If you are researching vaccines, read this rebuttal to Paul Offit

[Taximom5]

http://dr-king.com/docs/051101_Thimerosal(49_55_%20mercury)CausesMercuryPoisoningII--RebuttalToDr_OffitsViews.pdf

Among his points:

"This is the case because the scientifically sound and appropriate toxicology studies required to prove “Any preservative used shall be sufficiently nontoxic so that the amount present in the recommended dose of the product will not be toxic to the recipient” have, as the FDA admits and the record demonstrates3, have never been conducted.

Moreover, in a 1948 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) paper, Harry E. Morton et al.4 clearly established that Thimerosal was not suitable for use as a vaccine preservative."

He points out that Offit is lying when he claims that thimerosal was removed from most previously thimerosal-containing vaccines by 2001 (whicih many of us here knew anyway, but most people don't):

"Thimerosal (49.55% mercury by weight) was not removed from most Thimerosal-containing vaccines by 2001.

As of 21 March 2005, “Thimerosal Preserved”5 vaccines were still being distributed for nine (9) vaccine products..."

"Thus, including the overlap between the two recent lists, today there are

at least 18 in-date vaccine products in commerce that contain some level of Thimerosal with half of these drug products containing a preservative level of Thimerosal.

Of these, currently only JE-VAX, “Td” and “TT” vaccines are not routinely administered to children 18 and under."

[prosciencemum]

And to put out the other point of view, there's a well reference rebuttal to many of the claims about Paul Offit which are made by anti-vaccination groups here: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/debunking-myths-dr-paul-offit/

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

And to put out the other point of view, there's a well reference rebuttal to many of the claims about Paul Offit which are made by anti-vaccination groups here: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/debunking-myths-dr-paul-offit/

I'm so glad you posted this!

It really makes things clear.  It is even easier to see the smoke-and-mirror techniques used in this and other pro-vaccine blog after reading Dr, King's letter. And it makes it easier to see what the pro-vaxxers are attempting to do in this context.

Not one of Dr. King's points are dealt with in skepticalraptor.  Instead, Offit's book is heralded, his resume is lauded, and critics are dismissed with the implication that he is above reproach from anyone who doesn't have his exact qualifications.  In other words, do not dare to mention that the emperor is buck-naked.

The fact that he was reprimanded by Congress for failing to disclose conflict of interest is explained away by claiming he was "harrassed" by Representative Dan Burton (whom they call a "vaccine denialist.). Make excuses, sling around some name-calling, and it all goes away?

Not mentioned is Sharyl Attkisson's report for CBS: "How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?" http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-4296175.html Nor is it mentioned that the Orange County Register had to publicize corrections for Offit's "unsubstantiated and false statements" about none other than...Sharyl Attkisson: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/correction-296910-dated-entitled.html  Hmm, if he lied to the OCR about a CBS news reporter who pointed out his strong industry ties.

The "well reference rebuttal" prosciencemum refers to?  Hmm, still trying to find it.  Here's their best rebuttal against the criticism that Paul Offit's holds a Merck-endowed position (conflict of interest, anyone?):

"Yes, Merck gave an endowment for the Maurice R. Hilleman chair, but it was mostly set up Hilleman himself prior to his death. Merck does not have special rights to come to his office and demand that he do anything. Merck and the University of Pennsylvania make the funding public. And Merck, like all pharmaceutical companies, has a charitable foundation that gives boatloads of money to many worthy causes. Diabetes. AIDS/HIV. Asthma."

So, no conflict of interest, because....they don't have special rights to come into his office and demand that he do anything?  No conflict of interest because Merck, like all pharmaceutical companies, has a charitable foundation that gives boatloads of money to many worthy causes? Diabetes?  AIDS/HIV? Asthma?  You know, the diseases that may be caused, triggered, or exacerbated by vaccines, but can be treated with lifetime medication. But no conflict of interest, because Merck buys everyone off.

Thanks again for the link, prosciencemum.  You have done us all a favor.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

I'm so glad you posted this!

It really makes things clear.  It is even easier to see the smoke-and-mirror techniques used in this and other pro-vaccine blog after reading Dr, King's letter. And it makes it easier to see what the pro-vaxxers are attempting to do in this context.

Funny I'd apply almost the same argument to the anti-vax vilification of Paul Offit. Rather than try to explain why the expertise he's developed and the science he uses is flawed (difficult since it isn't) the movement decides to jump to possible conflicts of interest, monetary gain etc. Kind of misses the point for me too. 

I think this is going to have to be a place where we agree to disagree. 

[Pookietooth]

I wonder how anyone can claim that he is impartial when his job revolves around proving that vaccines are safe?

[chickabiddy]

Because it doesn't.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

Because it doesn't.

That. And because he's a scientists - which means he's scientifically trained, and his job depends more on him doing good science than anything else.

[emmy526]

sorry, i couldn't resist

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by emmy526 

sorry, i couldn't resist

Can you provide evidence that it's a lie that a child's immune system cannot handle 10,000 separate disease agents at the same time?  

[pek64]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Can you provide evidence that it's a lie that a child's immune system cannot handle 10,000 separate disease agents at the same time?  

Would you knowingly go into a room with 10,000 people, each of whom was contagious with a different disease? I wouldn't. So I wouldn't do that to my child.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by pek64 

Would you knowingly go into a room with 10,000 people, each of whom was contagious with a different disease? I wouldn't. So I wouldn't do that to my child.

This.

If a child's immune system can handle 10,000 separate disease agents at the same time, why on earth are we bothering to give vaccines? Why are we even bothering to wash hands?

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Can you provide evidence that it's a lie that a child's immune system cannot handle 10,000 separate disease agents at the same time?  

and that's HIS opinion....not the AMA, AAP opinion...look up his research and see how he came to that conclusion

[prosciencemum]

I don't think he means 10,000 diseases, I think he means 10,000 different things the immune system has to respond too. The minute children are born their immune system has to kick into gear to protect them from all sorts of stuff. I have no idea if 10,000 different responses is a sensible number, but I do question the characterisation of that statement from a respected scientist as a lie.

Vaccines show weakened versions of the disease agents to a childs immune system so they can develop a faster response in the case they are exposed to the real thing. So even if they were shown 10,000 of these weakened versions, that would still be preferable in my opinion than seeing 10,000 of the full strength version. So that's why I think it's worth vaccinating.