or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Current Status of Aluminum Adjuvant Research
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Current Status of Aluminum Adjuvant Research

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 

 

Part 1

 

If you object to the author of this blog, please refer to the extensive sources referenced at the end of the articles, and read them for yourself.

Quote:

Using a slide show, [Chrisopher] Shaw started with this definitive statement:

Administration of aluminum in vaccine-relevant exposures in neonatal mice is associated with long-term adverse neurological outcomes.

Notice that there’s no hedging. Shaw definitively stated that aluminum in vaccines is associated with severe harm to young mice—and he went on to document it. He covered these topics:

  • Aluminum as a neurotoxin.
  • Aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.
  • The in vivo data.
  • Aluminum in vaccines and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
  • Connecting pediatric vaccines with aluminum.
  • Where we go from here?

 

Part 2 with a focus on autism

 

 

 

 

Quote:

This study’s analysis [also] found that :

  • Al adjuvant exposure correlates with age of exposure.
  • Countries with greater Al-adjuvanted vaccine schedules have higher ASD rates.
  • The US, UK, and Canada have the highest ASD rates in so-called “western” countries, while the rate is lower in Nordic countries.
  • Eight of the nine Hill’s criteria are satisfied by the evidence.

 

post #2 of 58
I want to take the time and go through this carefully. I'm not finished yet. However at first glance I'm not clear on how he's interpreting the graphs. They seem to be claimin the graphs for the different tests the mice did under different experimental conditions show significant differences when really they don't? I'm not sure if that's the blog author making that claim or shaw.
post #3 of 58

Prosciencemum, this part is for you!

We tend to crack down on scientists around here, but of course we know not all of them are bad! Indeed, there are many caring, passionate, good-hearted scientists out there.

 

 

"[Shaw] wasn’t questioned on the legitimacy of his research or critiqued on flaws in the studies. The questions centered around how to replace aluminum in vaccines."

 

"The majority of scientists at the Keele Conference were in favor of vaccination, some even vehemently so. Afterwards, I debated the issue of vaccination in general with a couple of the scientists who asked Dr. Shaw about alternatives, but were strongly in favor of vaccinations. Nonetheless, they were impressed with his evidence, and they seemed to believe that we should be discussing the removal of aluminum from vaccines. Clearly, they believed his evidence is strong—enough to be interested in moving beyond discussion of whether it’s a risk, but instead discussing how to replace it."

 

So, they were in favor of vaccination, but recognized the need for a safer replacement for aluminum. I like that. This is a step in the right direction. Although I am not in favor of vaccination, I AM in favor of safer vaccines. Good job, scientists!

post #4 of 58
I am also in favour of safer vaccines. Although I'm convinced they're already very safe.

I am glad you realise scientists are people and many (most?) have a very high moral code and would/will not stand for being duped by big pharma.
post #5 of 58

I'm unsure how someone can claim the current vaccine schedule recommended by the ACIP and CDC in the United States is safe (unless you are only saying individual vaccines are 'safe')

 

The most current evaluation of the schedule does not claim this at all - in fact, the only thing that can be said beyond a doubt is that there is not enough completed research to validate the current schedule as 'safe'.

 

The Institute of Medicine states with some bizarre wording: "The committee found no significant evidence to imply that recommended immunization schedule is not safe. Furthermore, existing surveillance and response systems have identified adverse events known to be associated with vaccination." (pg 117)

 

So in essence, you are trying to extrapulate from this:

 

No evidence the schedule is not safe = the current schedule is safe.

 

?!

 

I'm sincerely curious to know if you reviewed the 37 studies reviewed in the IOM's review of the current vaccine schedule...If have not, you are welcomed to review this which offers a summary of each 37 studies: http://blindedbythelightt.blogspot.com/2013/01/vaccine-schedule-touted-as-safe.html

 

and/or read the 185 pg report yourself :)  http://blindedbythelightt.blogspot.com/2013/01/vaccine-schedule-touted-as-safe.html

post #6 of 58
Rrrrrachel, is it the margin of difference that you see as being insignificant?
post #7 of 58
There were several graphs, only one really seemed to show any significant difference. It's hard to really know without knowing the details of the experiment design, sample size, etc, but that's what I get from looking at the graphs.
post #8 of 58

found these links about aluminum, havent had time to go thru them yet, tho

Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations
http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/223.short

Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/

Long-term Persistence of Vaccine-Derived Aluminum Hydroxide is Associated with Chronic Cognitive Dysfunction
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013409001895

Long-term follow-up of cognitive dysfunction in patients with aluminum hydroxide-induced macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013411002194

Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

Aluminum Adjuvant Linked to Gulf War Illness Induces Motor Neuron Death in Mice
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x457214811q62412/

The immunobiology of aluminium adjuvants: how do they really work?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471490609002488

Aluminum inclusion macrophagic myofasciitis: a recently identified condition
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14753387

Macrophagic myofasciitis lesions assess long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminium hydroxide in muscle 
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/9/1821.full.pdf+html

A role for the body burden of aluminium in vaccine-associated macrophagic myofasciitis and chronic fatigue syndrome
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(08)00493-3/abstract

Aluminum as an adjuvant in Crohn’s disease induction 
http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/231.abstract

Aluminum is a potential environmental factor for Crohn’s disease induction: extended hypothesis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17804561

DNA released from dying host cells mediates aluminum adjuvant activity
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n8/full/nm.2403.html

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
PubMed comprises more than 22 million citations for biomedical literature from M...See More
post #9 of 58
A lot of those have been discussed here before, you may be able to find previous discussions by searching mothering for the titles.
post #10 of 58
The WHO believes two of those studies are seriously flawed.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/reports/Jun_2012/en/index.html
post #11 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I am also in favour of safer vaccines. Although I'm convinced they're already very safe.

I am glad you realise scientists are people and many (most?) have a very high moral code and would/will not stand for being duped by big pharma.

 

Bolding mine.  She did not say that.  

post #12 of 58

Thank you Kathy.

I was proud of the scientists in THIS case, who were open to finding a safer alternative to aluminum. Some of them were convinced that aluminum might be dangerous, so I was giving them credit. It made me glad.

This does not mean I know the true intentions of many/most scientists. I believe there are many people who sacrifice their morals for the almighty $$, and this includes scientists. I do think there are scientists who sell out to big pharma, but there are also scientists who don't. That's why this story made me glad--that, and the fact they were admitting aluminum might not be safe wink1.gif I don't think aluminum is safe, and if they can find a safer alternative, maybe it could help those who vaccinate.

post #13 of 58
I'm glad scientists are open to evidence that ingredients in vaccines aren't safe. It's important to continually assess and verify the safety and efficacy of vaccines. However, I hope they don't go into any investigations so convinced they're not safe that they produce methodologically flawed studies just to "prove" they're not safe.
post #14 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm glad scientists are open to evidence that ingredients in vaccines aren't safe. It's important to continually assess and verify the safety and efficacy of vaccines. However, I hope they don't go into any investigations so convinced they're not safe that they produce methodologically flawed studies just to "prove" they're not safe.

Yet it doesn't seem to concern you in the least that most of the current research in vaccines has been set up with the premise that vaccines are safe, and methodically flawed studies (like the latest one by the CDC) are thus produced for the express purpose of "proving" vaccines safe.

post #15 of 58
I don't agree that most studies that support vaccine safety are set up with a predetermined out come or that they're methodologically flawed, taxi. Duh.
post #16 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't agree that most studies that support vaccine safety are set up with a predetermined out come or that they're methodologically flawed, taxi. Duh.

First of all, I would appreciate it if you would remember to adhere to MDC policy.  Even in this forum, nastiness, rudeness, and disrespect are not considered appropriate.

 

Second of all, the financial conflicts of interest and methodological flaws that purport to support vaccine safety have been discussed here before.  www.14studies.org does an excellent job of explaining them.

post #17 of 58
That website doesn't seem to be working.
post #18 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

First of all, I would appreciate it if you would remember to adhere to MDC policy.  Even in this forum, nastiness, rudeness, and disrespect are not considered appropriate.

 

Second of all, the financial conflicts of interest and methodological flaws that purport to support vaccine safety have been discussed here before.  www.14studies.org does an excellent job of explaining them.

 

The link is incorrect Taxi, we don't want to give Rrrrrachel any excuse not to bother to read it!

 

http://www.fourteenstudies.org/

post #19 of 58
Thanks Mirzam.
post #20 of 58
It seems like this new study is an attempt to address this concern: http://www.fourteenstudies.org/question.html

In general, there are a lot of questions that can be investigated in regards to vaccine safety. This insistence that there is only one question that matters and everything else is rubbish is just . . . Wrong. I don't know what else to call it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Current Status of Aluminum Adjuvant Research