Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2016/04/28/my-journey-from-ignorance/

So in I dove, into 3,000 research articles on autism. Not on vaccines – on autism. I wanted to know if the basic science could in any way reasonably support a hypothesis that vaccines or their additives cause autism. The answer is a resounding “Yes, yes, and yes”. Other articles in this blog will give you an idea of some of the evidence that exists on the role of chronic microglial activation and autism, for example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
The studies he uses appear to come from this slide he linked https://lifebiomedguru.files.wordpr...lth-summit-slides-james-lyonsweiler-magic.pdf

Looks like the Logic of Science link has already gone through a lot of these. Just a couple examples (don't have time to go through every one but people can word search through his review if they want more information)

First study on the slide is: Gallagher CM, Goodman MS. 2010. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 73(24):1665-77. doi:
10.1080/15287394.2010.519317

Now, let’s look at Gallagher and Goodman 2010. This was a cross-sectional study, which is a study design that looks at the rate of something in a population, then looks for possible causes of that thing. This is a very weak type of association study which cannot establish causal relationships and is easily biased by numerous factors. Additionally, this study also had a very small sample size of only 31 boys with autism (which is what they used for the stats). The sample for non-autistic children was much higher, but the study is limited by the smallest sample size, and when you couple a weak experimental design with a tiny sample size, you get unreliable results, which is the best word to describe both Gallagher and Goodman studies: “unreliable.”
Another one on the slide: Singh VK, Lin SX, Yang VC. Serological association of measles virus and human herpesvirus-6 with brain autoantibodies in autism. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1998
Oct;89(1):105-8.

Next, let’s talk about two papers for which Vijendra Singh was the primary author. First, we have Singh et al. 1998, which is another really sorry excuse for a paper. It is yet another association study, and it also had tiny sample sizes (48 with autism and 43 controls; you should be detecting a theme by now). Most importantly, their numbers are so far off that I am willing to label it “fraudulent.” The authors looked at serum levels of HHV-6-IgG, measles-IgG, anti-MBP, and anti-NAFP, and found that 70% of the autistic children were positive for anti-MBP. Simple math tells us that 70% of 48 is 34 (after rounding). So 34 of their autistic children had anti-MBP; however, in table 1, where they are presenting the “associations” on which their entire paper is based, they reported that 37 autistic children had both measles IgG antibodies and anti-MBP. That is not possible if only 34 autistic children had anti-MBP. Similarly, they said that 57% of autistic children were positive for anti-NAFP. So 57% of 48 is 27 autistic children with anti-NAFP. Yet they claim that 30 autistic children had both measles IgG and anti-NAFP. Whenever you find inconsistencies of this magnitude in the core results of a paper, you should toss out the whole paper, because at that point, you don’t have any reason to trust anything in it. There are also lots of other problems with this study, such as the fact that there was no significant difference in viral levels in the autistic and non-autistic group (which is the opposite of what you would expect if exposure to the virus caused autism), but the numerical inconsistencies are so great that I don’t feel the need to go any further.
Another study on the slide: Singh VK et al., 2002. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. J Biomed Sci. 9(4):359-64.J Biomed Sci. 9(4):359-
64.

The next study from this group, (Singh et al. 2002) also looked at serum levels. Specifically, it was looking for antibodies produced by the MMR vaccine as well as anti-MBP. Once again, it is a small association study (125 autistic children, 92 controls), and the results are, unsurprisingly, a bit suspicious. They used two different techniques for detecting the antibodies, and the main one (which was used for the primary comparisons) found MMR antibodies in 60% of autistic children, or at least that’s what the text says. According to to figure 5, it was only about 55%. Again, inconsistencies like that in the main results are enormous red flags. At best, they mean that the authors were really sloppy (which should make you question every part of the study and analysis), and at worst, they are dishonest and fudged the results. Additionally, this technique did not detect MMR antibodies in any of the control children. This is extremely surprising, because all of the control children were vaccinated, which means that most of them should have had those antibodies. Further, their other technique (which was used on a subset of samples) did detect MMR antibodies in some of the controls, which means that either their primary method was not sensitive enough to be useful, or they lied. Either way, this paper is busted.
There are more on the LOS link, but these are all I have time for right now. Here is the link those quotes are from (again, very handy and useful resource since a lot of us don't have time to go through entire studies) https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/28/vaccines-and-autism-a-thorough-review-of-the-evidence/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The studies he uses appear to come from this slide he linked https://lifebiomedguru.files.wordpr...lth-summit-slides-james-lyonsweiler-magic.pdf

Looks like the Logic of Science link has already gone through a lot of these. Just a couple examples (don't have time to go through every one but people can word search through his review if they want more information)

First study on the slide is: Gallagher CM, Goodman MS. 2010. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 73(24):1665-77. doi:
10.1080/15287394.2010.519317



Another one on the slide: Singh VK, Lin SX, Yang VC. Serological association of measles virus and human herpesvirus-6 with brain autoantibodies in autism. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1998
Oct;89(1):105-8.



Another study on the slide: Singh VK et al., 2002. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. J Biomed Sci. 9(4):359-64.J Biomed Sci. 9(4):359-
64.



There are more on the LOS link, but these are all I have time for right now. Here is the link those quotes are from (again, very handy and useful resource since a lot of us don't have time to go through entire studies) https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/28/vaccines-and-autism-a-thorough-review-of-the-evidence/
He says that he started out with 3,000 studies just on autism. Not on vaccines and autism. So you are going at it from the wrong end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
He says that he started out with 3,000 studies just on autism. Not on vaccines and autism. So you are going at it from the wrong end.
I am talking about this part from his link (a good portion of his piece is discussing whether vaccines cause autism):

Here I presented the CDC Schedule as backed by “Magic”, because no science exists on any link between 6 vaccines and autism, whereas some vaccines do, in fact have some studies that support association. That was a good day in Atlanta, GA. Here are the slides to share with your pediatrician:
Let's just say, I am so far not impressed with his ability to analyze studies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I am talking about this part from his link (a good portion of his piece is discussing whether vaccines cause autism):



Let's just say, I am so far not impressed with his ability to analyze studies.
Teacozy, I've never seen you analyze a study. You read other people's stuff and trust it.

I read the same stuff and don't trust it.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Do remember, however, that this author believed in vaccines. He trusted vaccines. He wrote passages in his books about how great vaccines are and how dumb it is not to trust vaccines.

Then he dug into the topic and changed his mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
well, then by that description, he turned into an antivaccine 'quack' and his opinions are no longer valid. No one should trust him because he used his own brain, rather than bowing down to the 'authorities'. (sarcasm)
I do enjoy the circular reasoning of the pro-vaccine side (not here of course). If someone criticizes vaccines or produces published medical journal articles which are critical of vaccines, they are anti and anything they say or produce is automatically junk science. If anyone defends vaccines, or produces published medical journal articles about the wonderfulness, safety and efficacy of vaccines, despite obvious conflicts of interest or defects in the science, it is all of good quality and cannot be criticized.

This despite piles of evidence showing that science with conflicts of interest often has serious defects or is overlooking problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Teacozy, I've never seen you analyze a study. You read other people's stuff and trust it.

I read the same stuff and don't trust it.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Do remember, however, that this author believed in vaccines. He trusted vaccines. He wrote passages in his books about how great vaccines are and how dumb it is not to trust vaccines.

Then he dug into the topic and changed his mind.
Sure I have. When I have access to the full study (which is not all that often) and the time.

You can be darn sure that if I was writing a lengthy blog post and smugly linking a slide show with a bunch of studies for a presentation I made while asking parents to show these to their pediatrician, that I would actually read and analyze the studies for accuracy and relevance first.

Which part of the criticism of those studies do you not agree with exactly? Or do you just not agree on principle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
I do enjoy the circular reasoning of the pro-vaccine side (not here of course). If someone criticizes vaccines or produces published medical journal articles which are critical of vaccines, they are anti and anything they say or produce is automatically junk science. If anyone defends vaccines, or produces published medical journal articles about the wonderfulness, safety and efficacy of vaccines, despite obvious conflicts of interest or defects in the science, it is all of good quality and cannot be criticized.

This despite piles of evidence showing that science with conflicts of interest often has serious defects or is overlooking problems.
That isn't true. It's not automatically junk science because someone anti-vaccine did it nor is a study automatically good because it's pro vaccine. Indeed, the Logic of Science link took out the majority of the pro-vaccine studies for being too small, weak, having a poor design, etc.

I do find it interesting how conflicts of interest only seem to invalidate pro-vaccine studies, but not anti-vaccine ones. There are *plenty* of conflicts of interests in many of the anti-vaccine studies. As the LOS pointed out:

Anti-vaccers are very quick to point out conflicts of interest in pro-vaccine papers, but they are very slow to acknowledge them in their own papers. So I want to briefly provide a few examples to show that they do in fact exist (I did not check for conflicts in all of the anti-vaccine papers).

Dr. Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic are also two fantastic examples of conflicts of interest. These are two of the most prominent anti-vaccine scientists, and eight of the papers in the anti-vaccers’ lists were authored by at least one of them. However, both of them have served as consultants or expert witnesses in vaccine lawsuits, Shaw is the chair of the Scientific Advisory Board for an anti-vaccine group, and at least one of their studies was been funded by members of the governing board of that group (more info here). Funding from an activist group that describes vaccines as, “a holocaust of poison on our children’s brains and immune systems” is just as big of a conflict of interest as funding from a pharmaceutical company. So, according to standard anti-vax reasoning, this should cast doubt on all of the authors’ work.

Similarly, Dr. Singh (who you may remember authored two of the papers and one of the reviews that I talked about) was funded by the Autism Research Institute, which, at the time that he received funding, ran a program called “Defeat Autism Now!,” which actively promoted the idea that vaccines cause autism. Further, remember that horrible DeLong (2011) paper that I talked about earlier? Well DeLong is a board member of the prominent anti-vaccine group “SafeMinds,” and, like Poling, is the parent of an autistic child.

I could keep going, but I think that I have made my point clear. Anti-vaccers like to pretend that all of their studies are conflict free and represent true, unbiased research. In reality, there are plenty of anti-vaccine organizations that are happy to fund anti-vaccine studies, and many of the authors are deeply involved in the anti-vaccine movement.
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/...-a-thorough-review-of-the-evidence/#Conflicts of interest2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
Funding from an activist group that describes vaccines as, “a holocaust of poison on our children’s brains and immune systems” is just as big of a conflict of interest as funding from a pharmaceutical company.
How much funding would one get from an anti-vaccine group compared to a pharmaceutical company?

And how does an anti-vaccine group profit from funding a study that discredits vaccines?

How does a pharmaceutical company profit from funding a study that promotes vaccines?

I don't see his logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
How much funding would one get from an anti-vaccine group compared to a pharmaceutical company?

And how does an anti-vaccine group profit from funding a study that discredits vaccines?

How does a pharmaceutical company profit from funding a study that promotes vaccines?

I don't see his logic.
A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

The examples provided are clearly conflicts of interest.

And how does an anti-vaccine group profit from funding a study that discredits vaccines?
Through more and bigger donations. To illustrate the point:

Anti-vaccine group A continually funds studies that allegedly show or prove vaccines are associated with autism.

Anti-vaccine group B continually funds studies that find no association between vaccines and autism.

Considering their audience, which group do you think people are going to be more likely to want to donate money to? I think the answer is pretty obvious. They have a huge incentive to fund studies that "prove" vaccines cause autism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

The examples provided are clearly conflicts of interest.



Through more and bigger donations. To illustrate the point:

Anti-vaccine group A continually funds studies that allegedly show or prove vaccines are associated with autism.

Anti-vaccine group B continually funds studies that find no association between vaccines and autism.

Considering their audience, which group do you think people are going to be more likely to want to donate money to? I think the answer is pretty obvious. They have a huge incentive to fund studies that "prove" vaccines cause autism.
That is hilarious!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
Teacozy,

I cannot believe that you are sincerely comparing theoretical fund raising by anti-vaccine groups to the funding from PHARMA that stands to gain financially from sale of their products.

To use a different cause but similar circumstances - are you suggesting that we treat any cancer research that was funded by the Run for the Cure as heavily conflicted then? By accepting the funds raised by people wanting a cure for cancer, do those cancer researchers have a conflict and do they need to declare it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
As for people who testify in court, do you recall Dr. Bustin who testified at the Cedillo hearing?

Dr. Yazbak has written a piece called HOW MORE THAN 5000 CHILDREN WERE HURT …AGAIN http://www.vaccinationnews.org/content/how-more-5000-children-were-hurt-again-YazbakFE-4/21/16


In her cross-examination in Vaccine Court, plaintiff’s attorney questioned Dr. Bustin about the Unigenetics Laboratory Inspection and his report for the UK MMR litigation: “I think you indicated that you spent roughly 1,500 hours at 150 pounds sterling” and he answered “Yes, that is correct.” On further questioning, Dr. Bustin testified that he received the payment checks from the solicitors but that the funds actually came from Merck, Aventis and GSK.

[Listening by phone, with my calculator handy, that inspection sounded to me like the most expensive inspection of a laboratory in history.]

When he was asked what he was paid to come to the US to testify, Dr. Bustin answered: “It’s $250 an hour while I am here and $125 an hour while I’m traveling and nothing while I’m sleeping, I think. And also my airfare and hotel are being paid for.”

[I remember thinking: “OH! He is a comedian too.”]

Dr. Bustin also mentioned that at his regular job, his salary was 60,000 pounds or roughly $120,000 a year in 2007. If Dr. Bustin worked 40 hours a week, he was making less than 29 pounds sterling an hour at his real job.
my emphasis


While in Washington DC, unless he was on the stand testifying, Dr. Bustin was most frequently seen chatting with freelance reporter Deer. This is not exactly what is expected from a so-called medical expert with no declared conflict of interest, brought across the Atlantic to testify in an important MMR-Autism related case, a subject dear to Mr. Deer and his “Raison de Vivre” for a dozen years.
For those that are interested Dr. Yazbak has put a lot of effort into writing about the travesty that was the Cedillo's test case and it is a worthy but painful read. I really don't know how people live with themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
Teacozy,

I cannot believe that you are sincerely comparing theoretical fund raising by anti-vaccine groups to the funding from PHARMA that stands to gain financially from sale of their products.

To use a different cause but similar circumstances - are you suggesting that we treat any cancer research that was funded by the Run for the Cure as heavily conflicted then? By accepting the funds raised by people wanting a cure for cancer, do those cancer researchers have a conflict and do they need to declare it?
Not really looking forward to the day when having cancer is seen as a life-enhancing alternate approach, and people are offended when you suggest someone might look into preventing or curing it. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,718 Posts
Jeffery Lyons Weiler submitted this today, and I hope it is acceptable.

From TMR:

James Lyons-Weiler, the same scientist who wrote the article we posted yesterday about his "Journey from Ignorance," put this graphic together to illustrate how ridiculous the CDC's blanket statement "vaccines do not cause autism" really is.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,821 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Once someone starts criticizing vaccines (or GMOs) their previously stellar reputation takes a nose-dive. It has reached the point where the entire game is simply silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
@ teacozy

I humbly suggest not automatically discrediting him for his errors of judgement. He does bring up some interesting articles and points. Mainly, the research into autoantibodies and their effects on human disease... all of which is still somewhat in its infancy. Its only been in the past few decades that science has been able to prove if you will that certain levels of certain types of autoantibodies actually cause disease. The autoantibodies targeted at various parts of the brain and its cells, neurons, etc very well could be the smoke that tells us theres a fire, which could eventually lead to autism. Its waaay too early to say that that is not the case. Vaccines and other environmental exposure can break self tolerance leading to a cascade of autoantibodies and subsequent autoimmune disease. But dont take my word for it.

I know you prefer very mainstream science-type websites so i found a few.

http://www.healthline.com/health/autoimmune-disorders#Causes3

"What Causes the Immune System to Attack Healthy Cells?
The cause of autoimmune disease is unknown. There are many theories about what triggers autoimmune diseases, including:

bacteria or virus
drugs
chemical irritants
environmental irritants"


Heres another website listing the autoantibodies and associated diseases.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2172244-overview#a1

Funny how many of the side effects in vaccine inserts are autoimmune disorders and medicine theorizes that infectious agents and/or drugs can play a role in their development. What an interconnected net of coincidence!
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Top