Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Poul Thorsen (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1369534-poul-thorsen.html)

Mirzam 12-05-2012 10:33 AM

2 Attachment(s)

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/poul-thorsen-called-industry-scumbag-scientist-and-mercury-shill.html

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Since 2002 there were twenty one  autism studies published by P.Thorsen--four of which were published since the April 13, 2011 federal indictment of this humongous scum bag.  Apparently some journals could care less about the indictment and continue to publish papers by this corrupt industry scientist.  Another one came out just last month. 

So like the corrupt industry scientists of the past who all concluded that tobacco was safe, there seem to be industry scientists today who conclude that mercury, which is proven to kill brain cells, is safe to inject into children and pregnant women in the form of Thimerosal vaccine preservative. 

 

 

 


chickabiddy 12-05-2012 01:56 PM

And in other news, Andrew Wakefield had his medical license revoked.


kathymuggle 12-05-2012 02:01 PM

not worth it…..

Rrrrrachel 12-05-2012 02:03 PM

I must've missed all the threads started about Wakefield in the last few months.

Taximom5 12-05-2012 02:05 PM

Let's not hijack the thread, ok?  The OP is about Poul Thorsen.


Mirzam 12-05-2012 03:08 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Is this just going to come up every couple of weeks now?

Probably, because the CDC has a problem on their hands with Dr Thorsen and his 21 autism studies. From one of the comments:

 

 

 

Quote:
There is no way anyone can put their hand on a Bible and allow any study Thorsen has ever been involved in to be cited with any credibility - oh - except for Dr. Colleen Boyle and the CDC of course.

prosciencemum 12-05-2012 03:22 PM

I'm intesrested to know if there's anything scientifically wrong with his work. Yes he appears to be a scumbag, but you don't have to be an angel to do correct science.....

Rrrrrachel 12-05-2012 05:35 PM

I don't see how him being one author, among many and not even the lead author, destroys the credibility of the studies. Especially since his crime has nothing to do with scientific validity.

WildKingdom 12-05-2012 05:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't see how him being one author, among many and not even the lead author, destroys the credibility of the studies. Especially since his crime has nothing to do with scientific validity.
It doesn't.

dinahx 12-05-2012 09:49 PM

His crime involves stealing $$$ from his funder, the CDC. Who funded his 'science'. Please tell me how that would not effect scientific validity. So now not only does funding not bias your work (it does) but a relationship of embezzlement with your funder does not prevent great science from being done! Watch out ladies, history is being made!

Rrrrrachel 12-06-2012 05:33 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

His crime involves stealing $$$ from his funder, the CDC. Who funded his 'science'. Please tell me how that would not effect scientific validity. So now not only does funding not bias your work (it does) but a relationship of embezzlement with your funder does not prevent great science from being done! Watch out ladies, history is being made!

I still don't understand. He embezzled money from a study he was one of several authors on. He wasn't even the lead author. I don't see how this taints the study. He would've stolen the same money regardless of how the study turned out. It's not like he was taking money from personal injury attorneys who are vested in a particular outcome.

Mosaic 12-06-2012 05:56 AM

Many of those papers appear to have nothing to do with vaccines or autism (from the titles, anyway). I also wouldn't be terrible concerned about the published dates since it takes FOREVER to get articles through the review and approval process and then actually published. I also don't think you have to be a saint to do good science.

That said, if a client gave me $1million to do a research study for them, they'd expect to see a $1million product. If I put half that money in my pocket and made up fake bills to cover it, I'd also have to make fake progress reports, fake interim deliverables, etc. and also make the real work seem like it's worth twice what it was really worth. That would definitely make for some questionable results. Or maybe he worked his post-docs into the ground and pocketed the savings, so the work is still good? I dunno, I can definitely see why some folks have concern.

Rrrrrachel 12-06-2012 06:01 AM

I think that's a good point mosaic, but I doubt the percentage of the total funding he stole was that high.  I have a feeling these are multi million dollar studies.  I'm less worried if someone skims 5% than if they skim 50%, but i hadn't really thought about it that way before.


kathymuggle 12-06-2012 07:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

  I'm less worried if someone skims 5% than if they skim 50%, but i hadn't really thought about it that way before.

banghead.gif

 

 

he stole a million dollars!   This is not chump change, and I would not be thrilled if he even stole $1000.

 

You want to argue his scuzziness does not affect the science (although it might - he certainly is not a trustworthy figure)  fine, but don't negate the amount of money he stole.  

 

It reminds me of when people try to say big pharm does not make much money off vaccines biglaugh.gif

 

__________________

 

in general: 

 

I probably should not be giving the pro-vax side tips, but here is one anyways (I am feeling generous)

-do not say Big pharm does not make money off vaccines

-do not try to excuse Thorsens behaviour by saying it was not much money.

 

It looks really entitled (how rich is the pro-vax side that it dismisses millions or even billions of dollars?) and even worse, like they consider fraud acceptable.


Rrrrrachel 12-06-2012 07:44 AM

I'm not negating the amount he stole. My comment was specifically in context of what mosaic said about it influencing his science. Don't frustrate yourself by generalizing it beyond that.

Rrrrrachel 12-06-2012 07:45 AM

And I promise you I'm not rich. Even by a very generous definition.

dinahx 12-06-2012 08:55 AM

You know, you can trust your child's health to Thoreson science & use Thimerisol some of us just choose not to. The entire non-vax case does not rest on Wakefield. For many years I disregarded him & the potential MMR issues entirely.

If you don't believe me, read: Pox, An
American History. Issues with Vax Safety date back 100 years, *at least*. The media wants us to believe any concerns started & end with Wakefield. I just know it is bias that Wakefield is a household name & Thorsen is not.

Rrrrrachel 12-06-2012 09:13 AM

Thimerosal isn't really relevant to the debate on childhood vaccination anymore, anyway.

Rrrrrachel 12-06-2012 09:14 AM

Wakefields fame BEFORE he was discredited was far more than thorsens. His behavior was also far more wide reaching and egregious than thorsens.

Dakotacakes 12-06-2012 09:39 AM

I just had time to read the article.  I think first that the reasons that journals continue to publish Thorson's work are threefold: 1.) he is not the sole author on the articles; 2.) the peer review is a blind process so his name doesn't go out to the reviewers they vet the methods, conclusions and writing style along with the ethics of the scientific inquiry background checks of the authors are not part of it and cannot as the authors identity is generally withheld from the reviewers; 3.) his crime is about financial theft not scientific misconduct so there is no reason not to publish the work.

 

I also believe that the authors of the post in question for this discussion/debate's main problem is not with his theft of grant money and continued publication record, but with the conclusions of his scientific inquiries.  If it were the former, they would be looking to find every person who has been convicted of theft who continues to publish not just continuing to attack one person.  I do not believe that if Thorson and colleagues had found a connection between vaccines and autism that the authors who wrote this article would be upset that he published it.

 

I wish that the authors if they object to Thorson's findings would add to science rather than write blog posts calling him a humugus scumbag which really doesn't help anything or provide any new information.  Tear apart his methods, show why what he found was wrong.  Find a connection that can be replicated and meets scientific standards and publish a rebuttal.  But just saying one author on these was convicted of fraud so we have to throw away all the research that was done makes no sense whatsoever for two reasons 1.) it means that the government is out more money than what was stolen so now we compounded the taxpayer loss.  They also paid for the research through a grant, if it now can't be published that means that they got nothing from the investment! 2.) it won't keep the information from coming out anyway.  Since this study followed scientific protocol it can be replicated.  So we say Thorson's work can't be published.  All that means is his co-authors will redo the study and come to the same conclusions and publish it.  That is just time wasting.  Time that could be spent continuing to advance the scientific literature and help individuals with autism.

 

I believe that all avenues in autism research should be undertaken.  But trying to stop research isn't the answer.  Is it vaccines?  Let's continue the research (and not be biased by trying to halt some of it from being published) Is it other environmental  concerns (like cellphones or Wi-Fi)? Let's do research on it. Is it genetic?  Let's continue that research too because it can't be just one of these things.


dinahx 12-06-2012 10:13 AM

The 'science' behind the Denmark study has been *amply* critiqued.

Rrrrrachel: First, any comments about Wakefield are totally subjective. Let's not get into Brian 'just a journalist' Deer & his 'stock in Mereck' boss Murdoch! Second, Wakefield's conduct did not land him on an actual 'Wanted' list. So add 'debatable' to 'subjective' above.

Also, Thimerisol could not be more relevant today, just like the Cutter incident remains relevant (historic safety & accountability issues) but it is also relevant on a whole 'nother level: the CDC continues to assert that Thimerisol is safe for expectant mothers & during the H1N1 Flu season a pregnant woman following directions may have had 75mcg of Thimerisol (2 H1N1 & 1 regular flu shots). Also some children's annual flu shots still contain Thimerisol, especially those who receive shots @ clinics.

Finally, I am not limiting my view of this issue to the US, Globally Thimerisol is very much still in use in Childhood vaccines.

chickabiddy 12-06-2012 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

during the H1N1 Flu season a pregnant woman following directions may have had 75mcg of Thimerisol (2 H1N1 & 1 regular flu shots)

 

Flu shots contain both H1N1 and seasonal flu vax, and an adult needs only one shot per year.


Mirzam 12-06-2012 10:21 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

during the H1N1 Flu season a pregnant woman following directions may have had 75mcg of Thimerisol (2 H1N1 & 1 regular flu shots)

 

Flu shots contain both H1N1 and seasonal flu vax, and an adult needs only one shot per year.

dinahx stated quite clearly that it was during the H1N1 season 2009 or 2010 don't remember which. 


dinahx 12-06-2012 10:27 AM

And a pregnant woman (or any adult) who has never before recieved a flu shot is advised to get two, even now.

Taximom5 12-06-2012 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Thimerosal isn't really relevant to the debate on childhood vaccination anymore, anyway.

 

I'm afraid this statement is incorrect.

 

Thimerosal is completely relevant to the debate on childhood vaccinations.

 

The 2012 autism rate as announced this year by the CDC is 1 in 88.  This rate is significantly higher than the previous rate, and the rate before that, and the rate before that, in spite of no changes to diagnostic criteria for autism in the preceeding decade. More importantly, profound autism has increased at the same rate, and there's no doubt about diagnosis with severely autistic children.

 

How is this relevant to thimerosal in vaccines?

The 2012 autism rate is based on data from 2008--on EIGHT-YEAR-OLDS.  Yes, they were born in 2000, and most of the vaccines they received that year and the next, starting with the hep B shot at birth, were preserved with thimerosal.  Not a "trace amount" of thimerosal, but the full amount. 

 

Moreover, currently, millions of people, including infants as young as 6 months and women in all stages of pregnancy, are still given THIMEROSAL-PRESERVED flu vaccines, with the first time dose being two shots.  The cumulative amount of thimerosal--just from flu shots-- in a child's system by age 6 is very significant, if, as, discussed in other threads here, the child has any underlying issues (like vitamin D deficiency, for example, which is very common) that prevent his body from properly excreting heavy metals.

 

In addition, when the immune system is exposed to thimerosal and aluminum at the same time, the effects are even worse.  And flu shots are given in conjunction with aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.

 

And let's not forget that the US vaccine manufacturers are still making thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines. For the most part, they are shipping them off to developing countries, where the autism rate is also skyrocketing.  But some states now have legislation that allows the use fo thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines if there is a "shortage" of thimerosal-free vaccines.

 

They are also still making thimerosal-preserved adult vaccines, for use in the US. When you get your pertussis booster, if it comes from a multi-use vial, it contains thimerosal. And TDaPs are now being given to pregnant women. 

 

Some doctors even give older children the adult (thimerosal-preserved) version of a vaccine, because it is less expensive than the individual-dose, pre-loaded syringe.

 

So, with pregnant women being given up to 3 thimerosal-preserved vaccines during pregnancy, and many infants being given 2 thimerosal-preserved flu shots starting at 6 months, and then yearly thimerosal-preserved flu shots after that--that's a significant amount of thimerosal.

 

Yes, thimerosal is relevant to the debate on childhood vaccination.


Chicharronita 12-06-2012 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


The 2012 autism rate is based on data from 2008--on EIGHT-YEAR-OLDS.  Yes, they were born in 2000, and most of the vaccines they received that year and the next, starting with the hep B shot at birth, were preserved with thimerosal.  Not a "trace amount" of thimerosal, but the full amount. 

 

Thank you for the reminder. I keep forgetting about this. 

 

 

Moreover, currently, millions of people, including infants as young as 6 months and women in all stages of pregnancy, are still given THIMEROSAL-PRESERVED flu vaccines, with the first time dose being two shots.  The cumulative amount of thimerosal--just from flu shots-- in a child's system by age 6 is very significant, if, as, discussed in other threads here, the child has any underlying issues (like vitamin D deficiency, for example, which is very common) that prevent his body from properly excreting heavy metals.

 

According to a study done on HEALTHY infants, thimerosal is excreted in the blood in about 3.5 days. 

 

I don't know if I'd want my healthy infant to have it knocking around in her system for even that long, though. 


prosciencemum 12-06-2012 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

You know, you can trust your child's health to Thoreson science & use Thimerisol some of us just choose not to. The entire non-vax case does not rest on Wakefield. For many years I disregarded him & the potential MMR issues entirely.

 

Right. And the entire "pro-vax", argument doesn't rest on Thoreson.

 

 I already said this, but I'll try again: Yes he's a scumbag. Yes he stole money. Doesn't mean science he was involved in is all completely wrong. 


prosciencemum 12-06-2012 01:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

 

The 2012 autism rate is based on data from 2008--on EIGHT-YEAR-OLDS.  Yes, they were born in 2000, and most of the vaccines they received that year and the next, starting with the hep B shot at birth, were preserved with thimerosal.  Not a "trace amount" of thimerosal, but the full amount. 

 

 

This has been stated many times and is in my opinion a distortion of the truth. Autism data published in 2012 is based on data from 8 year olds. I agree with that. They were born in 2000. I agree with that. What I disagree with is the picture painted of when thimerosol was removed. It began even before 2000 when it was officially recommended. 

 

Here is a table which states when thimerosol was removed from the vaccines on the childhood schedule in the US which contained it (notice how many never had any in the first place).

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#act

 

Here's the recommended vaccination schedule in the USA from 2000 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4902a4.htm 

 

Here's my matching of the two. Please correct me where I'm wrong, because to be honest from this list I'm confused why thimerosol was ever an issue. 

 

Series in first 18 months (note this extends to 2001-2002 for these children some of whom were born at the end of 2000)

3 doses of Hep B  - one version thimerosol free in 1999, the other licenses thimerosol free in March 2000.

4 doses Dtap - 2 types never had thimerosol, the third was licensed thimerosol free in March 2001

4 doses HiB - of kinds available in 2000 one never contained thimerosol, the other was licensed in thimerosol free version in 1999

3 doses IPV - never contained thimerosol

 

at ~12 months (so in 2001 or early 2002) 

MMR - never contained thimerosol

Varicella - never contained thimerosol

 

 So stating children born in 2000 had higher than ever thimerosol "load" seems to be just not true. 

 

 Today none of these have thimerosol at all. And almost 50% (62 million out of a projected 135 million) of the available flu vaccinations this year in the USA will be thimerosol free. That's from here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxsupply.htm. If you have any concern - ask for a thimerosol free version. 

 

So I think Rrrrrachel's right that thimerosol is completely irrelevent to the childhood vaccination debate these days (well actually I think it always was, but that's my opinion). 


dinahx 12-06-2012 01:07 PM

It isn't completely absent even in the US, so it cannot be completely irrelevant. And as there was no *recall*, vaxes that contained Thimerisol remained in inventory after the offical recommendation.

I would also continue to argue that the discussion of routine childhood vax transcends US borders AND that maternal/fetal Thimerisol is even more relevant than infant/child Thimerisol. And BTW, what happens to all that 'easily excreted' ethyl mercury, when it is excreted from, for example, 50% of todays Flu Vax recipients?

Rrrrrachel 12-06-2012 01:33 PM

Moving the goal posts.  Why do I bother.  



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.