Page 35 of 56

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:53 pm
by liminalOyster
DrEvil » Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm wrote:
liminalOyster » Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:41 am wrote:In fairness, Humphries does not use Wakefield as a source and is not a homeopath. I saw that Medium takedown too but based on Humphries' response, it appears to be pretty wilfully obfuscatory, which never helps matter. ... t-measles/

Fair enough, she is far from the worst of the lot (I wasn't joking about those homeopathic mp3's), but still not someone I would trust.

Even though she isn't a fully licensed homeopath she has studied it for years and has been a prominent advocate, so her denial of such is another sign that she isn't entirely honest.
see here for an example:

She also has some strange ideas about vitamin C, and her claims about vaccines causing kidney failure seem to be based on her subjective experience and not any kind of rigorous research.

Oh that's a plot twist. Thanks for sharing it. I understand the public sphere is challenging to navigate but ffs it sucks how few people stay true to basic transparency.

From other material I've seen of Humphries, I've respected her for pursuing some lines of inquiry (at least via lip service) that I find compelling in the rather voluminous grey space between "Vaccines are a big lie conspiracy" and "Vaccines are more beneficial than breastmilk." For one, I don't see any reason to decide from the get-go that adding vaccines ad-infinitum to the conventional schedule is not going to have *emergent* effects one day or in some people. And I know from decidedly conservative so-called "allopathic" docs that the reason its not studied is that the research design is difficult to impossible, not because the science is obvious. To me that seems a pretty straight place for application of the precautionary principle - make vaccines limited but invaluable. Also the basic question of inflammation and neurodevelopment doesn't (from an educated laymans perspective) seem unreasoable at all. And for that matter, the very basic attention to nutrition is always always good because its non-existent in allopathic medicine. Linus Pauling mega-vitamin c therapies aside.

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:37 pm
by Agent Orange Cooper
Nothing wrong with advocating homeopathy either. :)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:45 pm
by DrEvil
liminalOyster » Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:53 pm wrote:
DrEvil » Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm wrote:
liminalOyster » Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:41 am wrote:In fairness, Humphries does not use Wakefield as a source and is not a homeopath. I saw that Medium takedown too but based on Humphries' response, it appears to be pretty wilfully obfuscatory, which never helps matter. ... t-measles/

Fair enough, she is far from the worst of the lot (I wasn't joking about those homeopathic mp3's), but still not someone I would trust.

Even though she isn't a fully licensed homeopath she has studied it for years and has been a prominent advocate, so her denial of such is another sign that she isn't entirely honest.
see here for an example:

She also has some strange ideas about vitamin C, and her claims about vaccines causing kidney failure seem to be based on her subjective experience and not any kind of rigorous research.

Oh that's a plot twist. Thanks for sharing it. I understand the public sphere is challenging to navigate but ffs it sucks how few people stay true to basic transparency.

From other material I've seen of Humphries, I've respected her for pursuing some lines of inquiry (at least via lip service) that I find compelling in the rather voluminous grey space between "Vaccines are a big lie conspiracy" and "Vaccines are more beneficial than breastmilk." For one, I don't see any reason to decide from the get-go that adding vaccines ad-infinitum to the conventional schedule is not going to have *emergent* effects one day or in some people. And I know from decidedly conservative so-called "allopathic" docs that the reason its not studied is that the research design is difficult to impossible, not because the science is obvious. To me that seems a pretty straight place for application of the precautionary principle - make vaccines limited but invaluable. Also the basic question of inflammation and neurodevelopment doesn't (from an educated laymans perspective) seem unreasoable at all. And for that matter, the very basic attention to nutrition is always always good because its non-existent in allopathic medicine. Linus Pauling mega-vitamin c therapies aside.

I agree. Vaccines aren't completely safe, just like pretty much anything we put in our bodies, and all serious research into side effects is good. If serious research shows serious side effects I'll take it seriously. For one, the vaccine schedule for small children is much larger than in any other developed country, but those other countries are doing just fine, so there might be a case for reducing the number of vaccines. I would also take a long, hard look at any lobbying towards the people who decide the schedule.

It's the "vaccines are pure poison killing our children and it's all a big conspiracy warglebargle!!!1!" version of things I want to see gone, because it's hysterical nonsense.

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:54 pm
by DrEvil
Agent Orange Cooper » Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:37 pm wrote:Nothing wrong with advocating homeopathy either. :)

God damn it man, you're going to send me straight into the arms of Big Anger Management.

Also: YES THERE IS! :hrumph

Did you know that the main ingredient of all homeopathic solutions is a highly corrosive chemical agent that will kill you if you breathe it?

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:09 pm
by Agent Orange Cooper
Did you know that the main ingredients of all vaccines are highly neurotoxic compounds like aluminum that will cause lifelong permanent brain damage if you inject it into 18 month old babies?

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:38 pm
by liminalOyster

Why is it used?
Aluminum is used as an adjuvant in vaccines. That is, it makes them more effective by strengthening the immune system response. Thanks to adjuvants, people need fewer doses of vaccine to build immunity.

Health concerns?
Sometimes the mention of aluminum in vaccines makes parents uneasy; that’s because there has been some evidence that long-term
exposure to high amounts of aluminum can contribute to brain and bone disease. However, aluminum is naturally present in water, foods, even breast milk. Aluminum has only been shown to harm people if absorbed in very high amounts and when a person’s kidneys aren’t working properly. In contrast, the amount of aluminum in vaccines is negligible.

Is it safe?
Aluminum is the third most common naturally-occurring element, after oxygen and silicon. It is found in plants, soil, air, and water. A breast-fed infant will naturally ingest around 7 milligrams of aluminum in her diet throughout the first six months of her life. In contrast, the standard vaccines administered over the first six months of an infant’s life contain an average of just 4.4 milligrams of aluminum. Aluminum has been used safely for over six decades in vaccines, with no scientific evidence indicating otherwise.

Amount in vaccines?
The amount of aluminum in vaccines is tiny. In fact, babies always have a small naturally occurring amount of aluminum in their bloodstreams, about 5 nanograms. The quantity of aluminum in a vaccine is so small it doesn’t cause any noticeable raise in this base amount found in the blood, even immediately after an injection.

From: ... s-vaccine/

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:12 pm
by Agent Orange Cooper

Administration of aluminium to neonatal mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long term neurological outcomes.

Our previous ecological studies of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has demonstrated a correlation between increasing ASD rates and aluminium (Al) adjuvants in common use in paediatric vaccines in several Western countries. The correlation between ASD rate and Al adjuvant amounts appears to be dose-dependent and satisfies 8 of 9 Hill criteria for causality. We have now sought to provide an animal model to explore potential behavioural phenotypes and central nervous system (CNS) alterations using s.c. injections of Al hydroxide in early postnatal CD-1 mice of both sexes. Injections of a "high" and "low" Al adjuvant levels were designed to correlate to either the U.S. or Scandinavian paediatric vaccine schedules vs. control saline-injected mice. Both male and female mice in the "high Al" group showed significant weight gains following treatment up to sacrifice at 6 months of age. Male mice in the "high Al" group showed significant changes in light-dark box tests and in various measures of behaviour in an open field. Female mice showed significant changes in the light-dark box at both doses, but no significant changes in open field behaviours. These current data implicate Al injected in early postnatal life in some CNS alterations that may be relevant for a better understanding of the aetiology of ASD.

Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.

Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration

Gulf War Syndrome is a multi-system disorder afflicting many veterans of Western armies in the 1990-1991 Gulf War. A number of those afflicted may show neurological deficits including various cognitive dysfunctions and motor neuron disease, the latter expression virtually indistinguishable from classical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) except for the age of onset. This ALS "cluster" represents the second such ALS cluster described in the literature to date. Possible causes of GWS include several of the adjuvants in the anthrax vaccine and others. The most likely culprit appears to be aluminum hydroxide. In an initial series of experiments, we examined the potential toxicity of aluminum hydroxide in male, outbred CD-1 mice injected subcutaneously in two equivalent-to-human doses. After sacrifice, spinal cord and motor cortex samples were examined by immunohistochemistry. Aluminum-treated mice showed significantly increased apoptosis of motor neurons and increases in reactive astrocytes and microglial proliferation within the spinal cord and cortex. Morin stain detected the presence of aluminum in the cytoplasm of motor neurons with some neurons also testing positive for the presence of hyper-phosphorylated tau protein, a pathological hallmark of various neurological diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. A second series of experiments was conducted on mice injected with six doses of aluminum hydroxide. Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted.

Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations

Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity. In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic. Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, several key points ought to be considered: (i) infants and children should not be viewed as "small adults" with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., "ASIA"), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in "ASIA" and are thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and (iv) the same components of the neuro-immune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants.In summary, research evidence shows that increasing concerns about current vaccination practices may indeed be warranted. Because children may be most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigorous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric population is urgently needed.

Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity

We have examined the neurotoxicity of aluminum in humans and animals under various conditions, following different routes of administration, and provide an overview of the various associated disease states. The literature demonstrates clearly negative impacts of aluminum on the nervous system across the age span. In adults, aluminum exposure can lead to apparently age-related neurological deficits resembling Alzheimer's and has been linked to this disease and to the Guamanian variant, ALS-PDC. Similar outcomes have been found in animal models. In addition, injection of aluminum adjuvants in an attempt to model Gulf War syndrome and associated neurological deficits leads to an ALS phenotype in young male mice. In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders. Many of the features of aluminum-induced neurotoxicity may arise, in part, from autoimmune reactions, as part of the ASIA syndrome.

Are there negative CNS impacts of aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines and immunotherapy?

In spite of a common view that aluminum (Al) salts are inert and therefore harmless as vaccine adjuvants or in immunotherapy, the reality is quite different. In the following article we briefly review the literature on Al neurotoxicity and the use of Al salts as vaccine adjuvants and consider not only direct toxic actions on the nervous system, but also the potential impact for triggering autoimmunity. Autoimmune and inflammatory responses affecting the CNS appear to underlie some forms of neurological disease, including developmental disorders. Al has been demonstrated to impact the CNS at every level, including by changing gene expression. These outcomes should raise concerns about the increasing use of Al salts as vaccine adjuvants and for the application as more general immune stimulants.

Aluminum Toxicity

Approximately 95% of an aluminum load becomes bound to transferrin and albumin intravascularly and is then eliminated renally. In healthy subjects, only 0.3% of orally administered aluminum is absorbed via the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminum from the human body. Only when the GI barrier is bypassed, such as by intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction, does aluminum have the potential to accumulate. As an example, with intravenously infused aluminum, 40% is retained in adults and up to 75% is retained in neonates. [MY COMMENT: Or in an infant without sufficiently developed myelin sheath—damaged by brain inflammation from prior vaccines, perhaps—where an IM injection bypasses the natural defense of the GI tract and crosses the blood-brain barrier]

...Aluminum is absorbed from the GI tract in the form of oral phosphate-binding agents (aluminum hydroxide), parenterally via immunizations, via dialysate on patients on dialysis or total parenteral nutrition (TPN) contamination, via the urinary mucosa through bladder irrigation, and transdermally in antiperspirants. Lactate, citrate, and ascorbate all facilitate GI absorption.

If a significant aluminum load exceeds the body's excretory capacity, the excess is deposited in various tissues, including bone, brain, liver, heart, spleen, and muscle. This accumulation causes morbidity and mortality through various mechanisms.

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:37 pm
by Agent Orange Cooper
Editorial - Current Inorganic Chemistry, 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1


The Biochemistry/Toxicity of Aluminum

We live in what one author of this Hot Topic issue has correctly labeled “the Age of Aluminum” [1]. Aluminum, the third most abundant element in the Earth’s crust and the most abundant metal, is one of the most remarkable elements in the periodic table. Compounds made with aluminum are strong, durable, light and corrosion resistant. Aluminum is also an excellent conductor of electricity.

For these reasons, aluminum currently finds its way into virtually every aspect of our daily lives. Industrially, aluminum is used in cans and cookware, aluminum foil, housing materials, components of electrical devices, airplanes, boats, cars and numerous hardware items of all descriptions. Aluminum is found in drinking water, as a food additive in typical Western diets, cosmetics, pharmaceutical products and because of such ubiquity, it is increasingly found in our bodies [2, 3].

None of this would necessarily be a problem if aluminum was inert in biological systems. However, in spite of a widely held belief that this is true, it is demonstrably not the case. Aluminum is highly reactive with oxygen and carbon, two of the most abundant organic elements, yet appears to have no intrinsic nor beneficial role in organic chemistry of any biota on the planet [1]. Instead, evidence clearly shows that aluminum is toxic to plants, animals and humans.

For example, aluminum intoxication frequently impairs learning, memory, concentration and behaviour in both animals and humans. The latter is typically reflected in confusion, anxiety, repetitive behaviours and sleep disturbances. Notably, all of these symptoms typical of an aluminum overload are also typical to two most common neurological disorders of the Western world, one neurodegenerative and the other one neurodevelopmental: Alzheimer’s disease and autism. Moreover, there is now sufficient experimental evidence implicating elevated levels of aluminum in both of these disease conditions [2, 4, 6].

In this Hot Topic issue of Current Inorganic Chemistry we have brought together some of the world’s experts on the biochemistry of aluminum to consider the potential impacts of aluminum compounds on human health. The issue starts with a discussion of aluminum’s exposome (Exley) and then proceeds to explore how aluminum can impact biological systems through some of its modern compounds, specifically flouroaluminates (Strunecka et al.). In the central part of the issue, Walton challenges the long-term notion that aluminum’s role in Alzheimer’s disease rests on a myth. Focusing on inflammation, the fourth contribution highlights the ways in which aluminum compounds might promote the onset and progression of neurological diseases in general (Bondy). Blaylock further expands on this concept and shows how not only inflammation, but rather, the interaction between inflammatory mediators and excitotoxins is crucial for the way by which aluminum exerts its toxic actions throughout the central nervous system (CNS). Finally, Yokel demonstrates the many molecular mechanisms by which aluminum might reach the CNS. Importantly, this final evidence clearly negates past notions that aluminum’s accumulation in Alzheimer’s is an artifact of passive uptake by dysfunctional neurons.

If the focus of this series of articles seems to the reader to be heavily weighted toward the nervous system, then this perception is correct. Aluminum does many things in biological systems, none of them beneficial. But perhaps the most deleterious actions are on CNS structures and function where aluminum impacts seem to be the most egregious at the two ends of the age spectrum: early postnatal life and old age. While in the first case aluminum exposure could precipitate adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with autism [6], in the second case it could lead to one of the most devastating neurodegenerative diseases known to man [4].

The potential for aluminum to do harm can hardly be disputed. The means of remediation from aluminum intoxication are limited at present while the risk of exposure is increasing. It would thus appear that the practical considerations of warnings given by William Gies are now 100 years overdue, “These studies have convinced me that the use in food of aluminum or any other aluminum compound is a dangerous practice” [7]. Perhaps the key to real progress against the rapidly increasing neurological disease burden is to eliminate unnecessary human exposure to aluminum.

This issue, we hope, will trigger the long delayed and much needed debate about aluminum in the biosphere and its impact on human health. Finally, we thank all the authors who keenly accepted our invitation to contribute to this issue, as well as the reviewers who invested their valuable time to ensure the high scientific quality of all contributions.


[1] Exley, C. In Molecular and Supramolecular Bioinorganic Chemistry: Applications in Medical Sciences. Merce, A.L.R.; Felcman, J.; Recio, M.A.L., Eds.; Nova Science Pub Inc., New York, 2009, pp 45-68.

[2] Walton, J.R. Aluminum in hippocampal neurons from humans with Alzheimer's disease. Neurotoxicology, 2006, 27, (3), 385-394.

[3] Exley, C.; Swarbrick, L.; Gherardi, R.K.; Authier, F.J. A role for the body burden of aluminium in vaccine-associated macrophagic myofasciitis and chronic fatigue syndrome. Med Hypotheses, 2009, 72, (2), 135-139.

[4] Tomljenovic, L. Aluminum and Alzheimer's disease: after a century of controversy, is there a plausible link? J Alzheimers Dis., 2011, 23, (4), 567-598.

[5] Lopes, M.M.; Caldas, L.Q.A. Young children with austim spectrum disorders: Can aluminium bodyburden cause metabolism disruption? Toxicol. Lett., 2011

[6] Tomljenovic, L.; Shaw, C.A. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? J Inorg Biochem, 2011.

[7] Gies, WJ. Some objections to the use of alum baking-powder. JAMA, 1911; 57(10): 816-21.

You can find the rest of the issue here:

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:54 pm
by liminalOyster
Thanks for posting some PubMed cites. Some looks like interesting stuff but so far seems pretty inconsequential without more context. This just looks like a carefully curated collection of research papers divorced from any conflicting findings. Google suggests it's a common grouping of papers on anti-vaxx sites.

In your own words, I'm sincerely curious what exactly you believe these papers prove?

Meta-analysis in medical research
A B Haidich
Author information ► Copyright and License information ► Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
The objectives of this paper are to provide an introduction to meta-analysis and to discuss the rationale for this type of research and other general considerations. Methods used to produce a rigorous meta-analysis are highlighted and some aspects of presentation and interpretation of meta-analysis are discussed.

Meta-analysis is a quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess previous research studies to derive conclusions about that body of research. Outcomes from a meta-analysis may include a more precise estimate of the effect of treatment or risk factor for disease, or other outcomes, than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis. The examination of variability or heterogeneity in study results is also a critical outcome. The benefits of meta-analysis include a consolidated and quantitative review of a large, and often complex, sometimes apparently conflicting, body of literature. The specification of the outcome and hypotheses that are tested is critical to the conduct of meta-analyses, as is a sensitive literature search. A failure to identify the majority of existing studies can lead to erroneous conclusions; however, there are methods of examining data to identify the potential for studies to be missing; for example, by the use of funnel plots. Rigorously conducted meta-analyses are useful tools in evidence-based medicine. The need to integrate findings from many studies ensures that meta-analytic research is desirable and the large body of research now generated makes the conduct of this research feasible.

Keywords: meta-analysis, systematic review, randomized clinical trial, bias, quality, evidence-based medicine

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:10 pm
by liminalOyster
Aluminum adjuvant in vaccines – let’s go cherry picking

With the success of California’s vaccination law, SB277, there appears to be a trend to increase vaccination uptake among school-aged children. And it’s a great thing that we protect our children from vaccine preventable diseases. Yet, the anti-vaccine crowd is still looking for lame excuses to not vaccinate – today, it’s the aluminum adjuvant in vaccines.

The anti-vaccine crowd has a tendency to ignore the vast and powerful scientific consensus on vaccines. Instead, they prefer to cherry pick research, often from biased “scientists” who publish in the lowest quality journals. That cherry picking is a form of confirmation bias – the individual seeks evidence that supports their a priori conclusions rather than letting the robust body of evidence point them to a conclusion.

Generally, these myths, based on cherry picking, are debunked. But the anti-vaccine cult is nothing if not creative. They just move on to a new boogeyman. This time, it’s aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. To be honest, anti-vaccine tropes are zombies, so we think we destroy those tropes, but they rise again, fed by new cherry picking. And debunking the danger of aluminum in vaccines has been an age-old discussion amongst the pro-science crowd.

Today, we’re going to look at one of those articles which was recently published. If one accepted this research, while ignoring critical analysis and the body of other science, then it would be a great one to confirm one’s own pre-conceived beliefs. But that’s not how we do science, so let’s take a look.

New aluminum adjuvant article
The article, “Insight into the cellular fate and toxicity of aluminium adjuvants used in clinically approved human vaccinations” (full article) by Mold, Shardlow and Exley, was recently published in Scientific Reports. It’s a complex and photo-filled article, but that doesn’t mean it gets a pass on a critical examination. We’ll do that below.

But here’s the key point the researchers make:

We demonstrate that not all aluminium adjuvants are equal neither in terms of their physical properties nor their biological reactivity and potential toxicities both at the injection site and beyond. High loading of aluminium oxyhydroxide in the cytoplasm of THP-1 cells without immediate cytotoxicity might predispose this form of aluminium adjuvant to its subsequent transport throughout the body including access to the brain.

That’s essentially the authors’ conclusion. And if you were cherry picking and quote mining to “prove” vaccines are root of all evil, then you’d jump on this article.

You might ask, why have an aluminum adjuvant in vaccines? An adjuvant is a component of vaccines that increases the immune response to an antigen. Aluminum phosphate and aluminum hydroxide are the most common forms of adjuvants used in commercial vaccines. So that’s why – it makes the immune response better.

But, let’s take a critical look at this paper and the research behind it. Because there’s more here than what meets the eye.

I’m going to look at this article in two ways. First, I’m going to look at the meta – no not a meta-review or analysis, but what’s behind the article. And second, we’ll look at the science.

Who? What? Where?
Let me start with one key point – this article was published in a relatively high impact factor journal (5.228), Scientific Reports. The journal is owned by Nature, one of the most respected and high impact factor journals in science. Frankly, once I knew it was published in a Nature owned journal, I was thinking that this was going to be some good science. I fell for a trap.

Scientific Reports is an open-source, fast publication, peer-reviewed journal. It was probably launched to compete with popular open-sourced journals, like PLOS. Being fast or open-sourced does not mean it’s bad, but it does mean that some bad research can sneak through the cracks.

But there are some other points that need to be addressed. The authors are in residence at the Lennard-Jones Centre, a UK-based research foundation that focuses on physics, quantum mechanics and chemistry.

However, as far as I can tell, there isn’t a single researcher with significant credentials in immunology, neurobiology, or almost any important aspect of vaccine research. This lack knowledge of basic biomedical science seems to be apparent in the article. Now, one does not have to be a biologist to become a great biologist – but if you’re going to publish a paper that condemns one of the basic principles of vaccines, I want to see researchers who actually are experts in vaccines.

Admittedly, the three authors seem to have a lot of published research in environmental aluminum – that’s a key point. They seem to have an obsession with aluminum toxicity and Alzheimer’s disease – something that has been utterly dismissed by the scientific community.

In fact, the Alzheimer’s Society does not mention aluminum once in their discussion of risk factors for dementia. Maybe Big Aluminum is in control.

The reason why aluminum isn’t linked to neurological disease is that in huge epidemiological studies, no correlation was found between environmental aluminum and neurological diseases. None. The authors seem to ignore the wealth of evidence that dismisses their research. And I think there might be reasons for that.

The most issue regarding their research, and a troubling concern for anyone with a scientific neuron or two, is that this study was funded by the Dwoskin Family Foundation. This foundation is one of the most profoundly anti-vaccine sponsors of research in the world.

Dwoskin has funded research by two of the biggest quacks in the vaccine community – Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic. Their “research” (scare quotes intentional) is often laughably biased and is nearly always published in junk science predatory journals. They actually did publish an article in a respected journal – it was retracted.

Claire Dwoskin is a board member of the anti-vaccine group National Vaccination Information Center. In 2011, the Dwoskins also underwrote the anti-vaccine “safety” conference in Jamaica, which included as speakers, the quacks Shaw and Tomljenovic.

I do think that the funding source should be given some weight in determining the bias of research. Even the anti-vaccine cult agrees, because read just about anything they write in which they automatically dismiss anyone or any research that even has a tenuous tie to Big Pharma.

But the Dwoskins are just so anti-vaccine, it’s difficult for me to overlook the funding of this research. I have found no indication that they give grants to any studies that are not supportive of any of the important tropes of the anti-vaccine movement.

Basically, when I saw their name as one of the sources of money, I was about 10 nanoseconds from dismissing this research as utterly useless. Now, it’s possible that the researchers here don’t know who the Dwoskins are, but that would be almost impossible to embrace. Without any evidence whatsoever, I think that the researchers saw where their research was going and knew that they could get some dollars out of the Dwoskins.

But enough with these criticisms. Let’s look at the science.

Aluminum adjuvant research
Like I mentioned previously, this article is thick with data. To critique each point that I find difficult to accept would force me to write a 5000 word article. I’m going to stick with the points that cause me the most trouble, in a bullet point fashion. This list is not in any particular order – it’s not ordered in any particular way.

In vitro research. As I’ve written before, studies in cell cultures can lead to scientific breakthroughs – and this study utilizes a hum cell culture line. However, less than 1% of cell culture studies ever lead to clinically meaningful results. There are lots of reasons for this lack of results – mostly because cell cultures are a “model” for biological effects, but it’s extremely limited. Call me in 20 years if there’s some case-control epidemiological studies that support this research.
The THP-1 cell line. This cell line is derived from the blood of a human male with acute monocytic leukemia. It is generally used in examining leukemia protein-protein interactions, and for immunohistochemistry, a field that attempts to detect antigens in cells of a tissue sections under microscopy. This is sort of the research that the authors are doing, but it’s an unusual application.
Cell lines ignore physiology. This drives me crazy about cell culture research. Cells are grown in an artificial medium that generally feeds the cell – but that’s not how real cellular physiology works. For example, the body has methods to flush environmental aluminum out of the body – including secretion into urine and bile.
Concentration of aluminum adjuvant. The researchers used 2.5, 25.0, 50.0 or 100.0 μg/mL of vaccine adjuvants. Most vaccines contain about 125 to 800 μg of aluminum adjuvant, which may appear to be close to what we see in this research. However, if we look at the aluminum concentration in the body after injection, these doses are equivalent to around 0.125 to 0.8 µg/ml (assuming a 12 kg baby), orders of magnitude lower than what was used in this research. One could argue that the concentration is higher at the injection site, but this research uses blood cells, not muscle cells. I can only conclude that these researchers were using higher concentrations of aluminum adjuvant to get more clear results. I don’t mind this, but the authors should explain why they went so high.
Results. I’m going to admit that my scientific background lacks histology – it was boring to me. But, I’ve got enough knowledge to unequivocally state that I don’t get their results and subsequent conclusions. They published nice electron micrographs that show big aluminum globs (my scientific terminology) in some cells. I don’t know what percentage of cells include these globs, because they didn’t have a control against which to compare. But here are some of the issues – there is no explanation of what are biological consequences of these globs, and no explanation if this representative of what may be the clinical application in real humans. Moreover, it is problematic that the lowest concentration of adjuvant used, 2.5 µg/ml which is 2-10X higher than the blood concentration immediately post-vaccination, showed no globs. They are using much higher concentrations of adjuvant to get results, and even then, a real human body would deal with it quickly by dilution and secretion.
Citations. Generally, I don’t care about what’s cited. But to quote the authors, “Furthermore, the use of adjuvants in human vaccinations has been linked to adverse effects often classified under Autoimmune (or autoinflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA).” No it hasn’t. The authors are citing two articles from the aforementioned quacks, Shaw and Tomljenovic, plus another article from one of the most notorious anti-vaccination “scientists” in the world, Yehuda Schoenfeld, who invented “ASIA,” a concept that has been dismissed scientifically. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to accept this research when they uncritically accept the ridiculed and debunked “evidence” invented by ridiculed and debunked researchers.
The TL;DR version
When I was shown this article, I was open-minded. I thought that it would be interesting to see if there are neurological effects from aluminum, because there’s been a “debate” about aluminum and dementia, despite the lack of evidence that there is a link.

But once I reviewed this article I was struck by these key points:

Monetary support from the anti-vaccination crowd.
Citing discredited published research and researchers as if they are respected.
Providing observations with no biologically plausible consequences from them.
Questionable methodology.
I admit, I am biased toward epidemiological studies that have p values and risk ratios. I want to see numbers. But subjective observations of globs? It tells us nothing about any aluminum adjuvant, so we stick with the default position supported by mountains of evidence – adjuvants are safe.

If I were to make a recommendation to anyone who is confronted by this article – laugh first, and point out the flaws.

Key citations
Inbar R, Weiss R, Tomljenovic L, Arango MT, Deri Y, Shaw CA, Chapman J, Blank M, Shoenfeld Y. WITHDRAWN: Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil. Vaccine. 2016 Jan 9. pii: S0264-410X(16)00016-5. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.12.067. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26778424.
Mold M, Shardlow E, Exley C. Insight into the cellular fate and toxicity of aluminium adjuvants used in clinically approved human vaccinations. Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 12;6:31578. doi: 10.1038/srep31578. PubMed PMID: 27515230.
Santibáñez M, Bolumar F, García AM. Occupational risk factors in Alzheimer’s disease: a review assessing the quality of published epidemiological studies. Occup Environ Med. 2007 Nov;64(11):723-32. Epub 2007 May 24. Review. PubMed PMID: 17525096; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2078415.
Shaw CA, Petrik MS. Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration. J Inorg Biochem. 2009 Nov;103(11):1555-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2009.05.019. Epub 2009 Aug 20. PubMed PMID: 19740540; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2819810.
Shoenfeld Y, Agmon-Levin N. ‘ASIA’ – autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants. J Autoimmun. 2011 Feb;36(1):4-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2010.07.003. Epub 2010 Aug 13. Review. PubMed PMID: 20708902.
Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations. Lupus. 2012 Feb;21(2):223-30. doi: 10.1177/0961203311430221. PubMed PMID: 22235057. ... y-picking/

Lots more here: ... i-vaccine/

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:16 pm
by Agent Orange Cooper
Here's the difference. I'm posting science. You're posting politics from a pseudonymous shill.

This pro-GMO and pro-“Junk-Science” internet shill from California can be found in his den of iniquity (Wikipedia) under User:SkepticalRaptor. He self-describes and says he is a member of the “Worldwide Conspiracy” and outright (and appropriately) calls himself a “shill” and an “amateur” under the occupation description he provides. Under his name it says he is “Fighting the good fight, making sure that everyone knows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that Tennesseee is still full of sh#t, that pure water potions are useless, and that vaccines do not cause autism.” (1) This is not a doctor or scientist, but someone who studied science and is very dogmatic, selling allopathic philosophies and GMOs as sound science. Skeptical Raptor wants the public to believe that all chemicals are healthy to consume as long as “peer reviewed” articles tell us that they are. He equates the highly experimental and often fraudulent science of vaccines to the cold hard facts of science – like dinosaurs existing or the world being round. Of course, climate change is one of his favorite “straw man” topics, along with chemical pesticides helping feed the world and vaccines saving humanity from infectious diseases. Under his profile, he also self-describes as a “Scoundrel” and a “Jackass.” (2)

Wikipedia’s dominating moderator describes himself as a shill

He’s all over RationalWiki telling the public it’s safe to eat MSG (monosodium glutamate) and HFCS–High Fructose Corn Syrup, and that all the health nuts are going way overboard worrying about it. They’re both GMO, by the way. It’s reverse psychology wrapped up in propaganda, and the “raptor” trolls the internet, especially Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Here are the links if you care to read more hypocrisy and propaganda, where the writers and “moderators” encourage you to try sodas in different countries:

“From a taste perspective, though, the human tongue can distinguish between sucrose and a fructose-glucose mixture. To some, HFCS tastes like sweetened poop. Try a Coca-Cola from or while visiting somewhere besides the United States and see what you think. In the last several years, Pepsi has released “Throwback” versions of Pepsi, Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper, sweetened with sucrose and (sometimes) featuring previous-generation labels on cans and bottles.”

Sporting his usual tag line: “Stalking pseudoscience in the internet jungle” – Skeptical Raptor goes after what he calls the “anti-vaccination cult,” and he made up the word “Manufactroversy” – where he claims anyone debating about the dangers of carcinogens in vaccines is creating a “false debate” or a “false balance” between sides of a discussion, which doesn’t even make sense. A true debate is where you listen to and give consideration to two or more sides. In his attempt to sound scientific and intellectual, Skeptical Raptor makes a fool of himself and leaves a trail of nonsense strewn across the worldwide web. (3)

The Raptor’s obvious dedication to dogma and the “religion” of science

Dogma is defined as a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true and serves as part of the primary basis of an IDEOLOGY (or belief system) that cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm or the ideology itself. (4) The “Raptor” puts in much time removing or altering content of objective balance on subjects of controversy in Wiki (5). He’s one of the most forceful vaccine advocates in the blogosphere, spreading fear and propaganda for anyone skeptical of Western medicine and the chemical violence push for dozens of inoculations (before age 6) and the full schedule of CDC recommended toxic jabs that are scientifically leading to neurological disorders in children, as even admitted by lead CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson. Since the mass media and Wikipedia are having a complete blackout of Dr. Thompson’s confession about the toxic MMR vaccine and it’s direct correlation to autism, pharma trolls like Raptor try to reinforce their stance and the fake “consensus” they say science has come to with regards to a handful of facts–mixed in with a couple HUGE lies. Basically the dogma is to state easy science facts first, then add in the safety of vaccines and genetically modified food. (12)

Via The Original Skeptical Raptor

The number one goal of a pharma/biotech shill is to remove people’s fear that chemicals in food and chemicals in medicine are dangerous and detrimental to your health. People like Skeptical Raptor use character attacks (aka character assassinations) to destroy the credibility of the health advocates making huge waves, like the Health Ranger and the Food Babe. The shills also try to make it sound as if synthetic chemicals are the answer to diseases, disorders, drought, starvation, crop profits, crop yields, the death of bugs and weeds, etc. They tell you how complicated science is and then they try to explain how chemicals are good for you to eat, drink, put on your skin and breathe in. (9)

Here is Skeptical Raptor trying to convince readers and consumers that genetically modified corn sugar processed in a manufacturing plant is no different than the natural version from sugar beet or sugar cane:

There is simply no difference between the fructose and glucose in HFCS, and the one in cane sugar, sucrose. The chemical formulas are exactly the same. It’s the exact same carbons, the exact same hydrogens, and the exact same oxygens. No difference. Both sucrose from a sugar beet or sugar cane is chemically and scientifically identical to HFCS. Neither is more or less “natural” than the other. This is one of the major misconceptions of the pseudoscience of the natural food world, that someone how a sugar from a living organism is somehow different from a sugar from a manufacturing plant. I want to make this clear. There is simply no difference between the fructose and glucose in HFCS, and the one in cane sugar, sucrose. The chemical formulas are exactly the same. They contain the exact same carbons, the exact same hydrogens, and the exact same oxygens. They have the same chemical bonds. No organism on this planet could distinguish between them. Without a doubt, the human body cannot distinguish between sources of the sugar.”

Skeptical Raptors Education? According to his own bio, he has a couple decades experience marketing medical products. He has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry/endocrinology from a US university and has worked for a pharmaceutical company. He defines skeptic as “someone who requires extraordinary evidence before accepting extraordinary claims.” He doesn’t accept the existence of God. He says he’s an expert in medicine, but he is not a doctor. Online, the Raptor is not educating anyone but rather obfuscating important information that consumers would otherwise use to filter food and medicine toxins from their intake, including GMO, MSG and HFCS. He does the same with red meat/processed meats and colorectal cancer, trying to obfuscate the facts presented by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), which is the research group of the World Health Organization (WHO) – and their study on red meats and processed meats raising chances of getting colon cancer. In his same blogs he brags about his love for bacon and French sausage. Even in his arguments for the safety of consuming those meats, he gives credit to the IARC and anything that shows up in the Lancet or other “Peer Reviewed” publications, so he discredits his own argument. After all of this, he gives “recommendations” including “everything in moderation.” He uses PubMed science studies for sources: ie: Colorectal Cancer:

Other similar GMO/biotech hacks include Dr. Kevin Folta (11) – horticulturalist at University of Florida. Folta the Hack impersonates a radio talk show host and asks himself questions on the air. He deepened his voice with distortion and talks with a lisp, posing questions to try to debunk the fact that he is shilling for Monsanto, GMO food, chemical agriculture and biotech science. The most nefarious biotech hack, huckster and shill is the one and only Jon Entine, who purports Monsanto propaganda all across mass media outlets like (6) (7) (9)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:53 pm
by liminalOyster
LOL. Have fun on your mission, AOC.

ps. Whether or not Mike Adams (of all people) thinks that Skeptical Raptor is a prick - he may well be - is not the point, for me. Many of his points are good, even if he defends GMOs or is a Wikipedia fascist. All scientific research is, by its nature, nested in the rest of the enterprise; so while picking papers selectively is perfectly reasonable grounds for new research design, it is not evidence for proving a base position ala vaccine adjuvants are dangerous, and esp not in papers where the mechanism itself remains so so hypothetical.

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:53 pm
by Agent Orange Cooper

According to Skeptical Raptor, 125 mcg = 1,250 mcg

After a series of completely pointless ad hominem attacks, Skeptical Raptor really sticks his foot in his mouth. While trying (but failing) to critique “Reconsideration of the immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum”

According to Skeptical Raptor, 125 micrograms is now equivalent to 1,250 micrograms. Let’s read:


Checking our paper, the maximum limit per vaccine is 1,250. But I’m only a multiple degreed scientist, so clearly I cannot be relied upon for elementary things like multiplication. So we go to the source (CFR 21CFR610.15):

Now, because I’m only a scientist, and milligrams to micrograms conversion may somehow confuse me, let’s ask The Google:


He? then goes on to calculate the totals that an infant could get at 4,225 micrograms in the first year of life.

Nice blog, but that’s wrong.

Our paper was analyzed and reviewed by other scientists, and our math show the expected annual dose to be 4,925 micrograms.

Not a big difference. He’s not thinking for himself, he’s not looking at the schedule. Or he’s not checking his math.

But…. Relevance?

Skeptical Raptor completely ignores the findings of our analysis. Because toxic dose levels are to be done per kg per day, i.e., mcg/kg/day, it was elementary to calculate, given body weight distribution curves for the population, the acute dose levels expressed correctly as mcg/kg/day. For the first two months, the CDC schedule causes exposure to acute toxicity. On make-up days, 5, 7 and as high as 9 vaccines can be given at once.

Before they do another make-up day, pediatricians should add up the micrograms of aluminum, and divide by the child’s weight (in kg), and call FDA and ask if that it a toxic dose. Demand answers.

SR Makes the Same Food More than Vaccines Fallacy as Another Flawed Thinker

SR claims then that more aluminum goes into the body from breast milk and air than from vaccines.

Yet only 0.1% to 0.3% (i.e. 0.001 to 0.003 x total) [Yokel] of aluminum from food or water that passes through the gut is actually absorbed and metabolically available.

The other flawed thinker who ignores this reality, and ignores the importance of acute toxicity of aluminum, is Paul Offit.

Thanks to Skeptical Raptor, All Forms of Aluminum are Now Magically The Same

Then SR makes this incomprehensibly incorrect claim:

“All aluminum is the same, whether from vaccines or pure breast milk from an organically fed mom. I tires of these arguments from science deniers that try to claim that one molecule has some ridiculous difference than another.”

This is why we don’t rely on Skeptical Raptor for anything.

Once Skeptical Raptor wrote his blog, all forms of aluminum, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum chloride, aluminum lactate, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum nitrate are magically became biologically identical and now have identical toxicity. This study was also immediately proven wrong:

“Three major forms of aluminum adjuvants with substantially different physical and chemical properties have been described: aluminum phosphate (AlPO(4)), aluminum hydroxide (AlOH) and amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS)…”

If Skeptical Raptor is this wrong on one of the most important vaccine additives, was else is he wrong about?

A billion times more importantly: If HHS/ATSDR/FDA can be so wrong about aluminum pediatric dosing of aluminum, what else have they been wrong about?

BTW, I’m not “Anti-vaccine” as Skeptical Raptor needs me to be. I am for safer means of artificial immunization. And I, not SR, nor anyone else, speaks for me.

I am Vaccine Risk Aware and refuse to deny vaccine injury, because that’s cruel and unscientific.

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

April 11, 2018

Allison Park, PA

From comments on this post:

April 12, 2018 at 12:30 pm

This is not the first time the Skeptical Raptor did this. I noticed that some of his other calculations were wrong too virtually any step was wrong. When someone pointed out the errors to him he corrected them and still got the calculation wrong.

I think in one case the results of his calculations were off by a factor of 10000. It is not that he makes minor errors the results often do not have to do anything with reality at all.

I doubt that this guy is even a scientist. He behaves like he understands what he his doing and ends up bullying anyone he disagrees with because he is so convinced he understands the science.

One example is the analysis of the paper discussing increased mortality following the DTP vaccine, he talks about it being so poorly done as if he knows what the is doing.

Usually no one pays attention to what he is writing and he gets away with it. That time someone posted a reply of the author of the study, a professor and someone with real credentials. He refuted the arguments point by point highlighting how the Raptor either does not understand what he is doing or gets things wrong intentionally.

These are not a few selected cases, it is a general pattern on this blog.

It has little to do with science more with an anonymous and incompetent guy bullying and stalking people who do not share his opinion. In reality his blog is a good a example of pseudoscience, someone who wants to make it seem he is doing science while he is not.

We will probably see more attacks and bullying from him or his friends soon.
Brandon Wash
April 25, 2018 at 4:31 pm

I noticed that SR claims you cited a retraced paper by Shaw and Tomljenovic. It took me about five seconds to compare the paper SR linked in the blog to the two papers you actually cited by Shaw and Tomljenovic in your paper. As you likely know that retracted paper was not in your citations. When I commented with ”So no one cares that the retracted paper that raptor is referencing isn’t actually cited in the Lyons-Weiler paper?” [he responded:] “You need to learn to read links. The journal did retract it, but it remains on its website because it’s a crap journal. Awwww, I’m sorry that you worship James Lyons-Weiler and you’ve been shown to be wrong.” Not only was that response nonsensical, it was also condescending and assumptive for no reason whatsoever. It also highlights the pattern of bullying that XOMT pointed out as well as serious issues with reading comprehension, or even the ability to read at all. So this person has proven to be: a bully, incapable of basic math or reading for no other reason than because someone disagrees with him or corrects him. So this person is either a liar or incompetent, both are unacceptable when you claim that “But, science is science – the only thing that matters is evidence, and that’s the only thing I use.”

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:14 pm
by Agent Orange Cooper

Internet Trolls Attack Anyone Resisting Vaccine Party Line
by Marco Cáceres
Published November 13, 2015

Here’s how it usually goes… You say you have some doubts about vaccine safety and all those vaccinations the government requires you to give your kids. You say you’re concerned about serious side-effects you keep reading about, and particularly potential links to autism and autoimmune disorders, and the reports of encephalitis and shock. A typical response from mainstream proponents of vaccines would proceed like this…

"Oh, you’re being silly, you don’t know the science. Look, 99.9% of all doctors and scientists will tell you that vaccines are safe and effective. The science is solid, it’s long been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Ninety-nine point nine percent. That sounds pretty convincing. Of course, it’s unclear what formula, study or survey was used to come up with that figure, so you start to do your own research, and you quickly realize there are lots of doctors and scientists, in addition to well informed parents, journalists and consumer advocates, who do not subscribe to the establishment’s mantra about vaccine safety and effectiveness. They do not believe the myth that the science is settled, and some are very vocal about their reservations or opposition to it.

The more you read, the more you start to realize that there is a growing chorus of doctors, scientists, nurses, and other health care providers who have serious questions about the current vaccine paradigm favored by the pharmaceutical industry, government agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), medical trade groups, and the mainstream media.

Increasingly, professionals within a wide range of health care and science fields are giving interviews and writing articles and books voicing their concerns about vaccine risks, the misrepresentation of the historical role of vaccines in reducing mortality from infectious diseases, the expanding schedule and number of vaccines mandated, or even the basic mechanism theories behind vaccine science.

Predictably, every time you give the name of a contrarian doctor or scientist in response to the 99.9% figure, what you tend to get is, “Eh, well, he’s a quack, she’s not credible.” Also, you get referred to blogs such as Science-Based Medicine or Respectful Insolence, or the Skeptical Raptor’s Blog. The first two are often written by or associated with a guy named David Gorski, MD, who also goes by the alias “Orac.” Gorski is a surgical oncologist and an assistant professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, MI. The third is written by Michael Simpson, who goes by the “Skeptical Raptor.” This is how Simpson describes himself on his blog:

"I have over 25 years experience in marketing, business development, and product development in the medical products industry, working in a variety of marketing, sales, clinical research, and product development roles with large and small medical products companies. I have also had key executive roles on both the manufacturing and distribution sides of the medical products industry."

Should you wish to debunk someone, anyone, who dares to disagree with mainstream thinking on vaccines, all you need do is inform Orac or the Raptor, and either will gladly oblige by writing up a boorish piece, long on insult and short on science. Their methods are painfully predictable. In one piece earlier this year, Raptor criticized a prominent immunologist who had the nerve to write an open letter on vaccine science to state legislators in California about to vote on a bill eliminating personal belief vaccine exemptions. The piece started out by dismissing the individual’s credentials outright. Raptor writes:

"One of the most irritating problems I have with the antivaccination movement is their over-reliance on false authorities, where they trumpet the publications or commentary from someone who appears to have all of the credentials to be a part of the discussion on vaccines, but really doesn’t."

In the same piece, Raptor takes a backhanded swipe at a leading neuroscientist and a molecular biochemist by first acknowledging their “sterling credentials in medicine and science,” and then going on to say…

"they publish nonsense research (usually filled with the weakest of epidemiology trying to show population level correlation between vaccines and adverse events) in low ranked scientific journals."

In a crude shot at a pediatrician allowing parents in his practice to make informed, voluntary vaccine decisions for their children, Orac writes:

If [he] weren’t such a worthless excuse for a pediatrician when it comes to promoting misinformation about vaccines, I’d almost feel sorry for him. Almost. He is, however, a perfect example of what the phrase ‘hoist with his own petard’ means.7

Orac took aim at a well-respected nephrologist, who left a successful private practice to speak out about the damage being done by doctors taking a narrow-minded, aggressive approach to vaccination of patients::

"As someone who comes from a strong basic science background, having been a chemistry major (who graduated with honors–so, there!), I think I can see [her] problem. First, she seems unduly proud of her science background, wielding it like a talisman against charges that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about (which she doesn’t). Unfortunately, as those of us in medicine know, what you did 25 or more years ago in college has little bearing on what you can or can’t understand now."

And here is Orac having a go at a top notch molecular and cellular physiologist:

"A real molecular biologist who did real research for various biotech and pharmaceutical companies, apparently competently, for 20 years, she suddenly embraced antivaccine pseudoscience, apparently based on her embrace of fundamentalist Catholicism....Catholicism appears to be what first led [her] to embrace her pseudoscientific hypothesis about fetal DNA in vaccines and autism, the tragic death of her child less than a month and a half ago is unlikely to do anything but cement in her mind the evils of vaccines made using fetal cell lines.

Notice the pattern. This is only a smattering of the handiwork of these two bloggers, but you begin to get the idea. Orac’s defensiveness, in particular, may have something to do with his research on a Sanofi-Aventis drug called Riluzole (Rilutek®), which may well eventually be used to treat autism. Riluzole has been approved for clinical trials (for autism) by the FDA, and one can imagine the money that might be at stake if the drug makes it to market.

But then, reason would dictate that Orac’s criticisms of individuals disagreeing with his views not be so personal and mean-spirited, because it’s always more effective in the long-run to present one’s case standing atop the moral high ground, instead of down in the gutter.

The collection of disparaging pieces by Orac and Raptor about anyone offering a different perspective about vaccination is so impressive in both volume and diversity it’s a wonder they have any time left for their day jobs. But rather than take umbrage, those at whom such vitriol is aimed should feel comforted by Socrates’ memorable adage, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” Or its modern-day equivalent by Britain’s Maggie Thatcher, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” (… just replace “political” with “vaccine”).

So yes, if you take Orac’s and Raptor’s trolling and their blogs seriously, you are likely to believe that 99.9% of all doctors and scientists are enthusiastically onboard with the mainstream vaccine paradigm, because you have automatically excluded all those who Orac, Raptor and others like them are afraid of and try really hard to discredit and silence.

There’s that pesky cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head again.

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:27 pm
by Agent Orange Cooper
Tremendous resource here:

Germane to subject of aluminum adjuvants:

Debunking Aluminum Adjuvant, Part 1: “The Aluminum Is Gone In Just a Few Days!”

Debunking Aluminum Adjuvant, Part 2: FDA’s Flawed Study of Al Adjuvant Toxicity (The Mitkus study)

“Parents can be reassured that the trace quantities of aluminum in vaccines can’t possibly do harm.“
-Dr Paul Offit: Vaccine promoter, vaccine patent licensor, and autism pundit, 2015