Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Poul Thorsen Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-13-2012 01:57 PM
prosciencemum Oops
12-13-2012 01:56 PM
prosciencemum Oops
12-13-2012 01:56 PM
prosciencemum Oops
12-13-2012 01:56 PM
prosciencemum But this just means we can't understand the amount of thimerosol children of this era got compared to earlier children. All we can say is it was likely lower.

On this thread http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1369125/congressional-hearing-on-the-federal-response-to-autism-on-c-span/60#post_17200493 you said that an objection to one of the (many) studies which shows no link between thimerosol and autism is invalid because children in the thimerosol containing vaccine group were found to not have had thimerosol containing vaccines.

You can't have it both ways. Either they had the same or less thimerosol than children earlier than 2000.
12-06-2012 12:53 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

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). 

I'm happy to correct where you are wrong.

 

Your major error is in assuming that because SOME thimerosal-free pediatric vaccines BEGAN to be manufactured in 2000, that the thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines were no longer manufactured.  Or sold in the US.  Or distributed. Or used. Or sat on shelves in doctors' offices, waiting to be used.

 

The pharmaceutical companies continued to sell and distribute thimerosal-preserved vaccines for as long as their shelf life was good.

 

Many pediatricians opted for the thimerosal-preserved vaccines for as long as possible, as they were cheaper to purchase, easier to store, and they were under no obligation to offer thimerosal-free vaccines. So they continued to USE thimerosal-preserved vaccines for as long as their shelf life was good.  Our pediatrician was still using them in 2004, and the expiration date was not for a few months (I looked).

 

And, as I stated before, flu shots (yes, preserved with thimerosal) were recommended for infants as young as 6 months, and women in all stages of pregnancy starting in 2004.  Coincidentally (or not), that is when the thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines used in the US reached the end of their shelf life.

 

As long as infants as young as 6 months and pregnant women are being injected with thimerosal, which crosses the placenta, it cannot be truthfully stated that the pediatric vaccine schedule is currently free of thimerosal.

 

You are also in error about the DTaP. Tripedia, Certiva, and Acel-Immune contained thimerosal.  Tripedia wasn't reformulated as thimerosal-free until 2001; even then it did contain .5 microgram thimerosal.  Certiva was manufactured until March OF 2001, and continued to be used for several years, as long as its shelf life was good.   

Pediatric Hib and Hep B vaccines preserved with thimerosal were still on the market in 2000 and later.

12-06-2012 12:33 PM
Rrrrrachel

Moving the goal posts.  Why do I bother.  

12-06-2012 12:07 PM
dinahx 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?
12-06-2012 12:00 PM
prosciencemum
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). 

12-06-2012 11:42 AM
prosciencemum
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. 

12-06-2012 11:26 AM
Chicharronita
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. 

12-06-2012 10:34 AM
Taximom5
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.

12-06-2012 09:27 AM
dinahx And a pregnant woman (or any adult) who has never before recieved a flu shot is advised to get two, even now.
12-06-2012 09:21 AM
Mirzam
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. 

12-06-2012 09:16 AM
chickabiddy
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.

12-06-2012 09:13 AM
dinahx 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.
12-06-2012 08:39 AM
Dakotacakes

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.

12-06-2012 08:14 AM
Rrrrrachel Wakefields fame BEFORE he was discredited was far more than thorsens. His behavior was also far more wide reaching and egregious than thorsens.
12-06-2012 08:13 AM
Rrrrrachel Thimerosal isn't really relevant to the debate on childhood vaccination anymore, anyway.
12-06-2012 07:55 AM
dinahx 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.
12-06-2012 06:45 AM
Rrrrrachel And I promise you I'm not rich. Even by a very generous definition.
12-06-2012 06:44 AM
Rrrrrachel 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.
12-06-2012 06:43 AM
kathymuggle
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.

12-06-2012 05:01 AM
Rrrrrachel

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.

12-06-2012 04:56 AM
Mosaic 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.
12-06-2012 04:33 AM
Rrrrrachel
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.
12-05-2012 08:49 PM
dinahx 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!
12-05-2012 04:58 PM
WildKingdom
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.
12-05-2012 04:35 PM
Rrrrrachel 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.
12-05-2012 02:22 PM
prosciencemum 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.....
12-05-2012 02:08 PM
Mirzam
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.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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