or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › The Truth About Vaccines At Last.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Truth About Vaccines At Last. - Page 2  

post #21 of 38

Glowby, this is not a debate forum. Perhaps you'd like to move your post to the debate forum?

 

The link being discussed asserts that the 30 studies LINK vaccines to autism, and they do exactly that.  

 

You are arguing whether they prove that vaccine causes autism, which was not asserted. Many of your arguments and assertions are also flawed; for example, autism is not diagnosed until at least 2 years of age, and is often diagnosed years later. 

 

 I suggest that if you and prosciencemum really want to debate this issue, you start a thread in the debate forum.  If you and prosciencemum would like to delete your argumentative posts here, I'll delete my replies, and we can save the mods the hassle of closing the thread here, reviewing, and then asking us to edit.  

post #22 of 38

Glowby - thanks for detailing what the studies were about as you see it.

 

Going by what you said, it does seem to me as if the studies might be of interest to those who want to consider the autism-vaccine link.

 

A study does not have to explore vaccines for it to be relevant to vaccines.  Ex:  if a study looks at aluminum in deodorant and concludes that the amount is associated with higher rates of lupus (made up example) it is reasonable to wonder if the aluminum that is also present in vaccines might be implicated in lupus.  

 

...and welcome to MDC!

post #23 of 38

I don't want to add to the debate, however, I think it is relevant we look at how autism is viewed: externally, as the DSM describes it, as a menu of symptoms that manifest as spectrum of social behavioral issues. This is how big pharma, CDC, and the majority of medical establishment would like ASD viewed; or there is internally, that autism is a medical disease process, and that autistic children are in fact very sick, which is the reality facing the parents of autistic children. It is easy to dismiss the role of vaccines and vaccine components in the external version of autism, but not so easy if autism is a medical condition. Viewed internally, the finger certainly does point to vaccines as a cause.

post #24 of 38

glowby - welcome to Mothering.com. Thanks for the contribution which I think will be very helpful for people new to this question. 

 

I think my confusion stemmed from thinking that by calling the list "30 Scientific Studies Showing the Link between Vaccines and Autism", the blog author meant that all 30 separately showed a link between autism and vaccines. Having looked through the list more closely I think she is actually trying to do a sort of systematic review and suggest that taken together these 30 studies suggest to her (and presumably others as it's been reposted a lot) a link between vaccines and autism. I'm not a doctor, or a medical professional or researcher in this area, so I don't feel comfortable commenting on that claim, although I'm not sure why this blog author is either.....

 

Just to be helpful to the people new to the question here are two other systemic reviews looking into vaccine safety and both of which specificially address the question of links between vaccines and autism, and which are written by people whose qualifications for doing these reviews I understand. They've been posted an debated elsewhere on these boards so I suggest you might use the search feature if you want to see that discussion.

 

 

Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism

Institute of Medicine Report: 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Immunization-Safety-Review-Vaccines-and-Autism.aspx 

 

 

 

Quote:
"The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. The committee further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism that have been generated to date are theoretical only."

 

 

A Cochrane Collaboration review of the safety and efficacy of MMR: 

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004407/using-the-combined-vaccine-for-protection-of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

 

 

Quote:
We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections.

 

(there may be other Cochrane reviews on other vaccines - that's a great resource in general for researching in this area I think: http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews). 

 

Best of luck to everyone in their research and decision making process. I hope this helps.

post #25 of 38

Prosciencemum, I see you've had time to look over the studies, and to search for some other studies to try to refute the suggested vaccine-autism link (which is actually rather argumentative of you considering which forum this is), but you haven't answered my questions.

 

I'm reposting them, in case you've forgotten.  Because the reviews you posted did not look at the 30 studies in question.  And I was really hoping YOU would answer my questions.  I don't know how much more direct I can be.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

prosciencemum, could you please tell us exactly how many studies listed here DO show links between autism and vaccines?   You see, I didn't think the "stuff like that" was confusing at all. However, I found your post to be confusing; on first reading, I thought you were stating that none of the studies support a thimerosal-vaccine connection.  On closer re-reading, I realized that you may have meant something like, "only 29 studies (out of the 30 listed) actually support a thimerosal-vaccine connection."  But it's very hard to tell, since you were never specific.  
 

Could you specify exactly which studies correlate autism with environmental toxins, and could you please explain how an infant injected with several thimerosal-preserved and/or aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines in one day has NOT been exposed to environmental toxins via vaccination?

 

Could you also please tell us how many of these studies do correlate autism with thimerosal?  Please note, I didn't say "prove that thimerosal causes autism." We are discussing the CORRELATION of autism with thimerosal, right?

 

So how many of these mainstream medical, peer-reviewed studies concluded that there may be a plausible correlation between thimerosal and autism?

post #26 of 38

Taximom - I don't understand how my post could be considered debate. (?) I merely attempted to review and summarize the 30 studies, in an attempt to see if they truly supported its premise. I was coincidentally reviewing this web article for a friend who has an autistic sister (who's also a friend) when, as I mentioned, I came across the conversation here. I thought you folks here might be interested in my findings, as they seem very much related to the topic you were discussing, and as questions were raised here about the applicability of the studies to the vaccine-autism connection.

 

Considering that only 1 of the 30 studies (the first one) actually attempted to link vaccines directly with autism, and one study (number 19) made no mention of vaccines, mercury, or autism at all (!), I felt that I should alert (not necessarily debate) you folks.

 

Studies that say huge amounts of mercury are bad, or might be bad, or are simply detectable in mice, monkeys, or humans say virtually nothing about the dangers of vaccinations. Studies that say autism may correlate with environmental factors, but don't specifically identifying mercury or vaccines as the cause, are also almost entirely irrelevant too.

 

This "30 studies" article is clearly a very dishonest propaganda piece, intended to fool people. 29 of the 30 studies create a "link" purely through innuendo established with the article's title and premise, not with actual science.

 

It seems the major "debate" is between you and me, Taximom, since you appear to be convinced of the sincerity and applicability of this article. If you would like to start a new thread debating the subject, I'll be happy to participate. I should warn you in advance, however, that the credentials and reputations of some of the researchers cited in this article are rather murky, to say the least. Have you taken a critical look at the article yet?

post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowby View Post

 

 

Studies that say huge amounts of mercury are bad, or might be bad, or are simply detectable in mice, monkeys, or humans say virtually nothing about the dangers of vaccinations. 

 

 

Thimerosal is 49% mercury, so yeah, studies that talk about mercury may very well be relevant to vaccines as thim is in most flu shots, some adult shots, children's shots in other countries…..

post #28 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowby View Post

 

This "30 studies" article is clearly a very dishonest propaganda piece, intended to fool people. 29 of the 30 studies create a "link" purely through innuendo established with the article's title and premise, not with actual science.

 

 

Dishonest propagnada piece?  No, it is not.

 

The article clearly has a non-vax bias, and is cobbling together articles (most of them from respected journals) to prove its point.

 

It is no more propaganda than when a pro-vax article cobbles together a list of studies that support vaccination.

post #29 of 38

Hi Kathymuggle!

 

When I said "huge amounts" of mercury, I meant amounts of it per body weight. The percentage of mercury in a dose is a different matter. As you said, Thimerosal is 59% ethylmercury. Vaccines contain 0.01% Thimerosal. So they contain 0.0059% ethylmercury or about 25 micrograms in a 0.5 ml dose, which is the dose of flu vaccine given to kids 36 months or older (it's 0.25 ml for 6-35 months).

 

So, for a 6 or 36 month old, each shot contains about the same amount of ethylmercury per weight, between 1.7 and 1.8 micrograms/kilogram.

 

In study #5, they gave the mice between 21,333 and 42,667 times the ethylmercury per weight that a child gets in a flu vaccine.

 

In study #7, they gave the monkeys 111 times what's in a child's flu shot, and they gave it every day for 3 months.

 

Interestingly, studies 6 and 7 concluded that ethylmercury (what's in Thimerosal) is metabolized and passed through the body much more quickly than methylmercury. This suggests that most of the mercury that might be detected in humans is due to exposure to environmental methylmercury rather than ethylmercury. Several of the 30 studies measured mercury levels in subjects without regard for their sources (studies 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29).

 

Yes, I would agree that the "30 studies" article has a non-vax bias and that other web articles have a pro-vax bias. But being biased and dishonest aren't necessarily the same thing. This particular article attempts to persuade dishonestly. That's why I labeled it as propaganda.

post #30 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowby View Post

 

 

Yes, I would agree that the "30 studies" article has a non-vax bias and that other web articles have a pro-vax bias. But being biased and dishonest aren't necessarily the same thing. This particular article attempts to persuade dishonestly. That's why I labeled it as propaganda.

We just disagree.  I do not see any evidence they were being dishonest.  

post #31 of 38
I have to agree with kathymuggle here in that I think it's extremely unlikely the person who wrote this list was being deliberately dishonest and misrepresenting these studies. I suspect she firmly believes that if you put those 30 studies together you find a link between vaccines and autism.

I also think you've done a fantastic job (glowby) of providing information on what's actually in the studies to help people determine for themselves if that list does what it claims.
post #32 of 38

Glowby,  your "analysis" of the studies looks like a deliberate attempt to misinform readers here, as it seems you have deliberately left out information crucial to the conclusions of the studies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glowby View Post

.

 

In study #5, they gave the mice between 21,333 and 42,667 times the ethylmercury per weight that a child gets in a flu vaccine.

 

Study 5 actually concludes;  "Although the thimerosal levels used were very high, as we were originally only trying to determine MTD, it was completely unexpected to observe a difference of the MTD between male and female mice. Thus, our studies, although not directly addressing the controversy surrounding thimerosal and autism, and still preliminary due to small numbers of mice examined, provide, nevertheless, the first report of gender-selective toxicity of thimerosal and indicate that any future studies of thimerosal toxicity should take into consideration gender-specific differences."

 

 

In study #7, they gave the monkeys 111 times what's in a child's flu shot, and they gave it every day for 3 months.

 

Interestingly, studies 6 and 7 concluded that ethylmercury (what's in Thimerosal) is metabolized and passed through the body much more quickly than methylmercury. This suggests that most of the mercury that might be detected in humans is due to exposure to environmental methylmercury rather than ethylmercury.

 

 

Study 6 actually says: "This study demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that ethyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in vaccines, not only ends up in the brain, but leaves double the amount of inorganic mercury as methyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in fish. This work is groundbreaking because little is known about ethyl mercury, and many health authorities have asserted that the mercury found in vaccines is the “safe kind.” This study also delivers a strong rebuke of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation in 2004 to no longer pursue the mercury-autism connection."
 
Study 7 concludes:  "The identities of the reactive glial cells and the implications for the long-term function and survivability of the neurons due to changes in the glial population following subclinical long-term exposure to mercury are discussed."
 

 

 

 

Several of the 30 studies measured mercury levels in subjects without regard for their sources (studies 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29)

 

 

Did you actually read those studies?  These studies validate anecdotal evidence that, prior to those studies, had been categorically denied by the scientific community (and, I might add, by some posters here).  Your assertion suggests that you were hoping nobody here would bother to read the studies, as your assertion has....well, nothing whatsoever to do with the studies you specified.

 

Study 2:  "These data implicate environmental toxicity in childhood autistic disorder."

 

study 3:   "Autism could result from more than one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms. Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment."

 

study 9:  "Autism has been modeled as a brain-based, strongly genetic disorder, but emerging findings and hypotheses support a broader model of the condition as a genetically influenced and systemic. These include imaging, neuropathology and psychological evidence of pervasive (and not just specific) brain and phenotypic features; postnatal evolution and chronic persistence of brain, behavior and tissue changes (e.g. inflammation) and physical illness symptomatology (e.g. gastrointestinal, immune, recurrent infection); overlap with other disorders; and reports of rate increases and improvement or recovery that support a role for modulation of the condition by environmental factors (e.g. exacerbation or triggering by toxins, infectious agents, or others stressors, or improvement by treatment)."

 

Study 10:  "This study demonstrates how Thimerosal inhibits methylation, a central driver of cellular communication and development. Excerpt:

 
“The potent inhibition of this pathway [methylation] by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum, and thimerosal suggests it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins.”
 
Study 12:  "Excerpt: “We have reanalyzed the data set originally reported by Ip et al. in 2004 and have found that the original p value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, the hair sample analysis results offer some support for the idea that persons with autism may be less efficient and more variable at eliminating mercury from the blood.”
 
Study 14:  "Shows a potential link between mercury and the autopsied brains of young people with autism. A marker for oxidative stress was 68.9% higher in autistic brain issue than controls (a statistically significant result), while mercury levels were 68.2% higher."
 
Study 20:  "This study demonstrated the correlation between environmental mercury and autism rates in Texas."
 
study 21:  Excerpt: “Our results suggest a potential association between autism and estimated metal concentrations, and possibly solvents, in ambient air around the birth residence.”
 
Study 22:  This study reviewed the case histories and medical profiles of nine autistic children and concluded that eight of the nine children were mercury toxic and this toxicity manifested itself in a manner consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
 
Excerpt: “…these previously normally developing children suffered mercury toxic encephalopathies that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with regressive ASDs. Evidence for mercury intoxication should be considered in the differential diagnosis as contributing to some regressive ASDs.”
 
Study 23:  This study demonstrates that blood mercury levels are higher in children with ADHD.
 
Excerpt: “There was significant difference in blood mercury levels between cases and controls, which persists after adjustment for age, gender and parental occupational status. The geometric mean blood mercury level was also significantly higher in children with inattentive and combined subtypes of ADHD. High blood mercury level was associated with ADHD. Whether the relationship is causal requires further studies.”
 
study 29:  "We suspect that persistent low-dose exposures to various environmental toxicants, including mercury, that occur during critical windows of neural development among genetically susceptible children (with a diminished capacity for metabolizing accumulated toxicants) may increase the risk for developmental disorders such as autism. Successfully identifying the specific combination of environmental exposures and genetic susceptibilities can inform the development of targeted prevention intervention strategies."

 

Yes, I would agree that the "30 studies" article has a non-vax bias and that other web articles have a pro-vax bias. But being biased and dishonest aren't necessarily the same thing. This particular article attempts to persuade dishonestly. That's why I labeled it as propaganda.

 

You have failed to show anything dishonest in the "30 studies" article..  However, your own statements appear to be dishonest..

post #33 of 38

Thanks, Prosciencemum.

 

FYI folks,

 

You'll notice that in the "30 studies" article, it says, "I found this document ... 30 studies that show a link between vaccines and autism. 30. 30. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? ... There are 49, I couldn’t fit them all in the note character range (on Facebook)."

 

I found a link to an article with all 49: http://coolessay.org/docs/index-124346.html

 

I'm in the process of examining them.

 

I'll try get back to the dishonesty issue later...

post #34 of 38

I took the liberty of moving our discussion to http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1381024/30-studies-showing-the-link-between-vaccines-and-autism  so that we don't violate MDC's policy of nob debating in the "Vaccination Research for Beginners" forum.

 

Thanks for you cooperation!

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum 
I think my confusion stemmed from thinking that by calling the list "30 Scientific Studies Showing the Link between Vaccines and Autism", the blog author meant that all 30 separately showed a link between autism and vaccines. Having looked through the list more closely I think she is actually trying to do a sort of systematic review and suggest that taken together these 30 studies suggest to her (and presumably others as it's been reposted a lot) a link between vaccines and autism.

Yes, I agree it's reasonable to assume that the list in its entirety should be considered, and that it's necessary to connect a chain of links between or among them, and that I therefore should have cut some of the studies a bit more slack. But even with that in mind, some of the studies link only to a dead end. I appreciate that researchers are expanding our knowledge of the various factors that relate to (or might relate to) this subject. It's quite possible that some of this apparently tenuously related research will eventually relate, that is, it will connect links at some time in the future.

If it was simply called "30 studies related (or possibly related) to the link between vaccines or autism", I'd have had little problem with it. For example, take the study (#18) of the possible connection between aluminum adjuvant and Gulf War Syndrome. An actual link to autism is interrupted by several factors...

1. The amount of aluminum per liter in vaccines is about the same as what's found in infant formula. A single 200 ml feeding of formula delivers 400-800 times more aluminum than a vaccination for a 1 yr old.
2. The complex of symptoms related to Gulf War Syndrome bears little resemblance to that of ADS.
3. The dosing schedule administered to the mice was intended to mimic what's given to troops for protection from anthrax, not to children for prevention of childhood diseases. (Anthrax vaccine contains 1.2mg/ml aluminum; Hep-B - 0.4mg/ml; MMR - 1mg/ml)

And then there are those studies whose stated intent was to study the effects of very high or toxic levels of mercury tens of thousands of times higher than what's in vaccines. These have virtually no potential of shedding light on the link.

The "30 studies" article by Lisa Joyce Goes is actually a truncated retelling of an article by Ginger Taylor referencing 49 studies. Her educational credentials are a Masters in Clinical Counseling. It's impossible to say if she was being purposely deceptive or should have known better. In any case, the result was certainly deceptive.

If someone wanted to compile an honest and sincere list of studies supporting this link, he/she wouldn't have bulked it up with immaterial ones, or included ones like #34, which was co-authored by Andrew Wakefield (of research misconduct fame), and was never published in a peer-review journal.

Lisa Goes adds (purposely or not) some deceptions of her own in her preamble to Taylor's list. For example...

"In the (1943) paper, Dr. Kanner noted that onset of the disorder (autism) began following the administration of a small pox vaccine."
I get the impression that Dr. Kanner noticed a strong correlation. But in the paper, Dr. Kanner noted this for only 1 of the 11 cases he reported, because the child had a week-long bout of diarrhea immediately following the shot at age 12 months. His mother began to suspect developmental problems at 3 yrs old. There was no control group - only 11 autistic children.
post #36 of 38
nm
post #37 of 38
Hi Taximom.

Yes, study 5 and others note the differential rate of mercury absorption between boys and girls, or male vs. female lab animals. This has been noted for other heavy metals and toxins as well as a wide range of other substances. I'm aware that the risk of autism is higher in boys than girls, and also that a wide range of other diseases and syndromes differentially afflict or affect men vs. women. In no way is this a smoking gun or does it establish a link. A pro-vax person could just as easily and irrationally claim that study 5 refutes a link, since the ratio of differential absorption is very different than the boy:girl ratio of ADS sufferers. In either case, the huge doses that were administered, containing tens of thousands of times more mercury than vaccines, make this study (and #7) virtually irrelevant in establishing a link, as its authors suggest.

Please understand, I'm not saying there's no evidence at all that links vaccines to autism. I'm saying that this particular article is very misleading on the subject, for the reasons I've stated. I would think that anyone who is convinced of the link and who wishes to inform others of the dangers would also be bothered by it. Because anyone who reads it with an unbiased yet critical eye will quickly identify it as a dishonest (and somewhat sloppy) piece of propaganda.
post #38 of 38

This thread has really veered of into debate which is stated in the guidelines to be avoided. I'm closing this thread and will suspend the membership of anyone who pursues debate in this forum hereafter. 

 

lsaunders, I'm sorry this turned out the way it did. I suggest you read through what has been presented and check our forums for more information about the topic and post again to ask in further questions in a new thread. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › The Truth About Vaccines At Last.