Vaccine related autism study?

[Captain Kremmen]

No, they are not. Nor are they saying that TPN patients are considered healthy, or that premature babies are the same as full term babies.

From the article - "There is a glaring error with Dr Sears aluminum information that would likely go over most people's heads." Looks like it went over yours.

For a fun comparison, find out how much aluminum there is in a single baby aspirin.

It's probably packed with mercury too.
As is breast milk apparently.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567218/

 

[Magical Realist]

Uhm...

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

Do also consider - the amount of aluminium in the injection is NOT absorbed all at once - I do not know the specifics at this time, but it takes time for it to absorb into the bloodstream - from what I am seeing though, a baby with healthy kidneys/liver function should be able to withstand the amount of aluminium in vaccinations without issue... giving these injections to premature babies, though, could be hazardous.

Simple solution - spread the injection of the vaccinations out over several days to allow the aluminium to be purged from the system.

Problem solved.

So you are admitting spreading out the vaccinations is a good idea? Good. I agree.

Funny, though, that this isn't a website, but a fucking COURT CASE that came to this decision... and the website provides citations and references (which is more than can be said for most of your "evidence")

Funny though, spidergoat said earlier courts don't decide what is science. Seems to apply here.

 

[billvon]

It's probably packed with mercury too.
As is breast milk apparently.

Oh, geez, don't tell him that - he will come out against breast milk. "Look, I just want parents to make an informed decision on whether to feed babies potent neurotoxins that come from their BREASTS. Ew."

Let's hope he never sees a water analysis.

 

[Kittamaru]

So you are admitting spreading out the vaccinations is a good idea? Good. I agree.

That's why the FDA has the vaccination schedule...

Funny though, spidergoat said earlier courts don't decide what is science. Seems to apply here.

You are right - the courts don't decide what is science - they decide what is right. The science is decided by the experts... and in this case, the evidence was in favor of the experts saying there was no risk here.

That's how the court systems work, yaknow

 

[Magical Realist]

Oh, geez, don't tell him that - he will come out against breast milk. "Look, I just want parents to make an informed decision on whether to feed babies potent neurotoxins that come from their BREASTS. Ew."

Let's hope he never sees a water analysis.

Remember that difference between ingested and injected?

 

[billvon]

Remember that difference between ingested and injected?

Yep. And? Facts have never gotten in your way of your alarmism and fearmongering before. What matters to you is ideology.

 

[Magical Realist]

Abstract

The problem with pure recombinant or synthetic antigens used in modern day vaccines is that they are generally far less immunogenic than older style live or killed whole organism vaccines. This has created a major need for improved and more powerful adjuvants for use in these vaccines. With few exceptions, alum remains the sole adjuvant approved for human use in the majority of countries worldwide. Although alum is able to induce a good antibody (Th2) response, it has little capacity to stimulate cellular (Th1) immune responses which are so important for protection against many pathogens. In addition, alum has the potential to cause severe local and systemic side-effects including sterile abscesses, eosinophilia and myofascitis, although fortunately most of the more serious side-effects are relatively rare. There is also community concern regarding the possible role of aluminium in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there is a major unmet need for safer and more effective adjuvants suitable for human use. In particular, there is demand for safe and non-toxic adjuvants able to stimulate cellular (Th1) immunity. Other needs in light of new vaccine technologies are adjuvants suitable for use with mucosally-delivered vaccines, DNA vaccines, cancer and autoimmunity vaccines. Each of these areas are highly specialized with their own unique needs in respect of suitable adjuvant technology. This paper reviews the state of the art in the adjuvant field, explores future directions of adjuvant development and finally examines some of the impediments and barriers to development and registration of new human adjuvants."===http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200475a.html

Abstract: Autism is a condition characterized by impaired cognitive and social skills, associated with compromised immune function. The incidence is alarmingly on the rise, and environmental factors are increasingly suspected to play a role. This paper investigates word frequency patterns in the U.S. CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database. Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever."===

 

[Kittamaru]

Remember that difference between ingested and injected?

Indeed, there is a difference...

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22-c2.pdf

The general population is primarily exposed to aluminum through the consumption of food items, although minor exposures may occur through ingestion of aluminum in drinking water and inhalation of ambient air. Aluminum found in over-the-counter medicinals, such as antacids and buffered aspirin, is used as a food additive, and is found in a number of topically applied consumer products such as antiperspirants, and first aid antibiotic and antiseptics, diaper rash and prickly heat, insect sting and bite, sunscreen and suntan, and dry skin products. The concentration of aluminum in foods and beverages varies widely, depending upon the food product, the type of processing used, and the geographical areas in which food crops are grown (see Section 6.4). Based on the FDA’s 1993 Total Diet Study dietary exposure model and the 1987–1988 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, the authors estimated daily aluminum intakes of 0.10 mg Al/kg/day for 6– 11-month-old infants; 0.30–0.35 mg Al/kg/day for 2–6-year-old children; 0.11 mg Al/kg/day for 10-yearold children; 0.15–0.18 mg Al/kg/day for 14–16-year-old males and females; and 0.10– 0.12 mg Al/kg/day for adult (25–30- and 70+-year-old) males and females. Users of aluminum containing medications who are healthy (i.e., have normal renal function) can ingest much larger amounts of aluminum than in the diet, possibly as high as 12–71 mg Al/kg/day from antacid/anti-ulcer products and 2–10 mg Al/kg/day from buffered analgesics when taken at recommended dosages. Gastrointestinal absorption of aluminum is low, generally in the range of 0.1–0.4% in humans, although absorption of particularly bioavailable forms such as aluminum citrate may be on the order of 0.5–5%. Although large bolus doses of as much as half a gram of aluminum as aluminum hydroxide throughout the day can be ingested during antacid therapy, absorption of aluminum hydroxide is usually ≤0.01% of the intake amount. Bioavailability of aluminum varies depending mainly on the chemical form of the ingested compound (i.e., type of anion) and the concurrent exposure to dietary chelators such as citric acid, ascorbic acid, or lactic acid. The total body burden of aluminum in healthy human subjects is approximately 30–50 mg. Normal levels of aluminum in serum are approximately 1–3 μg/L. Of the total body burden of aluminum, about one-half is in the skeleton, and about one-fourth is in the lungs.

So, it seems about .5 to 5% of ingested aluminium is absorbed via ingestion...

In other words... drinking normal tap water and eating regular food:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/en/aluminium.pdf

Estimated total exposure and relative contribution of drinking-water Aluminium intake from foods, particularly those containing aluminium compounds used as food additives, represents the major route of aluminium exposure for the general public, excluding persons who regularly ingest aluminium-containing antacids and buffered analgesics, for whom intakes may be as high as 5 g/day (WHO, 1997). At an average adult intake of aluminium from food of 5 mg/day and a drinking-water aluminium concentration of 0.1 mg/litre, the contribution of drinking-water to the total oral exposure to aluminium will be about 4%. The contribution of air to the total exposure is generally negligible.

I am consuming approximately 5.2mg a day from food and water, if I absorb an average of 1% of that, I am taking in approximately 52 micrograms a day... which means I must be able to expel at LEAST that much a day.

50 micrograms over 30 days = 1500 micrograms a month.

Seems like a safe enough amount for a child to take in, assuming healthy liver/kidney function.

Looks like Hep B:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

is 250 micrograms.

So, a child can take six Hep B vaccinations safely over the course of a month (though I sincerely hope no child gets six of them )

 

[Kittamaru]

So I logged on sciforums, and noted that I had received a few messages about members having responded to a post I made, where I criticised some individuals (including moderators) for ganging up on Magical Realist and not offering much in the way of a logical argument. Lo and behold, my post has been surreptitiously deleted, with only vestiges remaining where it has been quoted by other posters. No indication was given to the audience or myself that the post had been deleted, nor was a reason given. I guess someone was really upset about me pointing out that confusing 'micrograms' and 'milligrams' is a mistake even a high school science student should not make.

Given that Magical Realist has been lynched by you guys for 24 pages of this discussion, I find it rather ironic that his detractors have such a thin skin. Put your big boy pants on, folks.

I deleted the post, as it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, and as such was completely off topic.

 

[billvon]

There is also community concern regarding the possible role of aluminium in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease

"Community concern" has nothing to do with "a causal link between autism and aluminum in vaccines."

Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines.

OK, so let's see the correlation.

Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased.

Hmm. So link between mercury and autism is indicated against. So much for Wakefield.

We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury

Waitaminute. So mercury increases the threat to vulnerable kids, but when it was eliminated, autism diagnoses went UP? Sounds odd. Let's take a look at what the study says:

There is a table on page 11 that shows that it is more likely for people who receive MMR vaccine to be diagnosed with autism than people who do not receive MMR. But wait - people who receive DTaP and pneumococcus vaccines (both of which contain aluminum) are LESS likely to become autistic! Looks like they're proving themselves wrong.

There is a table on page 14 that shows bad reactions to aluminum-containing vaccines. How do they determine this? They look at the how many times the words "fatigue" "seizure" "blister" etc are mentioned on the VAERS website.

Let me repeat that. They are basing their claim that aluminum-containing vaccines are a health risk based on how many times people post the word "fatigue" on a website.

I propose a similar study. Let's evaluate the safety of all vaccines based on how often the word "immune" is posted on this website. That should be just as accurate.

 

[Russ_Watters]

That statement: "The amount of aluminum in the Hepatitis B vaccine alone is almost 14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVE." is referring to the FDA aluminum limit as determined via body weight based on paretental products.

Right. So, not the limit for vaccines. You cited the wrong limit and when the right limit was shown to you, you said it was bogus, even though they came from the same source! Sorry, you aren't entitled to simultaneously consider a source to be the authority and bogus at the same time.

No one could possibly not recognize your error now, seeing them next to each other, so the real interesting question is whether you recognized it when you first posted. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you got duped by the crackpot source you chose. But clinging to it now is just trolling -- not that you have much choice, since you cannot ever admit even the slightest error.

You're so obsessed with finding some small detail I'm wrong about....

Is that a begrudging admission that you are wrong? And no, it isn't a small detail, it's the critical point you were trying to make: that vaccines contain an unsafe amount of aluminum. The FDA says explicitily that they do not.

 

[Magical Realist]

Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War illness induces motor neuron death in mice.
Petrik MS1, Wong MC, Tabata RC, Garry RF, Shaw CA.
Author information

Abstract
Gulf War illness (GWI) affects a significant percentage of veterans of the 1991 conflict, but its origin remains unknown. Associated with some cases of GWI are increased incidences of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other neurological disorders. Whereas many environmental factors have been linked to GWI, the role of the anthrax vaccine has come under increasing scrutiny. Among the vaccine's potentially toxic components are the adjuvants aluminum hydroxide and squalene. To examine whether these compounds might contribute to neuronal deficits associated with GWI, an animal model for examining the potential neurological impact of aluminum hydroxide, squalene, or aluminum hydroxide combined with squalene was developed. Young, male colony CD-1 mice were injected with the adjuvants at doses equivalent to those given to US military service personnel. All mice were subjected to a battery of motor and cognitive-behavioral tests over a 6-mo period postinjections. Following sacrifice, central nervous system tissues were examined using immunohistochemistry for evidence of inflammation and cell death. Behavioral testing showed motor deficits in the aluminum treatment group that expressed as a progressive decrease in strength measured by the wire-mesh hang test (final deficit at 24 wk; about 50%). Significant cognitive deficits in water-maze learning were observed in the combined aluminum and squalene group (4.3 errors per trial) compared with the controls (0.2 errors per trial) after 20 wk. Apoptotic neurons were identified in aluminum-injected animals that showed significantly increased activated caspase-3 labeling in lumbar spinal cord (255%) and primary motor cortex (192%) compared with the controls. Aluminum-treated groups also showed significant motor neuron loss (35%) and increased numbers of astrocytes (350%) in the lumbar spinal cord. The findings suggest a possible role for the aluminum adjuvant in some neurological features associated with GWI and possibly an additional role for the combination of adjuvants."===http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17114826

 

[Russ_Watters]

Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War illness induces motor neuron death in mice.
Petrik MS1, Wong MC, Tabata RC, Garry RF, Shaw CA.
Author information

Abstract
Gulf War illness (GWI) affects a significant percentage of veterans of the 1991 conflict, but its origin remains unknown. Associated with some cases of GWI are increased incidences of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other neurological disorders. Whereas many environmental factors have been linked to GWI, the role of the anthrax vaccine has come under increasing scrutiny. Among the vaccine's potentially toxic components are the adjuvants aluminum hydroxide and squalene. To examine whether these compounds might contribute to neuronal deficits associated with GWI, an animal model for examining the potential neurological impact of aluminum hydroxide, squalene, or aluminum hydroxide combined with squalene was developed. Young, male colony CD-1 mice were injected with the adjuvants at doses equivalent to those given to US military service personnel. All mice were subjected to a battery of motor and cognitive-behavioral tests over a 6-mo period postinjections. Following sacrifice, central nervous system tissues were examined using immunohistochemistry for evidence of inflammation and cell death. Behavioral testing showed motor deficits in the aluminum treatment group that expressed as a progressive decrease in strength measured by the wire-mesh hang test (final deficit at 24 wk; about 50%). Significant cognitive deficits in water-maze learning were observed in the combined aluminum and squalene group (4.3 errors per trial) compared with the controls (0.2 errors per trial) after 20 wk. Apoptotic neurons were identified in aluminum-injected animals that showed significantly increased activated caspase-3 labeling in lumbar spinal cord (255%) and primary motor cortex (192%) compared with the controls. Aluminum-treated groups also showed significant motor neuron loss (35%) and increased numbers of astrocytes (350%) in the lumbar spinal cord. The findings suggest a possible role for the aluminum adjuvant in some neurological features associated with GWI and possibly an additional role for the combination of adjuvants."===http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17114826

Oh dear lord, Gulf War Illness now? You'll do anything to distract from your error. Next-up, aluminum fatigue strain failure in aircraft wings?

 

[Magical Realist]

"Community concern" has nothing to do with "a causal link between autism and aluminum in vaccines."


OK, so let's see the correlation.

Hmm. So link between mercury and autism is indicated against. So much for Wakefield.

Waitaminute. So mercury increases the threat to vulnerable kids, but when it was eliminated, autism diagnoses went UP? Sounds odd. Let's take a look at what the study says:

There is a table on page 11 that shows that it is more likely for people who receive MMR vaccine to be diagnosed with autism than people who do not receive MMR. But wait - people who receive DTaP and pneumococcus vaccines (both of which contain aluminum) are LESS likely to become autistic! Looks like they're proving themselves wrong.

There is a table on page 14 that shows bad reactions to aluminum-containing vaccines. How do they determine this? They look at the how many times the words "fatigue" "seizure" "blister" etc are mentioned on the VAERS website.

Let me repeat that. They are basing their claim that aluminum-containing vaccines are a health risk based on how many times people post the word "fatigue" on a website.

I propose a similar study. Let's evaluate the safety of all vaccines based on how often the word "immune" is posted on this website. That should be just as accurate.

Things come into focus when you don't cherry-pick statements out of their stated context. Watch this:

"Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione."

Makes more sense now don't it? Isn't it amazing how previous sentences explain following sentences? lol!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Right. So, not the limit for vaccines. You cited the wrong limit and when the right limit was shown to you, you said it was bogus, even though they came from the same source!

Yes, I'm quoting myself...

MR, your source contains an acknowledgement of the discrepancy. The author clearly recognizes, but declines to explore it:

Vaccines, for some reason, are not required to have this label and also are not required to follow the maximum dosage of 25 mcg.[per day]

So even that idiot crackpot anti-vaxer you got your information from recognized the discrepancy, but just declined to explore it. I know I said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt before, but I have little doubt that you recognized your claim was wrong when you first posted it.

 

[Kittamaru]

And now he's back to ignoring simple facts that are posted...

*shakes head*

he's hopeless...

 

[Russ_Watters]

You're lying again. There are quite literally over a hundred studies establishing a link between autism and vaccine toxins. I have repeatedly posted these and you continue to claim they are made up or misrepresented on anti-vax sites. They are not.

So....are you claiming that you haven't been flood copy-pasting them from anti-vax sites?

Worst still, all the anti-vaxer crackpots share the same content! Googling a random phrase from one of your posts shows that at the very least, all of the first ten hits are identical content from different anti-vax crackpot websites.
https://www.google.com/search?q="14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVED."&oq="14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVED."&aqs=chrome..69i57.1254j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

 

[Magical Realist]

So....are you claiming that you haven't been flood copy-pasting them from anti-vax sites?

It doesn't matter where I get the link from. The link is to an actual medical paper on a med publication site. It's ridiculous and frankly superstitious to call a source no good simply because I got from an anti-vaccination site. I could say the same thing for all the CDC sourced studies, who we now know actively suppressed and falsfied data on many of them. Can we even trust them anymore? And ofcourse you will find many of the same papers linked on different anti-vax sites. So what? Pro-vax sites do the same thing with their studies too.

 

[Magical Realist]

So even that idiot crackpot anti-vaxer you got your information from recognized the discrepancy, but just declined to explore it. I know I said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt before, but I have little doubt that you recognized your claim was wrong when you first posted it.

LOL! The discrepancy between aluminum level limits based on paratental products and on vaccines is the FDA'S fault, not the antivaxxer. They're contradicting themselves.

 

[Russ_Watters]

It doesn't matter where I get the link from.

So....are you admitting you are getting them from anti-vax websites?

You can't have this both ways either, MR. You can't claim to use reputable information while posting information from non-reputable sources. Just like you can't simultaneously claim the FDA is and isn't a reputable authority.

The link is to an actual medical paper on a med publication site. It's ridiculous and frankly superstitious to call a source no good simply because I got from an anti-vaccination.

If you had just linked the paper, not the interpretation from the anti-vax website, that would have been fine. But you didn't. You get basically all of your understanding of the issue from the anti-vax websites. The papers themselves are just window-dressing to make it look like the nonsense has a basis. Indeed, many of them, including the first one, you couldn't read even if you wanted to because they are locked behind a paywall.

I could say the same thing for all the CDC sourced studies, who we now know actively suppressed and falsfied data on many of them. Can we even trust them anymore?

Conspiracy theory. At this point, you've gone full crackpottery, where any information you like is reputable and any information you don't must be lies, regardless of the source -- even both, at the same time, from the same source. It's pathetic, really, how obvious your trolling is.