A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and on closer inspection, does the study not say that there is a specific gene that determines that you get autism AND the gastrointestinal problem?

Effectively ruling out the link Wakefield proposed?

While Brown is confident that the genetic seed will one day
bear fruit, she does acknowledge that “to date, the exact gene
has not been identified….” That is because there is no “exact
gene.” The latest results from the immense Autism Genome
Project Consortium (AGPC) study are a testament to the
frustrations of genetic research in autism [46]. Their analysis of
genetic material from nearly 1500 families with multiple
affected children provided the best opportunity yet of locating
areas of the parental genome that could be linked to their
autistic offspring. Yet again, Blaxill has provided a careful and
critical analysis of the AGPC’s findings. He wrote, “The results
of the AGPC effort produced a result that is little different than
the result one might expect from taking a randomized group of
unaffected families. It also failed to replicate any of the most
highly touted suggestive findings from earlier genome scans.

The negative AGPC findings provide strong evidence that
heritability claims in autism are exaggerated if not false” [35].
Perhaps unaware of the AGPC’s failure, Brown continues:
“In 2008, researchers identified a specific gene in some kids
with autism. This gene is involved in controlling brain cell
communication [47]. It appears that some kind of mutation in
this gene causes a risk of autism within families.”

The APGC findings in respect of this gene, Neurexin-1
(NRXN-1), consisted of an unusual mutation found in the gene
in only two sisters out of 3,000 individuals analyzed. This
finding has not been supported by the results of a more recent
study [48].

“Other researchers have found abnormalities on chromosomes of
autistic kids. Hence it appears that autism is caused by
several different genetic defects, although researchers haven't
quite figured out the puzzle yet.”

“Haven’t quite,” unfortunately means “nowhere near.” While
specific genetic deficiencies associated with autism are well
documented, such deficiencies are rare and cannot explain more
than a very small proportion of ASD cases. Other heritable
(genetic and epigenetic) factors almost certainly contribute to
autism, yet ten genome-wide scans have failed to identify
consistent, reproducible, statistically significant genetic
associations with autism. The genetics of autism has been
studied extensively, at huge cost, for precious little return. The
current view is that for the majority, autism is a disease
involving many genes that influence susceptibility to
environmental causes.

http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/manWakefield.aspx

[LadyShea]

I just realized something...search bubble. I'll bet she thinks those Mercola and Whaleto links come up at the top of everyone's searches, not realizing it's a bias feedback loop.

[Vivisectus]

The conclusion drawn was that specific gastrointestinal problems are seen in autistic children more often, not that autism is caused by gastrointestinal problems. Get your facts straight. And, yes, you can draw the conclusion from this study that there is a cascade of events [in some babies] that may be triggered by vaccine administration.

No, you cannot draw that conclusion.

Where was it fraudulent?

It seems to have been so on several occasions:

"The paper in The Lancet was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact: "Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism; "Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns; "Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination; "In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”; "The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link; "Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation."

I think I already mentioned the patent for a new vaccine, as well as the plans to sell detection kits to help people sue vaccine producers?

As for what you quoted:

At the heart of the Wakefield controversy has been whether or not the children in the study were, in fact, diagnosed with non-specific colitis, or if that information had been fabricated -- allegations that were largely initiated by investigative journalist Brian Deer.

No, that is just one of the issues. Not the heart of it.

You've got gall to call these people blithering idiots. What does that make you?

These people? I was referring to you.

"The grading sheets and other evidence in Wakefield's files clearly show that it is unreasonable to conclude, based on a comparison of the histological records, that Andrew Wakefield 'faked' a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Do they show that? How exactly?

Wakefield is Not the Only Researcher to Look Into the Possible Connection Between MMR Vaccine, Bowel Disease and Autism

While the press continues to battle over Dr. Wakefield's purported guilt or innocence, the bigger issue -- that there appears to be a connection between inflammation, and particularly gut inflammation, and autism -- is getting lost in the shuffle. Plus, other research has confirmed Wakefield's hotly contested findings, linking the MMR triple vaccine with bowel disease and autism -- contrary to what you might hear in the press.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ield-case.aspx

If you read the study you will find that once again it does not even mention vaccines, and does not look into any correlation with them.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

While Brown is confident that the genetic seed will one day
bear fruit, she does acknowledge that “to date, the exact gene
has not been identified….” That is because there is no “exact
gene.” The latest results from the immense Autism Genome
Project Consortium (AGPC) study are a testament to the
frustrations of genetic research in autism [46]. Their analysis of
genetic material from nearly 1500 families with multiple
affected children provided the best opportunity yet of locating
areas of the parental genome that could be linked to their
autistic offspring. Yet again, Blaxill has provided a careful and
critical analysis of the AGPC’s findings. He wrote, “The results
of the AGPC effort produced a result that is little different than
the result one might expect from taking a randomized group of
unaffected families. It also failed to replicate any of the most
highly touted suggestive findings from earlier genome scans.

The negative AGPC findings provide strong evidence that
heritability claims in autism are exaggerated if not false” [35].
Perhaps unaware of the AGPC’s failure, Brown continues:
“In 2008, researchers identified a specific gene in some kids
with autism. This gene is involved in controlling brain cell
communication [47]. It appears that some kind of mutation in
this gene causes a risk of autism within families.”

The APGC findings in respect of this gene, Neurexin-1
(NRXN-1), consisted of an unusual mutation found in the gene
in only two sisters out of 3,000 individuals analyzed. This
finding has not been supported by the results of a more recent
study [48].

“Other researchers have found abnormalities on chromosomes of
autistic kids. Hence it appears that autism is caused by
several different genetic defects, although researchers haven't
quite figured out the puzzle yet.”

“Haven’t quite,” unfortunately means “nowhere near.” While
specific genetic deficiencies associated with autism are well
documented, such deficiencies are rare and cannot explain more
than a very small proportion of ASD cases. Other heritable
(genetic and epigenetic) factors almost certainly contribute to
autism, yet ten genome-wide scans have failed to identify
consistent, reproducible, statistically significant genetic
associations with autism. The genetics of autism has been
studied extensively, at huge cost, for precious little return. The
current view is that for the majority, autism is a disease
involving many genes that influence susceptibility to
environmental causes.

http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/manWakefield.aspx

That can be true, or not. But what IS true is that the study DID make that link, and that this did not stop your bogus article from claiming it supported Wakefield... which it did not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Day of birth: hepatitis B-12 mcg mercury

30 x safe level

At 4 months: DTaP and HiB on same day - 50 mcg mercury

60 x safe level

At 6 months: Hep B, Polio - 62.5 mcg mercury

78 x safe level

At 15 months the child receives another 50 mcg

41 x safe level

These figures are calculated for an infant's average weight in kilograms for each age.

These one-day blasts of mercury are called "bolus doses". Although they far exceed "safe" levels, there has never been any research conducted on the toxicity of such bolus doses of mercury given to infants all these years.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-part-two.aspx

Those are way outdated...look at the date the article was posted February 24, 2001, did you completely fail to see that? Do you think 12 year old data are good evidence for anything at all?

[Kael]

If I thought it would do any good, I'd go over some of the points made in these excellent videos

(1/2) Do Vaccines Cause Autism? Correlation vs....

(2/2) Do Vaccines Cause Autism? Correlation vs....

But when was the last time peacegirl was amenable to reason?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's too easy to dismiss someone who has done their homework, and steer people away from their own investigation.

http://whale.to/a/autism7.html

Except, of course, you didn't do your homework. If you knew anything at all about human anatomy & physiology -- or you'd bothered to do 30 seconds' worth of "homework" -- you'd know that the claims that infants don't have a BBB and don't produce bile are not just false, but ludicrous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just realized something...search bubble. I'll bet she thinks those Mercola and Whaleto links come up at the top of everyone's searches, not realizing it's a bias feedback loop.

Unfortunately these links do not come up, which is why parents have to make a concerted effort to search more deeply. It is not a fair playing field not because of a negative feedback loop but because mainstream medicine has a monopoly. They get front page news whether it's on television or on google.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Those are way outdated...look at the date the article was posted February 24, 2001, did you completely fail to see that? Do you think 12 year old data are good evidence for anything at all?

Mercury and Aluminum in Vaccines: a Primer on NVIC’s Vaccine Ingredients Calculator

by Marcella Piper-Terry, M.S.

This article will tell you how to recognize the symptoms of aluminum toxicity. Aluminum toxicity is something I am very concerned about. In 2004, a large portion of the mercury that was previously used in childhood vaccines was removed from those sold and administered in the United States.

Many people, including many physicians, believe and will tell you “There is no mercury in vaccines anymore. They took that out years ago!” This is not true. (For a list of vaccines that still contain mercury above EPA safety levels click here.)

Many people, including physicians, will tell you “There is no thimerosal in the childhood vaccine schedule.” This statement, which is also not true, is often used by those who are attempting to make the claim that there is no link between autism and vaccines. These folks will frequently say things like, “They removed mercury from the shots and the autism rate has continued to go up! That proves vaccines don’t cause autism!”

Ummm….. No. and No.

Mercury and Aluminum in Vaccines: a Primer on NVIC’s Vaccine Ingredients Calculator | VaxTruth.org

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That can be true, or not. But what IS true is that the study DID make that link, and that this did not stop your bogus article from claiming it supported Wakefield... which it did not.

This link was not meant to support Wakefield. It was meant to show the lack of hard evidence showing a statistically significant genetic association with autism.

Other heritable
(genetic and epigenetic) factors almost certainly contribute to
autism, yet ten genome-wide scans have failed to identify
consistent, reproducible, statistically significant genetic
associations with autism. The genetics of autism has been
studied extensively, at huge cost, for precious little return.

[The Lone Ranger]

Out of curiosity, peacegirl, did you come up with the absurd claims that infants don't produce bile or have functioning blood-brain barriers all on your own, or did those claims originate with your sources?

If the former is the case, why are you lying about this when anyone who knows anything at all about the subject will instantly recognize the lie?

If the latter is the case, why aren't you concerned about the fact that your sources are outright lying to you -- something you could easily confirm with 30 seconds' worth of investigation?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Except, of course, you didn't do your homework. If you knew anything at all about human anatomy & physiology -- or you'd bothered to do 30 seconds' worth of "homework" -- you'd know that the claims that infants don't have a BBB and don't produce bile are not just false, but ludicrous.

If she was wrong about this (which she could be), it does not mean that in infants mercury is more difficult to excrete (which was her point), nor does it mean that her entire presentation is wrong.

Vaccines: Health Professionals Speak Out - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Out of curiosity, peacegirl, did you come up with the absurd claims that infants don't produce bile or have functioning blood-brain barriers all on your own, or did those claims originate with your sources?

If the former is the case, why are you lying about this when anyone who knows anything at all about the subject will instantly recognize the lie?

If the latter is the case, why aren't you concerned about the fact that your sources are outright lying to you -- something you could easily confirm with 30 seconds' worth of investigation?

Like I said, I don't know why she said this as a matter of fact. People can get their facts wrong, but this does not automatically negate the danger that mercury and squaline can pose to the central nervous system.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, it doesn't matter to you in the slightest that your sources are outright lying then. It doesn't matter to you in the slightest that they're making outrageous claims that anyone with any understanding of the subject matter will instantly recognize as not just false but ludicrously false.


Well, we couldn't ask for a clearer demonstration of your bias.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, it doesn't matter to you in the slightest that your sources are outright lying then. It doesn't matter to you in the slightest that they're making outrageous claims that anyone with any understanding of the subject matter will instantly recognize as not just false but ludicrously false.


Well, we couldn't ask for a clearer demonstration of your bias.

And what about yours? You don't think your sources are sometimes wrong or misleading? Your sources are not above reproach, so don't get on your high horse. There are very few longterm safety studies.

Are Vaccines Really Safe? - Dr Sherri Tenpenny DO...

&list=UUzkOm_hlVmMIBNDfeF7zeKQ

[The Lone Ranger]

You're telling that infants don't produce bile, and don't have a BBB? You made both of these claims, and I pointed out that they're demonstrably false -- indeed, ludicrous.

It's not opinion that these claims are false; it's an easily-demonstrated fact.


You're lying again, you know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're telling that infants don't produce bile, and don't have a BBB? You made both of these claims, and I pointed out that they're demonstrably false -- indeed, ludicrous.

It's not opinion that these claims are false; it's an easily-demonstrated fact.


You're lying again, you know.

Please stop it; I didn't make those claims. Whether or not infants produce bile is secondary to the valid findings that mercury and aluminum are still being used in vaccines, and pose a serious risk to infants and young children.

Autism, Vaccines, Mercury and the American...

&list=UUzkOm_hlVmMIBNDfeF7zeKQ

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, I don't know why she said this as a matter of fact. People can get their facts wrong, but this does not automatically negate the danger that mercury can pose (i.e., squaline) to the central nervous system.

Are you seriously equating Mercury compounds to Squalene? Do you even know what squalene is? Did you know that there are higher concentrations of squalene occurring naturally in the human body than in most vaccines where it was used.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, you're perfectly okay with using sources that openly lie in order to "support" their claims, then.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately these links do not come up, which is why parents have to make a concerted effort to search more deeply. It is not a fair playing field not because of a negative feedback loop but because mainstream medicine has a monopoly. They get front page news whether it's on television or on google.

You don't know how Google works.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many people, including many physicians, believe and will tell you “There is no mercury in vaccines anymore. They took that out years ago!” This is not true. (For a list of vaccines that still contain mercury above EPA safety levels click here.)

Many people, including physicians, will tell you “There is no thimerosal in the childhood vaccine schedule.” This statement, which is also not true, is often used by those who are attempting to make the claim that there is no link between autism and vaccines. These folks will frequently say things like, “They removed mercury from the shots and the autism rate has continued to go up! That proves vaccines don’t cause autism!”

Ummm….. No. and No.

Mercury and Aluminum in Vaccines: a Primer on NVIC’s Vaccine Ingredients Calculator | VaxTruth.org[/I]

The "list of vaccines" you can link to are some flu vaccines. Flu vaccine is not mandated for school attendance and there are mercury free versions available.

Thimerosal in Vaccines

So, have autism rates declined since 2000 when thimerosol was removed from vaccines?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you seriously equating Mercury compounds to Squalene? Do you even know what squalene is? Did you know that there are higher concentrations of squalene occurring naturally in the human body than in most vaccines where it was used.

I'm not equating one with the other.

According to Matsumoto, today, “Squalene adjuvants are a key ingredient in a whole new generation of vaccines intended for mass immunization around the globe” even though researchers at Tulane Medical School and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research proved “that the immune system responds specifically to the squalene molecule.”

The immune system “see(s) and recognizes it as an oil molecule native to the body. Squalene is not just a molecule found in a knee or elbow – it is found throughout the nervous system and the brain.” When injected in the body, the immune system attacks it as an enemy to be eliminated. Eating and digesting squalene isn’t a problem. But injecting it “galvanize(s) the immune system into attacking it, which can produce self-destructive cross reactions against the same molecule in the places where it occurs naturally in the body – and where it is critical to the health of the nervous system.”

Once self-destruction begins, it doesn’t stop as the body keeps making the molecule that the immune system is trained to attack and destroy.

Immunologist Dr. Bonnie Dunbar also did extensive research on hepatitis B-inflicted illnesses and found similar autoimmune processes involved in molecular mimicry in people with devastating neuroimmune syndromes after getting vaccine injections.

Matsumoto says “Squalene is a kind of trigger for (a) real biological weapon,” what Soviet researchers called “a biological time bomb!!” and Matsumoto says is “the immune system.” When its “full repertoire of cells and antibodies (attack) tissues they are supposed to protect, the results can be catastrophic.” He and Dr. Pam Asa conclude that “Oil adjuvants are the most insidious chemical weapon ever devised,” including ones with squalene – something the Soviets knew could be used as a weapon in the 1980s.

Matsumoto says that “the real problem with using squalene (isn’t) that it mimics a molecule found in the body; it is the same molecule. So what American scientists conceived as a vaccine booster (or what’s now being developed in labs) was another ‘nano-bomb,’ instigating chronic, unpredictable and debilitating disease. When the NIH….argued that squalene would be safe because it is native to the body, just the opposite was true,” and, of course, still is. “Squalene’s natural presence in the body made it one of the most dangerous molecules ever injected into man” and using it in vaccines is outlandish and criminal.

So why does Washington sanction its use? According to Matsumoto: “scientists in the United States are now literally invested in squalene. Army scientists who developed the second generation anthrax vaccine have reputations to protect and licensing fees to reap (as well as) worldwide rights to develop and commercialize the new recombinant vaccine for anthrax” and ones for other health threats.

Disturbingly, “Many of the cutting-edge vaccines currently in development by the NIH and its corporate partners contain squalene in one formulation or another. There is squalene in the prototype recombinant vaccines for HIV, malaria, herpes, influenza (including the swine strain), cytomegalovirus and human papillomavirus.” Some of these “are intended for mass immunization(s) around the globe” and that possibility should terrify everyone enough to refuse any mandate or doctor’s prescription to take them.

Another problem is that “Autoimmunity (takes) years to diagnose” because early symptoms (headaches, joint pain, etc.) are so vague they can easily be from other causes.

From inception, vaccines have always been dangerous enough for some experts to call them biological weapons undermining health, manipulating and crippling the immune system, and creating the possibility of future debilitating diseases. So Big Pharma’s solution is new, more potent genetically engineered vaccines and drugs that may end up harming or killing many who take them, especially people with weakened immune systems.

Readying Americans for Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations | Global Research

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The "list of vaccines" you can link to are some flu vaccines. Flu vaccine is not mandated for school attendance and there are mercury free versions available.

Thimerosal in Vaccines

So, have autism rates declined since 2000 when thimerosol was removed from vaccines?

There have been multiple instances of this claim and each time it has been proven false, right up to the recent lie that after thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 2001, autism rates continue to increase. These two claims, the first that thimerosal was removed from vaccines, and the second that autism rates have not gone down as a result, continue to be used to justify the injection of thimerosal into pregnant women and children with flu shots. The claims have also been used to justify the immunization of children in developing countries with vaccines preserved with thimerosal. Sadly, neither claim is any more truthful than previous equally erroneous claims, the earliest of which originated from Scandinavia, then spread to Canada and most recently came out of California.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fallacy.html

[LadyShea]

Flu shots are not mandated, and thimerosol free versions are available.

[LadyShea]

That article seems to be arguing for the fact that autism rates have not gone up since thimerosol removal.

Originally Posted by paper peacegirl linked to

(The claim is )that after thimerosal was reduced or eliminated from vaccines, autism rates continued to go up. There have been multiple instances of this claim and each time it has been proven false

But it seems you have been arguing that they have gone up in recent years. That paper wants to link thimerasol to autism, so does not want autism rates to have increased. OTOH it also tries to make a case that thimerosal has not been removed, therefore playing both sides...or hedging their bets.

Which is it? Have autism rates increased, decreased, or stayed steady since 2000? If they've decreased, is it due to the thimerosal removal? If they've increased, that indicates thimerosal is not related to autism, if they've stayed steady, again is would appear thimerosal and autism are unrelated. So what exactly is being argued by you, peacegirl?

Also, that paper flat out lies (surprise, surprise!)

Lie number 1

The paper by Stehr-Green et al., for example, purported to study autism rates in Sweden after thimerosal removal in 1993, but only hospitalizations in relation to autism were analyzed. Anyone remotely familiar with autism knows that it is not the kind of condition for which one would typically go to a hospital for treatment.

From the cited Stehr-Green P, study

Between the mid-1980s through the late-1990s, we compared the prevalence/incidence of autism in California, Sweden, and Denmark with average exposures to Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Graphic ecologic analyses were used to examine population-based data from the United States (national immunization coverage surveys and counts of children diagnosed with autism-like disorders seeking special education services in California); Sweden (national inpatient data on autism cases, national vaccination coverage levels, and information on use of all vaccines and vaccine-specific amounts of Thimerosal); and Denmark (national registry of inpatient/outpatient-diagnosed autism cases, national vaccination coverage levels, and information on use of all vaccines and vaccine-specific amounts of Thimerosal).

Where did this "hospitalization" nonsense come from?

From Denmark, a study of ALL children diagnosed with autism in a certain period

DESIGN:
Analysis of data from the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register recording all psychiatric admissions since 1971, and all outpatient contacts in psychiatric departments in Denmark since 1995.

PATIENTS:
All children between 2 and 10 years old who were diagnosed with autism during the period from 1971-2000.

OUTCOME MEASURES:
Annual and age-specific incidence for first day of first recorded admission with a diagnosis of autism in children between 2 and 10 years old.

RESULTS:
A total of 956 children with a male-to-female ratio of 3.5:1 had been diagnosed with autism during the period from 1971-2000. There was no trend toward an increase in the incidence of autism during that period when thimerosal was used in Denmark, up through 1990. From 1991 until 2000 the incidence increased and continued to rise after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, including increases among children born after the discontinuation of thimerosal.

CONCLUSIONS:
The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949291