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.
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). Vaccines save lives.
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.
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.
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:
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..
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...
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!
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.
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...
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.
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.