Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure

[Mirzam]

Wow!

Quote:

Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines.

The authors also noted a strong corralation between autism and the MMR vaccine which they feel may be partially explained by increased sensitivity to acetaminophne used to control fever.

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227 (full text downloadable)

[Rrrrrachel]

It's funny how the "gold standard" of double blind placebo controlled studies, not to mention concerns over the validity of VAERS data, goes out the window all of a sudden.  

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

It's funny how the "gold standard" of double blind placebo controlled studies, not to mention concerns over the validity of VAERS data, goes out the window all of a sudden.  

I take it you didn't read the study then. The authors are not anti-vax and had some very sane suggestions.

[MamaMunchkin]

The first author of the paper has written other related articles - the one Mirzam linked is the 3rd one here ... look under "Papers on Nutrition and Disease"

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson and Jingjing Liu, "Is Cholesterol Sulfate Deficiency a Common Factor in Preeclampsia, Autism, and Pernicious Anemia?" Entropy 2012, 14, 2265-2290; doi:10.3390/e14112265

- Samantha Hartzell and Stephanie Seneff, "Impaired Sulfate Metabolism and Epigenetics: Is There a Link in Autism?" Entropy 2012, 14, 1953-1977; doi:10.3390/e14101953

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson, and Jingjing Liu, "Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure," Entropy 2012, 14, 2227-2253; doi:10.3390/e14112227

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert Davidson, and Luca Mascitelli, "Might cholesterol sulfate deficiency contribute to the development of autistic spectrum disorder?" Medical Hypotheses, 8, 213-217, 2012.

It looks like she has looked into other topics that might be of interest to the MDC community as well - e.g. Weston Price.

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 11/14/12 at 1:10pm

[Rrrrrachel]

I did read the whole article. It's just data mining vaers. Basically found there were more of certain kinds of reports post 2000, and that autism related reports were more likely to involve mmr. That's it. They found a temporal correlation using unreliable data.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin 

The first author of the paper has written other related articles - the one Mirzam linked is the 3rd one here ... look under "Papers on Nutrition and Disease"

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson and Jingjing Liu, "Is Cholesterol Sulfate Deficiency a Common Factor in Preeclampsia, Autism, and Pernicious Anemia?" Entropy 2012, 14, 2265-2290; doi:10.3390/e14112265

- Samantha Hartzell and Stephanie Seneff, "Impaired Sulfate Metabolism and Epigenetics: Is There a Link in Autism?" Entropy 2012, 14, 1953-1977; doi:10.3390/e14101953

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson, and Jingjing Liu, "Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure," Entropy 2012, 14, 2227-2253; doi:10.3390/e14112227

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert Davidson, and Luca Mascitelli, "Might cholesterol sulfate deficiency contribute to the development of autistic spectrum disorder?" Medical Hypotheses, 8, 213-217, 2012.


It looks like she has looked into other topics that might be of interest to the MDC community as well - e.g. Weston Price.

It's interesting that she's a computer scientist.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I did read the whole article. It's just data mining vaers. Basically found there were more of certain kinds of reports post 2000, and that autism related reports were more likely to involve mmr. That's it. They found a temporal correlation using unreliable data.

That was only part of what was addressed. Shame because there was some useful information on aluminum and advice for vaxing parents on how to protect your child from potential vaccine harm. However, if one choses to believe aluminum isn't a concern, I guess it isn't hard to gloss over that information and dismiss it. Those parents who do have concern about aluminum and the role acetaminophen might have in austim and prefer to make individual vaccination decisions rather than just following the CDC's recommendations, will likely find it a useful resource.

[Rrrrrachel]

There is no hard information here. A lot of correlation based on faulty information and speculation. None of the information is new.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

There is no hard information here. A lot of correlation based on faulty information and speculation. None of the information is new.

Maybe not to you. 

I am happy you are satisified with the safety of aluminum in vaccines. Others might not be so convinced.

[Rrrrrachel]

This study doesn't say anything about the safety of aluminum, except that vaers reports of various types increased as aluminum was phased in as an adjuvant, then some speculation about how aluminum may interact with thimerosal and Tylenol. They say aluminum was phased in in 2000, I'm pretty sure aluminum salts have been around a lot longer than that.

I'm glad studies keep investigating the safety of aluminum salts. This one is hardly the slam dunk your quote makes it initially seem like, though. I find it difficult to understand how you find some studies "junk science" and then laud this one.

Please don't make snarky remarks about what I do and don't believe.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

This study doesn't say anything about the safety of aluminum, except that vaers reports of various types increased as aluminum was phased in as an adjuvant, then some speculation about how aluminum may interact with thimerosal and Tylenol. They say aluminum was phased in in 2000, I'm pretty sure aluminum salts have been around a lot longer than that.

I'm glad studies keep investigating the safety of aluminum salts. This one is hardly the slam dunk your quote makes it initially seem like, though. I find it difficult to understand how you find some studies "junk science" and then laud this one.

Please don't make snarky remarks about what I do and don't believe.

I am not lauding this one. I found it interesting, nothing is a slam dunk. And I did think it alluded to the safety of aluminum. Yes, I do find some studies junk, mostly those funded by the industry to sell vaccines that attempt to hide safety and efficacy issues. Please refrain from making personal comments, I believe it is against the UA.

[Rrrrrachel]

So what's the funding for this study?

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


It's interesting that she's a computer scientist.

Yes - I wish study like this has been done by scientists studying vaxes instead. 

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

It's funny how the "gold standard" of double blind placebo controlled studies, not to mention concerns over the validity of VAERS data, goes out the window all of a sudden.  

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

There is no hard information here. A lot of correlation based on faulty information and speculation. None of the information is new.

So, if I understand you ... studies based on VAERS data should - not - be taken seriously?  

What about this then?  Should we discount it as well?  What about the following from CDC  ... (bolded mine)

A direct copy-n-paste from CDC publication:

Surveillance for Safety After Immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) --- United States, 1991--2001

Interpretation: As a national public health surveillance system, VAERS is a key component in ensuring the safety of vaccines. VAERS data are used by CDC, FDA, and other organizations to monitor and study vaccine safety. CDC and FDA use VAERS data to respond to public inquiries regarding vaccine safety, and both organizations have published and presented vaccine safety studies based on VAERS data. VAERS data are also used by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to evaluate possible adverse events after vaccinations and to develop recommendations for precautions and contraindications to vaccinations. Reviews of VAERS reports and the studies based on VAERS reports during 1991--2001 have demonstrated that vaccines are usually safe and that serious adverse events occur but are rare.

Full article here:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5201a1.htm

[Rrrrrachel]

You mean examining vaers data and looking for patterns relating to certain adverse events? Good news, it has been! Lots!

[Rrrrrachel]

I think vaers data can only go so far. It's used as a first line of defense, for which it is excellent. You cannot use it to draw conclusions about"strong evidence" for anything, because it's just not reliable enough.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

You mean examining vaers data and looking for patterns relating to certain adverse events? Good news, it has been! Lots!

So, why would this one be more unreliable or more faulty than the others?

[Rrrrrachel]

From your link:

Passive surveillance systems (e.g., VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Because of these limitations, determining causal associations between vaccines and adverse events from VAERS reports is usually not possible. Vaccine safety concerns identified through adverse event monitoring nearly always require confirmation using an epidemiologic or other (e.g., laboratory) study.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin 

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

You mean examining vaers data and looking for patterns relating to certain adverse events? Good news, it has been! Lots!

So, why would this one be more unreliable or more faulty than the others?

Well, there are some other issues with their experiment design, but really it's not. It's just that it's drawing much stronger conclusions than are really appropriate with a study of this type, particularly several conclusions involving causation.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

From your link:

Yes, absolutely - but they still use the VAERS data even given the caveats.  In particular, from my link:

The objectives of VAERS are to 1) detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events; 2) monitor increases in known adverse events; 3) determine patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events; 4) identify vaccine lots with increased numbers or types of reported adverse events; and 5) assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines.