or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . "
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . " - Page 2

post #21 of 149
Thread Starter 
The second study , as I recall, had one author that was shaw of tomljenovic and shaw. So the body of research condemning aluminum adjuvants seems to be dominated by a few scientists.
post #22 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Nice job covering/debunking all those "studies" Rrrrrachel, and in staying on topic rather than responding to personal attacks elsewhere in the thread. 

 

 

 

 

She didn't debunk anything.  

 

She claimed to be unaware of any research linking vaccine adjuvants with any danger to health.

 

When I reminded her that she had posted on a thread that had provided links to such research, she complained that the researches must have been biased, because their results consistently indicated problems with adjuvants.  

 

She then launched a systematic personal attack on the researchers, and as fodder, she brought up the Gulf War Syndrome controversy, claiming that the researchers totally misunderstand it, apparently because they agreed with the independent researchers who challenged the government on the subject.  Her only "proof?"  The government's statements, in which they naturally defended themselves and denied the charges, claiming that the squalene later found in anthrax vaccine and squalene antibodies found in soldiers who had received the vaccine were from "fingerprints" left on lab equipment. They kinda left out the part where they had first lied about squalene being tested and then later admitted it when confronted with the evidence..

 

So, we're supposed to believe that any independent researcher whose findings disagree with the government is wrong because the government says so?

 

Sorry.  We already know that the enormous strength of the pharmaceutical lobby regarding the government, and that many government positions are held by people trained by the pharmaceutical industry.  We've seen the revolving door between the CDC/FDA and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

We know the government has lied.

 

We know that the pharmaceutical industry has lied.

 

So it doesn't debunk anything to present government statements about their own conduct.

post #23 of 149

But it's not a personal attack to look at a researcher's qualifications or publication history, or to bring up that information when discussing their current research.  Nor is it a personal attack to note that all the research supporting certain positions comes from a very small group of scientists.  Rrrachel isn't insulting these people, she's pointing out publicly available facts about them.
 

post #24 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

But it's not a personal attack to look at a researcher's qualifications or publication history, or to bring up that information when discussing their current research.  Nor is it a personal attack to note that all the research supporting certain positions comes from a very small group of scientists.  Rrrachel isn't insulting these people, she's pointing out publicly available facts about them.

 

I agree.
post #25 of 149
Taxi - lets keep it about the issues. This thread is not about Rrrrrachel.

If the links between aluminum adjuvants and autoimmune disorders are so clear and the evidence is increasing so much lately (as you have claimed in other threads) I'm sure it won't be a problem to find studies not coauthored by either Shaw or Tomoljevic which show the same things. Of course its a it mean to ask for that as I know you won't find it since mainstream science (by which i mean the majority of studies) don't find links.
post #26 of 149
Thread Starter 
The majority of adults havesqualene antibodies in their blood. It is naturally produced by the human body. The levels found in vaccines were well below the natural back ground level in human blood.
post #27 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Summary: bTomljenovic and Shaw, who have dubious expertise in immunology and are known to publish only research which supports anti-vaccination viewpoints. 

Fwiw, Tomlijenovic and Shaw work out of UBC - which is ranked 2nd in universities in Canada, first in many of the sciences and 22 public universities world-wide.  This is no slouch of an institution.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_British_Columbia

post #28 of 149
Thread Starter 
And I'm sure they are excellent in their expertise, which I believe is inorganic chemistry and something else I can't remember.
post #29 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think their training is relevant to their analysis.  You're welcome to disagree.  I don't think it's a character attack to point out that neither's expertise is in immunology or a related field.  That doesn't make the throw the whole study out, but it doesn't make me more interested in seeing what their using to support their claims, and I can't.

 

Last year I posted a study (cannot remember which) and someone critisized it as the study author was a neurologist and not an immunologist!  Honestly when people post something the other side disagree with it is pretty common to critisize the authors.  Sometimes it gets a little carried away.  

 

Here is their stats:  "Tomljenovic is a researcher with the Shaw lab’s Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, at UBC, and Shaw is on faculty at UBC with the Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience"

http://www.columbiajournal.ca/12-05/P7VaccineWars.html

 

Honestly - I think it is good enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Summary: An essay by Tomljenovic and Shaw, who have dubious expertise in immunology and are known to publish only research which supports anti-vaccination viewpoints (sound familiar?). 

 

 

 

I don't think only publishing research that questions some aspect of vaccines is a reason enough to dismiss a study.  After all, there are plenty of researchers that only publish research that supports pro-vax viewpoints.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The second study , as I recall, had one author that was shaw of tomljenovic and shaw. So the body of research condemning aluminum adjuvants seems to be dominated by a few scientists.

I would tentatively agree with this.  The Op mentioned increasing evidence - which I took to mean evidence found recently.  I do think most of the evidence found recently (as is evidence by a google search sorting by publication date) is dominated by a few scientists.  I have no idea if there is older work around aluminum.  I would have to look.

 

I think waiting around to see if new evidence comes forward from different sources is fine.  I have nothing against the  T&S study (I have not looked at it too hard, though) - but, yeah, the more studies  there are and from varying sources, the better.

 

Lastly, I like what Dr. Sears has to say on aluminum.  I am sure some of you don't - to each their own.

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/vaccines/vaccine-faqs

post #30 of 149

http://www.columbiajournal.ca/12-05/P7VaccineWars.html

 

I liked this article on the controversy surrounding Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw.

post #31 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

http://www.columbiajournal.ca/12-05/P7VaccineWars.html

 

I liked this article on the controversy surrounding Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw.

 

I'm so glad you posted that article, kathymuggle--I hadn't seen it.

 

Of particular importance: Israeli researchers have come to similar conclusions about aluminum adjuvants:

 

"Two Israeli scientists, Yehuda Shoenfeld  and Nancy Agmon-Levin, writing in 2010 in the Journal of Autoimmunity  (9.) suggest that “ In recent years, four conditions: siliconosis, the Gulf war syndrome (GWS), the macrophagicmyofasciitis syndrome (MMF) and post-vaccination phenomena were linked with previous exposure to an adjuvant.” The Israeli scientists make clear in their paper that aluminum adjuvants are among the compounds of concern in this matter, and they add: 

'Formerly, adjuvants were thought to pose little or no independent threat. Alas, studies of animal models and humans demonstrated the ability of some of them to inflict autoimmunity and autoimmune diseases by themselves.' 

 

And while Rrrrachel and prosciencemum seem keen to paint Tomljenovic and Shaw as having an agenda, they are not arguing against vaccination:

"In a conversation with the Columbia Journal last summer, Tomljenovic and Shaw emphasized that they are by no means univocally anti-vaccine. They cited the tetanus vaccine as one they support. Their research, they told me, makes the argument for larger scale research into possible negative impacts of aluminum salts in vaccines, not for a total retreat from immunization as a public health strategy. 
    
'Our concerns,' said Shaw, 'are safety and evidence based medicine.' ”
     

 

 

post #32 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The majority of adults havesqualene antibodies in their blood. It is naturally produced by the human body. The levels found in vaccines were well below the natural back ground level in human blood.

 

Citation needed.

post #33 of 149
Thread Starter 
Taxi I got that information from the links I posted previously.

I am not trying to paint t&s as having an agenda.
post #34 of 149

Hi All, There's been some reports about posts in this thread that addressed a member posting, not a topic. Please edit any posts you've made that address another member and revise them so that they stick to the topic. Thank you!
 

post #35 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

http://www.columbiajournal.ca/12-05/P7VaccineWars.html

 

I liked this article on the controversy surrounding Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw.

 

I liked it too! Thanks for posting it.

 

This is thought-provoking:

 

Quote:
The authors suggest that all this increased exposure to aluminum via injection  (which, they say, presents a much higher danger of aluminum crossing the blood brain barrier and entering the central nervous system than occurs when aluminum enters the body via food) correlates with higher levels of autism spectrum disorder in the populations of Western developed nations. 

 

And this:

 

Quote:

 According to the authors, the link between aluminum exposure and autism spectrum disorder meets eight of the nine criteria in the Hill system, including all four of the criteria considered most pertinent to neurological disease.

 

In an interview Anne Dachel asked:

 

Quote:

Your work has sparked a heated debate over the safety of Al use in vaccines and the link to autism. Will officials be able to dismiss the issue with epidemiological studies showing no harmful effects like they've tried to do regarding the use of mercury in vaccines?

 

This was Shaw's answer:

 

They can certainly reexamine the data sets we have used as well as the statistical methods and Hill analysis. Given that the data sets are both from US government it will be hard for them to claim that the primary data are wrong. However, they are free to reanalyze these data and see if they get different results. Indeed, they should do so before dismissing what we have shown.

 

From: The Aluminum Threat: An Interview With Chris Shaw

 

 

However, I found it strange that in the original article the writer claims that vaccine advocates think that one thing vaccine skeptics are motivated by is wealth. 

 

Can someone please point me to the vaccine skeptic wealth promotion program? I'm sorely in need of cash to support my online activities. Perhaps we can get the Pentagon on board? ;-)

post #36 of 149
Quote:

 

Can someone please point me to the vaccine skeptic wealth promotion program? I'm sorely in need of cash to support my online activities. Perhaps we can get the Pentagon on board? ;-)

Sure.  Some sites that promote a non-vax viewpoint also sell vitamins, herbs, supplements….Mercola is one.  

 

Personally, I don't care.  I don't care that Mercola makes money and I do not care that Big Pharm makes money off of vaccines.

 

I care when anyone does it unethically (and no - not unethically as in "fear-hyped" because both side play on fear).  I care that so many studies we have on vaccines are completely or heavily funded by vaccine manufactures, I care that Big Pharm representatives sit on advisory boards at the CDC for vaccines.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/22/12 at 11:10am
post #37 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Sure.  Some cites that promote a non-vax viewpoint also sell vitamins, herbs, supplements….Mercola is one.  

 

Quote (from another thread):

Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

Well Pfizer made a tidy sum on Prevenar, a cool $1.847 billion in the first half of 2012. 

 

http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25

 

Mercola only wishes he could make that much!

 

I care when anyone does it unethically (and no - not unethically as in "fear-hyped" because both side play on fear).  I care that so m any studies we have on vaccines are completely or heavily funded by vaccine manufactures, I care that Big Pharm representatives sit on advisory boards at the CDC for vaccines.  

 

Gotcha. nod.gif

post #38 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

http://www.columbiajournal.ca/12-05/P7VaccineWars.html

 

I liked this article on the controversy surrounding Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw.

The thing that bothered me the most about the the article were the criticisms of the existence of the study.

 

Offit was annoyed because it was an ecological study (but wasn't the Denmark study that everyone uses to say "Vaccines are safe!" an ecological study?).  He actually said the study should not have been published - which I find a little on the suppression of information side.  Yeah, the study has limitations - but not published????

 

This quote was also interesting, from a Doctor Naus:

 

 

"One of the physicians responsible for public health in BC, Dr. Monica Naus, is also skeptical about the Tomljenovic/Shaw paper. Naus, Associate Medical Director, Epidemiology, Medical Director, Immunization Programs, BCCDC, and Associate Professor, School of Population & Public Health, UBC, said in November that a choice not to vaccinate a child would be drastic, and said that research like Shaw and Tomljenovic’s “…can have a bad effect.” 

     

 

She also critiszed the magazine the article was piublished in because it is not one pediatricians read…cause, yeah, that affects the quality of the study….

 

It seems like the critics of the T&S studiy were more interested in suppressing or dismissing the study as they fear it could cause people to question vaccination, as opposed to having real issues with the study.  That is certainly an issue for Naus (given the quote); with regard to Offit, it might just be the authors spin, but I would suggest people read the article and decide for themselves.  

post #39 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

http://www.columbiajournal.ca/12-05/P7VaccineWars.html

It seems like the critics of the T&S studiy were more interested in suppressing or dismissing the study as they fear it could cause people to question vaccination, as opposed to having real issues with the study."

It's hard to take the critics seriously when they can never admit that these kinds of studies raise issues that should be further investigated and (in the case of Offit) make money off the product being critiqued.
post #40 of 149
Thread Starter 

Since their main concern seems to be aluminum, and the roto vaccine doesn't contain aluminum, no, offit doesn't make any money off of the product being critiqued.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . "