I HAVE BEEN READING widely both the primary literature and policy statements on vaccine safety from US Government Agencies as part of the routine, due diligence required of objective scientist. It’s also par for the course for writing informative books. I would hate to think that I missed an important reference or source in any of my books. So I read on…
I have traced the ubiquitous “knowledge” that “vaccines do not cause autism” to the types of statements made by the US CDC. Perhaps in their quest to be clear, in their zeal to protect the population from contagious diseases, or perhaps because they have financial interests, the CDC loves to use black & white, unqualified statements.
Let’s look at three statements from the CDC website:
“Vaccines do not cause autism”
“There is no link between vaccines and autism.”
“Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism.”
The issue with these statement are that they are unqualified – meaning that they do not contain any qualifiers. Universal statements such as “never” and “always” are extremely rare in science and biomedicine. We tend to hedge, using terms like “some”, and “may”, and “sometimes”, and for good reason. It’s the exceptions that count.
I am about to share with you information – certainly not new here, just ignored widely – that proves that these unqualified statements are wrong, misleading, and contribute to widespread ignorance on vaccine safety.
(1) The Special Masters court has found, and has made awards for damages, on repeated instances that vaccines have lead to neurological injuries that the Court has, in some cases, recognized as “autism”. Two especially clear cases are Bailey Banks, who the court decided developed ADEM, leading to PPD-NOS (a type of autism), leading to an award of over $800,000, and Hanah Poling, whose family awarded $1.5 million for vaccine-induced autism. Other cases of vaccine induced neurological injuries leading to award include Eric Lassiter (diagnosed with autism), Elias Tembenis (PDD-NOS ), and Ryan Mojabi (diagnosed with autism, asthma and encephalopathy) and Richelle Oxley (encephalopathy).
(2) The CDC cites many studies that add to the conclusion that ‘vaccines do not cause autism’.
However, a 2012 National Academy of Science/Institutes of Medicine
report rejected 17/22 studies cited by the CDC as “flawed”.
The CDC continues to cite these studies, standing by them, and the policies upon which they are based, as if the National Academy of Sciences does not exist.
One of the studies was identified as a product of scientific fraud
by CDC Whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who also pointed to numerous other studies were data were over-cooked. I’ve read the papers. Yes, they are over-cooked. See “Vaccine Whistleblower, Skyhorse Publishing ” for the full transcripts. They are jaw-dropping
The fact that the CDC continues to make unqualified statements, misleading the public, show their contempt of the Special Master’s Court position on these cases, reveals willful use of misstatements designed to misinform the public. As a result, the CDC can be considered liable for injuries caused by vaccines that could have been prevented if they did not mislead the public. Perhaps individuals would have taken a different path. Perhaps research would have moved forward to make vaccines safer.
(3) When the CDC is not involved , the scientific and biomedical research is clear: at least one mechanism by which autism can be caused by vaccines has been established: macrophages pick up neurotoxins (such as mercury and aluminum) and deposit them in organs, including the brain. There, these toxins can act, in some people, to cause hyperactivation of microglial cells.
These cells usually clean up cellular debris, and act to prune weak dendrites. When hyperactivated, they tend to go after any dendrites, over-pruning, leading to hypoconnectivity. This causes the release of cytokines, leading to cell death apoptosis. Cytokines cause microglial cells to remain in the hyperctivated state, and a positive feedback loop is established. The immediate result is inflammation and encephalopathy. Importantly, this mechanism does not necessarily involve the recruitment of peripheral immune cells. The long-term effect are major developmental issues, in a variety of regions in the brain.
And the effects can vary from person to person. People with mutations in genes that encode protein involved in the cell’s normal detoxification pathways may suffer more severe damage (due to slower clearance).
The peer-reviewed published evidence for this mechanism will be reviewed & presented, with citations, in my book, “Genetic and Environmental Causes of Autism”.
We scientists have a responsibility to inform the public. I take that responsibility seriously. People who repeat unqualified claims such as those made by the CDC are spreading misinformation.
The important question is: how can we tell who will likely suffer this
To begin with, we know that families with one autistic member are likely to have a second. That is, the risk of autism is higher for new babies born to autistic families. This implies a genetic risk. The CDC and the FDA should be saying that vaccines are contraindicated both for people with autism, and for people with siblings who have autism.
Also, many genes are being found that contribute to autism risk. An era of research in identifying biomarkers that can predict adverse neurological reactions to vaccines is needed, and it was needed ten years ago. Because the CDC is misleading the American public, no such initiative is deemed necessary. This must change.
The first step is for the CDC to add qualifiers to their public statements, such as “may” and “in some people”. Perhaps:
“Vaccines have been shown to induce autism in some people”, or
“Vaccines may cause autism in some people”
are accurate, factual statements, backed by science, and backed by the US legal system.
Help bring the truth out. Please see this initiative and donate today!
Dec 6, 2015
New Books Released 2016 – Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research (World Scientific (323 pages).
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of AutismThe Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)
I hope you will read Dr Humphries book, Dissolving Illusions. Its a superb work, including an excellent list of references.
For someone claiming to be an objective scientist, you take liberties in your “facts”. You write: “Hanah Poling, whose family awarded $1.5 million for vaccine-induced autism.” Yet, the actual decision states: “In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.” “Feature of autism spectrum disorder” is NOT autism! I can say someone has flu-like symptoms; but they can, indeed, be caused by the flu virus; but also other viruses, bacteria, chemical toxins, radiation, etc. Hahah Poling did NOT receive a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder! Same problem with Bailey Banks.
As for “However, a 2012 National Academy of Science/Institutes of Medicine report rejected 17/22 studies cited by the CDC as “flawed”.” So, five of the studies weren’t flawed! And, having spent my entire life learning various research methods, I doubt there is a study outside of stringent controlled lab studies that one can’t find flaws. However, if “flawed” studies based on various methodologies, different study populations, different researchers, different cultures, arrive at the same conclusion, if you read the book by Susser, they would be strong evidence. Only if all the “flawed” studies had the same flaw would there be a problem. If they had different flaws, that is alternative hypothetical explanations, it would be highly unlikely that the different flaws would affect the outcomes in the same way.
The IOM report states: “The framework allows the committee to “favor rejection” of a causal relationship only in the face of epidemiologic evidence rated as high or moderate in the direction of no effect (the null) or of decreased risk and in the absence of strong or intermediate mechanistic evidence in support of a causal relationship.” Then goes on to reject mmr as cause of autism. Then goes on: “The committee has a high degree of confidence in the epidemiologic evidence based on four studies with validity and precision to assess an association between MMR vaccine and autism; these studies consistently report a null association.”
So, why did you ignore the committees findings and emphasize the flawed studies rather than those used by the committee? And why did you claim the two cases had a finding of autism when they did NOT? Seems like you are not being objective at all.
Poling already had a dx of autism. The court does not issue diagnoses. They issue awards. Autism-like features of her diagnosis of autism… Seems redundant to my understanding of logic.
In reporting that 17/22 were rejected by the IOM/NAS, it implies the other 5 were not rejected. I thought that was obvious. However…
Odd that you would jump on my “not citing” the 5 not rejected, but gloss over the stunning fact that…
17/22 studies cited by the CDC were rejected by the National Academy of Science/
Institutes of Medicine.
Stunning to me that you would gloss over the fact that CDC continued to cite those
17 flawed studies each and every time they reported that there were “dozens” of studies…
Stunning to me that you would write these studies a permission slip to be flawed
because most epi studies are flawed, rather than demand a higher level of evidence- and
better science – in the study of the safety of vaccines….
The paragraph in which the NAS/IOM turfs 17/22 (77.3%) of the studies pointed to by the CDC
as demonstrating no effect, studies the CDC stands by even to this day, one of which Thompson
specifically singled out as the cause of the greatest shame in his life…
I choose not to focus on the 5 studies at this time – the CDC has done enough of that for all of us. it is logical for me to point out the 17 as flawed because the CDC has not really acted as though the respect the opinion of the NAS/IOM enough to take concern.
When a house is on fire, you focus on the part that is on fire, not the part that is not.
And when 77.3% of the house in on fire, you don’t make excuses. You focus on the 77.3% and get to work fixing what’s wrong. You don’t point at the remaining 23% of the house and act as though everything is fine.
“The committee reviewed 22 studies to evaluate the risk of autism after the administration of MMR vaccine. Twelve studies (Chen et al., 2004; Dales et al., 2001; Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001; Fombonne et al., 2006; Geier and Geier, 2004; Honda et al., 2005; Kaye et al., 2001; Makela
et al., 2002; Mrozek-Budzyn and Kieltyka, 2008; Steffenburg et al., 2003; Takahashi et al., 2001, 2003) were not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because they provided data from a passive surveillance system lacking an unvaccinated comparison population or an ecological comparison study lacking individual-level data. Five controlled studies (DeStefano et al., 2004; Richler et al., 2006; Schultz et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2002; Uchiyama et al., 2007) had very serious methodological limitations that precluded their inclusion in this assessment. Taylor et al. (2002) inadequately described the data analysis used to compare autism compounded by serious bowel
problems or regression (cases) with autism free of such problems (controls).
DeStefano et al. (2004) and Uchiyama et al. (2007) did not provide sufficient data on whether autism onset or diagnosis preceded or followed MMR vaccination. The study by Richler et al. (2006) had the potential for recall bias since the age at autism onset was determined using parental interviews, and
their data analysis appeared to ignore pair-matching of cases and controls, which could have biased their findings toward the null. Schultz et al. (2008) conducted an Internet-based case-control study and excluded many participants due to missing survey data, which increased the potential for selection
and information bias.
The five remaining controlled studies (Farrington et al., 2001; Madsen et al., 2002; Mrozek-Budzyn et al., 2010; Smeeth et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 1999) contributed to the weight of epidemiologic evidence and are described below”
I could dive into the flaws of Madsen et al. especially. Others have already done so:
I am the one saying “We have to take a balanced approach” and you criticize me for not highlighting a minority of studies. Remember, the null result is not positive evidence. I assure you will learn more about the poor practices of the CDC in “Vaccine Whistleblower” than you may care to know.
You write: “I am the one saying “We have to take a balanced approach” and you criticize me for not highlighting a minority of studies. Remember, the null result is not positive evidence. I assure you will learn more about the poor practices of the CDC in “Vaccine Whistleblower” than you may care to know.”
Given that you read in the book that Hooker got his data from Thompson which is NOT true, I would be willing to bet there are other such errors. As I wrote, Thompson was venting, for reasons unknown, and quite likely added and embellished, NOT knowing that Hooker is so unethical as to be recording the conversations. Had he done so in California he would have committed a felony. Both parties must agree to a recording.
As I also wrote, all studies have flaws. While the IOM chose to use extremely stringent criteria, books, such as Susser’s, look at many studies. If poorly done studies with various flaws find the same results then they contribute to a “causal” interpretation. You apparently totally lack any understanding of how one makes causal arguments. Too bad since they have been around since John Stuart Mill wrote about them around 1850. The CDC does list the weaker studies; but only together with the stronger one.
As for “the null result is not positive evidence,” typical antivaccinationist. When a study says “no evidence of harm” they interpret that to mean there could be, just wasn’t found. Well, there is NO evidence that the laws of gravity don’t apply everywhere; but, since no one has traversed every square foot of planet Earth, there could be some place where a confluence of cosmic forces negate gravity. Just saying; but I will go along with “no evidence.” If one were to use such an approach in general, then we would NEVER act on any science and just go off and do whatever suits us.
While I would be willing to read your book on Ebola, if your display of reasoning is not just as an antivaccinationist; but your overall modus operandi, it will probably be a waste of my time.
No, she was NEVER officially diagnosed with autism or autism spectrum disorder. Dr Zimmerman: “diagnosed CHILD with ‘regressive encephalopathy with features consistent with an autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.'” “CHILD was evaluated by Alice Kau and Kelley Duff, on May 16, 2001, at CARDS. Pet. Ex. 25 at 17. The clinicians concluded that CHILD was developmentally delayed and demonstrated features of autistic disorder. Id. at 22.” “Features consistent with” and “features of” are NOT the same as a diagnosis of autism. The above are the diagnoses she received prior to the court and the court did have an evaluation carried out of her condition which is included in the record. Twist it as much as you like; but she was NOT diagnosed. I repeat, flu-like symptoms is NOT a diagnosis of flu. In fact, it might not even include ALL the usual symptoms of flu; but only some.
And, again, why did you emphasize the IOM finding of flaws in studies and ignore that they considered several of the studies to be well done and concluded there was NO association?
I guess your understanding of logic and mine differ. Mine is based on a formal undergraduate course in logic, three graduate courses in the Philosophy of Science, dozens of courses in research methodology, dozens of courses in statistics, and a persona interest in questions of how we know things and make decisions (though I had two graduate courses in Medical Decision Theory as well).
It is so obvious that you go out of your way to put a negative spin on anything and anyone supporting vaccines and not on those anti such as Kennedy. His book is so flawed that my problem in reviewing it is I’d have to write a paper almost as long as the book, so I am, instead, trying to decide on focusing on just a few sections as illustrative.
As I wrote in a previous comment, you are obviously intelligent and well-educated (I look forward to your posting your CV); but, for whatever reason, you are against vaccines or the establishment, and this filters how you read things and write about them. I gave you a list of books critical of the pharmaceutical industry which you thanked me for; but it appears you had NOT read them? So, given they have been around for some time, I wonder how well you researched your upcoming book?
However, despite your biased filtered approach to vaccines, on other topics you may be quite good which is why I’d like to read your book on Ebola. As opposed to many, I do not see people as unidimensional. So, someone can be accurate/objective in one sphere; but not another. I don’t have time to elaborate; but if your book on Ebola is any good, I’d welcome learning more about it.
Wordsmithing a way around the obvious. All expressive language was lost by 22 Mos. Gaze avoidance. Spinning. Perseveration. If you want to play games, fine. I prefer to see it for what it is. She was referred to an intervention program for autism.. What more do you need? Can use offer another real diagnosis that does not end on `itis’
Ever heard of Rett Syndrome? Just one example. “Wordsmithing a way around the obvious.” Is that how you define variables in your research, not based on clear procedures and objective criteria/tests?
One other thing. I disagree with the Special Master awarding her money. There are four categories of possible outcomes in a court case, one is “precipitated something that would have eventually occurred otherwise.” She had an underlying mitochondrial disorder which was why she was behind in her shots, she had had numerous problems, including ear infections. While the catch-up shots may have hastened her encephalopathy, what would have happened if instead of the shots she had caught the flu or, perhaps, a case of food poisoning, both more taxing on her mitochondria than the vaccines? What would have happened is she would have been a child with special needs and her family would be up the creek without a panel. I would be willing to bet that subconsciously the Special Master included compassion in his decision.
For the past 25 years I have been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program advocating for a non-profit single payer health care system that covers everything from medical to dental to home health care and nursing homes. Almost every other civilized industrialized nation has some variant. I did my doctorate in Sweden. Friends of mine had kids with special needs and got extensive help without copays or deductibles, including once every quarter three days where a trained communal person stayed at their home so they could go on vacation or just chill out, so-called respite care.
Besides my expertise in public health, etc. I am quite knowledgeable about health economics and health care systems. I have dozen books on Swedish health care system, some in Swedish, several on French system, including one in French, etc. and have read books on the health care systems of probably 15 countries and if you go to http://www.phnp.org you will find a section with international comparative studies of health outcomes and we rank poorly despite having the most expensive system by far.
While Hannah Poling succeeded in the Vaccine Court, what happens to all the other good families with special needs children not even remotely related to a vaccine. Again, if the vaccines overtaxed Hannah Poling then her condition was just waiting to happen. Virtually impossible to not be exposed to something. And if we didn’t have vaccines, then a hell of a lot more children with mitochondrial disorders would get some and possibly all of the today vaccine-preventable diseases and more would end up like Poling. Helping families with special needs children should NOT be a crapshoot of whether they had recently been vaccinated or not. With that said, of course, if the vaccine “caused” something that would NOT have occurred at all, then the Court has its place. Nothing devised by humans is perfect regardless of how beneficial. In a world of over six billion, someone is bound to react adversely to just about anything.
Since you claimed Poling was diagnosed with autism and she wasn’t. Since you claimed Paul Offit voted for his own vaccine and he didn’t. Since you claim that Hooker got the electronic file from Thompson and he didn’t. Since you don’t seem to understand the basics of “causal” decisions, etc. Since you wrote that the reference list of aluminum studies was included with the article; but now claim to have 400 where the article only listed 9, it is obvious that you are not worth exchanging thoughts with. You either ignore what I write or change the criteria. So, if the book on the Whistleblower actually arrives I’ll eventually read it and if I find anything that seems valid, so be it; but I suspect I won’t. If your book on Ebola gets sent, I will read it and, hopefully, my belief that people aren’t unidimensional will prove true and it will be more scientific, logical, and honest than your approach to vaccines and the CDC.
One last thing. I have known many who work at the CDC and public health departments and all who I have known, myself included, have vaccinated themselves and their kids without hesitation. Do you really believe they are either stupid or willing to sacrifice themselves and their own children if they didn’t believe vaccines beneficial?
Or ‘pathy’ ?
And let me ask you – do you, independent of the Vaccine Court’s verbal meandering, personally believe Hannah Poling has autism? Please do not beg the question by stating you’re not a physician. In your own opinion, knowing what you know, do you believe she has autism? Choose DSM-V or DSM-IV, either one. Just want to know where you believe she falls on the spectrum, if at all.
She was referred to a program for autism. Are you nuts! An autism diagnosis involves several instruments and experience. What people believe is NOT the same thing as an accurate diagnosis. Years ago I read of a woman that spent her entire life in an institution for mentally retarded. Turns out she was deaf. That may be an extreme example; but all the same. What do I believe? Irrelevant. You made the claim that she was diagnosed such and you were wrong. Don’t throw things back at me. Do you really have a PhD? Hard to believe that any research you conduct would allow such nebulous definitions as to what someone believes, unless it is a study of peoples’ belief systems.
Apparently, you are INCAPABLE of admitting you are wrong about anything, e.g. Offit voting for his own vaccine, Hannah Poling’s diagnosis, etc
I concede that Offit did not vote for his specific vaccine. He still voted to get vaccination for the disease added to the schedule. And your opinion really does matter. Or are you happy to let a court decide the nature of disease in humans?
Do I have a PhD? Why yes, and an undergraduate in biology, and a Master’s in Zoology, and plenty of courses in statistics. But even I didn’t it would not make Hanah’s condition ‘not autism’, and it would not dispense with Offut’s conflict of interest. Big you are done with ad hominem attacks, I can continue. Otherwise I will return to reading the thousands of studies the CDC has ignored, and continue analyzing and summarizing them in my book. I will say this: Offit could have and should have recused himself. And he certainly should not lead people to think vaccines are 100% safe. That is irresponsible and is preventing much needed research on risk biomarkers and thwarting any perception of the need for safer vaccines.
“Nuts” is not a very relevant question, given the description of the patient in her case study:
“Within 48 hours after immunizations to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; Haemophilus influenzae B; measles, mumps, and rubella; polio; and varicella (Varivax), the patient developed a fever to 38.9°C, inconsolable crying, irritability, and lethargy and refused to walk. Four days later, the patient was waking up multiple times in the night, having episodes of opistho-tonus, and could no longer normally climb stairs. Instead, she crawled up and down the stairs. Low-grade intermittent fever was noted for the next 12 days. Ten days following immunization, the patient developed a generalized erythematous macular rash beginning in the abdomen. The patient’s pediatrician diagnosed this as due to varicella vaccination. For 3 months, the patient was irritable and increasingly less responsive verbally, after which the patient’s family noted clear autistic behaviors, such as spinning, gaze avoidance, disrupted sleep/wake cycle, and perseveration on specific television programs. All expressive language was lost by 22 months. The patient continued to have chronic yellow watery diarrhea intermittently for 6 months, which was evaluated with negative testing for Clostridium difficile, ova/parasites, and culture. Four months later, an evaluation with the Infant and Toddlers Early Intervention program for possible autism was initiated. Along with the regression, her appetite remained poor for 6 months and her body weight did not increase. This resulted in a decline on a standard growth chart for weight from the 97th to the 75th percentile.”
I am well aware of DSM-V, the changes from DSM-IV, and have in fact written a chapter on differential dx of autism. Your opinion on her dx is not irrelevant, in fact it is quite germane to the issue, and where you stand of the importance of the Special Master’s logical strain around findings and awards due to autism. So I ask you again: given what you know, do you, yourself, personally think Hanah Poling deserved a dx of autism/ASD? Yes or no?
Yes I know about Rett syndrome – and the criteria for differential diagnosis. And I know cases of autism misdiagnosed as Rhett – people without the molecular basis
Rather than answer my questions, you want to play on about what I have said that you think is incorrect. Which electronic file did I say Hooker got from Thompson? I said Thompson kept electronic copies because Thompson said he did. Thompson also alludes to sending command files for a statistical package so Hooker can replicate the results. I really think it’s best that we pause until you read the full interchange. Have you listened to Posey’s speech where he described that Thompson told him that they sat around a big garbage can and threw out data, and how Thompson kept electronic copies because he was concerned of the legality of destroying the data…. You will see for yourself in the book. Then, if you think Thompson was making it all up, you will need a good motive…
You wrote: “Thompson kept electronic copies because he was concerned of the legality of destroying the data” Did he really NOT know that the CDC maintained the electronic files? He worked there for many years. Since they did keep the files and since Hooker got them from them and they even explain online that the files are available, don’t you wonder why Thompson would claim what he claimed? Sounds like a credibility gap to me whatever the motive! As for destroying the print-outs relating to Afro-Americans, even though they actually did include Afro-Americans in their paper; but just the small n of Afro-American boys, given the the electronic data was available for others to analyze it, do you really think that CDC so stupid as to destroy some print-outs when anyone could re-run the analysis?
You choose to believe Thompson because you want to believe him. According to the book, at least what you claim it said, Thompson claimed he gave the electronic data to Hooker even though Hooker wrote in the article he got it from the CDC and the CDC offers it online. Thompson claims he retained the electronic files to he was worried about the legality of destroying data; yet it wasn’t destroyed and a long time employee should have known that. I’ll read the book; but so far Thompson lacks any credibility. Did you read the article by David Gorski that I gave you URL to? I doubt it.
And if you really have 400 articles on aluminum as toxin, get it to me. You sound like Joe McCarthy always claiming he had list of communists working in government; but no one ever saw the list.
You cannot resist trying to paint me as someone who can be easily dismissed. “You sound like Joe McCarthy…”
No, Josh, here I did the pubmed search for you. As of today, it returns 398 studies and papers on aluminum neurotoxicity.
My book ‘Cures vs Profits’ was started as a way to share the POSITIVE things about biomedical research. And I found a lot. Where I ran into unethical practices included the full story of ADHD diagnosis, and vaccines. My first draft of the vaccine chapter was focused on their benefits. And it still is. I am not antiestablishment. I am pro-truth. Since the bulk of the studies that have looked at aluminum neurotoxicity have found it to be dangerous, someone like Offit who is so flip about it in his book could be labeled anti-establishment. I Tha ked you for your references, they may well be interesting. My book is a fresh look, goes deep into peer reviewed literature, and includes expert interviews. Both ‘Cures’ and ‘Ebola’ are steeped with references. I will be posting the Front Matter and Appendix to ‘Cures’ . The first Chapter to ‘Ebola’ is available online at World Scientific.
You write: “And he certainly should not lead people to think vaccines are 100% safe.” I have read numerous articles and all of Offit’s books. No where does he claim vaccines are “100% safe.” Maybe you can find one time somewhere; but I haven’t seen it and I go by all of his books and articles. However, he does state that the risks of serious adverse events are rare, though they do exist, especially compared with the risks from the natural diseases. And, if you read the book he edited, Vaccines, there are lots of discussions of approaches to improve both the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Maybe you’ve never heard the saying, “don’t sacrifice the good for the perfect.”
I wonder what you would be stating if vaccines didn’t exist, if smallpox and diphtheria were endemic diseases. Then maybe you wouldn’t find the few cases of serious adverse events. Smallpox vaccine was the absolute worst, some deaths and cases of generalized and progressive vaccinia; but a few dozen such cases compared to millions of deaths had a vaccine not existed. Which would you choose?
As for looking for biomarkers, what planet are you on? There is tons of research looking at genetic arrays, at epigenetics and at environmental factors, e.g. pesticides, etc.
And I really don’t care what Posey says and I certainly don’t automatically believe everything Thompson says.
Why is it you choose to believe Thompson; but also believe that the many researchers at the CDC, in Denmark, UK, Sweden, etc. are all corrupt?
This is getting NOWHERE. If you want me to read your book on Ebola, send it c/o ECBT and I will read it. If I find it good, I will say so; but if it displays the same lack of scholarship shown on these pages, I will also say so.
You asked “Can use offer another real diagnosis that does not end on `itis’”
I answered Rett’s Syndrome.
Your response: “Yes I know about Rett syndrome – and the criteria for differential diagnosis. And I know cases of autism misdiagnosed as Rhett – people without the molecular basis”
A perfect example of your one-sided bias. Yes, it is possible that a child has been diagnosed with Rett Syndrome who may actually be autistic; but IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT A CHILD WITH RETT SYNDROME COULD BE DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM. You obviously want as many cases of autism as possible. A very one-sided response.
And, just for fun, another diagnosis that can be confused with autism, Landau–Kleffner syndrome, which several experts believe would be a more appropriate diagnosis for Jenny McCarthy’s son, Evan.
Hanah did not have Rett’s – that requires a mutation in the MECP2 gene.
Do you know about Dr. Zimmerman? In his opinion Hanah had autism:
“In a court-submitted opinion, neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, Director of Medical Research at the Kennedy Krieger Institute, stated that he had “personally witnessed [Hannah’s] developmental regression” following “vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation.”
Zimmerman concluded that Hannah was vulnerable to vaccine injury because she had a metabolic disorder called mitochondrial dysfunction. While vaccines are safe for most children, in Hannah, they triggered a brain injury, according to Zimmerman.
Whether vaccines “caused” or “triggered” Hannah’s autism, the result was the same: but for her vaccinations, Zimmerman said, “Hannah may have led a normal full productive life.” Instead, she suffers “significant lifelong disability.””
Then enter the evolutionary biology perspective. Humans have been around in our modern form for something like 200,000 years. The pediatric vaccine schedule that we believe – given the balance of the evidence in the literature the CDC does not cite – causes autism was kicked into place in 1984. That’s merely decades. (Dose, man, dose. Please do not remind me of the origins and history of vaccines, that is in my chapter in “Cures”. I add this due your penchant for accusing others of not knowing something because they did not say it). Decades of exposure to a man-made substance vs. a genome that is, for our species, 200,000 years old. Do a root cause analysis. We never had 2% autism/ASD. Bring there are common variants that contribute risk segregating in the population, not doing harm, not to Hanah’s parents, not to many. They are just fine. So what’s the primary cause? You studied logic. Because Hanah very likely would have never developed autism without the excessive number of vaccines that day, the vaccines provided the necessary and sufficient conditions for autism.
There are de novo variations as well, of course, but mutations of the type that Hanah’s had in her mitochrondrial genome occurs in many people. Should we continue to simply say “Oh, vaccinate everyone! Vaccines are fine. Vaccines do not cause autism” or, Josh, should we encourage people to get tested for Hanah’s types of mutations, and the many, many other types of mutations that exist in their genomes first… before vaccines… before we ADD vaccines to their environment?
To me, and to many, many others, the logic is clear: In hiding results that show that vaccines can cause autism in some people (as admitted by Thompson, and DeStefano admitted the omission occurred, as well) and by burying and hiding positive associations with statistical overcooking in other studies, the CDC prevented society from raising the alarm bell so we could demand cleaner vaccines. So the NIH would know that the research to be done to bring about biomarkers for vaccine-induced autism risk could get done. None of that important work got done, Josh, so people like Hanah can avoid vaccine- induced (directly, or indirectly, take your pick) autism.
You are so certain that the book you sent me represents a valid depiction of what that transpired with NO indication that you would even consider it problematic. I suggested you read an article by David Gorski. Below are some excerpts from his article, from an article by Doris Rubinstein Reiss, a professor of law, and URLs to two article by Matt Carey that partly discuss Thompson’s motivation. If you consider yourself at all open-minded, a legitimate scientist, you should at least read them carefully.
Posey quoting Thompson: “All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September ’02 not to report any race effects for the paper.” This statement doesn’t appear in book Vaccine Whistleblower.
RFK, Jr. states in his foreword that there were “over thirty conversations with Hooker” in which “Thompson disclosed in great detail the CDC’s tricks for executing the fraud.” So why were just these four chosen for publication in Vaccine Whistleblower?
Interestingly, despite Rep. Posey’s use of an alleged quote by Thompson accusing his co-authors on DeStefano et al. of destroying data, no such statement is found in the book.
If you read Gorski’s article, he quotes that Thompson claimed he became delusional due to what happened with the paper. Whatever triggered his delusions, where is the evidence they did not persist in his taped discussions with Hooker?
As Gorski wrote: “I have no idea what Thompson’s mental state was or is (and deem it irrelevant for the purpose of assessing his veracity and credibility), but it’s odd that he fears that the CDC might paint him as mentally ill to discredit him but willingly cozied up to people who have already painted him as mentally ill when it suited their purpose.”
Dorit Reiss wrote another article where she wrote: “It is not clear why Thompson became concerned enough to reach out in 2013 about a paper that had been published almost a decade previously.” Available at: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/review-of-vaccine-whistleblower-a-legal-perspective/
if Dr. Thompson’s goal was to correct wrongdoing, his choice of channel to correct it was strange, to say the least. According to the transcripts, Dr. Thompson only hired legal representation in May 2014, when the possibility of his involvement becoming public was raised (p. 24, chapter 3). So he didn’t have the benefit of legal counsel when he decided to call Dr. Hooker initially. (ibid)
See also two articles by Matt Carey that discuss possible “motivations.” Available at: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/08/24/the-brian-hookerwilliam-thompson-conversations/
First, Matt Carey has already proven himself incapable of sustaining an actual intellectual debate or consideration of opposing views. His forum is cast as the sole voice of reason, and he and his associates resort to ad hominem attacks galore at the first sign of headway made toward reason. So, no thank you. If you look around my blog, you will see where he and his flopped miserable on level headedness and reason, calling my credential out, ridiculing me for having them, wondering if I failed a bid for tenure (I did not, I opted to become Senior Research Scientist and head up Bioinformatics Core, my idea, my proposal)… all of which is telling to their agenda, but otherwise irrelevant to the neurotoxicity of aluminum and how it activates microglia, which eat growing dendrites and neural precursor cells, and thus, autism.
I would prefer if you read the book yourself, rather than take others’ turn-around and denials. The question of willful omission of the African american male result is not in question; the CDC issued a statement admitting the omission; then there is DeStefano’s admission to Sharyl Atkisson; and then, the obvious: the result is no where to be seen in the DeStefano et al. (2014) paper, or in presentations team members were giving at the time. However, the other subgroup analyses were in fact included.
I had hoped you would turn out to be a person who would take a person’s word for it if they admitted wrongdoing. Thompson came out to Hooker because he knew Hooker would find the result. He felt at unease about it, and wanted to clear his conscience. Read the book I sent, you’ll see.
Regarding Thompson’s mental state. I really cannot believe that you went there. There are legal restrictions on the CDC releasing any information on the health (mental or otherwise). See for example, HIPAA Privacy. It is really in poor taste to draw in to question Thompson’s mental state – quite distateful indeed – and all of the evidence points to what you call his ‘delusions’ as real. All I will say is this: who could blame the guy for having a mental break-down (his words, Read The Book) over the decades of stress of knowing (his words, RTB) that their decision to exclude results from the African american subgroup analysis – and their failure to mention the near-significance of idiopathic autism (RTB) caused him great anxiety, stress and guilt. His co-workers put him, and others in that position. He names names (RTB). So what did I do, take his word for it? No, I read the studies that he mentioned, and found the evidence therein. Just as he said, no African american result. No mention of the near-significance in idiopathic autism. Then, in other studies, I saw how the introduced many redundant variables to eat up all of the variance, leaving nothing in the results – multicollinear variable treated as independent in such models does what?
Model overfit. Variables such as mother’s age and income (functionally correlated), mother’s income and birth weight (correlated) , gestational age and birth weight (correlated)…. these are not control variables when used this way, especially given that in the initial analysis, there was a strong association. Plus, no mention of interaction terms. Sorry, they are not fooling anyone. You and I would be hung for such shamwizardry.
Some of the others you have mentioned have proven themselves incapable of actually giving the issue its due consideration. I mean, anyone who sets out on a journey of understanding to prove the other side wrong is biased, right?
I am not trying to prove anyone wrong. Or right. I am reporting facts, such as the fact that the CDC has ignored most of the literature (thousands of studies) and cite their own. There are at least 20 human studies that I have found that show association of autism with vaccines, or otherwise strongly implicate vaccines as a source of neurotoxins, changes in gene expression, etc. The fact that they ignore any and all evidence in their public policy statements means they are misinforming the publich.
I’ve sent you the book. Once you read it, let’s chat more here. Back to writing my book on the Genetics and Environmental Causes of Autism so the public can learn about the rest of the evidence.
PS When I write a biased book, I call it biased in the preface (I did so for “Ebola”). There will be no need for you to prove that my book is biased. To balance the general knowledge, I will spend most of my time reviewing studies of the contribution of genes and environment to autism. I let the chips fall where they may. One, perhaps two chapters, will be obviously biased – there re enough people giving the CDC accolades for their poor excuses of objective studies. Not only do you know that epidemiological studies are weak, you also know that the CDC has said that no further studies are needed. This is unprecendented in science, and thankfully, the rest of the world (including NIH-funded researchers ) have gone right ahead, independent of the CDC and produces a massive amount of knowledge I can’t wait to share.
Did you know that the links you give for sciencebasedmedicine.org are all dead?
You asked me what I knew, I told you. People walking around with no MECP mutations diagnosed with Rett, instead of autism. Of course autism misdiagnosis can occur, as well, but you didn’t asked about that. I know many other things, too; simply because I did not mention them in a reply on the internet to you does not make me biased. Your logic in this case is unsound.
I NEVER said the CDC released information on Thompson’s mental state. It is Hooker and Thompson’s own statements. You have decided that Matt Carey is not worth reading. As I wrote several times, people are NOT unidimensional. Matt Carey mentions statements made by Thompson. And Gorski mentions the book is based on only 4 discussions of 30. Attacking Carey rather than reading his articles and addressing what he actually said is piss poor scholarship and science. It is using an ad hominem attack, both illegitimate, and an indication of an inability to actually enter into a rational scholarly scientific civil dialogue.
And it was you who asked me if I could come up with another diagnosis. I gave Rett’s and you immediately jumped to claim it could be a mistaken diagnosis for autism. You could have said could go either way; but you didn’t!
As for your claim: ” Not only do you know that epidemiological studies are weak, you also know that the CDC has said that no further studies are needed.” Yikes! As even you admitted, the stringent criteria used by the IOM in their report found four studies and, as I pointed out, causal analysis is NOT dependent on a couple of studies; but on numerous studies done by different researchers on different populations, etc. Your absolute ignorance of causal analysis going back to the 1840s and John Stuart Mill is telling. And, while the CDC has decided not to conduct more studies, they are being conducted around the world and reported. The CDC has limited funding. While antivaccinationists like you would like them to basically spend a large part of their budget on what you deem important, the world doesn’t center on your beliefs.
I said I will read the book when it arrives (ECBT is closed over the vacation and will forward it to me after New Years); but given how you continuously twist what I say, refuse to actually read things and address points made in them instead of attacking the source, you really are pathetic.
As for CDC admitting they discarded some analyses, as I’ve pointed out, they include a race analysis in their table of the 2004 article. To which you said the Hooker article with only 5 in a cell wasn’t that much less than their analyses; but I pointed out their smallest cell had 49. Not close to 5 and Hooker needed to change the age range to even get that. You want so much to believe it that you ignore the obvious.In addition, as I wrote earlier, if one believes Thompson, then mmr is safe for everyone except Afro-American boys 18-36 months, so why aren’t you saying so. If one believes Thompson, then we should vaccinate ALL children and delay until after 36 months vaccinations for Afro-American boys.
And you harp on how many studies the CDC lists; but ignore that they hyperlink to the IOM reports that are comprehensive. Listing the same studies would be redundant. And I’ve seen many of the studies you claim show an association and their methodology, etc. is highly questionable.
The fact that you list Kennedy’s book with is filled with poor science says a lot. As I wrote earlier, I will review his book; but I am working on several other papers just now. Though I believe people are multidimensional, I’m beginning to wonder if you are more like Linus Pauling who as a young scientist won a Nobel Prize in chemistry; but later in life advocated for massive doses of vitamin C to cure colds, cancer, and just about everything else despite massive evidence against and the fact that such high doses can affect electrolyte balance and tax the kidneys. Maybe at one time you were a good scientist; but like Pauling, something happened???
Try reading Susser’s book that I suggested and Rothman’s. Maybe you will learn something; but I doubt it.
Actually, I’m an independent thinker, and i don’t stop at “believing” Thompson. If you re-interpret the published results from numerous, and take the omitted results into consideration, which covariates appeared to eat the significance, the CDC’s studies appear to point to low-birthweight, malnourished infants at being of higher risk of neuroxicity from vaccines, which, given the body weight/dose/toxicity relationship, makes sense. Which babies do you suppose had the best nutrition? Do you think it would be the African american kids born to young mothers? You know, the ones that were registered at school as African american, too, not just the ones with ‘valid’ birth certificates?
To me, adjusting a vaccine schedule in a population according to risk makes a great deal of sense, ethically.
But, rather than offer an interpretation that could lead to that possibility, that something about the African male babies put them at higher risk, and pointing out that more research might be needed, they just left it out.
Oh well. Big deal. Doesn’t matter. No one will ever find out……….
A speculative “something happened???” as a reply is an attempt to make this about me. As I have tried to tell Matt Carey, and as I have now tried to tell you, trying to make this something about me is not likely to work. I did not omit the results; I did not overfit the model; I did not write the email “It Just Won’t Go Away”; I did not pronounce that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”, and ignore the thousands of studies. If the CDC bothered to read the balance of the literature, they would know that although for years it was thought that the ethyl mercury in thimerosal was safe relative to methylmercury, it is now understood to be reversed.
The wild and non-science based claims by Offit and others may be hyperbole, or perhaps Offit actually
does believe that aluminum is only dangerous to two types of people, and that a baby can be injected with
100,000 vaccines, wait, make that 10,000 vaccines at once, with no ill effect, and perhaps Sen. Pan actually does believe that the most dangerous substance in vaccines is water.
But I doubt it.
The good and the bad things that may (or may not) have happened in my life have very little to do with these things. The fact that you want to bring the discussion away from the science and back toward me – repeatedly – tells me you are running out of substantial responses to the concerns raised in this blog post, and in my other blog posts. You certainly don’t seem game to answer questions that you and you alone can answer.
However, I’d be happy to hear from you after you read Thompson describe to Hooker how routine cheating was on these studies at the CDC. About how he wrote the sections he on interpreting results associating autism with vaccines extra long so his colleagues would have a harder time justifying the removal of that text, but how he was dismayed when the manuscript would come back with it all removed nevertheless.
Enjoy the book. Talk to you later.
Actually it is about you because once more rather than addressing what I wrote you just mouth off. I listed article by Gorski, Reiss, and Carey. I said I would read the book; but you apparently refuse to carefully read what I suggest, instead resorting to hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. Maybe you really are incapable of addressing what is written in the articles. As with Senator Joe McCarthy the number of articles just keeps growing, first about 10 in your article that you suggested to me, then 200 then 400, now “the thousands of studies.”
As for “Offit actually does believe that a baby can be injected with 100,000 vaccines, wait, make that 10,000 vaccines at once.” Obviously, you didn’t read the actual article. Offit wrote: “then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine).” (Offit et al. Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?, Pediatrics, 2002;109:124 –129;
And “Given that infants are colonized with trillions of bacteria, that each bacterium contains between 2,000 and 6,000 immunological components and that infants are infected with numerous viruses, the challenge from the 150 immunological components in vaccines is minuscule compared to what infants manage every day . . . Tonegawa discovered that antibodies are made by rearranging and recombining many different genes, and found that people can make about 10 billion different antibodies. Given the number of antibody-producing cells in a child’s bloodstream, and the number of immunological components contained in vaccines, it is reasonable to conclude that babies could effectively make antibodies to about 100,000 vaccines at one time. Although this number sounds overwhelming, remember that every day children are defending themselves against a far greater number of immunological challenges in their environment.) (The Vaccine Education Center, Too Many Vaccines? What you should know. Q&A, Vol 2, Spring 2012. Available at: http://vec.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/too-many-vaccines.pdf
Notice he doesn’t say “injected”; but theoretically based on what we know about the immune system. I would have changed the wording slightly to “the equivalent of”. However, NO One in their right mind would believe that Offit or anyone else would literally believe such. One would need something much larger than a grease gun, many times larger, just to hold all the vaccine. If you actually read the entire article it would be obvious what Offit was saying; but it is typical of antivaccinationists that they cherry pick words and phrases in a gotch-ya approach rather than a scholarly reasoned scientific addressing of points.
I actually wrote a fairly detailed explanation of why the claim that vaccines overload the immune system is bonkers. I realize, given that you won’t read Gorski, Reiss, and Carey that you won’t read my article; but if there is anyone following this exchange who consider themselves open-minded, I direct them to the secion of my ECBT article entitled: “Do Vaccines Overload Our Immune Systems?” starting on page 25. Article available at:
You stated that Hannah Poling was diagnosed with autism. I responded that was wrong. Her parents took her to a clinic that specialized in autism where two separate diagnoses said “autism-like.” Why would experts, engaged by the parents, in a thorough evaluation not find autism if that were the case? Yet you, with NO training in clinical psychology, without access to her complete record, think it “obvious” that she was autistic. Wow! And you said the Court did not actually evaluate her; yet, they engaged a third expert to do just that.
Must be nice to be able to be so certain based on incomplete evidence when the experts with all the evidence did not arrive at the conclusion you did.
As I asked before, why do you accord credibility to Thompson and not to the CDC? Perhaps, because he says what you chose to believe?
You wrote: “The fact that you want to bring the discussion away from the science and back toward me – repeatedly – tells me you are running out of substantial responses to the concerns raised in this blog post, and in my other blog posts. You certainly don’t seem game to answer questions that you and you alone can answer.”
In Psychology this is called projection, seeing ones own faults in others. I just responded to, among other things, what you wrote about Offit’s claim. I read the article you named with the aliuminum reference list, seems it wasn’t the list you claimed and I still haven’t seen the list of 400 or is it now thousands? You said the CDC can’t release Thompson’s medical record, I agree; but the information I’ve seen is what Hooker said and what Thompson said. I addressed directly your claim that Hannah Poling was diagnosed with autism, when she wasn’t. You claimed the CDC only listed certain articles; but I responded they hyperlinked to the IOM reports that include more than 50 pages of references. You keep pointing out the flaws in the CDC studies, ignoring that using a stringent criteria, the IOM found four good enough to base a conclusion on. And you show NO understanding of how “Causal Thinking” works, e.g. going back to John Stuart Mill in the 1850s. I explained in detail; but you just keep making the same ignorant claims.
You lack any credibility. If you really have a list of 400 articles on aluminum toxicity then post it. I’m also still waiting to see your CV.
Given your certainly that Hannah Poling is autistic without any expertise and without ALL the information the experts have, you asked me my opinion which I won’t give; but given your belief that the CDC, Danes, etc. are involved in some worldwide conspiracy of silence and your certainty that you are right, I’ll make an unofficial tentative diagnosis, Paranoid Tendencies with Delusions of Grandeur. Given that you call yourself “lifebiomedguru.” I think I may be on to something.
By the way, I guess I didn’t mention that I was a licensed psychologist 35 years ago. Sweden only gives PhDs for research programs, lots of courses in methodology, measurement theory, statistics, and philosophy of science. Professional psychology is a totally separate program resulting in a diploma. At the time I was interested in doing research in behavioral medicine and thought it would help to have more direct skills, so I completed all the course work, all the practicums, and an internship at a major psychiatric clinic. I learned everything from giving Rorschachs to what is today called Applied Behavioral Analysis, the latter more emphasized. And we were taught to use pigeon-holing of patients as sparingly as possible and only when we had extensive evidence. So, though I have far more knowledge than you about psychological diagnostics, I would NEVER try to diagnose Hannah Poling or anyone else based on such flimsy information. My diagnosis of you is simply an impression and NOT official.
I followed my PhD with a three year post-doc fellowship from NIH in which I studied Public Health, Epidemiology, and Biostatistics. In fact, I have four masters degrees and a PhD. Since retiring I devote part of my day reading, always non-fiction, watching non-fiction documentaries on Netflix, and sometimes going to seminars.
Your obvious diagnosis of Hannah Poling is perfect evidence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect:
The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin
Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess
their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task
and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else.
This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence
robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading
to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they’re too
stupid to realize they’re stupid. . . The term is still properly meant to describe a disconnect between perceived and empirical competence, rather than IQ or intelligence. (Dunning-Kruger Effect, RationalWiki, Available at: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Dunning-Kruger_effect&printable=yes
Given what you wrote about Offit and the immune system, I suspect that you don’t really understand the immune system either.
Had you sent a copy of your book on Ebola I would have read it; but I certainly won’t spend any money. If our local public library someday gets a copy, I may read it; but given your paranoid approach to anything that disagrees with you, your resort to ad hominem attacks, your refusal to directly address points I make, and refusal to read suggested articles, I wouldn’t expect much of the book.
By the way, you might want to twist what I write into an ad hominem attack on you; but I actually address points you make and point out point by point that you don’t do the same. But, I’m sure you will ignore everything I wrote except for my “tentative diagnosis” of you. Enjoy your gotcha moment, a refuge for those who can’t carry on a scholarly scientific rationale dialogue.
You know, it’s a shame you keep making this personal, because w/all of your background, I could really get into some interesting discussions with you. I’ve studied Philosophy of Science – I once wrote a proof that Popper had inadvertently overlooked – that the more people you have in a room looking at the evidence provided by a test of a hypothesis, the more likely you were to land a correct interpretation because of the greater background information available in the room. Popper never wanted to let in the role of the subjective viewpoint. If he had, he would have found my proof. Oh, well. Kuhn came along and said the winner of the fist-fight holds the truth. Parry on…
I can see you are having a hard time keeping track of which collections of articles I am references when I report my counts.
“Thousands” = the number of articles I am reading on AUTISM RESEARCH, which the CDC ignores. They paint a very solid picture of the process of neurological damage. I’ve been through 1,681 so far. It’s been a trip.
“Hundreds” = the # of articles on the neurotoxicity of aluminum available to Offit at the time that he wrote his book, but that he neglected to read when he incorrectly reported that only two types of people are at risk of toxicity due to aluminum (neonates and diabetics).
“Hundreds more” are the # of articles that now exist since Offit wrote his book.
“12” and “14” at the articles I hand-selected for Offit to read because I found them to be particularly compelling. They include (in case you want to double-check my count, it seems important to you)
BEFORE his book:
“Long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide is associated with chronic cognitive dysfunction.” (2009)
“Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration.” (2009)
“Aluminum-induced defective mitochondrial metabolism perturbs cytoskeletal dynamics in human astrocytoma cells.“(2009)
“Role of metal ions in the abeta oligomerization in Alzheimer’s disease and in other neurological disorders.” (2008)
“Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War illness induces motor neuron death in mice.” (2007)
“Neurological adverse events of immunization: experience with an aluminum adjuvanted meningococcal B outer membrane vesicle vaccine.” (2007)
“Mechanisms of aluminum-induced neurodegeneration in animals: Implications for Alzheimer’s disease.” (2007)
“Inflammation, neurodegenerative diseases, and environmental exposures.” (2004)
“Chronic exposure to aluminum in drinking water increases inflammatory parameters selectively in the brain.” (2004)
“Neurotoxic effects of aluminium among foundry workers and Alzheimer’s disease.” (2004)
“Neurological adverse events associated with vaccination.” (2002)
“The potential role of aluminium in Alzheimer’s disease.” (2002)
AFTER his book:
“Trace elements in scalp hair samples from patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.” (2015)
“Correlation of aluminum and manganese concentration in scalp hair samples of patients having neurological disorders.” (2015)
“Aluminum-induced entropy in biological systems: implications for neurological disease.” (2014)
“Are there negative CNS impacts of aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines and immunotherapy?” (2014)
“A sudden onset of a pseudo-neurological syndrome after HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvated vaccine: might it be an autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) presenting as a somatoform disorder?” (2014)
“Elevated brain aluminium and early onset Alzheimer’s disease in an individual occupationally exposed to aluminium: a case report.” (2014)
“Prolonged exposure to low levels of aluminum leads to changes associated with brain aging and neurodegeneration.” (2014)
“Administration of aluminium to neonatal mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long term neurological outcomes.” (2013)
“Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity.” (2013)
“Autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA syndrome) in commercial sheep.” (2013)
“How aluminum, an intracellular ROS generator promotes hepatic and neurological diseases: the metabolic tale.” (2013)
“Aluminum toxicity and astrocyte dysfunction: a metabolic link to neurological disorders.” (2011)
“Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?” (2011)
“Metal ions affecting the neurological system.” (2011)
I never said I would not read Gorski. I have run into Dorit’s hammering away, and intend to read Gorski, and may look at Dorit. I merely said I have suspicions about their impartiality.
As far as your arm-chair psychological analysis of me, I’ve seen people in this debate go there, as well. Trust me, you are not teaching me anything about the Dunning-Kruger effect. I see within that description your subtle insult. Call me stupid. It won’t change anything except for anyone who care to read this now, and in the future, as to which one of us attempted on numerous occasions to degrade the discussion into name-calling.
This is getting boring because your approach toward “understanding” is ‘attack the messenger, kill the message’. Thank you for your unofficial diagnosis. I don’t even know what that is, and I doubt any practicing clinician would offer one.
Sorry, Josh, I won’t give up, no matter what you think of me.
JLW: Valid point (e.g., HP’s dx falls within ASD given DSM-V)
JOSHPHDMPH: You suck, so… you so really, really suck because you made a mistake, and i caught you. You, and everything about you JLW is therefore INVALID! (By the way, I am still not going to answer your questions).
And here I thought I had a winner….
If you ever care to really discuss these important matters, please, by all means, review the thread and address the growing number of salient questions I have asked.
PS: My postdoc was on molecular evolution and the lab I worked in studied the evolution of the MHC complex in mammals. I have written a book with a chapter on immunmodulating cancer treatments and worked with immunologists, analyzing data of all types, genetic, genomic, proteomic, clinical, behavorial, with data from T-cells, dendritic cells, CD8+ cells, astrocytes, microglial cells, you name it. But that’s just a start. But there, now, see you have me talking about me again. And I really do not care to discuss me. I don’t need to defend who I am, or what i know.
So let’s turn to some points you seem hung up on:
(1) Offit changed his tune from 100,000 to 10,000, and I’ve seen the calculation you posted before. It does not help at all. Children do not get “theoretically” vaccinated. Each vaccine added to the schedule is real. Remember, my concern is not – and has never been – the antigen dose. It’s the aluminum. How much aluminum would 10,000 real doses really put into a real child? It seems that detail slipped Offit’s mind?
(2) I’ll just leave it (1) for now.
You are incredible. Offit’s original article clearly stated 10,000. And, as I explained; but you totally ignored, he should have written “the microbial equivalent of 10,000 vaccines;? but you keep choosing to ignore the context and think you have a gotcha moment. And, as I wrote, one would need something way larger than a grease gun to contain 10,000 vaccines and NO ONE but an idiot would believe than anyone would seriously considering injecting anyone with even a portion.
As for your list above. That is NOT a list of studies. Don’t you even know how to create a reference list. It is quite simple, just check out any of my papers at ECBT. Either post a valid reference list of the 400 studies you claim to have on vaccines, aluminum, and toxicity/adverse reactions or give it a rest. Listing quotes with a year in parentheses is NOT a reference list. How do I know you just didn’t hallucinate them?
As I wrote in an earlier post, I did a PubMed search and got the same small number of articles you claim to have presented to Offit; but my search did not come up with 100s. So, again, post an valid list or give it a rest!
The Dunning-Kruger reference was to your “obvious” diagnosis of Hannah Poling when you neither have the training nor do you have all the facts that the experts at a clinic that specializes in Autism had; but you still believe you are right. Someone can be quite good at something, even quite intelligent, and, yet, still on other subjects be a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger.
Offit is a full professor and chair of a department at one of the best children’s hospitals and top medical schools in the nation and you are someone who thinks you are some guru running an organization that doesn’t seem to be known by many. However, if you ever actually come up with a valid list of several hundred articles on vaccines, aluminum, and toxicity/adverse events, I will randomly pick some of the articles and look at them. And I’m still waiting to see your CV.
You wrote: “Sorry, Josh, I won’t give up, no matter what you think of me.
JLW: Valid point (e.g., HP’s dx falls within ASD given DSM-V)
JOSHPHDMPH: You suck, so… you so really, really suck because you made a mistake, and i caught you. You, and everything about you JLW is therefore INVALID! (By the way, I am still not going to answer your questions).”
I don’t want to confuse you with big words; but you seem to be decompensating, that is losing any semblance of rationality. I suggest you seek help. Your writing “I am still not going to answer your questions.” Just proves my point! ! !
Now, it’s late and Netflix has all 12 seasons of Poirot which I find entertaining and relaxing. Even I have to once in a while leave the world of non-fiction.
This piece of writing provides clear idea designed for the new viewers of blogging, that in fact how to
do running a blog.