel *before* starting. With the blood samples *he never got ethics approval*. With the tissue samples for the autistic kids *he started before he got approval*.
Your statement that Wakefield did no wrong is false. Multiply false. Mr. Wakfield is guilty of multiple ethical violations. He lost his license and his job and he is lucky that is all that happened.
@Sniffer, while not rejecting the possibility of second generation thalidomide effects off-hand, I do think that there has been sufficient research, by people trying to find such a link, to find one if it actually existed.
http://www.thalidomide.ca/cause-second-generation-birth-defects/
The thing is, that in any batch of embryos, including those in the thalidomide effected sample, a small number will have had deformities due to other causes anyway, some of which may be heritable. So, sad anecdotes like that reported in your link are virtually guaranteed whether there are second generation effects are present or not.
A second point is that there is no plausible relationship between thalidomide – a teratogen, and whatever vaccines are supposed to do to an infant (I’m buggered of I can keep up with the moving target that is the theoretical causal mechanism in the vaccines-autism link). It was at least plausible that thalidomide could also be a mutagen and have an effect on germline cells (cells which potentially contribute to the sperm and egg), at a very very early stage of embryonic development (the germ line isolates quite early on). However, research turned up no such mutagenic effect for thalidomide.
Now if you were going to look at inter-generational effects, a better example would be diethylstilbestrol, or DES. This drug, taken by pregnant women had subsequent effects on their female offspring, and there are emerging reports of second generation effects of the daughters of the women exposed in utero, which are still under investigation (with second generation effects reported in a number of animal studies):
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/DES
So research is ongoing, and in this case some interesting stuff is coming out. Not that DES is a mutagen, but that it may change methylation patterns which effect how the DNA is expressed, and that altered methylation patterns may be passed on to children. But once again, exposure to the substance occurred prenatally, at a time when germline cells are vulnerable.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19299448
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21458804
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20399890
There are some fascinating things happening with epigenetics these days, and your retired senior whistleblower seems to be oblivious to them. In a paper looking at ‘theoretical aspects of autism’, she has just blown the lot off, in favor of warming up half-baked crack-pot ideas from anti-vax websites.
Cripes, she even comes up with this pearler: “Strikingly different from autism, which affects boys more than girls, Rett syndrome is almost exclusively seen in girls (Van Acker et al., 2005)”
Well. That depends on when you look. It afflicts boys and girls equally, the poor wee lads don’t survive for very long after birth. But what a strange thing to write, unqualified, in a discussion of genetic causes?
In fact, the final sentences of her ‘genetics’ discussion are just very strange, given her supposed stature:
Another reason to discount an overall genetic cause is that autism is now considered an epidemic and there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic (Jepson, 2007a). To date, there has not been one single gene found to be responsible for autism. Other phenomena may cause mutations in genes or alter gene expression, with the end result being autism.”
More what you would expect from an undergrad making too much use of google.
There have been occasions in the past where an ailing researcher has been asked to sign off on a paper that they probably would not have supported otherwise. Has this woman given any interviews?
Sullivan:
Ken, also tell us how it can damage the mitochondrial DNA without affecting the cell DNA.
Sniffer, exactly how many American babies were affected by thalidomide? What processes did that affect? How was a Dr. Kesley involved? And what does it have to do with vaccines?
@ Ken, Dr. Gorski is also a PhD scientist, in addition to an MD who has his own research laboratory. He doesn’t administer vaccines and knows considerably more about them than what is in the package inserts. And yet he still defends them.
You aren’t convinced because a.) you don’t understand enough genetics and b.) you don’t want to be convinced otherwise, you have already made up your mind. His argument is valid and correct, Ratajczak’s is not and is just pure hand-waving.
How is the DNA in mitochondrial disorders “damaged”? Mito disorders are being studied by the way. Ratajczak is so far off the mark, there is simply no sense in pursuing her angle; enough money has been wasted debunking vaccine-autism myths.
And yet you continue to refuse to tell me how this magical DNA recombination occurs. If you believe it, then you should have given it some thought and can explain how it happens.
This statement, right here, demonstrates that you don’t have a clue of what is actually in a vaccine, anything about mito disorders and genetics.
“I read his blog post and I have to ask, why is a Medical Doctor qualified to comment on what a Senior Scientist who obviously has worked on the very vaccines he blindly administers?”
Why doesn’t this sort of logic get applied to, say, people criticizing Paul Offit? That aside, can someone show me where this “Senior Scientist” worked on any vaccines? One company listed as one of her workplaces had animal vaccines as part of the product line.
My guess is that Dr. Gorski meets the minimum requirements set forth previously in this discussion for discussing the topic: a couple of college biology classes and a few hours of time in a research laboratory.
Just in case you missed it, Ken, I’ll put it to you clearly: Science Mom just owned your arse. Try to argue with her again, and she’ll most likely rip it off of you and use it as a frisby for dogs in the local park.
Just to let you know why it might be better to keep schtum when you don’t exactly know what it is you’re talking about!
Moderators ,the bloggers on here are taking time to construct discussion and are met with vile hostility from a few .Would the moderator please remove the culprits they are obvious to everyone and seem to demonstrate a dis-like to open discussion offering nothing constructive to the discussions’.
Thalidomide and Autism
Of a population of 100 Swedish thalidomide embryopathy cases, at least four met full criteria for DSM-III-R autistic disorder and ICD-10 childhood autism. Thalidomide embryopathy of the kind encountered in these cases affects fetal development early in pregnancy, probably on days 20 to 24 after conception. It is argued that the possible association of thalidomide embryopathy with autism may shed some light on the issue of which neural circuitries may be involved in autism pathogenesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8157157
it is also being prescribed to ADHD juveniles.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~chem125/125/thalidomide/thalidomide.html
, Mc D “DES” is in the same block with , Premarin, thalidomide, and Vioxx, to name a few, were all FDA-approved but are now known to be associated with increased risks of cancer, blood clots, birth defects, and heart disease and many more I dont need a snipet on DES thanks its a diffrent view point completly.
Despite all the clinical evidence to the contrary as I provided in my last article , British health authorities such as the Medical Research Council maintain that the vast bulk of evidence from laboratory and animal tests is against thalidomide having any genetic effects. Which is what you would expect from an organisation mostly funded by the manufacturers of Thalidomide and other Pharma products.
http://www.politicolnews.com/n1h1-vaccine-deformed-baby/
The American babies who died from T, its anyone`s guess as most died before they were born,and many died before the were even registered ,sorry Chris I cannot answer your questions,extremely appreciated if you could inform me of this.
@sullivan You said,
“Then you should read the Autism Omnibus Proceedings transcripts. In specific, read when Nicholas Chadwick spoke. He was a grad student working for Andrew Wakefield during the MMR research at the Royal Free. He found that the tissue samples from the children in the program were negative for measles virus. Mr. Wakefield hid those results.”
Umm, Mr. Wakefield didn’t hide the results, he put absolutely no weight in his analysis because a) he was a “junior doctor” (his words and you also just stated that he was a grad student) and b) Walker Smith (one of the most respected pediatric gastroenterologists in the world) did a CLINICAL evaluation with a colonoscopy and found that the RECTUM was clearly inflamed. He agreed that the Colon was not inflamed but the Rectum was and was clearly an inflamed bowel as a result. Are you suggesting that Walker Smith is not qualified to overule a Junior doctor or is not qualified to make a Clinical evaluation of a child who clearly needed it?
““Keep in mind, there was a WHOLE TEAM of respected doctors and scientist that worked on this with Wakefield. ””
And they retracted because they were going to have their careers ruined if they stayed in what was clearly a witchunt. Whether correct or not, they got the message, Wakefield took the bullet. Pretty simple really…
“A parent can not make informed consent if the researcher is not informing them of the details. When a researcher says, “will you participate in this study” and hides the fact that he never tried to get ethical approval for that, he is lying to the subjects.
You don’t get it at all—Wakefield needed to get his projects approved by an ethics panel before starting. With the blood samples he never got ethics approval. With the tissue samples for the autistic kids he started before he got approval.
Your statement that Wakefield did no wrong is false. Multiply false. Mr. Wakfield is guilty of multiple ethical violations. He lost his license and his job and he is lucky that is all that happened.”
You believe everything that the little schill Deer says don’t you? What you and Deer seem to not understand was every colonoscopy performed was by a referral by that Child’s doctor to go to Walker Smith and were clinically indicated. Tests that are clinically indicated do NOT require ethical permission to be performed. This was not some experimental treatment or abuse of children. It was Deer’s opinion that this was the case. He has no idea and I am surprised that you believe this story so vehemently.
@David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
I got owned because she said I am wrong and Helen is wrong but her hero is correct? Great. I’m sorry I can’t answer a question to something that has never been studied.
Carry on your cheerleader role…
I just find it comical that you guys completely dismiss what doesn’t fit into your little pubmed worlds. Need I point out AGAIN that the world you live in is fake: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/why-almost-everything-you-hear-about-medicine-is-wrong.html
@Sullivan You said,
“Why doesn’t this sort of logic get applied to, say, people criticizing Paul Offit? That aside, can someone show me where this “Senior Scientist” worked on any vaccines? One company listed as one of her workplaces had animal vaccines as part of the product line.”
Because Paul “For Profit” Offit makes money everytime someone is injected with Pig Virus contaminated Rotavirus vaccine. It is amazing to me that you are trying to crucify Wakefield for his affiliations but Offit is the Messiah. Unreal. Also, anyone who says an infant/child can be injected with 100k vaccines in one day “Safely” does not have any idea what they are talking about. Period.
“My guess is that Dr. Gorski meets the minimum requirements set forth previously in this discussion for discussing the topic: a couple of college biology classes and a few hours of time in a research laboratory.”
I stand corrected on Gorski’s qualifications. He still made a weak debunking of Helen’s review though. I just don’t take things like, this researcher for this paper “see’s black helicopter’s” or this paper is not good as good debunking….
Those are his opinions
Ken,
“Because Paul “For Profit” Offit makes money everytime someone is injected with Pig Virus contaminated Rotavirus vaccine.”
First the minor points: the rotavirus vaccine is an oral vaccine. It is not injected. One might think that a person linking to a “vaccinerisk” blog might now that. Second, Dr. Offit has sold his rights to his invention. He no longer makes any money of Rotateq. More importantly, Dr. Offit has been upfront about his involvement with vaccine production. Mr. Wakefield lied about his involvement with MMR litigants. Also, Dr. Offit’s science has proven sound. Mr. Wakefield’s research was wrong. Lastly, I check what Dr. Offit says, I do not take him as a “Messiah”.
“Also, anyone who says an infant/child can be injected with 100k vaccines in one day “Safely” does not have any idea what they are talking about. Period.”
Once again, you are showing ignorance. Have you read what Dr. Offit wrote? He stated that a person has the ability to mount an immunological defense against the challenges posed by the antigens in 100,000 vaccines. He did not say that one could be injected with 100,000 vaccines. Do you understand the difference? It doesn’t seem as though you do.
The interesting thing about the “review” article that is being discussed is the way she inserted her own opinions into it. The “DNA causes autism” hypothesis is not cited as being from another paper. It is something she put into the paper. It is not a review, but poorly formed opinion.
I do apologize for the rather harsh response you got on this site. I do not apologize for people pointing out, repeatedly, that you don’t even understand the basics of the arguments you create. Time and again you have shown that you don’t really understand the subject.
The old, I live in the ‘real world’ and you don’t fall back line. You are running out of puff when you start to go down that track Ken. Next you’ll be telling people to ‘get a life’.
@Sharon
It was just a comment, I just wanted to post a link to a story about how most medical studies are wrong. I thought it may bring some pause to the holier than thou attitude of some. I guess not.
I also had quite a few more “puffs” after I posted that…
Sniffer:
Bzzzzzt… wrong! The question was “Sniffer, exactly how many American babies were affected by thalidomide?” I did not ask about deaths. It is obvious you have not got a clue, nor to the significance of the question (Dr. Kelsey was a hint you seemed to have missed).
There were very few who were affected*. They were usually children of servicemen who were stationed in Europe, or a very few who got the free samples from the doctors. I really do suggest you look up the reason that Dr. Frances Kelsey received the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service from President John Kennedy. Read up on how that changed pharmaceutical approval procedures world wide.
In the future you get your medical information from places other than John Scudamore’s whale.to site and any site that starts with the word “political”.
*From Note #32 of Chapter Two of Dangerous Pregnancies: Mothers, Disabilities and Abortion in Modern America by Leslie Reagan: depending on the source the numbers range from 16 to 40 in the USA, and between 5000 to 8000 in Europe. By the way, it is a book on how things changed with the rubella epidemic of the early 1960s. For a flavor of the book (and I do not recommend it to anyone, it is an academic snoozer, with a bit too much speculation) read her article: Rashes, Rights, and Wrongs in the Hospital and in the Courtroom: German Measles, Abortion, and Malpractice before Roe and Doe.