Vaccines and Autism: Looking for the Truth? Study the Amish

JohnDoe wrote:

If the speculation was worthwhile researching, it was definitely
worthwhile publishing.

The results of the research got published.

You have been duped. The original "speculation" was
a very well researched paper that presented a statistical
correlation from data. There was absolutely nothing sloppy
about it.

Obviously, at the time it wan't meant to be taken
as a 100% proven finding.

A lot of research papers present this type of
statistical correlations. Some of the correlations
turn out to be valid. Some are not. All
that happens in full public view.

In this case, only half the research happened
in public view.

And in this case, data that supported the correlation
turned out to be valid (if you read the work, which
can be found, but not in major journals.) All
the research that refuted the correlation, eventually
has been found to be sloppy/crooked.

Make your own conclusions.

"JohnDoe" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:

Jeff wrote:


Honest pediatricans that have practiced for a long time
know that the rise in autism is real and was not at all
due to increased awareness and diagnosis. Yet, many of
them are perfectly willing to be dishonest about it, even
to themselves.

Yet that doesn't mean that vaccines have anything to do with the rise of
autism.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

But the point is, the possible mercury connection was not something
to be dismissed out of hand, but wass worthwhile investigating.

And it has been, and it has been dismissed.

W R O N G!!!!!!!




And the investigation should have happened in daylight.

What was hidden about it? The research was done and published openly in
journals, ie Pediatrics. What secrecy!

Instead, one side of the issue has been summarily
dismissed as "sloppy" without pointing out
any sloppiness.

Has it occured to you that one side of the issue has been dismissen as
sloppy because they are sloppy?

Take the Danish study, was it not sloppy, to
say the very least?

Nope, it wasn't.

(Well, to me it's clear it was crooked, but I don't think anyone who
is even the least bit unbiased can say it was not totally sloppy.)

Ohoo, this looks suspiciously like 'have you stopped beating your wife
yet'.
And now it's not sloppy, it's crooked. Make up your mind will you.

So why did it get press?

So first you complain about it being done hidden in the dark, and now you
complain about it being brought out in the open? You're a bit confused,
maybe you should think it over for a while before coming with more of
this.

Even if the "mercury" side is truly sloppy, it is a
serious enough issue that the sloppiest paper with
any substantial arguments needs to be published for
all to review (and to tear to shreds, if that's what
happens.)

Truly sloppy stuff does not deserve to get published in serious scientific
journals. That is why we have peer review, to weed out truly sloppy stuff.
And the writers always have a chance to improve their work. If they don't,
it doesn't get published and you should not blame the messenger.

But this is not for some referees or editors
to decide on their own in total darkness.

Luckily, there are websites such as whale.to and people like Mr. Kennedy
that'll give any crap the publicity they want so things balance out in the
end anyway.

Dismissed as crap!!!!!!!!

Dismissed as done in a mouse!!!!!!!!

ANY excuse will do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.flu.org.cn/news/2004986362.htm
Thimerosal,New study reopens debate on vaccinations
Published: Sep ,8,2004 16:21 PM
By ###
Special to The Wall Street Journal & Medicalnewstoday



By Tara Parker-Pope
The Wall Street Journal

Just a few months after the nation's top medical adviser rejected a link
between vaccines and autism, a mouse study has reignited the debate and
raised new fears among parents considering vaccinations and flu shots for
their kids.


For years, a cadre of parents and physicians have contended that thimerosal,
an ethyl-mercury compound that has been one of the most widely used vaccine
preservatives, is partly responsible for an apparent rise in autism in
recent decades. But broad population studies haven't supported the claim. In
May, a major report from the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety
Review Committee rejected a link between autism and vaccines.



But today, a congressional committee will review a June study from Columbia
University, which found that a preservative used in vaccines can cause
autism-like symptoms in a specific strain of mice. The research raises
questions about whether some people might be genetically vulnerable to the
effects of thimerosal.



The study also raises questions about a new push by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to add flu shots to the immunization schedule for
school-age kids. The vast majority of flu shots given still contain the
preservative.



In the study, researchers administered thimerosal to four strains of young
mice. Three of the mice strains were unaffected by thimerosal, but the
fourth developed problems consistent with autism such as delayed growth,
social withdrawal and brain abnormalities. The mice were known to have a
genetic susceptibility to mercury.



Thimerosal, found in childhood vaccines, can increase the risk of
autism-like damage in mice



A new study indicates that postnatal exposure to thimerosal, a mercury
preservative commonly used in a number of childhood vaccines, can lead to
the development of autism-like damage in autoimmune disease susceptible
mice. This animal model, the first to show that the administration of
low-dose ethylmercury can lead to behavioral and neurological changes in the
developing brain, reinforces previous studies showing that a genetic
predisposition affects risk in combination with certain environmental
triggers. The study was conducted by researchers at the Jerome L. and Dawn
Greene

Infectious Disease Laboratory at the Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University. Over the past 20 years, there has been a striking
increase--at least ten-fold since 1985--in the number of children diagnosed
with autism spectrum disorders. Genetic factors alone cannot account for
this rise in prevalence. Researchers at the Mailman School, led by Dr. Mady
Hornig, created an animal model to explore the relationship between
thimerosal (ethylmercury) and autism, hypothesizing that the combination of
genetic susceptibility and environmental exposure to mercury in childhood
vaccines may cause neurotoxicity.

Cumulative mercury burden through other sources, including in utero
exposures to mercury in fish or vaccines, may also lead to damage in
susceptible hosts. Timing and quantity of thimerosal dosing for the mouse
model were developed using the U.S. immunization schedule for children, with
doses calculated for mice based on 10th percentile weight of U.S. boys at
age two, four, six, and twelve months.

The researchers found the subset of autoimmune disease susceptible mice with
thimerosal exposure to express many important aspects of the behavioral and
neuropathologic features of autism spectrum disorders, including:

Abnormal response to novel environments;

Behavioral impoverishment (limited range of behaviors and decreased
exploration of environment); Significant abnormalities in brain
architecture, affecting areas subserving emotion and cognition; Increased
brain size.

These findings have relevance for identification of autism cases relating to
environmental factors; design of treatment strategies; and development of
rational immunization programs. The use of thimerosal in vaccines has been
reduced over the past few years, although it is still present in some
influenza vaccines. Identifying the connection between genetic
susceptibility and an environmental trigger for autism--in this case
thimerosal exposure--is important because it may promote discovery of
effective interventions for and limit exposure in a specific population,
stated the lead author Dr. Mady Hornig. Because the developing brain can be
exposed to toxins that are long gone by the time symptoms appear, clues
gathered in these animal models can then be evaluated through prospective
human birth cohorts--providing a powerful to tool to dissect the interaction
between genes and the environment over time.

Citation source: Molecular Psychiatry 2004 Volume 9, advance on line
publication doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001529

For further information on this work, please contact Mady Hornig, MD,
Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Greene Infectious
Disease Laboratory, 722 W 168th St, New York, New York 10032, United States
of America, phone: 212-342-9036; FAX: 949-824-1229; e-mail:


ARTICLE: "Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse
strain-dependent"

M Hornig, D Chian, W. I. Lipkin

Greene Infectious Disease Laboratory, Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University, 722 W 168th St, New York, New York 10032
That they are suppressing it on their own, indicates clear
bias to me. It would to you, if you could retain any objectivity on the
issue.

There it is again: 'have you stopped beating your wife yet'. Typical.

The Wall Street Journal is not a medical journal.

And last time I checked, mice are not humans.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
news
The Wall Street Journal is not a medical journal.

And last time I checked, mice are not humans.

Jeff

Do check to see what researchers use to do studies. Perhaps you would like
to volunteer so we would have a human instead of mice?

Need I call you stupid???????

wrote:
Jeff wrote:


Honest pediatricans that have practiced for a long time
know that the rise in autism is real and was not at all
due to increased awareness and diagnosis. Yet, many of
them are perfectly willing to be dishonest about it, even
to themselves.

Yet that doesn't mean that vaccines have anything to do with the rise of
autism.


No, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

But the point is, the possible mercury connection was not something
to be dismissed out of hand, but wass worthwhile investigating.
And the investigation should have happened in daylight.

What makes you "think" that it did not? Of course, if you were really
honest, with yourself and others, you would admit that you think this
way because you do not like the results.

Instead, one side of the issue has been summarily
dismissed as "sloppy" without pointing out
any sloppiness.

Horse****. The claims of connection were shown to be bull****.

Take the Danish study, was it not sloppy, to
say the very least? (Well, to me it's clear it
was crooked, but I don't think anyone who
is even the least bit unbiased can say
it was not totally sloppy.)

There is nothing wrong with the Danish study, as you have been told in
other threads.

So why did it get press?

Validity and the fact that it is consistent with other studies.
Replication of results is one of the key things rational people consider
when they evaluate evidecne.

Even if the "mercury" side is truly sloppy, it is a
serious enough issue that the sloppiest paper with
any substantial arguments needs to be published for
all to review (and to tear to shreds, if that's what
happens.)

But this is not for some referees or editors
to decide on their own in total darkness. That they
are suppressing it on their own, indicates clear
bias to me. It would to you, if you could
retain any objectivity on the issue.

When all else fails, claim suppression. Great marketing tool for whacko
treatments and stupid ideas.

LadyLollipop wrote:

Need I call you stupid???????

Mirror mirror

Jeff wrote:

I don't recall either side being dismissed as sloppy. Rather, one side was
dismissed as not having any evidence to back it up. Just like the people who

This is totally bogus. One side of this controversy was not
presented in journals like Pediatrics, or major media. There were
vague allegations like "no evidence", "sloppy work", etc. However,
the papers were full of evidence (such as volumes of data,)
and there was no sloppy work. Notice that Jeff presents not
a single point of substance, as to in what way the work was
sloppy, or what was wrong with the evidence presented. Because he
has nothing substantial that to present!

Notice how Jeff has no comments on the Danish study either.
Again, he has nothing to support the study, except
for his personal emotional preference.

Notice how Jeff has no comments on the original subject
matter of the thread -- the Amish. Again, he simply
chooses to turn a blind eye to this evidence, perhaps
categorizing it as "sloppy work", or "no evidence" or
"not backed up."

The reason for such emotional phraseology is a pre-implanted
imotional preference. Such emotional preferences have no
facts behind them.

For those who are affected, the choices are blind faith
in people like Jeff, or diligent work to discover remedies.

Fortunately, remedies do exist to help, so the one's who
stay hurt only have their protectors' blind faith
and illogic to blame.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 05:16:31 -0700, cathyb wrote:

Simple. The Danish study counted autistics before and after 1992 when
thimerosal was removed from the vaccines. When counting the numbers before
1992 the researchers counted only hospitalized patients.



Not so. Read the study.

In Denmark, regular outpatients, i.e., those who attended for daily
therapy were also counted as hospitalised.

Yes. DAILY. A small minority.




But from 1995 on,
they counted everybody.


Indeed. As clearly acknowledged by the study. They also suggested that
the increase after the withdrawal of thimerosal could be in part due to
this factor

Can it be interpreted as an admission that the whole thing is invalid?

and in part due to increased awareness and therefore
diagnosis of the condition.


And they also say "Our data cannot, of course, exclude the possibility
that thimerosal at doses larger than used in Denmark may lead to
neurodevelopmental damage."

The study has been done by Statens Serum Institut, a vaccine manufacturer.



No, it was not. As clearly stated in the Acknowledgements:

"The activities of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre and the
National Centre for Register-Based Research are funded by a grant from
the Danish National Research Foundation. This study was supported by
the Stanley Medical Research Institute. No funding sources were
involved in the study design."



The only information garnered from the Statens Serum Institut was about
vaccine coverage:


Statens Serum employed 3 of the 7 researchers. Another 2 were employed by
Danish Epidemiology Science Centre. Its headquarters are housed by
the same Statens Serum Institut. I admit that "Research was done by
Statens Serum Institut" was an overstatement but its participation was
much more significant than just providing the data. Let's say
"it controlled the study".

mike wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 05:16:31 -0700, cathyb wrote:

Simple. The Danish study counted autistics before and after 1992 when
thimerosal was removed from the vaccines. When counting the numbers before
1992 the researchers counted only hospitalized patients.



Not so. Read the study.

In Denmark, regular outpatients, i.e., those who attended for daily
therapy were also counted as hospitalised.

Yes. DAILY. A small minority.

The study states that "The proportion of outpatient to inpatient
activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients
with variations across time and age bands."

Whether this is a small poportion of autistics generally, I have no
idea, since I don't know what are the normal treatment protocols in
Denmark.




But from 1995 on,
they counted everybody.


Indeed. As clearly acknowledged by the study. They also suggested that
the increase after the withdrawal of thimerosal could be in part due to
this factor

Can it be interpreted as an admission that the whole thing is invalid?

It can hardly be interpreted as crookery.



and in part due to increased awareness and therefore
diagnosis of the condition.


And they also say "Our data cannot, of course, exclude the possibility
that thimerosal at doses larger than used in Denmark may lead to
neurodevelopmental damage."

Yes, they do, don't they. Rather strange for crooked people attempting
a cover-up.



The study has been done by Statens Serum Institut, a vaccine manufacturer.



No, it was not. As clearly stated in the Acknowledgements:

"The activities of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre and the
National Centre for Register-Based Research are funded by a grant from
the Danish National Research Foundation. This study was supported by
the Stanley Medical Research Institute. No funding sources were
involved in the study design."



The only information garnered from the Statens Serum Institut was about
vaccine coverage:


Statens Serum employed 3 of the 7 researchers. Another 2 were employed by
Danish Epidemiology Science Centre. Its headquarters are housed by
the same Statens Serum Institut. I admit that "Research was done by
Statens Serum Institut" was an overstatement but its participation was
much more significant than just providing the data. Let's say
"it controlled the study".

Or let's not.

The Statens Serum Institut is wholly owned by the Danish government,
which provided all of the vaccines free, according to the study. It
would appear that all of the scientists worked in various government
enterprises.


Roll on more conspiracy theories.