Hard Conversations: Vaccines and Autism, Part 3

ResearchBlogging.org

 

The “Vaccine overload” Hypothesis.

For those just joining us, we have previously discussed 2 ideas linking autism and vaccines(Catch up with part 1, part 1.5, and part 2) and this is what we have learned.

1.       The initial “link” between vaccines (MMR) and autism was bad science. It involved small numbers of patients, and could not be replicated. The initial investigator had a large, undisclosed conflict of interest. He is now being investigated for his conduct in this study. Our initial link was weak at best.

2.       Thimerosal was never proven to do anything bad, and was removed preemptively. Additionally, there was never thimerosal in MMR vaccine, which is often the one implicated by parents of ASD children.

A commenter on part 1 was trying to assert a third hypothesis. This is one of the McCarthy crew’s new favorites: “Too many, too soon”. Here’s the idea: “Maybe infant’s immune systems can’t handle all those vaccines.”   

Before we start, let’s comment on science. Science is restrained. To get scientific evidence, we need questions that are testable. In medical science, we’re further restrained: our testable question also need to be ethical.

Ideas 1 and 2, science had no problems dealing with. This is because they were both theories that easily give testable hypotheses that we could answer by looking at what’s already happened, or through experiments that we don’t think will hurt people. 

The first problem is developing a testable question – “too many too soon” is too vague – how many do the anti-vaccers think is too many? How soon is too soon? How are we measuring too many?

Let’s start with how we measure “too many.” Is it by number of antigens, or number of organisms we vaccinate against? Antigens are chunks (protein or polysaccharide) of whatever organism we’re vaccinating against. We form antibodies to these chunks, which are then the basis of our defense against the organism vaccinated against. Essentially an antigen is a practice target.

All that makes “number of antigens” seem like a reasonable way to measure “too many.”  Just one problem – in the last 20 years the number of antigens in our total vaccine schedule has decreased, not increased. How can that be? We’ve gotten better at identifying what antigens are important. Once we’ve identified those good targets, we “conjugate” those targets – we make them more visible to the immune system. In 1980, the full vaccine schedule had over 3000 targets. Today’s vaccines only have around 125 targets.

What about how many organisms we vaccinate against? Well I’ll entertain that thought. Just tell me which horrible, preventable disease is the one you’d like to see back. Then tell me how you’ll prove bringing that disease back won’t result in more problems. The anti-vaccine advocates are generally too young to remember how devastating even seemingly innocuous childhood diseases are.

Measles, Mumps, Rubella – they all have “rare” complications that kill, and less rare complications that require hospitalization. But “rare” complications aren’t that rare when the entire country gets a disease. Some of the opposition have said “yes but the mortality rate of [X] disease is only 1 in 1000/10000/otherobscenelylargenumber.”

The problem with that argument is that this isn’t what the mortality would be today. Hospitals aren’t set up for infectious disease anymore. We don’t have isolation wards to stop the spread within the hospital. Heck, at my hospital system (a major metropolitan academic hospital, and major academic pediatric hospital in the Midwest) we’ve rarely had an empty bed, let alone 100 more for an infectious disease ward for sick children. Many hospital systems are at their breaking points as it is, if you add another stress like additional illness that could have been prevented, children will die. I won’t even argue about diphtheria, pertussis, or polio – no one should have to see those diseases, period.

What about “too soon”? We run into problems here as well. Turns out the fetal immune system can respond to antigens at 14 weeks. This is actually surprisingly intuitive, once you consider birth. At birth, a baby moves into the world through the vagina – not exactly a sterile environment. If the infant’s immune system wasn’t pretty healthy from the get go, birth itself would result in a tremendous number of infections. Any OB/GYN worth their salt will tell you that there are a pretty small number of infections that normally happen right around birth; few enough that med students need to know the majority of them for our board exams.

A moment for Jenny McCarthy specifically: in her new book she recommends only taking HIB (haemophilus influenza type B) and tetanus. That’s grossly irresponsible. In a vulgar, arrogant, and ignorant response McCarthy blamed Big Pharma for any deaths that result from her advice. Numerous other bloggers have catalogued the ridiculousness of that position. As we’ve seen, no one has given us something at all convincing to say vaccines are unsafe. Don’t get me wrong, Big Pharma’s not out to help anyone – they’re out to make money, but the burden of proof is on someone to prove their product isn’t safe, and that just hasn’t happened.

With the exception of the paragraph pertaining to the hospital system is based on my own personal experience, the paragraphs discussing ethics, and the paragraph pertaining to Jenny McCarthy, the ideas in this post are based on my interpretation of the below article from the journal “pediatrics.”

 Link to part 4 here.

 

 

 

 

 

Offit, P., Quarles, J., Gerber, M., Hackett, C., Marcuse, E., Kollman, T., Gellin, B., & Landry, S. (2002). Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System? PEDIATRICS, 109 (1), 124-129 DOI: 10.1542/peds.109.1.124

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Hard Conversations, Medicine, Science

Tags: , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

81 Comments on “Hard Conversations: Vaccines and Autism, Part 3”

  1. Christine Smith Says:

    I’m not famous like Jenny , I’m just a regular Mom of a kid with autism. I can tell you with certainty that my child had no symptoms until after her shots, and she had 18 shots before the age of two. During one set of shots, she had a fever of 104 about 24 hours after the shots and her doctor said that was normal. My second child did not get the mercury shots and does not have autism. Too bad the research is funded by the drug manufacturers and not by people who care, parents with autism children. I am certian the multiple shots of mercury caused her autism. Compare the symptoms of mercury poisoning and autism- they are almost identical!


    • I’m sorry that you’ve had to struggle with this. I wish you only the best of luck and hope your son improves.

      I’d encourage you to read the other posts I’ve written about this, and especially the post on evidence.

      Not all research is funded by drug manufacturers, infact alot of research on this subject is funded by NIH (the National Institutes of Health)

      I’m also sorry that you seem to feel all doctors and researchers only care about money, and don’t care. I’m not being paid by Big Pharma to write this!

      Please note that even in identical twins, autism is not 100% concordant – meaning that if one twin has it, the other twin does not necessarily have it. Similarly, your first child having autism doesn’t mean that your second one would.

      Most shot do not have mercury in them, and when they did, the amount of mercury was small than that which you would get if you eat tuna on a regular basis. Autism is not much more common in those who regularly eat tuna.

      The symptoms of mercury poisoning and autism are not infact identical. I’d be more than happy to address that in detail later.

      Ref: Psychol Med. 1995 Jan;25(1):63-77
      PMID:7792363

      PS: To comply with my advertising policy (No advertising), I have removed the link to your website. I generally err to letting websites stay up, but your link was clearly a commercial website, not a personal website or blog.

      • Michael Says:

        As someone who works for Big Pharma, funded research, and who managed clinical trials, I resent Ms. Smith’s implication that we do anything unethical. In fact, the consequences to unethical research can be everything from a fine to time in federal prison, neither of which interest me. The facts are that Andrew Wakefield, who started this whole issue, is unethical and manufactured results.

        What are the consequences to Jenny McCarthy when epidemics of basic childhood diseases arise? I daresay nothing.

        Ms. Smith, I am personally empathetic to your situation. I am saddened by what has happened to your son. But your anecdotal evidence is just coincidence, as sad as that is. As Whitecoattales says, the tuna sandwiches and sushi that you might eat contain far more mercury than could be found in vaccines.

  2. DrBadger Says:

    I think that a problem with this issue is that once a medical notion becomes popular, there will always be people who will link their personal, anecdotal experience to convince themselves of that idea (works with alternative medicine all the time). Unfortunately, hearing personal experiences, despite their N of 1, has a much greater impact on the public than reading about “faceless” scientific studies, even if they have N’s in the thousands. It is especially strong with autism because it gives parents somewhere to place their blame.


    • Well one of the many things I’m trying to accomplish with this blog is to have accessible, friendlier information available in that time frame where someone HASN’T made up their mind.

      I don’t expect Christine to change her mind. Just like I didn’t expect Dawn to change her mind. I certainly hope that other people see their posts, read my posts, and come to a more accurate understanding of the situation.

      • DrBadger Says:

        I agree and I think that you’re doing a great job. It’s really hard to discuss such an emotionally-charged topic in a calm step-by-step manner that you are.

    • Michael Says:

      Pseudoscience relies upon confirmation. So anecdotes have higher weight than say science.

  3. Jeffry Says:

    Can you please elaborate how aluminum is beneficial for an infant?

    Can you also elaborate how the HepB shot given the day of birth is a good thing? It is a sexually transmitted disease. If you decide to research this issue further you will find it is because we are obtaining blood from the Chinese that is infected with HepB.

    Can you articulate how bypassing the body’s natural immune response and provoking the secondary response is a good thing? Could the potential fetus ingredients contained within the vaccines be provoking an auto-immune response?

    What are trends in other countries? Who really stands to benefit from this research? For example in one of your earlier posts, what does Andrew Wakefield really have to gain by saying the MMR causes Autism? He loses is license and has to pay off 200k in medical school loans?

    This debate started well before Mr. Wakefield, however he is a convenient person to pinpoint this on.

    I’m positive in medical school they say something similar to, “Listen to the parents.” Or has that gone by the wayside while a phone call to CPS is being made? How much time have you spent around an autistic child? If you have not yet I am asking you to suspend your judgment. Perhaps volunteer to babysit one day for a family as they would appreciate the night out.

    Here is a link to the CDC’s website concerning the ingredients: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-1.pdf
    I would like to encourage you to explain how any of these in any amounts are helpful to an infant.

    Where are the safety studies (I’m talking long term and short term) to the efficacy of vaccines? I would suggest you reference or at least take a look at veterinarian studies concerning how they are affecting animals. Could there be a correlation?

    I would also recommend you read the Simpsonwood document that was obtained by Lyn Redwood through a FOIA request. You can read the nauseating 200+ page document here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2887572/Simpsonwood-Transcript20Searchable

    And, if I am not mistaken, you are referencing Dr. Paul Offit. Dr. Paul Offit has a patent on the Rota Virus vaccine which was adopted into the CDC vaccine schedule. Additionally, he has received money from Big Pharma. He himself has also refused the Smallpox vaccine.

    No doubt you are well aware that you have taken the Hippocratic Oath of First Doing no Harm. I believe you want to do the right thing as most doctors do. However, it is time to at least go beyond what the CDC, NIH, FDA, et al trumpet. There appears to be a revolving door policy for some in the industry which has been recognized through official means such as congressional testimony, etc.

    So, while I sincerely doubt we will solve the Autism question on your blog, I would highly suggest you look at Dr. Mayer Eisenstein’s practice in Chicago where he has virtually no cases of Autism and no cases of asthma.

    Lastly, my real question for you is: WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR WRITING THIS BLOG?

    Unless you are sincerely going to sit down and take a scholarly look at this issue, I would suggest to you that you are compounding the problem rather than solving anything.

    • trrll Says:

      Can you please elaborate how aluminum is beneficial for an infant?

      Aluminum seems to be the boogeyman of the month of the anti-vaccine crowd. It is beneficial because it enhances the immune response to the very tiny quantities of antigen in an injection. It makes the immunization more effective, and increases protection against infectious diseases that can cause death and severe complications including paralysis and brain damage. There is no evidence whatsoever for any toxic effect of aluminum at such low doses; indeed, the amount of aluminum is so small that it does not make an appreciable impact on levels of aluminum in the body, as aluminum is ingested from many other sources.

      • Jeffry Says:

        There is no boogeyman(sic) of the month. Please simply cite the study showing its (Aluminum)efficacy and safety please. Please understand that if you want parents to buy off that it is safe for injecting into children, for certain there must be some study citing it in being extremely safe.

        Here is one site that talks a bit about aluminum, if you can stomach it: http://www.frankmckinnon.com/aluminum

        I would then like you to please cite the study that shows how a th2 immune response is more effective because it bypasses the respiratory system and upper GI Tract.

        *psst – this is your queue to say vaccines do not cause atopy*

        And I would like you to define ‘low’ dose. That way we can talk apples to apples. I understand the fact aluminum is used as an adjuvant. We can literally go down that list on the CDC’s website and play this game all day. I will simply ask you for the safety study each time.

        I’ll just move on to MSG as my next one if we have to.

        Let us backtrack a bit.

        Let us talk about honey for a bit. It might seem off topic at first but we’ll get there. One could argue that injecting honey into a baby’s bloodstream at a low doses will prevent the child from getting allergies. In theory, it’s the same reasoning or principles vaccines are used.

        Wait a minute, we don’t even recommend babies eat honey until they are past a year of age. Why?

        Back to the subject of vaccines. I’m curious ,trrll, how a new born baby is subject to getting a sexually transmitted disease (HEPB) from the uterus to his or her new home? This is potentially one of the most destructive vaccines and we are giving it to a new born. Ask most doctors and they will shrug their shoulders on that one.

        My stance is one of truth. Show me the proof that the adjuvants are safe. Show me proof that the ingredients are safe. Where are the studies? Is that really asking too much? Or am I some nut conspiracy theorist for wanting evidence?

        And by the way, the argument that the CDC, NIH, FDA, or Mother Theresa said so won’t fly. That is a logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

        http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

      • trrll Says:

        There is no boogeyman(sic) of the month. Please simply cite the study showing its (Aluminum)efficacy and safety please.

        Here is a paper showing that vaccination produces only a brief elevation of blood aluminum levels, and that the aluminum accumulation from vaccines over the first hear of life is less than would result from consuming food containing the MRL (“safe”) level of aluminum. Moreover, aluminum accumulation from dietary sources clearly bypasses vaccine aluminum within the first couple of years of life.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-45GKK8C-1&_user=489277&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022679&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=489277&md5=ced69180fd880ea16b4401d75ceec6c4

        Your turn: provide evidence that these low levels of aluminum are harmful in any significant way.

        I understand the fact aluminum is used as an adjuvant.

        Then if you already knew what the benefit of aluminum in vaccines is, why did you ask? Are you interested in serious discussion, or just unthinkingly throwing out talking points?

        I’ll just move on to MSG as my next one if we have to.

        One thing that is very revealing of the irrational nature of vaccine phobia is obsessing over tiny levels of so-called “toxins” in vaccines, when the same substances are normally present in the body at much higher levels. Anybody with any real knowledge of biochemistry, or who cared enough about facts to crack a biochemistry text, would realize immediately how ridiculous this is, yet these same nonsensical talking points get repeated over and over.

        For the record, glutamate is an amino acid. It is a normal part of the diet, a nutrient present in all foods, and is produced in cells and found throughout the body. It is certainly true that huge levels of glutamate in food can cause some (generally transitory) ill effects, but the volume of a vaccine injection is too small for any trace of glutamate present to have any impact on the body’s much larger levels of glutamate.

        Let us talk about honey for a bit. It might seem off topic at first but we’ll get there. One could argue that injecting honey into a baby’s bloodstream at a low doses will prevent the child from getting allergies. In theory, it’s the same reasoning or principles vaccines are used. Wait a minute, we don’t even recommend babies eat honey until they are past a year of age. Why?

        It is indeed completely off topic. I suppose that I can see how this sort of thing might sound relevant to somebody who doesn’t understand biology or scientific reasoning, but it is just nonsense. First, vaccination is not injecting random substances based on a “theory,” but on substantial clinical testing of efficacy and safety. Vaccinations are done with specially selected killed or enfeebled strains that have been shown to produce resistance with very, very low risk of ill effects. This is very different from injecting a random nonsterile mixture containing unknown and potentially harmful bacteria, such as honey. it happens that the adult digestive tract kills the bacteria that cause botulism poisoning, while the newborn digestive tract does not, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccination


    • The vast majority of your concerns are specifically addressed throughout the other posts in this series. I specifically posted links to these posts in the first paragraph.

      If you do not trust my writing, I have posted references with links to scholarly articles. These are review articles with further references to multiple, independantly verified articles, confirming the claims I make in this blog.

      Most medical schools do not administer the Hippocratic oath – it’s problematic, it specifically says do not perform surgery. Even when they do administer the hippocratic oath, it is administered at graduation from medical school, not induction.

      You appear to have heard some buzzword heavy slogans on immunology. However it appears you lack detailed knowledge on the subject.

      Some specifics:

      If you decide to research this issue further you will find it is because we are obtaining blood from the Chinese that is infected with HepB.

      No, researching further I do not find that. Not everyone is administered HepB vaccine. When they are administered, it is to children of high risk women, who may not know they have HepB. For example, the child of a commercial sex worker, or a hemophiliac who has received multiple blood products (before the advent of recombinant products – which are produced in a lab rather than filtered from donated blood) would receive the HepB vaccine early.

      Can you articulate how bypassing the body’s natural immune response and provoking the secondary response is a good thing?

      We are not bypassing the body’s natural immune response. Infact the entire point of using adjuvants, and conjugation is to activate the body’s natural immune response with as few antigen exposures as possible. For further explanation, refer to the articles I have referenced on this subject throughout. If you do not understand the subject after reading those articles, email me personally and we will have a discussion.

      There appears to be a revolving door policy for some in the industry which has been recognized through official means such as congressional testimony, etc.

      I have no idea what your objection to NIH is. You have not given me an authority that you do trust. The idea that somehow every “authority” is wrong but only your particular shaman or your individual doctor/scientist/advocate knows the truth is unacceptable to me.

      If you’re argument is that you have somehow received special knowledge that no research shows, I will no argue with you, I will only accept evidence provided by a legitimate source.

      <blockquote.Who really stands to benefit from this research? For example in one of your earlier posts, what does Andrew Wakefield really have to gain by saying the MMR causes Autism? He loses is license and has to pay off 200k in medical school loans?

      This debate started well before Mr. Wakefield, however he is a convenient person to pinpoint this on.

      You are incorrect, this debate did not start significantly before Mr Wakefield. He was the first hint of legitimacy in this debate. His removal as a source of legitimacy is significant. What he had to gain was money – you object to Offit because Offit has a patent on a vaccine, but Wakefield did too. His vaccine was a competitor to MMR, please read the posts before you post already rejected information.

      I’m positive in medical school they say something similar to, “Listen to the parents.” Or has that gone by the wayside while a phone call to CPS is being made? How much time have you spent around an autistic child? If you have not yet I am asking you to suspend your judgment. Perhaps volunteer to babysit one day for a family as they would appreciate the night out.

      Of course we listen to the parents, the implication that we don’t because we don’t accept anecdotal evidence as real is beyond the boundaries of reason.
      There are limits to listening to parents. Once I had a parent say “well, my child has a fever of 103, a bad cough, and you tell me they have pneumonia. I disagree, I know better, he has merely been injured by eating non-organic food”. My job in that situation to ignore the parent and treat with antibiotics for pneumonia. Infact, if the parent objects, CPS will indeed be called! I’m not obligated to agree with a parent, many parents are wrong. I listen, and then make decisions based on evidence, including evidence the parents give me.

      I’ve spent more than enough time around autistic children to understand what many of these children at like. I also know what it is like to see these children injured because some quack thought “chelation therapy” would cure them.

      which segues us into

      Lastly, my real question for you is: WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR WRITING THIS BLOG?

      Unless you are sincerely going to sit down and take a scholarly look at this issue, I would suggest to you that you are compounding the problem rather than solving anything.

      I have taken a sincere scholarly look at the evidence here. You clearly haven’t even read what I’ve written, or reviewed the evidence I’ve presented.

      You also have not read my Disclaimers policy, or my guidelines on hard conversations post.

      My only requirements are that you be honest, you read before you talk, and you be respectful. You have been none of these, and so this is your warning.

      My motivation for writing this blog is detailed multiple places. I want to offer a resource for people who HAVEN’T made up their mind to learn about the evidence.

      I’ll address Dr Mayer Eisenstein after I have thoroughly researched him.

      • Jeffry Says:

        My only requirements are that you be honest, you read before you talk, and you be respectful. You have been none of these, and so this is your warning.

        I haven’t been honest? I haven’t read the articles proceeding this post? The research? Thus far, everyone has been attacking me because I do not agree, carte blanch, with the ‘world view’ that the sacred cow, vaccines, are the panacea to the disease question.

        Warning noted.

        No, researching further I do not find that. Not everyone is administered HepB vaccine. When they are administered, it is to children of high risk women, who may not know they have HepB. For example, the child of a commercial sex worker, or a hemophiliac who has received multiple blood products (before the advent of recombinant products – which are produced in a lab rather than filtered from donated blood) would receive the HepB vaccine early.

        There may be a need for the HepB vaccine in the aforementioned subset of people. I would ask that you go to the maternity ward and ask if they vaccinate new-borns and how many. Many medical professionals now vaccinate when the child is just a few hours born.

        You appear to have heard some buzzword heavy slogans on immunology. However it appears you lack detailed knowledge on the subject.

        Please allow me to fill in the gaps. Where am I unlearned and I will seek to improve my knowledge. I am always willing to learn if my assumptions are incorrect.

        I have no idea what your objection to NIH is. You have not given me an authority that you do trust. The idea that somehow every “authority” is wrong but only your particular shaman or your individual doctor/scientist/advocate knows the truth is unacceptable to me.

        I believe we should have a healthy skepticism for anyone telling us what is right, wrong or any which way. Even though someone is in a position of authority whether it be a doctor, policeman, politician or whatever… they are still human and are still prone to mistake and bad judgment.

        I’ve spent more than enough time around autistic children to understand what many of these children at like. I also know what it is like to see these children injured because some quack thought “chelation therapy” would cure them.

        Anyone who believes there is a magic ‘cure’ for Autism has lost touch with reality. Chelation therapy in combination with other modalities have been used successfully to reverse it.

        I’m curious what you have seen work in recovering Autistic children.

        What have you seen that works best to address stimming and reversing cognitive/language delays?

        You are incorrect, this debate did not start significantly before Mr Wakefield. He was the first hint of legitimacy in this debate. His removal as a source of legitimacy is significant. What he had to gain was money – you object to Offit because Offit has a patent on a vaccine, but Wakefield did too. His vaccine was a competitor to MMR, please read the posts before you post already rejected information.

        I would like to reference the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress. This act effectively absolved vaccine companies from further legal action from the parents of vaccine injured children.

        I’ll address Dr Mayer Eisenstein after I have thoroughly researched him.

        Perfect. You can find his contact information at http://www.homefirst.com. There are other doctors that have the same viewpoint and have practiced as he. If you would like a list I can most certainly provide them to you. You have my e-mail address.

      • Jeffry Says:

        I must have goofed on the blocking of your quotes. My apologies for the lack of ‘readability’.

  4. DrBadger Says:

    If you decide to research this issue further you will find it is because we are obtaining blood from the Chinese that is infected with HepB.

    huh? Where did you get this from? When you start with a claim like this and not make any references that support your claim, it’s hard to read the rest of your long response.

    • Jeffry Says:

      You don’t have to believe anything I say. That is your choice. You will cherry pick what you please. Context and a history lesson may be outside of the scope of this conversation.

      I would like to point out, though, if you would kindly understand that the United States and China have been collaborating on health issues for quite some time. As a matter of fact in 1914 the China Medical Board of New York, or the China Medical Board, was established. This board was to advise health research and promotion in China.

      If you want to start researching, start there.

  5. DrBadger Says:

    Wait a minute, we don’t even recommend babies eat honey until they are past a year of age. Why?

    It doesn’t really have much to do with the immune system. Honey can have botulism spores in it (live things, not random protein parts like vaccines). These spores are a bit harder to kill than your average bacteria. Infants have weaker stomach acid and less intestinal flora (good bacteria) to keep the spores from infecting them.

    • Jeffry Says:

      That’s double jeopardy, Dr. Badger.

      The arguments from vaccine ex-spurts such as Paul Offit say that children are exposed to THOUSANDS of bacteria etc. all the time, so being injected with one vaccine is negligible and extremely advantageous. No kidding? Why can’t we squirt it in their mouth instead?

      If you are saying the infants have weaker stomach acid and less intestinal flora, that is what constitutes a healthy immune system!!!

      Additionally, (roughly) 85% of the immune system is in the gut so how does it make sense to bypass that system all together and go directly into the bloodstream?

      Look, all I want is proof. Where are the studies?

      • DrBadger Says:

        You might want to check out a book on immunology before making these claims. Vaccines are there to stimulate antibody production, which is done through humoral immunity (i.e. blood). The gut does not make antibodies.

        Many of the studies that whitecoattales has listed on this blog address many of your concerns. A good start would be to read those (and since they’re good research papers, they have citations to other research supporting their claims).

      • trrll Says:

        The arguments from vaccine ex-spurts such as Paul Offit say that children are exposed to THOUSANDS of bacteria etc. all the time, so being injected with one vaccine is negligible and extremely advantageous. No kidding? Why can’t we squirt it in their mouth instead?

        Vaccines can sometimes be given orally, such as the live polio vaccine. However, injection is far more reliable, particularly when vaccines are given in the form of killed bacteria or viruses, or even selected protein antigens, which are unable produce infection even in people withe weakened immune systems. Whereas live pathological microorganisms have mechanisms of surviving conditions in the GI tract, moving across the gut mucosa and entering the circulation, this is not the case for dead organisms or isolated antigenic proteins.

        Of course, children also get exposed to large number of antigens introduced directly into the blood. As any parent knows, even young children are prone to rashes, scratches and scrapes which introduce bacteria directly into the bloodstream. Mouth lesions are also common, particularly once the child begins teething, and the mouth is loaded with huge populations of bacteria. And of course, many viruses have mechanisms for moving across mucous membranes and entering the bloodstream, which is why children are prone to frequent viral infections.

        If you are saying the infants have weaker stomach acid and less intestinal flora, that is what constitutes a healthy immune system!!!

        Neither stomach acid nor intestinal flora are considered part of the immune system, and most pathological microorganisms are well designed to bypass these minor impediments. The soil bacterium that causes botulism is not really optimized to live inside the body, and is able to do so in this instance only because of the unusual conditions of the infantile digestive tract.

        Additionally, (roughly) 85% of the immune system is in the gut so how does it make sense to bypass that system all together and go directly into the bloodstream?

        I’m not sure where you got this statistic, which doesn’t make much sense to me (and you typically provided no citation). How, specifically, do you calculate what “percentage” of the immune system is where? Upon what data is this calculation based? f it were really the case that the important part of the immune system was in the gut, then injected vaccines would not produce immunity and we would, indeed, have to give them orally. The fact that this is not the case should provide you a clue that the immune system does not work in the way that you think it does.


      • If you want proof, read the posts I’ve already written, and then read the references I post.
        Then ask a question that isn’t already covered.

        Additionally, (roughly) 85% of the immune system is in the gut so how does it make sense to bypass that system all together and go directly into the bloodstream?

        Provide citations!

        This statistic is inaccurate in any way that relates to the discussion at hand.

        A basic knowledge of immunology is necessary to provide you with proof. Just as I can’t rigorously prove Einstein’s theory of relativity to you if you can’t do the necessary math, I can’t prove your extremely detail oriented questions without you learning the necessary immunology.

    • DrBadger Says:

      Correction: Vaccines don’t contain “random” protein parts (bad choice of words). They are proteins (or parts of proteins) selected specifically to best produce the appropriate antibody response against the disease they are targeting.

  6. sfbooklady Says:

    “if you would kindly understand that the United States and China have been collaborating on health issues for quite some time. As a matter of fact in 1914 the China Medical Board of New York, or the China Medical Board, was established. This board was to advise health research and promotion in China.”

    and this has *what* to do with your earlier statement (US obtaining HepB infected blood from the Chinese)?

    I’d really like to know where you got this idea about tainted Chinese blood supplies (other than the obvious ones, in China.)

  7. Jeffry Says:

    It has nothing to add to the conversation sfbooklady.

    And I’m sure that will be the focus of all threads instead of the real issue concerning the HEPB vaccine given to day old infants. So anyways…

  8. sfbooklady Says:

    Sorry Jeffry, but that last post about vaccines and immune systems pretty much proves that you would not understand proof if it bit you in the ass. Try taking a biology course and get back to us.

    • Jeffry Says:

      Really? What don’t I understand? Please educate me. I desperately want to know how they are supposed to work and then the studies that back up their safety and efficacy.

      Merely calling me uneducated is one thing and I can handle that. I’ve taken biology and I’m curious as to what part about the biology class I didn’t understand?

      HepB is a sexually transmitted disease, SFBOOKLADY. Please tell me how an infant contracts this sexually transmitted disease from the hospital to his or her new house?


    • While I understand strength of your feelings, I have asked that the comments on this blog be respectful. Please read my guidelines post. It’s not for jeffs sake, it’s for non scientist parents, who deserve our compassion rather than our ridicule.

      • sfbooklady Says:

        I apologize to you, and to Jeff.
        I do think some of his comments to you have been intentionally provoking, so it’s to your credit that you have not responded as badly as I did.

      • Jeffry Says:

        Apology accepted.

        Are some of my comments provoking? Perhaps. It is no more provoking, from my perspective, from saying the efficacy and safety of vaccines are untouchable because “x” authority said so.

        This is a passionately debated topic, no doubt. I firmly believe there has to be a balance between the application of science and common sense. I may be alone in this sentiment, but I believe it to be insane that children receive as many vaccines as they do now.

    • Michael Says:

      It is so difficult to be civil when Jeffry uses an “appeal to ignorance”, since he misses basic facts like honey containing botulism, which isn’t an immune response. And I don’t buy into the personalization of issues, which is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

      By the way, and I’m sure it’s mentioned previously, Hepatitis B is not an STD, although one route of transmission is sexual contact. The reason newborns are immunized is that one of the prominent routes of transmission is during birth. Children are also less likely to clear the infection, so prevention is key.


      • No disagreement! Especially when the majority of his comments have been specifically addressed in my posts or in the other comments. But by being respectful in the face of that, I feel we present the most accurate views in the most appropriate light for those who might actually benefit.

        And as I mentioned below, thanks alot for your readership, and your comments, you’ve done a great job educating far in excess of my initial posts.

      • Jeffry Says:

        Michael-

        I did not miss the fact that honey contains botulism. That is precisely my point. We do not give infants honey because their internal chemistry isn’t prepared to injest it.

        What are the statistics for children getting HepB?

        In this country the primary method of transmission is through sexual contact or drug abuse.

        http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5516a1.htm

        “….HBV transmission occurs primarily among unvaccinated persons with behavioral risks for HBV transmission (e.g., heterosexuals with multiple sex partners, injection-drug users [IDUs], and men who have sex with men [MSM]) and among household contacts and sex partners of persons with chronic HBV infection.”

        and also

        “…During 1990–2005, incidence of acute hepatitis B in the United States declined 78%. The greatest decline (96%) occurred among children and adolescents, coincident with an increase in hepatitis B vaccination coverage. This success can be attributed in part to the established infrastructure for vaccine delivery to children and to federal support for perinatal hepatitis B prevention programs.”

        How do children aquire this with parents in a monogomous Hep-free relationship? How safe is this to give to a newborn?

        My wife and I are not in the ‘high-risk’ behaviorial group, nor are we Hep-positive. Does it make logical sense to consider giving this to my newborn?

        There is much evidence through the studies of Weston Price and Francis Pottenger of all people that good nutrition is an important step in preventing disease. I would suggest ‘Nutrition and Physical Degeneration’ written by Dr. Weston Price.

  9. sfbooklady Says:

    You’re the one asking for proof, and yet you throw out statements and then say they don’t have anything important to add when asked for *any kind* of factual basis?

    • Jeffry Says:

      Like I said, the statement that will be forever cherry picked on this post will be that one. It isn’t a value add.

      From my understanding this post was to help educate parents that Autism wasn’t ’caused’ by vaccines. Okay, that is a fair enough statement. I can bit on that. So then where should I look to find out the safety of them? Where are the studies? I know what the effects of the ingredients on the bag of Cheetos are. Why not the vaccines?

      Or shall I keep being subjected to ridicule?

      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

      The subject is how vaccines don’t cause Autism. That should be VERY easy to disprove if they are as safe as everyone says they are.

  10. sfbooklady Says:

    1. HepB is not *only* a sexually transmitted disease. It is often transmitted at birth, and not all mothers know they have it. A HepB vaccine will help protect an infant from that. Also, it has been shown to have been transmitted through contact with contaminated bodily fluids in homes and in hospitals.
    2.”If you are saying the infants have weaker stomach acid and less intestinal flora, that is what constitutes a healthy immune system!!!” No, it doesn’t. It constitutes part of a healthy immune system, which you yourself said.
    3.Oral vaccines are not often effective, because the immune system in the stomach kills them. & before you say “well, then, why doesn’t it kill everything” I will point out that vaccines are a small, controlled dose *and* that orally is not the only way to get a disease.

    • Michael Says:

      Remember, when someone says “immune system”, you’ve got to wonder what that person knows about human physiology. The so-called immune system contains so many constituent parts, that it takes a huge textbook to describe it. What constitutes a healthy immune system is so complex that I certainly couldn’t discuss it, given that my last immunology course was about 20 years ago!

  11. sfbooklady Says:

    It should be even easier to prove that vaccines cause autism than to disprove it, since you can never fully prove a negative.
    There IS NO evidence that vaccines cause autism, and subjective anecdotal evidence is not admissible on either side, since that’s how science works.

  12. sfbooklady Says:

    “What are trends in other countries? Who really stands to benefit from this research? For example in one of your earlier posts, what does Andrew Wakefield really have to gain by saying the MMR causes Autism? He loses is license and has to pay off 200k in medical school loans?”
    A patented alternative MMR vaccine. He applied for this patent before he published his study.

  13. Reginald Says:

    I’m afraid the pro-infectious disease movement has started adopting the common creationist tactic known as the Gish Gallop, wherein someone makes a large series of claims in one breathless screed.

    Unfortunately for parents who are already worried and scared because of the negligent and dangerous actions of Andrew Wakefield and his predecessors – who marketed what were they called?, “transfer protocols” or something? – such large and confident tirades further frighten them away from sound medical advice.

    Such ‘gallops’ are very hard to refute as only the side doing the refuting actually cares about truthful information and the other side will simply make another litany of false claims as soon as the truthful side has put together a thoughtful refutation to each point presented and will not respond to any refutation except of small details the truthful side may have missed in the deluge, not to mention that no one person usually has all the credentials to answer all of the claims alarmed from the original galloper.

    In a court of law, this would be akin to having a geologist on the witness stand and asking him: How does continental drift work, why are volcanoes not erupting in Paris, why is Japan shaped the way it is, why is Hudson Bay so large, isn’t Krakatoa a huge lie perpetrated by the reptilians to cover their tracks, what is the seismic activity of antarctica? If you can’t answer these questions right now and to my satisfaction then it’s obvious that Geology is a lie!

    An additional danger of this is that incredible over-the-top statements that seem suspiciously to be made of whole cloth make it into the collective conciousness of those groups, such as Jeffry’s odd statement that we’re importing infected blood from China.

    So go ahead and refute every single one of his claims and be baffled by the ones that are out of left field like the vast conspiracy to taint the American blood supply by Sino-powerbrokers. Once you’re done, he’ll complain that you’ve not answered him sufficiently, cling to his belief that HepB can only be transferred by sexual contact, and claim a false victory anyway.

    • Michael Says:

      Reginald, thanks for this post. I spend more time fighting creationists than anti-vaccinationists, both of whom use the same exact tactics (they must share their strategies at some Pseudoscience conference), and I never heard of Gish until now. I just read up on him, and you do have to admire his oratory skills.

      By the way, can you provide some peer-reviewed information that Krakatoa did not cover up the tracks of intelligent reptilians? Please prove the negative. 🙂

    • Jeffry Says:

      No complaining here, Reginald.

      It is easy to lay blame to one man, when in fact the issue is much larger than just Wakefield.

      The choice (to vaccinate, in this case)should be and always be for the parent to have informed consent. To many, that is sound medical advice. And it is exactly that: advice a.k.a. a recommendation. The parent gets to chose how to best take care of their children.

      What is your take on the Autism issue? What are your solutions? Does it spontaneously appear in these children? Is it because parents have defective genes?

      Moreover, if you were my physician, I would ask you the following:

      1. Does (autism, allergies, asthma, insulin dependent diabetes, arthritis, lupus, etc.) occur when the B cells of the immune system cause production of antibodies that then attack me?

      2. Are (drugs, steroids, etc.) toxic to the immune system?

      3. Do toxins (including those in inoculations), through molecular mimicry, fool the B cells into producing antibodies that attack normal cells? Do the adjutants in inoculations accelerate this reaction?

      4. Would the (autism, allergies, asthma, insulin dependent diabetes, arthritis, lupus, etc.) be improved if the B cells were not hyper stimulated?

      5. Can you explain how putting more toxins in my system is better than taking the toxins out that caused the problem?

  14. DDW Says:

    Published reviews on vaccine safety. These are from the first page of reviews (see whitecoat’s earlier post on relative value of studies).

    Vaccine safety controversies and the future of vaccination programs.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005 Nov ;24(11):953-61

    “At present, there are no data to conclude that childhood vaccines, and in particular hepatitis B vaccine, pose a serious health risk or justify a change in current immunization practice. However, vaccine “scares” continue to have an international impact on immunization coverage. Creating a positive environment for immunization can be achieved by repositioning the value of vaccines and vaccination, supported by evidence-based information.”

    Immunization issues for the 21st century.
    Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2003 Jun ;90(6 Suppl 3):45-52

    “CONCLUSIONS: A careful analysis of risk and benefit suggests that the benefit of vaccination far outweighs the risks from the utilization of immunizing agents. Vaccination delayed may be protection denied.”

    And, just for fun, reviews (there’s that best possible evidence again) on vaccines and autism.

    Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Dec;82(6):756-9. Epub 2007 Oct 10.

    I think you can figure out what that one concluded.

    Immunizations and autism: a review of the literature. Can J Neurol Sci. 2006 Nov;33(4):341-6.

    “…many parents have become increasingly concerned regarding the possible etiologic role vaccines may play in the development of autism. In particular, some have suggested an association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. Our literature review found very few studies supporting this theory, with the overwhelming majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. The vaccine preservative thimerosal has alternatively been hypothesized to have a possible causal role in autism. Again, no convincing evidence was found to support this claim…”

    Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism. Child Care Health Dev. 2006 Sep;32(5):511-9.

    “CONCLUSIONS: There has (probably) been no real increase in the incidence of autism. There is no scientific evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or the mercury preservative used in some vaccines plays any part in the aetiology or triggering of autism…”

    • DDW Says:

      To Jeffry and others: I am truly sympathetic to those whose lives have been affected by autism, and I don’t doubt the sincerity with which you hold your beliefs, nor your genuine good intention, but the evidence is soundly against vaccines as a cause of autism. If I could edit my post, I would take out the references I make to the time it took to do these searches, I often times forget that not everyone has access to scientific literature, can distinguish good studies from bad, or even have any idea where to start looking. This is, of course, the very reason this blog exists.


      • Ask you and shall recieve – time references edited.

        I very much appreciate your contributing to the productive tone.

        You, trrl, and Michael and everyone else have been amazing, I’m really happy with how courteous the tone here has been.

        Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and your time!

      • Jeffry Says:

        DDW & others,

        While most people appreciate the sympathy, we only want answers. I can appreciate the fact that someone points out faulty logic. So if you will allow me to put the ship back on course, I would be most gracious.

        Have I said vaccines are bad? I have not.

        My main argument concerning this debate is what safety information is available for the safety and efficacy of vaccines? I’m not for or against if there is sufficient evidence for an argument.

        While it is also easy to accuse me of any faulty logic, I would like to simply this argument dramatically.

        I am shooting from the hip here a bit, but there are a few considerations I take when investigating these issues. Please feel free to contribute or obviously point out error in logic.

        First, in any good debate it must be understood that Correlation is NOT causation. That would mean that if everyone who smoked a cigarette developed lung cancer. We simply know that this is not the case. We know that not all children who receive vaccines have Autism. I know you are all intelligent people and I am over simplifying this.

        Secondly, the motive question does come into play. What do they have to prove? Who is gaining or losing from a particular argument?

        Thirdly, who did the testing, sampling, examining, etc? Are meanings and language consistent?

        Fourth, can the data be repeated?

        Lastly, follow the money.

        Let us forget the whole Autism argument momentarily. We obviously cannot prove negatives.

        To make it simple, we will stick to just one vaccine, DTaP.

        According to the CDC vaccine schedule, the DTaP is given at 2 months of age.

        http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2009/09_0-6yrs_schedule_pr.pdf

        Following the criteria presented by White Coat in an earlier post,

        http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/concept/ebm_loe.cfm?show=oxford

        are we able to find studies that follow that particular framework? I am humbly asking that if there is, could that be kindly provided? I probably do not have access to any of that information. I’m sure most parents would appreciate it.

        Duely note, that there are 4 other vaccines given that day(RV, Hib, PCV & IPV). It would be most beneficial to have a study concerning the synergistic effect of these, would it not?

        And also for the sake of argument,

        http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

        Let us take a look at the ingredients of this specific DTaP vaccine:

        DTaP (Daptacel)– Aluminum Phosphate, Ammonium Sulfate, Casamino Acid, Dimethyl-betacyclodextrin,
        Formaldehyde or Formalin, Glutaraldehyde, 2-Phenoxyethanol

        What do toxological studies say about these ingredients? Is it possible that they could affect the neurological development of a 2 month old?

        Is this an unreasonable argument?

      • Jeffry Says:

        I forgot to add the site information for the package insert concerning the DAPTACEL™ Aventis Pasteur, Ltd.

        It can be found here:

        http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5126a5.htm

      • DrBadger Says:

        Jeffry @8:51 pm (can’t reply to your comment for some reason)… you left out this little qualifier at the beginning of the cdc ingredients pdf:

        Includes vaccine ingredients (e.g., adjuvants and preservatives) as well as substances used during the manufacturing process,
        including vaccine-production media, that are removed from the final product and present only in trace quantities.


      • DrBadger – you can’t reply because wordpress supports nested comments up to 3 deep only.

      • Michael Says:

        Thanks Whitecoat for the compliments. Also, I couldn’t figure out why the nesting of replies ended, but now I know!

        It is difficult to remain civil in these discussions, because I personally believe these individuals are doing harm to children. I don’t know if you edit Wikipedia articles, but the level of frustration there is significantly higher.

      • trrll Says:

        My main argument concerning this debate is what safety information is available for the safety and efficacy of vaccines?

        You have been directed toward them, but there is no indication that you have looked at them, or are even prepared to take them seriously. When you attack a review based on the assumed bias of the author, without actually considering whether his review accurately reflects the medical literature, you reveal yourself to be so profoundly biased that you are incapable of recognizing such evidence when it is handed to you.

        First, in any good debate it must be understood that Correlation is NOT causation.

        Indeed. And in fact, the entire basis of blaming vaccination for autism is correlation. It just so happens that symptoms of autism tend to worsen around the time a child normally gets vaccinated. It turns out that this happens even to children who do not receive their shots, but the parent sees only the correlation for his own child, not the lack of correlation of the children who weren’t vaccinated and developed autism anyway.

        The scientific method of distinguishing causation from correlation is well established–it is controlled experimentation. For medical treatments, this means double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Yet you acclaim B12 as a treatment for autism, based upon a correlation in a sample of one–yourself–and attack risperidone, one of the few drugs that has been shown in randomized clinical trials to produce improvement in autistic patients.

        I’m positive in medical school they say something similar to, “Listen to the parents.”

        Doctors are encouraged to listen to the parents when it comes to symptoms because parents know their own children best, and are likely to recognize when something is wrong. They are not encouraged to listen to the parents when it comes to diagnosis or causality, because parents generally do not have the knowledge to make such judgments.

        In the case of autism, a classic example is secretin. A few individual reports appeared in the literature in which autistic children were described as showing dramatic improvement after a single injection of secretin, a gastrointestinal peptide (correlation). Many parents rushed to get secretin for their kids, and claimed great benefits. Thousands of kids were treated with the stuff. Eventually, controlled studies were done. Many of the kids who received secretin did improve. Unfortunately, just as many of the kids who received a salt water placebo improved. Many of the parents refused to believe that their kid had gotten the placebo. Even some of the researchers didn’t believe the initial result. It was done over and over: more injections of secretin, higher doses, human secretin, animal secretin. One study even made it into an ointment and rubbed it on the skin. Some of the was supported by secretin makers, and (by your way of thinking) might reasonably be expected to be biased in favor of secretin. But the results were very consistent: secretin had no benefit over placebo.

        Let us forget the whole Autism argument momentarily. We obviously cannot prove negatives.

        This is less meaningful than you might think. Once certainly cannot prove that vaccination–or TV, or mashed potatoes, or anything–never, ever causes autism in anybody. But it is certainly possible to prove that the risk, if any is negligibly small.

        DTaP (Daptacel)– Aluminum Phosphate, Ammonium Sulfate, Casamino Acid, Dimethyl-betacyclodextrin,
        Formaldehyde or Formalin, Glutaraldehyde, 2-Phenoxyethanol

        What do toxological studies say about these ingredients? Is it possible that they could affect the neurological development of a 2 month old?

        Is this an unreasonable argument?

        Yes, it is unreasonable, because the amounts of these substances are very low–so low that there is hardly anything known to man that is harmful at such low doses. Moreover, some of them, such as formaldehyde are naturally present in the body at higher levels than could conceivably be introduced by a vaccine.

      • Jeffry Says:

        ttrll-

        How low is low? 0.33 mg of Al is used as an adjuvant.

        http://www.theodora.com/drugs/daptacel_sanofi_pasteur.html

        I am preparing a different reply with the toxicity of Al.

        By the way, I have not claimed nor dismissed MB12 is a ‘cure’ for Autism. I think that it can be used in conjunction with other therapies effectively. Dr. Neubrander has had some success utilizing MB12 in treating some cases of ASDs.

      • trrll Says:

        Yes, 0.33 mg is low. Did you even bother to look at the paper I directed you to showing that most injected Al is rapidly eliminated, and that accumulation of Al from vaccines is within safe limits for dietary accumulation of Al? Or are you only interested in reading the scientific literature if it feeds your anti-vaccine obsession?

        Here’s a clue: If amount of a substance that enters the body from vaccines is not much different from what is normally in the body, either because it is made naturally or because it is present in the diet, the likelihood that it could be a source of vaccine-related toxicity is very remote. Handwaving about toxic effects at higher doses will not change this.


  15. Respond to Jeffry’s last nested comment

    First, in any good debate it must be understood that Correlation is NOT causation. That would mean that if everyone who smoked a cigarette developed lung cancer. We simply know that this is not the case. We know that not all children who receive vaccines have Autism.

    That is not what “correlation is NOT causation” means. A better example is the link between piracy and global warming. Global warming has correlated well with the decrease in pirates over the past 400 years. However a lack of pirates is not the cause of global warming. This is important because you have just said “We know that not all children who receive vaccines have Autism” which has nothing to do with “correlation is not causation.”

    Secondly, the motive question does come into play. What do they have to prove? Who is gaining or losing from a particular argument?

    No. It doesn’t. Certainly not the way that you are implying. The implication is that science can be discarded so long as you can plausibly say “look there is a conflict of interest!” Science is much more complicated than that. Reveal conflicts of interest yes, but once you know there is a conflict of interest, look at the data, see if its still valid.

    This is exactly what happened with Wakefield – his conflict of interest was identified, the data was reviewed, suddenly we didn’t have a scientific study with 12 children, we had 9 people trying to sue vaccine makes paying off a scientist to ‘prove’ their point. On the other hand, you have discarded review articles based on conflict of interest. This makes no sense, as the person with the conflict of interest is not involved in the data collection, testing, sampling, examining, data analysis, or interpretation of evidence.

    Thirdly, who did the testing, sampling, examining, etc? Are meanings and language consistent?

    Yes, they are, and these things are already covered in the articles already referenced. I won’t be covering them in posts here. I want these posts to be accessible by parents, and the details of the scientific method are not at all accessible reading to average people.

    Fourth, can the data be repeated?

    Yes, the data has been repeated, lots of times, again, referenced in the review articles.

    Lastly, follow the money.

    Your points 2, 3, and 5 are identical – you said “Are there conflicts of interest?”

    Let us forget the whole Autism argument momentarily. We obviously cannot prove negatives.

    We do not need to “prove a negative.” We can show a lack of correlation. We already have, in all of the articles I’ve already posted or referenced, that you still haven’t read, or haven’t understood. I have not received email from you asking for explanations on articles, as I offered, so I assume you still haven’t read them.

    are we able to find studies that follow that particular framework? I am humbly asking that if there is, could that be kindly provided? I probably do not have access to any of that information. I’m sure most parents would appreciate it.

    You’ve made a mistake. We do not investigate every possible question. We do not investigate whether or not the rise in obesity is related to the rise in autism in this level of detail you’ve described here. Why? Because when we really look, autism isn’t correlated at all with obesity. Similarly, the articles I’ve posted already show there isn’t a real correlation between vaccines and autism. Your persistence in this line of argument again shows you have not read my other posts.

    Let us take a look at the ingredients of this specific DTaP vaccine:
    DTaP (Daptacel)– Aluminum Phosphate, Ammonium Sulfate, Casamino Acid, Dimethyl-betacyclodextrin,
    Formaldehyde or Formalin, Glutaraldehyde, 2-Phenoxyethanol
    What do toxological studies say about these ingredients? Is it possible that they could affect the neurological development of a 2 month old?

    The dose makes the poison. Nutmeg, for example, can make you hallucinate when you eat them in large enough quantities. In moderate quantities, it’s delicious in pies. All of these vaccine ingredients are present in such small doses that they are insignificant, and could not affect the neurological development of a 2 month old child.

    Now, since you have not read any of my references, I have no obligation to compile the data to answer your questions. Most of it is already compiled.
    The burden of evidence is on you to show me evidence that they are dangerous, in the doses present in vaccines.

    • Michael Says:

      I just can’t let the straw man argument of lung cancer to go unnoticed. The vast literature that confirms the links between smoking and lung disease is large. On the other hand, the vast literature that does not confirm any link between autism and vaccines is also large.

      The fact is that autism is rare, and there is no link between it and vaccines. Anecdotal stories that cannot be confirmed don’t count as a link. Statements by Jenny McCarthy do not count. I could go on, but it’s piling on.

      • Jeffry Says:

        Michael-

        There is no intended straw man.


        You don’t have to let go of the argument either. Most people can agree that there was a lapse in what was fact versus what was presented in the media concerning tobacco.

        The point I am trying to make is that it seems common knowledge now that tobacco or smoking is bad for a persons health. Do all persons who smoke have lung cancer? No. Even though there is a landslide of evidence proving otherwise. People can still live to be 97 and smoke every day.

        The claim is by a certain genre of people is that vaccines cause Autism. My point is that not all children who receive vaccines have Autism. I’m not claiming vaccines ’cause’ Autism, I am merely pointing out not all children who receive vaccines have it.

        This indicates that there is the potential for other variables.

        And quite to the contrary, I believe there are other factors that have to be investigated such as nutritional, environmental, genetical, and toxilogical variables in which could contribute to Autism.

  16. DDW Says:

    Jeffry:
    “Does (autism, allergies, asthma, insulin dependent diabetes, arthritis, lupus, etc.) occur when the B cells of the immune system cause production of antibodies that then attack me?”

    Type I diabetes and lupus, yes, these are autoimmune diseases. Some types of arthritis are autoimmune, but not all.

    Autism: Most likely not. There is no evidence this is what happens.

    Asthma: NO! This is a type 1 (IgE) mediated hypersensitivity disorder. The IgE antibodies are directed against aeroantigens. The disease is characterized by chronic mast cell, eosinophil and T-cell infiltrate.

    Allergies: Nope. No autoantibodies here. IgE mediated reaction to external aeroantigens.

    Jeffry, you have also stated that parents just want answers. Right now, the most appropriate answer for what causes autism is: we aren’t certain, but ongoing investigation indicates a number of promising genetic leads, and scientists are working extremely hard to characterize this disease in the greatest possible detail so that we can figure out how to treat and prevent it. You can rest assured, however, that our vaccines and vaccine schedule are rigorously tested for safety and efficacy, and these have been reasonably eliminated as causes for ASD’s.

    Jeffry, the problem is that’s not the answer you want to hear. You want an answer that will give you a firm cause, and that just doesn’t exist right now. You are clinging to a zombie hypothesis, one that had some superficial plausibility in the beginning, was investigated, and shown to have no merit. This theory has risen from the dead many times: mmr, thimersol, oxidative stress, “too many, too soon.” Your comments earlier, stating that if aluminum were shown to be safe, you would simply move on to msg, and on and on down the ingredients list indicate you have no real desire to find the RIGHT answer, only to have AN answer. Your questions have been answered as a useful jumping off point to educate those who have a genuine interest in learning about vaccine safety. One last lesson everyone can take from your incessant denialism and tin foil helmet paranoia about the CDC, NIH etc is what happens when someone desperate for answers gets led astray by quacks and charlatans selling cures that are too good to be true.

    • Jeffry Says:

      DDW-

      Your response is appreciated.

      DDW, I would like to direct you to:

      “IMMUNOLOGICAL ADJUVANTS AND VACCINES” edited by Gregory Gregoriadis, Anthony C. Allison and George Poste, NATO ASI Series, Series A: Life Sciences Vol. 179, (ISBN 0-306-43386-9), 1989, Plenum Press, New York.

      Page 6 states, that aluminum “was introduced in 1926, before strict control by regulatory authorities was practiced; whether it would be allowed by regulatory authorities today is far from certain”.

      Page 37 states, “aluminum causes stimulation of the production of anaphylactic antibody (IgE) in the mouse” and “the effect of aluminum on the IgE response in humans does not appear to have
      been investigated”


      • 1989

        You’re citing a 20 year old book.
        Epic dishonest fail.

      • Jeffry Says:

        Oh, I see. So that automatically disqualifies the information contained therein?

        Should we disqualify the works of Pasteur since it predates 1989?


      • Oh, I see. So that automatically disqualifies the information contained therein?

        Should we disqualify the works of Pasteur since it predates 1989?

        You are citing a book to show an ABSENCE of research. without showing the 20 years of research that happen since then.
        Thats like saying the earth is flat by citing a document from the year 1000AD that says “there is an absence of research proving the earth is round”

      • Jeffry Says:

        Fair enough, but that doesn’t dismiss the statement concerning Aluminum OR the adjuvants that were present in the vaccines prior to that date!

        And, White Coat, shouldn’t it be concerning to parents that the statement alone noted “aluminum causes stimulation of the production of anaphylactic antibody (IgE) in the mouse” and it is still present?


      • …that doesn’t dismiss the statement concerning Aluminum OR the adjuvants that were present in the vaccines prior to that date!
        …shouldn’t it be concerning to parents that the statement alone noted “aluminum causes stimulation of the production of anaphylactic antibody (IgE) in the mouse” and it is still present?

        Anaphylactic antibody is a very old term no longer used. IgE is indeed the antibody in allergic reactions. It is not suprising that an adjuvant stimulates production of IgE. It stimulates production of EVERY Ig!
        It is adjuvant stimulation of IgM, IgA, and IgG that leads to their usefulness in vaccination.

        Your argument makes no sense with a basic understanding of immunology.


      • And don’t give me a line about how you just want to be educated. You clearly don’t want to be educated. Every argument used to refute your logic you ignore, and then you place an even shadier argument in front of it.

  17. Jeffry Says:

    trrll-

    I wanted to get your opinion on this. I found this on a vaccine for animals, and I have highlighted the portion with capitals:

    http://www.pfizerah.com/PAHimages/compliance_pdfs/US_EN_DE_compliance.pdf

    Rabies Vaccine (produced by Pfizer)

    Killed Virus

    For use in dogs, cats, cattle and sheep only

    Defensor© 3

    PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: Defensor 3 is for vaccination of healthy dogs, cats, cattle, and sheep 3 months of age or older as an aid in preventing rabies. The vaccine is prepared from cell-cultire-grown, chemically inactivated rabies virus which originated from Louis Pasteur’s original isolate in 1882. The inactivated virus is formulated with a highly purified adjuvant and is packaged in liquid form.

    DISEASE DESCRIPTION: Rabies is a worldwide, high mortality disease affecting mammalian species. Wild animals are common vectors of the disease and the major source of transmission to humans and domestic animals. Despite successful attempts over the years to reduce the incidence of rabies, recent published reports indicate that in the U.S. more than 30,000 people undergo treatment for possible exposure. Domestic animals are the major source of exposure for humans. Since 1980, the most commonly reported rabid domestic animals have been cats, cattle and dogs. In 1990, a total of 4881 cases of animal rabies were reported to the Centers for Disease Control by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Susceptibility to rabies varies according to pet species. Rabies is not a treatable disease and suspect pets are usually quarantined until a clinical diagnosis is made, at which time they are destroyed.

    The route of infection can be oral, respiratory, or parenteral. Following infection, a paralytic syndrome ensues, emerging as either the “furious” or “dumb” form. “Furious rabies” is characterized by unusual aggression; “dumb rabies” by lethargy and a desire to avoid contact. Respiratory failure is the immediate cause of death.

    SAFETY AND EFFICACY: Because Defensor 3 is produced on an established cell line, it has safety advantages over inactivated brain-origin rabies vaccines. *** TISSUE-ORIGIN VACCINES CONTAIN EXTRANEOUS PROTEIN IN ADDITION TO RABIES ANTIGEN THAT CAN LEAD TO AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE. **** (emphasis mine)

    The established cell line used in Defensor 3 has been extensively tested for freedom from contaminating agents. In addition, use of an established cell line yields a vaccine of consistent potency from serial to serial. Defensor 3 has proven to be uniformly safe in experimental tests, and no significant adverse reactions were reported in extensive clinical trials of the vaccine.

    A duration-of-immunity study, conducted in accordance with federal regulation and under U/.S. Department of Agriculture directions, demonstrated that a 1-mL dose met federal guidelines for protection of dogs and cats against virulent challenge administered 3 years after vaccination. Cattle and sheep were likewise protected 1 year after receiving a 2-mL dose of Defensor 3.

    DIRECTIONS:
    Dogs and Cats:
    1. General Directions: Shake well. Aseptically administer 1 mL subcutaneously. Dogs may be vaccinated intramuscularly or subcutaneously.
    2. Primary Vaccination: Administer a single 1-mL dose at 3 months of age or older to healthy dogs and cats. A repeat dose should be administered 1 year later.
    3. Revaccination: Subsequent revaccination every 3 years with a single dose is recommended.

    Cattle and Sheep:
    1. General Directions: Shake well. Aseptically administer 2 mL intramuscularly.
    2. Primary Vaccination: Administer a single 2-mL dose at 3 months of age or older to healthy cattle and sheep. A repeat dose should be administered 1 year later.
    3. Revaccination: Annual revaccination with a single dose is recommended.

    PRECAUTIONS:
    1. Store at 2 degrees – 7 degrees C. Prolonged exposure to higher temperatures may adversely affect potency. Do not freeze.
    2. Use entire contents when first opened.
    3. Sterilized syringes and needles should be used to administer this vaccine.
    4. Do not vaccinate within 21 days of slaughter.
    5. Contains gentamicin as preservative.
    6. As with many vaccines, anaphylaxis may occur after use. Initial antidote of epinephrine is recommended and should be followed with appropriate supportive therapy.
    7. This product has been shown to be efficacious in healthy animals. A protective immune respone may not be elicited if animals are incubating an infectious disease, are malnourished or parasitized, are stressed due to shipment or environmental coonditions, are otherwise immunocompromised, or the vaccine is not administered in accordance with label directions.

    REFERENCES:
    1. Kaplan MM, Korprowski H: Rabies, Austr Vet Pract 10:208-205, 1980
    2. Uhaa IJ, Mandell EJ, Whiteway R, et al: Rabies surveillance in the United States during 1990, AM J Vet Med 200:920-929, 1992.

    Technical inquiries should be directed to Pfizer Animal Health
    Veterinary Services, (800) 366-5288 (USA), (800) 461-0917 (Canada)

    For veterinary use only

    U.S. Veterinary License No. 189

    Pfizer Animal Health
    Exton, PA 19341, USA
    Div. of Pfizer Inc
    NY, NY 10017

    75-4996-03

    falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

  18. Aaron K Says:

    My wife is a maternity nurse, so I asked her if they gave HepB vaccines to all newborns. She said yes (except for parents who don’t want it and fill out the appropriate forms). We’re in California, in case this is a regional thing.

    I asked her why they did that, isn’t HepB was primarily sexually transmitted? She rolled her eyes and gave me a lengthy explanation. (Short version: yes, babies can get HepB. It seems to be more common in Asian households.)

  19. Emelyn Says:

    As an utter layperson, even I notice that none of these animal vaccine trials Jeffry has cited cover a condition like autism, unless you count the ‘dumb rabies’ bit (and that would be a stretch). He’s mostly cited references to autoimmune diseases and, if human vaccines were such a strongly causative agent of such conditions, there’d be more solid proof by now.

    If the evidence were that solid, I think most physicians would refuse vaccines, and they certainly wouldn’t give them to their children, or their friends’ children, or their relatives, but people in the medical field still give and get vaccines. It’s astonishing that the antivax movement can believe the entire scientific medicine field to be monolithic and evil, then turn around and say that of course their doctors, like Andrew Wakefield, are just being framed. Double standard much?


  20. Good day! This is kind of off topic but I need some help from
    an established blog. Is it very difficult to set up your own blog?
    I’m not

    very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I’m thinking about creating my own but

    I’m not sure where to start. Do you have any ideas or suggestions? Cheers


  21. sympa mais aujourd’hui” il faut “vous décider mon site registre des creations


  22. Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just
    your articles? I mean, what you say

    is important and everything. Nevertheless just imagine if you added some great visuals or
    video clips to give your posts more,

    “pop”! Your content is excellent but with images and videos, this blog could

    undeniably be one of the greatest in its field. Wonderful blog!

  23. Krista Says:

    It is best to take part in a contest for one of the
    best blogs on the web. I’ll

    advocate this website!


  24. F*ckin’ amazing things here. I’m very glad to see your
    post. Thanks a lot

    and i’m looking forward to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?

  25. Lonny Says:

    I was wondering if you ever considered changing the page layout of your website?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.
    But maybe you could a little more in the way of content

    so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for
    only having one or 2

    pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: