"The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . " - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 149 Old 11-19-2012, 03:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I keep seeing reference to the "increasing evidence" or all these new studies that show aluminum adjuvants are dangerous. I'm unaware of this research. I'm going to go do some looking of my own, but if anyone had a minute and knows what this is about could they help me out?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#2 of 149 Old 11-19-2012, 07:36 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I keep seeing reference to the "increasing evidence" or all these new studies that show aluminum adjuvants are dangerous. I'm unaware of this research. I'm going to go do some looking of my own, but if anyone had a minute and knows what this is about could they help me out?

It's very curious that you say you are unaware of this research.

You posted on this this thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1357800/vaccine-controversy-a-pubmed-compilation-15-to-start-with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

This is from the blog of a mother of a child damaged by vaccines.

This is from the blog of a mother of a child damaged by vaccines.

http://www.regardingcaroline.com/pubmed


Quote:
Read the links to the right and the fifteen PubMed links below. See what you
think. If you want more, there are many, many more. You can search
PubMed for keywords and read until your eyes are bleary. And it's not just
about autism.

If you have a child with any autoimmune condition: asthma, allergies, pandas,
mitochondria disorder, adhd, diabetes, and so on... sadly, you will find there
are links to vaccines for all types of autoimmune disorders.

Anecdotal no more. You know where to look. Check it out. Pass it on.




“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” ― Flannery O'Connor

Here is your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy, I think it's defined still a matter of much debate in the scientific community how much of the increase we've seen in autism rates is due to diagnosis and how much is a real rise. I think out scientists believe both are at play (and that is my personal belief). There is an increasingly strong body of evidence that there is a definite genetic component to autism, studies with fraternal and identical twins provide some powerful evidence of that, but that doesn't rule out an environmental component, as well.

So, you talked about "increasingly strong body of evidence," and "powerful evidence" (which you didnt bother to provide) regarding the theory of a genetic component to autism, but somehow you missed the 15 links provided in the very first post of this thread, which specifically discuss the research on vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders, including research on aluminum adjuvants.

Yes, indeedy, it's VERY curious that you don't remember posting on that thread, since it contains the information you claim to have never seen.

But I thank you for the opportunity to repost the links.
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#3 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 04:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
There's no conspiracy taxi. No reason for hostility.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#4 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 04:58 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

Taxi - I'm confused. You're pointing out general links to studies about vaccine links with autism. Rrrachel is asking about the safety of aluminium adjuvants? 

 

I'd actually like to know where the ideas are coming from to. Seems like a big shift in the "anti-vaccine/vaccines are dangerous arguments", now that thimerosol is removed from most vaccines, is to focus instead on the aluminium salts (which have been used for more than 70 years) as the main danger. Why is that? 

 

(Edited grammar so you can actually read the second paragraph!). 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#5 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 07:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm on my phone so I'm sorry if I'm missing something but that looks like a link to a blog with a link to a bunch of secondary sources, which are not entirely neutral? I wonder it we could come up with some links to primary sources, instead. I would just prefer the information without the extra lense.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#6 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 01:43 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm on my phone so I'm sorry if I'm missing something but that looks like a link to a blog with a link to a bunch of secondary sources, which are not entirely neutral? I wonder it we could come up with some links to primary sources, instead. I would just prefer the information without the extra lense.

 

You said in your OP on this thread that you are unaware of research linking aluminum adjuvants with any danger of health issues.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I keep seeing reference to the "increasing evidence" or all these new studies that show aluminum adjuvants are dangerous. I'm unaware of this research
 

The OP on the thread that you yourself posted on several months ago contained such research:

 

Aluminum Studies:


Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of 
autism?

Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD 
prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the 
increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase 
in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades;

and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered 
to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western 
countries, particularly at 3-4 months of age.




Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor 
neuron degeneration.




Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

Experimental research, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a 
potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, 
aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain 
inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have 
profound and widespread adverse health consequences.  
click for entire study

 

I don't understand why after being confronted with such evidence, you would then complain that the evidence is from a source that is "not entirely neutral," especially as you have no such complaints about the vaccine safety/efficacy studies from the vaccine manufacturers themselves.

 

Mirzam and applejuice like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#7 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 02:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Taxi, please stop trying to make it personal.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#8 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 02:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
As for your post, are those three studies or what? I think I'm familiar with the first one, that's one of te tomjlenovic/shaw studies, yes? Are those other two the titles? Can you give me any info on author/date/link to help me look them up?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 05:08 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

As for your post, are those three studies or what? I think I'm familiar with the first one, that's one of te tomjlenovic/shaw studies, yes? Are those other two the titles? Can you give me any info on author/date/link to help me look them up?

The titles are hyperlinks.  All you have to do is click on them.

 

They also appear as hyperlinks on the "Regarding Caroline" website that was the subject of the thread you posted on.

 

There are more studies:

 

Zatta, P., et al. “Aluminum and health.” First International Conference on Metals and the Brain: from Neurochemistry to

Neurodegeneration. University of Padova, Italy (Sep 20-23, 2000). www.bio.unipd.it/zatta/metals/document2.htm

 

Wisniewski, HM., et al. “Aluminum neurotoxicity in mammals.” Environmental Geochemistry and Health (March 1990);12(1-2):115-20.

 

Ayoub, D. “Aluminum, vaccines and autism: déjà vu!” National Autism Association Annual Conference. Atlanta, GA. (Nov. 11, 2007).

 

“Aluminum toxicity in infants and children (RE9607),” Pediatrics (March 1996); 97(3):413-416.

 

Bishop, NJ., et al. “Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions.” New England Journal of

Medicine 1997;336(22):1557-62.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#10 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 05:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Thanks! Sorry, in the mobile version of mdc they look just like regular text, I didn't think to click on them.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#11 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 05:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Just at first glance (and from what I already know of some of those studies), most of that second round appears to be about aluminum. I don't think it's disputed that aluminum can be toxic in large enough amounts. That's not really what I was thinking when I read there was an increasing amount of recent evidence that aluminum adjuvants were causing autoimmune disorders among other things.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#12 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 05:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)



Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

Experimental research, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a 
potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, 
aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain 
inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have 
profound and widespread adverse health consequences.  
click for entire study

 

I don't understand why after being confronted with such evidence, you would then complain that the evidence is from a source that is "not entirely neutral," especially as you have no such complaints about the vaccine safety/efficacy studies from the vaccine manufacturers themselves.

 

 

I thought this was a study providing "experimental research."  In reality, it's a secondary source. Essentially it's an essay?  It's hard to tell from the abstract.  The abstract doesn't provide any methodology or results. It does claim that experimental research clearly shows . . . but it doesn't cite any of that research so I still don't know what it is (the full text probably cites it, but I can't see that).  It's difficult for me to take Tomljenovic and Shaws word for it when neither seems to have any particular expertise in the relevant topics.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#13 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 05:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

This is somewhat interesting.  It's an animal study, which we know isn't directly translatable to humans,and that are animal studies that found opposite results, but I"ll buy the authors conclusion that their results mean adjuvant warrant further examination.

 

There are several problems with their analysis, though.  They seem to have a lot of misinformation about gulf war syndrome, including totally misunderstanding what it is (a collection of disorders with a variety of causes, not a single syndrome with a common cause), and they attribute it to squalene, when the anthrax vaccines used during that time didn't include squalene.  For many of their more outrageous/erroneous claims they cite their own works.  Interesting.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#14 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 06:07 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

This is somewhat interesting.  It's an animal study, which we know isn't directly translatable to humans,and that are animal studies that found opposite results, but I"ll buy the authors conclusion that their results mean adjuvant warrant further examination.

 

There are several problems with their analysis, though.  They seem to have a lot of misinformation about gulf war syndrome, including totally misunderstanding what it is (a collection of disorders with a variety of causes, not a single syndrome with a common cause), and they attribute it to squalene, when the anthrax vaccines used during that time didn't include squalene.  For many of their more outrageous/erroneous claims they cite their own works.  Interesting.

 

 

 

You seem to have failed to cite ANY source for your own outrageous/erroneous claims.

 

Former congressman Jack Metcalf of Washington would certainly disagree with you on the subject of Gulf War Syndrome. Hepresented an investigative report on Gulf War illnesses to the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations. According to him, squalene was found in the anthrax vaccine in amounts that could boost immune response. 

 

The Department of Defense seems to have tried to block this discovery at every turn.

 

"The report also documents at length DOD "stonewalling" attempts to resolve the squalene issue, which GAO investigators characterized as "a pattern of deception." The GAO stated the DOD denied conducting extensive squalene testing before the Gulf War, then admitted it after being confronted with the public record. "

 

"GAO also found Peter Collis, DOD official who headed vaccine efforts, refused to cooperate with them. The report states that the DOD has refused to act in good faith upon the GAO recommendation to replicate the findings of a test developed by renowned virologist Dr. Robert Garry of Tulane University, although DOD admitted they could easily do so. The work of the Tulane researchers has been peer-reviewed in a scientific publication of high standing."

 

In addition, antibodies to squalene were found in recipients of the anthrax vaccine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12127050 So those scientists would also disagree with you.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#15 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 06:10 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 It's difficult for me to take Tomljenovic and Shaws word for it when neither seems to have any particular expertise in the relevant topics.

 

It's difficult for me to take someone seriously when they repeatedly attempt to shoot the messenger instead of discussing the actual study.

Mirzam and applejuice like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#16 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 06:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

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.

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#17 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 06:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#18 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 06:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Same info from first link, easier to read:

http://www.anthrax.osd.mil/resource/qna/qaAll.asp?cID=319#1104

 

 

 

Quote:
 

3) Does the anthrax vaccine use squalene as an adjuvant?
   
No, the adjuvant in the anthrax vaccine is aluminum hydroxide. An adjuvant is a substance to improve the body’s immune response to a vaccine (Vogel et al, 1998; Burdin et al, 2004).
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#19 of 149 Old 11-20-2012, 06:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

From WHO:

 

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/adjuvants/squalene/questions_and_answers/en/

 

 

 

Quote:
It is now known that squalene was not added to the vaccines administered to these veterans, and technical deficiencies in the report suggesting an association have been published.
 
 
Most adults, whether or not they have received vaccines containing squalene, have antibodies against squalene.
 
 
 
In one clinical trial, immunization with the licensed flu vaccine containing squalene did not affect the frequency or titer of anti-squalene antibodies.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#20 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 01:59 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

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

 

 I got a bit lost, but if I summarize perhaps it will be helpful both to me and others reading along.

 

The three links which were initially provided were

 

1. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of 

autism?

 

Summary: bTomljenovic and Shaw, who have dubious expertise in immunology and are known to publish only research which supports anti-vaccination viewpoints. This correlates rates of ASD in countries with alumuninum adjuvant content. My main question - does it account for differences in ASD diagnosis from country to country? 

 

2. Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor 

neuron degeneration.

 

Summary:  Animal study which is interesting, but includes lots of misinformation about gulf war syndrome including factual inaccuracies about the content of vaccinations against anthrax.

3. Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

 

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?). 

 

Plus then there were a bunch of extra studies about 4/5 of which were about how metallic alluminium is toxic to humans and animals (which no-one will dispute, but is of little relevance to the aluminium salts used as adjuvants in vaccines). The other of these was a conference summary/opinion piece- but no link was given so I haven't chased it down.

 

Yeah not too convincing unless you're out to look for a problem with vaccines.


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#21 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 05:04 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#22 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 06:16 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
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.

Taximom5 is online now  
#23 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 06:41 AM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,764
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)

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.
 

MeepyCat is online now  
#24 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 06:52 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#25 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 07:09 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#26 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 07:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#27 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 12:01 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,134
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
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


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#28 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 12:35 PM - Thread Starter
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
And I'm sure they are excellent in their expertise, which I believe is inorganic chemistry and something else I can't remember.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#29 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 01:20 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,134
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
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

Jennyanydots likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#30 of 149 Old 11-21-2012, 01:27 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,134
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)

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

 

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


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off