so what about the primate studies?

[Yulia_R]

Those that were presented on a conference in Europe few months ago showing autistic symptoms in monkeys who were injected with vaccines?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/articles/107993.php
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/articles/107994.php

Did they ever get published in US press? Were they addressed in any way?

[carriebft]

It was never published beyond the "poster presentation."

[Ivan's Mom]

Poor monkeys

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by carriebft

It was never published beyond the "poster presentation."

I wonder why? Do you know if they found any flaws in the study?

[carriebft]

I believe so, many will probably disagree.

her N for vaccinated was 13 and N for unvaxed was 3. She dropped a lot of the data in the comparisons and only compared 2 vaxed with 7 unvaxed and made no note as to why the others were ignored. There may have also been ethical concerns connected with the procedures the monkeys were put through. She also may have failed to include her bias (it was not mentioned in her presentation) as she was a litigant in the omnibus trials.

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I believe so, many will probably disagree.

her N for vaccinated was 13 and N for unvaxed was 3. She dropped a lot of the data in the comparisons and only compared 2 vaxed with 7 unvaxed and made no note as to why the others were ignored. There may have also been ethical concerns connected with the procedures the monkeys were put through.

I see.
thanks!

[Marnica]

This from the article

"This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children

Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency."

[runes]

If only pro-vaxers looked at ALL studies with such a critical eye...

As far as I know, it was a preliminary study, so the small sample size is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, and the conclusions are consistent with that.

Her being a litigant in an omnibus trial is no more of a bias or conflict of interest than the vast majority of studies that are done by physicians/scientists with major financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

The lack of press that this preliminary study generated does show our media's bias, however.

[carriebft]

There is plenty of bad research that comes to provaccination conclusions, but the studies talked about here are mostly those that support the conclusions common to this board.

But I just recently read through the newest rotavirus research that lead to the changing of the AAP/CDC rotavirus guidelines and I think these studies had minor flaws but nothing major like I saw in this one....but flaws nevertheless.

[runes]

Originally Posted by carriebft

There is plenty of bad research that comes to provaccination conclusions, but the studies talked about here are mostly those that support the conclusions common to this board.

That is an understatement of all understatements.

The CDC chooses to publish HIGHLY flawed studies on their website that supposedly "exonerate" vaccines from their link to autism. Take a look.

And for the record, the above linked page has not ever been changed or updated in the 3+ years that I've been doing vaccine research. I find that irresponsible and negligent.

[carriebft]

If it has not been changed in 3 years, how do you explain the study dated sept 2008?

in any event, we could discuss these if you wanted. I am simply pointing out that there exist those who vaccinate who also critically read the studies on vaccination, even those that come to positive conclusions for vaccines.

[runes]

Originally Posted by carriebft

If it has not been changed in 3 years, how do you explain the study dated sept 2008?

The last printout I have of that page from last summer dated that article as July 2007. The only thing that they changed was the date, and they certainly haven't added more info.

Hmmmm....

And the study is "dated" September 2008, but remember that it could also be an "estimated date of publication". If you can find both the Autism and Biopsy and Autism and Thimerosal studies in their published forms, could you link them because I sure can't find them.

Hmmmm.... again.

OK, so they "updated" it. My bad. Not with any new information, though.

Isn't it kind of odd that if a parent was looking for information and wanted to find the 2 latest studies on that list that were supposedly done, they can't be found? The only thing I found out about them is that they are internal studies done by the CDC itself, not independently researched.

[carriebft]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0003140

Thats the biopsy one, bottom one on first page. The Italy one is the one that is the topic of the recent thread here on preservative safety.

[PaigeC]

This was reported on Fox News in May 2008. I never saw it on any other national news sources besides PR wire.

The study was meant to indicate weather further studies were needed so I don't believe the low number is a "flaw." The University of Pittsburgh doesn't have unlimited number a macques to work with. Also, we can't jump to conclusions about the study until it is published in full - this was a new research poster presentation only.

I think the interesting thing here is 1) why were animal studies never conducted to begin with (although I agree, poor monkeys)? and 2) this is an important study since it is the only study of humans or other primates that studies the complete vaccine schedule vs. non-vaccinated (most studies look at one vaccine and compare it to other vaccinated persons).

I would read the actual abstracts:

Dr. Hewitson's research (Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior, and Amygdala Growth and Opioid Ligand Binding Friday, May 16, 2008: IMFAR):

'Compared with unexposed animals, significant neurodevelopmental deficits were evident for exposed animals in survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets. Differences in behaviors were observed between exposed and unexposed animals and within the exposed group before and after MMR vaccination. Compared with unexposed animals, exposed animals showed attenuation of amygdala growth and differences in the amygdala binding of [11C]diprenorphine. Interaction models identified significant associations between specific aberrant social and non-social behaviors, isotope binding, and vaccine exposure.'

Also at the same conference Dr. Walker of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University reported on chronic inflamation and gene expression in vaccinated and unvaccinated macaques. Microarray Analysis of GI Tissue in a Macaque Model of the Effects of Infant Vaccination Saturday, May 17, 2008 IMFAR.

"Histopathological examination revealed that vaccinated animals exhibited progressively severe chronic active inflammation, whereas unexposed animals did not. Gene expression comparisons between the groups (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) revealed only 120 genes differentially expressed (fc >1.5; log ratio p<0.001) at 10 weeks, whereas there were 450 genes differentially expressed at 14 weeks, and 324 differentially expressed genes between the 2 groups at necropsy."

[carriebft]

David Gorski over at science based medicine did a very good job picking apart these studies, IMO. Rather than type out everything he had to say, I will just post the link:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=100
(warning: provaccine blog, so it's not always nice, civil language. However, I find his reading of the flaws to be quite accurate)

Now remember that all three of these abstracts (two of which PaigeC posted) are from the same study/data; her work did not get recreated in a separate group of monkeys for the other abstract; it's the same data from the first one.

The 13 v 3 thing does not jive with the "not enough monkeys" explanation as she could have easily done 8 v 8.

etcetc

One thing I disagree with Gorski on is what we can tell about the handling of the monkeys from the abtracts and speech. we do know they were subject to repeated MRIs but we don't really know how that was handled. We know they had multiple biopsies as infant monkeys, but we don't know that there were colonoscopies- that's is an assumption-- so I don't know if we can assume mistreatment just from assumption.


And I think the fact that these were never published speaks for itself. (the abstracts are from the poster presentation)

[carriebft]

I should add that there should be some kind of ethical investigation into why the monkeys were killed/euthanized so early in life (in both vaccine and placebo group). She took samples at necropsy, which was, according to the study, 12-15 months of age.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I should add that there should be some kind of ethical investigation into why the monkeys were killed/euthanized so early in life (in both vaccine and placebo group). She took samples at necropsy, which was, according to the study, 12-15 months of age.

Why would it be unethical to sacrifice the monkeys at 15 months?

[Super Glue Mommy]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I believe so, many will probably disagree.

her N for vaccinated was 13 and N for unvaxed was 3. She dropped a lot of the data in the comparisons and only compared 2 vaxed with 7 unvaxed and made no note as to why the others were ignored. There may have also been ethical concerns connected with the procedures the monkeys were put through. She also may have failed to include her bias (it was not mentioned in her presentation) as she was a litigant in the omnibus trials.

hey, that's just how the CDC does their studies! interesting!!

[carriebft]

Gorski linked to this group which regulates the use of animals in research:

http://www.iacuc.org/aboutus.htm


I've been reading around their regulations document and there were a couple points that I thought would have come into play with this. I will relocate them and post them here.

ETA: also, why were they killed if the tissue could have been obtained with the animal still alive (demonstrated by the multiple times tissue was taken before death)

[Super Glue Mommy]

As for the 13 vs 3, what again are the control groups of unvaxxed children versus vaccinated children in pro-vaccination studies?