ABC show prepetuates autism/vaccine link

[Olowkow]

And if I remember correctly, after the mercury was removed from vaccines (around 1995?), autisim rates have now been shown to have begun to rise even more rapidly after that date, according to a recent study.

I think one can see this effect on the graph posted above.

 

[technoextreme]

So there you have it, the surgeon vs the journalist, and a slough of sources refuting robinson's absurd claim that because some research he proposes wasn't done, not enough research exists to draw a reasonable conclusion. The jury is in, robinson. Vaccines are not the cause of autism. Time to look elsewhere.

He's talking about other side effects like encephalitis. Though he story is a bit wrong because encephalitis would have more symptoms and should be noticed.

 

[Deetee]

Yes, I presume Robinson is talking about a child who developed encephalitis following MMR. The first type of MMR vaccine used an attenuated strain of mumps virus ("Urabe") as the active ingredient. This strain could cause encephalitis.
Please note, the risks of developing this encephalitis were LESS than would be the risk of developing it following natural infection. It was also usually much milder than naturally occuring mumps encephalitis.

Nevertheless, having a vaccine which might cause the very thing it was trying to prevent was not a good idea. The mumps component for MMR was changed, and this complication is now vanishingly rare following vaccination.

 

[Dymanic]

I presume Robinson is talking about a child who developed encephalitis following MMR.

If so, it's worth noting that the MMR doesn't contain thimerosal, and never has.

 

[robinson]

I'm going to have to talk to my friend and refresh my memory about the case. As I said, it wasn't mercury, or the illness that the vaccine was for, that caused the problem. It was some strange immune reaction or something. This was 10 years ago, so it is sketchy. The timing may have even been coincidence.

As I have stated many times, vaccines don't "cause" autism or any other problem. This is self evident by the simple reality that if that were the case everybody would get the problem, when they got the vaccine.

And using animal studies, as well as population studies, is a time tested method of arriving at an evidence based medical view. That neither have been done, or are being done, says much about the vaccine issue.

Especially when you consider the worldwide population that receives vaccines, and the new ones being added. There is no scientific reason not to investigate and understand everything we can about vaccines, and all possible side effects and reactions to them, by the minority that suffer.

The blind ignorance about the scientific facts, that multiple vaccines were allowing illegal doses of mercury to be used on infants and small children, is a good example of what science didn't know about medicine. Not knowing what the consequences of multiple vaccines, and other treatments used on infants and small children, isn't just bad science, it is criminal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm going to have to talk to my friend and refresh my memory about the case. As I said, it wasn't mercury, or the illness that the vaccine was for, that caused the problem. It was some strange immune reaction or something. This was 10 years ago, so it is sketchy. The timing may have even been coincidence.

I have lots of anecdotes myself, having seen plenty of tragedies in the hospitals I've worker in. I took care of a little girl in a permanent vegetative state following a measles infection.

Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis

Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a chronic persistent infection of the central nervous system caused by an altered form of the measles virus. It affects primarily children and young adults and usually has a progressive downhill course which results in death within a few years in most patients with a 5% chance of spontaneous remission. It can occur anywhere from 2 to 10 years after the original measles illness, and generally results in progressive neurological deterioration due to brain inflammation and nerve cell death. Since the widespread use of the measles vaccine, SSPE has become very rare. However, studies have shown that the incidence of SSPE has remained high in the Middle East and India. Initial symptoms usually include abnormal behavior, irritability, intellectual deterioration, and memory loss which may be followed by involuntary movements and seizures (in the form of myoclonic spasms). Subsequently, the patient develops further mental deterioration, inability to walk, speech impairment with poor comprehension, and difficulty swallowing (dysphagia). Blindness may also result. In the final stages of disease, the patient may remain mute or comatose. The electrical activity of the brain, as recorded by electroencephalogram (EEG), shows progressive changes during the disease which are typical of SSEP and parallel the slow deterioration of central nervous system functions.

As I have stated many times, vaccines don't "cause" autism or any other problem. This is self evident by the simple reality that if that were the case everybody would get the problem, when they got the vaccine.

That is not true. Everybody doesn't get every side effect of every drug with known side effect.

And using animal studies, as well as population studies, is a time tested method of arriving at an evidence based medical view. That neither have been done, or are being done, says much about the vaccine issue.

Especially when you consider the worldwide population that receives vaccines, and the new ones being added. There is no scientific reason not to investigate and understand everything we can about vaccines, and all possible side effects and reactions to them, by the minority that suffer.

The blind ignorance about the scientific facts, that multiple vaccines were allowing illegal doses of mercury to be used on infants and small children, is a good example of what science didn't know about medicine. Not knowing what the consequences of multiple vaccines, and other treatments used on infants and small children, isn't just bad science, it is criminal.

So in your view, overwhelming evidence isn't good enough unless it includes your suggested animal studies.

 

[Dymanic]

And using animal studies, as well as population studies, is a time tested method of arriving at an evidence based medical view. That neither have been done, or are being done, says much about the vaccine issue.

That you make the assumptions and conclusions you do says much about the extent of your knowledge on the vaccine issue.

There are good reasons to consider animal studies to be reasonable indicators of what to expect when a drug is used in humans, and there are also good reasons not to consider them to be the ultimate indicator of whether a drug is either safe or effective, which is why animal studies are used as a precursor to clinical trials in humans. The suitability of a particular species as a model for humans is often subject to question, and can vary a lot depending on what is being tested for. The neurotoxicity of mercury has been widely studied in animals, including primates; studies which often involve amounts of mercury far in excess of those contained in multiple vaccines.

It might be not unreasonable to argue that the chimpanzee would make a better model than does the macaque (which is more often the research animal of choice) for the neurotoxic effects of mercury (or immune response, or whatever) in humans -- but I don't see that coming anywhere near justifying the strength of the language you're using. If you have specific complaints regarding a particular aspect of the science, that might be interesting. If all you're going to do is wave your arms around in the air and spew accusatory phrases like "blind ignorance" and "illegal doses" and "bad science", then that's mostly just boring, that sort of thing being so readily available these days.

I do like how you included a bit of comic relief by following your critique of the scientific methodology with a fuzzily-recalled, secondhand anecdote.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Robinson is famous in the forum for posting quack medicine sites as evidence for various criticisms of the medical establishment and modern evidence based medicine.

 

[robinson]

It might be not unreasonable to argue that the chimpanzee would make a better model than does the macaque (which is more often the research animal of choice) for the neurotoxic effects of mercury (or immune response, or whatever) in humans -- but I don't see that coming anywhere near justifying the strength of the language you're using. If you have specific complaints regarding a particular aspect of the science, that might be interesting.

I think I stated my specific criticism. It was a huge error to not consider the compounding of vaccines and the risk/side effects that could occur. Considering the profit generated by vaccines, and the fact that mercury is only used to decrease costs, all of which are passed on to either Governments, insurers, or individuals, not doing the basic science to know what can happen is criminal.

Every country that outlawed mercury was protecting the patients. There never was any reason to use mercury except money. There is no acceptable amount of mercury to inject into children. Ever. That is just science. There is no medical reason, no scientific benefit for injecting mercury, or using it, in any form, for any reason, in medicine.

It was a mistake to give babies Pinks Disease, it was a mistake to use mercury in vaccines, and it was a huge mistake to not foresee the accumulation from multiple doses.

There is also aluminum, and other chemicals that have not been tested for combined effects. Since we can't experiment on children, (well, we have been, but it is against the law), we should use animals to discover what can happen.

Even better, do a large scale study comparing populations who received all the vaccines, with populations that avoided all of the vaccines.

This is just science. Medicine. You compare groups with each other. That way you discover if there is a connection or not. If there is no connection, it lays to rest the fears, and allows scientific medicine to look for the cause. If there is a connection, we know about it.

The small scale studies, as well as the terrible methodology, tells little or nothing about the multiple vaccines. We need to look at the whole picture. That this has not been done, that it isn't being done, and that the entire issue is being ignored, tells much about the state of science and medicine.

Animal studies are just basic science. If we find even one condition that is caused by some unknown reaction to multiple vaccines, it would be a huge thing. At present, there is some kind of blindness where both Doctors and Big Pharma want to believe nothing bad ever happens.

Which is understandable. Considering the lawsuits. It is extremely unfortunate that science and medicine are limited by fears of litigation, as well as money.

Again, it is obvious that just mercury, or just vaccines do not cause autism or other disorders. We would know, anybody could tell. What we don't know, is what mercury and vaccines can do, in some cases.

 

[robinson]

I was trying to say, with the half remembered anecdote, that a vaccine can coincide with a serious medical event. It could even trigger it, but not because of the mercury or aluminum, but something else. Or maybe all of it, we just don't know.

The problem seemed to escalate quickly when the concerned parent pointed out that the child became sick right after the jab. This seemed to trigger some kind of reaction in the Doctors and medical staff. They insisted nothing could be wrong, and refused to investigate.

While the vaccine may have had nothing to do with it, (again, there is no way to know), it was the medical communities response that was insane. Rather than do test, examine, find out what was going on, they insisted nothing was going on.

My friend was frantic, as only a parent can be when there child is approaching death, and nobody is doing anything. At the time I even thought maybe my friend was crazy, because it sounded crazy.

Only after he got help, and his child was treated, did I start thinking he was right all along. It was disturbing. It still is.

I really am going to have to go and bother him with it now. I'm sure he has the records still. And his boy is still not right. Probably never will be.

But it wasn't autism, so I digress.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Robinson, it is your perception and belief the medical community has all these faults. Maybe you should keep in mind you don't have the qualifications nor in the case of your anecdote, even the whole story to continually pronounce your less than expert conclusions about the stuff you criticize.

The medical community has a history of mistakes and with a few million providers who are human that happens. Maybe they were maybe they weren't insensitive to your friend's case. OTOH, maybe you don't have the facts or maybe the person wasn't satisfied because they did not have the medical expertise to recognize the providers were correct.

You have made a number of grossly incorrect statements just in this thread. You think you know more than you actually do. Dymanic was very specific pointing out your incorrect knowledge of the value of animal studies. I pointed out your absolute ignorance about the nature of side effects. You have no clue that genetics and other factors play a role in individual reactions to drugs.

You've made even more ignorant statements above such as, the only reason to use thimerosal was money. That is just ignorant! There are many reasons to preserve vaccines, there are many benefits to multidose vials and there are other things which people spend health care dollars on when they save them in one situation.

Your ignorance of the facts is just incredible.

 

[Dymanic]

I think I stated my specific criticism. It was a huge error to not consider the compounding of vaccines and the risk/side effects that could occur.

Perhaps we don't share the same understanding of what is meant by the word "specific". To me, the criticism you've just stated is about as vague as it could possibly be. The "combined/compounded effects" argument is an appeal to ignorance, and I recommend that you try to avoid using it. It is the last refuge of one who cannot support his postition with evidence, because no amount of evidence could ever refute it.

There never was any reason to use mercury except money.

Yes, and if the manufacturers of food products weren't so greedy, then instead of using preservatives to prevent contamination, they'd just absorb whatever additional costs might be involved in getting the stuff to us while it was still fresh.

If there is no connection, it lays to rest the fears, and allows scientific medicine to look for the cause.

Indeed. Among those dedicated to the science, the continued failure to find evidence of a connection has lain to rest some fears -- as well as some hopes, because it means that science is still stuck for good answers. But you're right: the thimerosal=>autism hypothesis is dead and stinking, and the science has moved on. Meanwhile, the mercury militia remain just as rabidly devoted to their cause as they would be if the results of all the studies had been exactly the opposite of what they were. Many of their chief arguments look a lot like the ones you are attempting to make here.

At present, there is some kind of blindness where both Doctors and Big Pharma want to believe nothing bad ever happens.

The question isn't whether anything bad ever happens. With any drug, adverse events will occur in some percentage of recipients. The question is whether the frequency and severity of those events will be outweighed by the potential benefits to the majority who will not experience problems.

We need to look at the whole picture. That this has not been done, that it isn't being done, and that the entire issue is being ignored, tells much about the state of science and medicine.

Again, what this really tells is what you grasp about the way science is done. You seem to think that the most conclusive results are obtained by increasing the number of variables. I submit that it's precisely the other way around.

 

[robinson]

The question isn't whether anything bad ever happens.

Yes, that is one of the major questions people have about vaccines. Saying it isn't a question means nothing, except you are wrong.

With any drug, adverse events will occur in some percentage of recipients.

No, with most drugs there are side effects. Not all. But any drug that has the side effect of killing you, even in very small numbers of cases, is removed from the market. Unless it is a life or death matter, nobody prescribes to a large population of kids a drug that will kill some of them. That is absurd, and wrong.

The question is whether the frequency and severity of those events will be outweighed by the potential benefits to the majority who will not experience problems.

Again, you are wrong. Only with vaccines is that sort of twisted logic used. You tell a group of parents that and watch what happens. I already did, it was enlightening.

When I hear somebody spew that sort of twisted logic, to justify forcing vaccines on people, my woo meter goes off. I also wonder if they have children.

Something I learned this weekend, concerned parents can have multi vaccines split up, to avoid problems with them. And apparently no informed parent wants mercury in vaccines, or any other medicine.

But this is all anecdotal. Why the resistance to evidence based medicine, in regards to vaccines? The reasons are many.

I would say I've had almost every vaccine, except they came up with new ones since I was a kid. Once, before going to the jungle, (Central Americas) I had a hurry up set of boosters and new immunizations. It made me sick. I spread them out now.

But about that damn TV show...

 

[Nogbad]

I understand your desire to find an answer, a treatment, a cure. What parents need to know is that continually looking for these answers down dead end roads only serves to delay the progress of research that has the potential to be successful.

I perhaps did not make myself entirely clear in that my daughter is articulate and bright and considers herself not disabled but merely different and would feel that to remove her Asperger's now would be to remove an essential part of who she is. I was referring to those parents whose children are severely autistic in the more classical way and require constant care.

Now if science could do something for my daughter's colitis other than take azathiaprine every day that would be something

 

[Dymanic]

Yes, that is one of the major questions people have about vaccines. Saying it isn't a question means nothing, except you are wrong.

Wait. Now it's "people". What I was responding to was the statement:"Doctors and Big Pharma want to believe nothing bad ever happens." I'm not sure if you'd consider that to include the CDC and FDA, but for the people in those two agencies, it's so not a question that they jointly maintain a system specifically dedicated to the reporting of adverse vaccine-related events.

No, with most drugs there are side effects.

Thanks for straightening me out on that. I'll try to remember to use the more accurate term "side effects" instead of "adverse events".

Unless it is a life or death matter, nobody prescribes to a large population of kids a drug that will kill some of them. That is absurd, and wrong.

Got two words for you: peanut butter.

You tell a group of parents that and watch what happens.

Ah yes -- the ultimate test for truth value. If you really want to get them pounding their fists on the table, remind them that vaccines contain embalming fluid.

When I hear somebody spew that sort of twisted logic, to justify forcing vaccines on people, my woo meter goes off.

I'm starting a list:

"blind ignorance"
"illegal doses"
"bad science"
"forcing vaccines"
"woo meter"

You don't even have any actual arguments, do you?

 

[robinson]

As I said, it is odd that even here, when presented with the most basic scientific/medical concepts, the mental blindness prevents supporters of an idea from even talking about it.

Doing a large scale study, where you compare two groups of people, is basic science. The two groups have one primary difference. One group received all vaccines as scheduled, the other received none of the vaccines. You carefully test and document everything and publish the study.

Then other people look for flaws and problems, then you do another study if the first wasn't good science. That such groups exist, and are easy to study, and the importance of the matter, that it hasn't already been done, is more than a bit strange. You could do a small scale study very quickly, then do the larger one.

These kinds of studies are done all the time, it is an important tool of science.

Same for animal testing. You take healthy chimps, with their very healthy immune systems, and inject them with all the vaccines, and compare them with the control group. You could even use chimp versions of the diseases, to eliminate factors.

Or just leave out the pathogens, just test the other ingredients. It isn't hard, or new, to just do the testing.

Again, with the immense profits made from vaccines, it would be a drop in the bucket money wise, and if you add in the avoiding of lawsuits, it may be money saving, because it would be solid evidence to counter claims that vaccines caused any problems.

Yet instead of discussing this simple, accepted tool for advancing science, we hear, "You have no argument". Why would anybody say something like that?

 

[Dymanic]

Doing a large scale study, where you compare two groups of people, is basic science. The two groups have one primary difference. One group received all vaccines as scheduled, the other received none of the vaccines. You carefully test and document everything and publish the study.

What this basically boils down to is: "since the scientists who design these studies do not do so in a manner which appears to a layperson such as myself as being the most intuitively obvious, the only possible conclusion is that they are deliberately practicing mental blindness".

It is a spectacular example of the "arrogant ignorance" Prometheus had in mind here.

"How about somebody with no background in science who presumes to lecture experienced medical researchers about the “limitations” and “flaws” of their study?"

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Doing a large scale study, where you compare two groups of people, is basic science. The two groups have one primary difference. One group received all vaccines as scheduled, the other received none of the vaccines. You carefully test and document everything and publish the study.

<snip>

Couple of serious problems with that idea:

1) You haven't defined what you are looking for and over what time period. So any analysis would basically be a data-mining exercise.

2) You haven't defined which measurement should be used to randomize the groups.

Two groups are never going to be identical (especially for multiple parameters), and over time it becomes more likely some small initial differences between them would get larger just by chance.

 

[sophia8]

Robinson is famous in the forum for posting quack medicine sites as evidence for various criticisms of the medical establishment and modern evidence based medicine.

Yep - the phrase he used about "injecting toxins into babies" is commonly used on anti-vax sites.
Orac has a good takedown of the whole 'poisons in vaccines' nonsense.

Just peruse any antivaccination website or blog, and it won't be long before you find a list of scary-sounding ingredients... often with commentary about what horrible effects they can cause. Of course, nearly all of these comparisons fail to acknowledge that time-honored pharmacological principle that "the dose makes the poison" and extrapolate horrible consequences known to occur during prolonged exposure or exposure to large amounts to the tiny amounts in vaccines.

Robinson, you'd benefit from reading it. You'd also benefit from finding out just what Pink Disease actually is - or rather, was:

Mercury used to be a common additive in teething powders and other baby products. Babies who were particularly sensitive to mercury developed Pink disease. Of those who contracted Pink disease, around one quarter died. The symptoms include anaemia, lethargy, severe light sensitivity, skin rash and loss of appetite, weight and muscle tone.

Once mercury was discovered as the cause of Pink disease in 1948, mercury was withdrawn from baby products. Pink disease is now exceptionally rare.

ETA: BTW, if mercury used to be so common in baby products that it actually killed babies - why is autism so much more prevelant these days?

 

[robinson]

Couple of serious problems with that idea:

1) You haven't defined what you are looking for and over what time period. So any analysis would basically be a data-mining exercise.

2) You haven't defined which measurement should be used to randomize the groups.

Two groups are never going to be identical (especially for multiple parameters), and over time it becomes more likely some small initial differences between them would get larger just by chance.

All those are known factors. By your reasoning all the large scale studies that have been done also suffered from them. Somehow really smart science people know how to deal with all of them.

Even worse, the studies that try to "prove" mercury isn't harmful also suffer from the serious flaw that they compare vaccines with vaccines with mercury in them. Why not do the obvious test, compare vaccines with no vaccines?

That such studies have not been done, is beyond belief. Does anybody know of any evidence based medicine that has done that kind of study?