Vaccine - Autism link

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:44 pm

Edit:
Btw: Dr. Suzanne Humphries is nuts. Why anyone would ever take her seriously is beyond me. She's a dangerous quack.


But Orac and Skeptical Raptor are true heroes for their continual and indefatigable personal attacks on any scientist who dares to threaten the profits of huge biochemical manufacturers in any way. Right?
Last edited by stickdog99 on Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:14 pm

liminalOyster » 06 Jun 2018 16:35 wrote:Unless there is breaking Vax news on the scale of "Atlantis has risen," vaccines are definitely not responsible for the US infant mortality rate.


Bullshit. No, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. However, you cannot disprove any connection between the USA's incredibly aggressive vaccination schedule and USA's extremely high infant mortality rate and ever increasing rate of autoimmune and neurological disorders among children. Other countries that inject far fewer vaccines have far healthier children, but the USA's medical establishment has been wholly captured by Big Pharma. To our CDC, every vaccine, no matter its cost and risk vs. benefit profile, should be mandated until proven harmful. Withholding even new, untested vaccines is considered unethical to the point that novel vaccines are routinely tested for safety against previously approved vaccines rather than against inert saline controls, an experimental design "feature" that inherently destroys the experimental validity of these so-called safety experiments.

Consider the flu vaccine, for example. It has a terrible cost and risk vs. benefit profile. It confers measurable protection to healthy adults against a tiny subset of ILIs at the cost of delivering reliable annual doses of mercury and aluminum to all idiotic enough to listen to our medical establishment's recommendations, which include mandatory injections for pregnant women, infants, and every senior citizen subject to hospital, nursing home, or hospice confinement. Flu vaccines, when they work at all, work poorly for the people who could use them most, and best for those for whom ILIs are nothing but a minor health annoyance.

https://community.cochrane.org/news/why ... stabilised

Whilst we do not believe that periodic updating will complete the picture, our decision to stabilise is conditional. The three reviews will not be updated again unless certain criteria are met.

First, a new trial that meets inclusion criteria becomes available. Few trials of interest have been conducted recently, as a comparison with an inactive control is considered by some to be unethical. In the elderly, the latest completed trial dates from nearly two decades ago. Our searches have failed to find relevant ongoing trials.

A second condition is the introduction of a new generation of vaccines, based on new technology. This is possible given that several new technologies are being developed, such as vaccines containing fragments of the haemagglutinin antigen “stalk” on the viral surface (so called stalk-specific vaccines).4

The third condition is more complex: the development and testing of a new causal paradigm for ILI and influenza. Currently, massive worldwide machinery is needed to produce new vaccines every year to address viral antigenic changes, and to address the poor persistence of the antibody response in individuals. However, the vaccination selection and production programmes are based on aetiological assumptions which are neither explanatory nor predictive, as shown in our reviews. Overall the largest dataset to have accumulated to date is from trials conducted in the population least likely to benefit from vaccines but most likely to produce immunity: healthy adults. In healthy adult trials a high serological response is matched by a very small clinical effect (71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza). This weak effect cannot be explained simply by the mismatch of vaccine antigens with wild virus ones. A larger effect is observed in children over the age of two (five children need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, although there is huge uncertainty around these estimates). There is little evidence on prevention of complications, transmission, or time off work. Other reviews have drawn similar conclusions.5

...

The underlying assumption that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of non-influenza is contradicted by a recent report from the follow up of a trial by Cowling et al.8 In 115 participants, those who received trivalent influenza vaccines had higher risk of acute respiratory infection associated with confirmed non-influenza respiratory virus infection (RR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.31–14.8) compared to placebo recipients. The agents were mainly rhinoviruses and coxsackie/echoviruses; ILI episodes occurred shortly after a peak of influenza activity.

Current yearly registration of candidate influenza vaccines is based on their ability to trigger a good antibody response. But antibody responses are poor predictors of field protection. This is another example of the use of surrogate outcomes in biomedicine, where effects on clinically important outcomes remain unmeasured or unproven from randomised trials: complications and death by influenza.

The simple answer is that we do not understand what the target is. What is the threat of influenza, and what can we ever expect of the vaccines?

...

However there is no reliable system to monitor and quantify the epidemiology and impact of ILI, the syndrome that presents clinically. Few states produce reliable data on the number of physician contacts or hospitalised cases due to ILI, and none tie these data to the proportion of ILI caused by influenza. We do not know for certain what the impact of ILI is, nor the impact of the proportion of ILI caused by influenza. Prospective studies apportioning positivity to the scores of viruses probably causing ILI are rare, as interest is focused on influenza. The standard quoted figure of 36,000 yearly deaths in the US is based on the “respiratory and circulatory deaths” category including all types of pneumonia, including secondary to meconium ingestion or bacterial causes. More recently, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have proposed estimates of impact ranging between 3,000 and 49,000 yearly deaths. When actual death certificates are tallied, influenza deaths on average are little more than 1,000 yearly. So, the actual threat is unknown (but likely to be small) and so is the estimation of the impact of vaccination.

The uncertainty over the aetiology of ILI, its capricious nature and the weak correlation between immunity and protection, point to possible causal or concurrent factors in the genesis of both ILI and influenza. In other words, virus positivity may only be one of the factors necessary for a case of influenza or ILI to manifest itself.

We await to see whether anyone has the interest or the courage to develop effective ways to control upper respiratory viral syndromes. Meanwhile our reviews will remain as a testimonial to the scientific failure of industry and governments to address the most important clinical outcomes for patients.
Last edited by stickdog99 on Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:22 pm

liminalOyster » 08 Jun 2018 23:38 wrote:
Aluminum

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: https://www.publichealth.org/public-awa ... s-vaccine/


Do you actually believe that everyone tolerates environmental aluminum equally well?

Do you actually believe human bodies detoxify injected alum in the exact same manner that they detoxify ingested aluminum?

It's as if you cannot think for yourself beyond pure "nothing to see here" propaganda.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6040147/
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:32 pm

DrEvil » 08 Jun 2018 18:52 wrote:^^Ffs. He lost his medical license for conducting unethical experiments on children, falsifying experimental data and trying to profit from it. He's the last person you want to listen to when it comes to vaccines. He's a fraud.

I get that you're not going to believe any of that because he's just a poor anti-vaxxer being targeted by the big, bad establishment, but it's the truth. There's been several studies looking into his claims after he made them, and they all came to the same conclusion: he's wrong.


Yes, Wakefield was successfully vilified by journalist Brian Deer and the BMJ and sacrificed to the great Gods of Vaccine Orthodoxy.

But he's just a doctor who wanted to report his findings. All he was actually guilty of was sloppiness and ambition. Which physicians can throw the first stones? Certainly not those whose studies are cited as refuting Wakefield's. None of these studies could withstand a full-frontal attack from Brian Deer.

https://www.fourteenstudies.org/
Last edited by stickdog99 on Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:34 pm

liminalOyster » 09 Jun 2018 01:54 wrote: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.


Must not read any studies for myself. Must let Orac or the CDC put them into "context" for me.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:37 pm



This is your hero? Has Skeptical Raptor ever met a mass produced chemical that he would not defend to the death?

Ever?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:42 pm

liminalOyster » 09 Jun 2018 20:47 wrote:Right but the last paper is also cited by websites which debunk the strong claim of "aluminum adjuvant = smoking gun for vaccine conspiracy." It looks like this Tomljenovic/Shaw team collaborate with a linguistics prof named John Oller in Louisiana who is a strict creationist. This doesn't *necessarily* mean anything but, it affects my own instinct about them for sure.

If I were who they claim/fancy themselves to be - intrepid renegade researchers trying to bring attention to a cover-up, I'd understand how important it was for my work to *not* be dismissed by simple association and I would definitely opt out of that alliance. The lack of attention to their perception by the scientific establishment seems telling. Plus Tomljenovic certainly looks more like an activist than anything - see her book on Amazon and/or (via her ResearchGate profile) her paper including info about de-fertilization programs in Kenya. Nothing wrong with that but it sort of means her research findings would need to be truly untouchable which they appear to be anything but.


You do realize the personal attacks of these scientists were produced on demand by web astroturf hitmen who are paid by the biochemical industry to do this dirty work? I mean, you must realize this. Right?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3524
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby liminalOyster » Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:14 am

stickdog99 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:42 pm wrote:
liminalOyster » 09 Jun 2018 20:47 wrote:Right but the last paper is also cited by websites which debunk the strong claim of "aluminum adjuvant = smoking gun for vaccine conspiracy." It looks like this Tomljenovic/Shaw team collaborate with a linguistics prof named John Oller in Louisiana who is a strict creationist. This doesn't *necessarily* mean anything but, it affects my own instinct about them for sure.

If I were who they claim/fancy themselves to be - intrepid renegade researchers trying to bring attention to a cover-up, I'd understand how important it was for my work to *not* be dismissed by simple association and I would definitely opt out of that alliance. The lack of attention to their perception by the scientific establishment seems telling. Plus Tomljenovic certainly looks more like an activist than anything - see her book on Amazon and/or (via her ResearchGate profile) her paper including info about de-fertilization programs in Kenya. Nothing wrong with that but it sort of means her research findings would need to be truly untouchable which they appear to be anything but.


You do realize the personal attacks of these scientists were produced on demand by web astroturf hitmen who are paid by the biochemical industry to do this dirty work? I mean, you must realize this. Right?


You're a little late to the party to barrage me with so many pointed and unduly unfriendly responses. No worries. It wasn't much of a party anyways. In any case, you quoted what I said about how this team's choice of public image (viz association with controversial and fringe affiliates) affects my read of them.

So even if it were true that anti-anti-vaxxers were driven by an army of "astroturf hitmen," I don't think it would have any bearing on this particular passage which is really just responding to "original source" info available on Researchgate and Academia etc.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby Sounder » Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:13 am

Dr. Evil wrote...
This is what pisses me off so much about the anti-vaxxers. They seem incapable of honesty. They don't want the truth, they want evidence to support what they already believe. It's very similar to a religion in that sense.

I was thinking a similar thing going in the opposite direction. For example; The 1985 vaccination no-liability act required safety studies too be submitted to congress every two years. The fact none were ever done let alone submitted to congress tells sane non-biased people that pro-vaxxers are living on faith, faith in injected chemicals no less.

https://www.corvelva.it/speciali-corvel ... ition.html

In Infanrix Hexa we found

chemical contamination from the manufacturing process or cross-contamination with other manufacturing lines;
chemical toxins;
bacterial peptide toxins;
insoluble and indigestible macromolecule that reacts to the protein assay, but cannot be recognized by any protein databases.

We have not found:

Protein antigens of diphtheria toxoids, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, haemophylus influenzae B, Poliomyelitis 1-2-3;
Formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, phenoxyethanol, antibiotic residues indicated in the composition;

In Infanrix Hexa there are six antigens

Tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis toxoids, D antigens of Poliomyelitis 1-2-3, hepatitis B proteins obtained with genetic engineering and Haemophylus polysaccharides chemically linked to tetanus toxoid as carrier. Toxoids are created by treatments with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde that should remove toxicity keeping intact their ability to stimulate protective antibodies against original toxins.

We were expecting to find the three toxoids and the other antigens not modified by treatment with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, to separate the antigens from each other and to be digestible by the enzyme specific for proteins (trypsin). We have found instead a real polymer, insoluble and indigestible, that we supposed to be the set of antigens chemically bound together (has to be defined if this is present as an aggregate of the individual antigens or a single macromolecule), on which we can find in literature partial information regarding the single antigens.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3871
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby DrEvil » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:00 pm

I was thinking a similar thing going in the opposite direction. For example; The 1985 vaccination no-liability act required safety studies too be submitted to congress every two years. The fact none were ever done let alone submitted to congress tells sane non-biased people that pro-vaxxers are living on faith, faith in injected chemicals no less.


(First: source please)

Of course. Because if congress doesn't get it it has to be bullshit. No way safety studies can be valid without congress reading them first. Nuh-uh.

Just because congress doesn't get them doesn't mean they aren't done. They have to do them. They don't get approval without. They also have to send samples of each new batch to the FDA ( https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensur ... index.html ).

If they cheat then nail them to the wall, but don't fucking pretend they don't get done because a group of wildly unqualified people didn't get to read them*. That logic isn't even wrong.

And will you pretty please stop using the word chemicals as if it was something bad? Water is a chemical ffs. Do you freak out every time you take a chemical bath (aka "a shower")?

Your comment is a great example of what I was talking about. Sloppy use of facts, ignorance, insinuations and dishonesty.

*11300 studies since 2014 according to a Google Scholar search for "vaccine safety".
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:12 pm

Sounder » Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:13 am wrote:Dr. Evil wrote...
This is what pisses me off so much about the anti-vaxxers. They seem incapable of honesty. They don't want the truth, they want evidence to support what they already believe. It's very similar to a religion in that sense.

I was thinking a similar thing going in the opposite direction. For example; The 1985 vaccination no-liability act required safety studies too be submitted to congress every two years. The fact none were ever done let alone submitted to congress tells sane non-biased people that pro-vaxxers are living on faith, faith in injected chemicals no less.

https://www.corvelva.it/speciali-corvel ... ition.html

In Infanrix Hexa we found

chemical contamination from the manufacturing process or cross-contamination with other manufacturing lines;
chemical toxins;
bacterial peptide toxins;
insoluble and indigestible macromolecule that reacts to the protein assay, but cannot be recognized by any protein databases.

We have not found:

Protein antigens of diphtheria toxoids, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, haemophylus influenzae B, Poliomyelitis 1-2-3;
Formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, phenoxyethanol, antibiotic residues indicated in the composition;

In Infanrix Hexa there are six antigens

Tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis toxoids, D antigens of Poliomyelitis 1-2-3, hepatitis B proteins obtained with genetic engineering and Haemophylus polysaccharides chemically linked to tetanus toxoid as carrier. Toxoids are created by treatments with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde that should remove toxicity keeping intact their ability to stimulate protective antibodies against original toxins.

We were expecting to find the three toxoids and the other antigens not modified by treatment with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, to separate the antigens from each other and to be digestible by the enzyme specific for proteins (trypsin). We have found instead a real polymer, insoluble and indigestible, that we supposed to be the set of antigens chemically bound together (has to be defined if this is present as an aggregate of the individual antigens or a single macromolecule), on which we can find in literature partial information regarding the single antigens.


Bombshell. Every vaccine should undergo similar testing - it's criminal lunacy that they don't.

Since this polymer we have encountered, derived from the antigenic mix, is not only different for its spatial conformation but it’s chemically different, so we can state that we are not facing antigens similar to the original ones but in the form of a compound with an unknown and unpredictable toxicity and efficacy.

Not only vaccine antigens have been not detected, there were also 65 signs of chemical contaminants of which only 35% is known, there are among these various processing residues and cross-contaminations from other manufacturing lines, and their identification will be checked during the second level of the analytical study (i.e. with standard controls).

7 chemical toxins among these signals have also been identified, probably deriving from chemical contaminants of the manufacturing process or other manufacturing lines at the vaccine manufacturing site; these toxins have a structure that could probably be partially derived from the formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde and cyanogen bromide reaction with other chemical contaminants in the vaccine. We’d like to point out that the toxicity of many of these toxins have been confirmed and published in Pubchem or Toxnet and this poses important safety problems, issues and concerns.

From the protein and peptide fraction study, various free peptides of bacterial origin have been obtained probably coming from the bacterial culture cells used for the antigen extraction. Literature reports bacterial peptides as potential allergens 5 and also as capable of inducing autoimmune reactions 6 and these too put a safety issue that needs to be further clarified with the regulatory bodies.

Coming back to the two basic principles that have been our topic on this analysis path, we reaffirm what we have said in the recent interview on the scientific journal Nature: we are inquiring the vaccines efficacy and safety and we can't quite understand how it is possible to claim that this vaccine is even able to generate the 6 protective antibodies - reason why it is designed for - and furthermore to understand how this cluster made of 6 neurotoxic antigens bound together can be claimed as not toxic for newborns.


https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/12/corvelva-vaccinegate-gsks-infanrix-hexa-exposed.html
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby DrEvil » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:22 pm

^^Yeah... no.

Vaccine pseudoscience from Corvelva anti-vaccine “researchers”

Oh, here we go again with more vaccine pseudoscience that makes the anti-vaccine religion fall on their knees and genuflect as if real science was presented. This time it is garbage science from an Italian anti-vaccine group, Corvelva, that tries to claim that vaccines don’t contain anything but toxins. They laughably believe that vaccines don’t even contain antigens.

Yes, you read that right. This amateur group “published” (and by published, I don’t mean in a real peer-reviewed journal, I mean a pdf file on the internet). Obviously, this ranks near the bottom, if not the bottom, of the hierarchy of scientific research. But we’ll get to all of that – let’s take the time to dig through the nonsense presented by this fake “study.”

WTF is Corvelva?

This is a valid question since it goes to the respectability of research. First of all, Corvelva doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. The online encyclopedia has a standard of “notability” for any new articles, so apparently, either no one has bothered to give them an article. Or they have, and it’s been deleted by administrators for not being notable. That’s a small point.

Their website is 100% or so in Italian, so it’s difficult to get a full grasp of what they do or don’t do. But, as far as I can tell, it is pure, unadulterated, science denying anti-vaccine junk. They talk about how the Incredible Hulk, Lou Ferrigno, having to go to the hospital after receiving the pneumococcal vaccine. According to a thorough analysis by the indignent Orac, “my best guess is that he either had a really bad local reaction or a hematoma and went to the ER. For some reason, it appears that he was briefly admitted to the hospital. Neither of these is life-threatening or reasons not to get vaccinated according to the CDC recommended schedule.” In other words, there’s nothing there, but Corvelva is all over it.

In addition, Corvelva mentions Sheri Tenpenny several times. Tenpenny is a lunatic who pushes lies about vaccines, despite zero published evidence supporting any of her claims. Tenpenny, who has no background in any field of science related to vaccines, is a favorite of that ultra-nationalist nutjob, Alex Jones.

I see several other articles on the website that represent the beliefs and dogma of the anti-vaccine religion. They also seem to support the current Italian government, which is dangerously anti-vaccine.

This is not an unbiased group – apparently, they will do whatever they can to dig up any evidence, whether valid or not, to “prove” that vaccines are not safe or effective. If they really had valid scientific evidence to back their claims, they would get it published in one of many respected peer-reviewed journals who would be overjoyed to publish their findings. However, given what I’m going to write below, it wouldn’t pass a peer-review of high school science fair students.

Corvelva anti-vaccine research – laughably bad

I continue to lose highly capable neurons reading these pseudoscience articles about vaccines, but I persevere. Just come visit me at the nursing home for old feathered dinosaurs when finally I cannot afford to lose another one.

Usually, at this point in a review of bad vaccine “research”, I take a look at the authors to determine if they have any credibility. This being an online blurb, not a peer-reviewed article, there are no authors. None. So, it could have been written by the janitor, for all we know.

So, let’s jump into the methods.

Corvelva was trying to find some disparaging secrets in the Infarix Hexa vaccine, which protects infants against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), hepatitis B, polio and Haemophilus influenzae B (Hib). The vaccine is used throughout the world, except in the USA, because the FDA hasn’t completed its review and approval of this vaccine or other similar hexavalent vaccines.

The first test that Corvelva performed, in the order that they described in the non-peer-reviewed paper, states that they subjected a 10 µl sample of the vaccine to 50 µl of trypsin, an enzyme that hydrolyzes larger proteins into smaller peptides or amino acids. This method is used to get amino acid sequences that are unique to proteins, such as the six antigens found in the vaccine (which, of course, induces the immune response protecting the infant against these deadly diseases). These sequences then are analyzed by other methods to “read” the exact list of amino acids.

The “researchers” claim that they did not find ANY sequences related to the six antigens, and made the bold claim that the vaccine lacked the antigens that induce an immune response. If this were true, that would mean that the vaccines are completely useless.

Except, the only thing that is useless is there methods. Importantly, an aluminum adjuvant (which is completely safe, despite anti-vaccine tropes and fears) is used to promote the immune response to the antigens in the vaccine. Part of the function of the adjuvant is to specifically protect the antigen from damage by proteolytic enzymes which may reduce the immunogenicity of the antigen.

So guess what? The aluminum adjuvant in the vaccine probably impacts the ability of the trypsin to hydrolyze the antigenic proteins, meaning that it’s impossible to get the amino acid sequences that allow one to determine whether there are any antigens in the vaccine. This is like a basic issue with this whole “paper”, and it makes it almost too easy to dismiss this as garbage.

What they should have done is removed the adjuvant first (they simply took an aliquot from the vaccine vial). They failed at a basic level, something I learned in undergraduate biochemistry. Oh, the value of real science education, but I digress.

Now, it is not easy to separate the adjuvant from the protein. There might be a chemical that could be added to the solution to break precipitate or separate the adjuvant from the antigens. Most of these processes are time-consuming and require a lot of skill in protein chemistry – I’ll be honest, I don’t detect a lot of protein chemistry skills in whoever did this “study.”

There are numerous methods that allow a researcher to determine if there are proteins in solution, which may not have told them what those proteins were, but at least it would be some sort of control. They didn’t bother with this basic technique.

They did detect amino acids that they couldn’t identify as being from an antigen. The “researchers” immediately dismissed those free amino acids as being from antigens – it almost reads like they think those amino acids are just plain contamination of the vaccine. That’s a ridiculous conclusion.

In fact, the trypsin digestion may have been able to cleave off non-specific peptides and amino acids from the antigen. They consider it contamination, whereas a real scientist would assume they came from the protein antigens in solution. It wouldn’t be a definitive identification of those proteins, but it certainly would be an indicator.

In other words, Corvelva had a pre-conceived conclusion – vaccines are useless. And they reject any evidence that might contradict their unscientific conclusion.

Furthermore, the vaccine contains a reagent called polysorbate-80. Let’s not start – it’s perfectly safe in vaccines. Polysorbate-80 is an emulsifier that keeps various chemicals in solution, like antigens. Without it, the antigens may settle in the vaccine vial or syringe, reducing the effectiveness.

The problem with the Corvelva study is that it didn’t consider the fact that polysorbate-80 binds to the reagents used in the peptide assay, reducing the effectiveness of it. At a minimum, it should have been added to the control sample, which used hemoglobin as a known protein. Of course, they didn’t, because either they were incompetent or because they wanted to get the results they wanted.

Instead of giving us results that may make us consider the hypothesis that the vaccines do not contain antigens (which boggles the mind), they leap to the conclusion that there is a whole bunch of unidentified peptides that have nothing to do with the antigen. Instead, a real biochemist would say, “there are too many issues with your methodologies, so the best we can say is that you have random peptides cleaved from the actual antigens.”

The paper then provided a long list of chemicals, with scary chemical names, that they claim are contaminants in the vaccine. I don’t know about that.

First, I don’t know what concentration they found for these various chemicals. Some powerful analytical methods can detect a few molecules of a chemical. It goes to an important point of toxicology – the dose makes the poison. Our body encounters literally billions of chemicals, both natural and man-made, which can be dangerous to a human at some dose, generally way above what we might find in a drug like vaccines. A dose-response relationship does not say that a small amount of a chemical may have a small effect (of course, most have no effect) – generally, an effect from a compound may not be apparent until a much higher dose.

Second, because of the sensitivity of these assays, we may be seeing some chemicals that are a part of the manufacturing process. Or it can be from the packaging (the vial, stopper, or syringe). Or it can be contamination from the methods used by these “researchers.” I’m sure the anti-vaxxers will say “oh, it means vaccines are dangerous.” Real scientists, like myself, will say, “oh this tells us nothing about anything. And these people are so incompetent, I’m not sure it even says that little.”

There’s more, but this is about as far as I want to go to rip apart this pseudoscience from Corvelva.

Summary

This junk science from Corvelva is being pushed all across the internet by our usual suspects in the anti-vaccine religion. They do this because they simply lack any scientific evidence that supports any of their invalid opinions about vaccines.

This is a ridiculous study that uses amateurish biochemical methods to arrive at conclusions that support their beliefs. A real study would have asked a question like “are there antigens in the vaccine,” and attempted to answer it with well-controlled, well-designed studies.

Of course, vaccine manufacturers have ridiculously complex quality control methods to continue to sample and analyze vaccines to make certain that they meet the highest standards of quality. And their systems are tightly regulated by agencies all across the world. I’m sure some anti-vaxxer will say, “the FDA is in the pocket of Big Pharma, so we can’t trust them either.”

But let’s assume that Corvelva actually found something. Then why not publish it in a real peer-reviewed journal? Why not provide us with detailed methodology and data?

If we thought that Corvelva did find something, then a whole bunch of researchers in real science will attempt to repeat the studies. But that means that real science will do real studies which will probably not support the claims made by this group.

For the time being, this is a bogus study using bogus methods providing us with bogus results. Hexavalent Infarix is safe and effective, and until I see a real study published in a real journal that says otherwise, this is just more pseudoscience from the anti-vaccine world.


https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptic ... searchers/
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:57 pm

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

http://www.truthwiki.org/skeptical-raptor/

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:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076480

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 Forbes.com. (6) (7) (9)
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:58 pm

Agent Orange Cooper » Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:14 pm wrote:https://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/11/internet-trolls-attack-anyone-resisting-vaccine-party-line/

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.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Vaccine - Autism link

Postby DrEvil » Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:21 pm

Dude, truthwiki was started by the guy who runs Natural News, one of the most dishonest websites out there when it comes to this stuff. You might as well have linked to Infowars.

And sure, Skepticalraptor can be pretty harsh on the people he doesn't like, but if you read the article you would see that the Corvelva people made some pretty basic fuck-ups and leaps to conclusions that their results did not support.

Not to mention that research that is presented in the form of a pdf with no authors, on the website of the people who did the research is somewhat suspect. Get back to me when it's peer reviewed and published with all the authors listed.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests