CDC's Vaccine Safety Research is Exposed as Flawed and Falsified in Peer-Reviewed Scientific J

[Zippyjuan]

There is one huge piece of evidence concerning the impact thimerisol in vaccines has on the incidence of autism. Back around the year 2000, the US and several European countries discontinued using thimerisol in vaccines intended for children. If thimerisol was indeed a factor in kids getting autism, the rate of autism should have decreased. Instead it increased. This means that there was zero connection between thimerisol in vaccines and austim. There is no better study or proof available on the issue than that.

If you thing something is causing a problem and get rid of what you think is the source of the problem and the problem does not go away, they you were wrong about that potential cause and must now look for something else. As of this time there seems to be two factors. One- an expanded definition of what is consdered to be ausism (which is a wide spread of symptoms (hence called "Autism Spectrum Disorder) and a subjective diagnosis- there is no test for autism). Two- the medical community looking for it more and applying the definitions today to kids who would not have been called autistic even a decade or two ago. And three- genetics. Age of the parents (particularly the father) is closely correlated with autism (though correlation is not necessarily causation). As a person ages, their genes can develop more defects and a older parent passes on more potential defect to their children.

 

[William Tell]

Congressmen Ron Paul, and Larry McDonald called out the Swine Flu vaccine propaganda in 1976:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-blast-evil-hoax-swine-flu-Vaccine-Propaganda

 

[donnay]

FDA admits in court case that vaccines still contain mercury
http://www.naturalnews.com/035432_vaccines_mercury_court_case.html#ixzz37kf30tOo

FDA admits mercury is still used in vaccines
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322254#ixzz37kgpVu3U

Thimerosal-free vaccines not mercury free
http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/newsstories/newsvaccination/mercury-still-in-vaccines.html

 

[Tod]

I got a neg rep from Angela for my OP.......beginning to look upon a neg rep from her as a good thing! lol

 

[Zippyjuan]

FDA admits in court case that vaccines still contain mercury
http://www.naturalnews.com/035432_vaccines_mercury_court_case.html#ixzz37kf30tOo

FDA admits mercury is still used in vaccines
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322254#ixzz37kgpVu3U

Thimerosal-free vaccines not mercury free
http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/newsstories/newsvaccination/mercury-still-in-vaccines.html

You are right that the flu vaccine does still contain thimerisol (not considered a vaccine intended for children) but if you are concerned you can get a thimerisol free version. Or as you indicated in a different thread, honey will purge the body of metals like mercury so have a cup of tea with honey afterwards and you will be fine- given the tiny amount in it.

 

[jmdrake]

And........ a neg rep from angelatc

Offset +rep

 

[jmdrake]

I got a neg rep from Angela for my OP.......beginning to look upon a neg rep from her as a good thing! lol

+repped

 

[donnay]

You are right that the flu vaccine does still contain thimerisol (not considered a vaccine intended for children) but if you are concerned you can get a thimerisol free version. Or as you indicated in a different thread, honey will purge the body of metals like mercury so have a cup of tea with honey afterwards and you will be fine- given the tiny amount in it.

According to the official medical propaganda-- they stress that your child be vaccinated against the flu.

CDC Says Flu Season Is Going Strong: Protect Yourself

(...)

And young children aren’t as protected as they were last year either. Right now, the vaccination rate for children was around 50%, but last year, by the end of the season, it was 80%. Hopefully the number this year will grow. There have been 50 pediatric deaths already this season.

(...)

The good news is that for people who have gotten vaccinated, the flu shot seems to be working relatively well. According to Ann Schuchat, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, vaccine effectiveness rates “range from 52 percent for people 65 and older to 67 percent for children 6 months to 17 years of age.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/21/this-years-flu-season-pandemic-protect-yourself/

 

[jmdrake]

PRNewsWire is a press release distributor. This is a press release from that Shot of Truth organization, not a news story. It refers to an article published in a journal where authors pay Hindawi to publish their "science." The authors are an engineer, a nurse who pretends to be faculty at the University of Texas but isn't, a chemist, two random members of an anti-vaccine non-profit (which was founded by another author of the article, surely there can be no conflict of interest there), and a "doctor" who has had his license to practice stripped from him in seven separate states.

It goes downhill from there. My favorite part is when they complain about the Verstraeten study having no data, which is because they read and linked to the summary of the study, rather than the entire study (Chapter 6).

This isn't real - PR web is a press release site. Anybody with $30 bucks can publish this.

You vaccine deniers are batshit crazy. There is no evidence to support a fucking thing you believe. And there is no evidence you will accept. And your message is killing children.

You are wrong, and at this point I am quite sick of all of your deep ignorance. I am beginning to hope your kids suffer immense discomfort as a direct result. Let Darwin sort it out.


Again - you don't have ANY evidence that anything you say is true. BUt you keep saying it over and over and over. You should all be banned as trolls.

Oh get real! The PRWeb article linked to the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/247218/

It's retarded to ignore a primary source just because you can discredit the secondary source that links to it. Now if you have a real attack on the primary source (the BioMed Research International Journal), then give it. Otherwise you're just shilling with no real argument.

 

[agitator]

Careful about peer "review"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/10/peer-review-ring-busted/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/dr-tim-ball/another-blow-to-academic-credibility/

 

[TheCount]

Now if you have a real attack on the primary source (the BioMed Research International Journal), then give it.

I did.

 

[jmdrake]

I did.

Really? Because the authors had to pay to be published? That's the way many science journals work!

Please read:
http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676
Michael Eisen doesn't hold back when invited to vent. “It's still ludicrous how much it costs to publish research — let alone what we pay,” he declares. The biggest travesty, he says, is that the scientific community carries out peer review — a major part of scholarly publishing — for free, yet subscription-journal publishers charge billions of dollars per year, all told, for scientists to read the final product. “It's a ridiculous transaction,” he says.

Eisen, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that scientists can get much better value by publishing in open-access journals, which make articles free for everyone to read and which recoup their costs by charging authors or funders. Among the best-known examples are journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), which Eisen co-founded in 2000. “The costs of research publishing can be much lower than people think,” agrees Peter Binfield, co-founder of one of the newest open-access journals, PeerJ, and formerly a publisher at PLoS.

BioMed Research is such an "open access" journal. So your attack is lame.

A quick search of BioMed International shows that they are archived by the NIH.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2029/

So apparently the NIH takes this particular journal at least somewhat seriously. Maybe it's a "conspiracy" to make you look bad.

 

[Zippyjuan]

BioMed Research is such an "open access" journal. So your attack is lame.

Open Access means that anybody can get something published as long as it isn't offensive and the pay the publication fee. Nothing in them has to be verified.

 

[TheCount]

Really? Because the authors had to pay to be published? That's the way many science journals work!

1) You're misreading that article. Journals either charge the authors to publish or the readers to read, not both. Journals which charge the reader have an incentive to publish only good articles in order to gain and maintain their customers. Journals which charge the author have no such incentive.

2) Guy who started pay-to-publish journal says pay-to-publish journals are the best. In other news, water is wet.

3) When your editor-in-chief resigns from the journal in protest at how shit the articles are that you're publishing, it's a warning sign.

4) I had other complaints too.

 

[Weston White]

Say isn’t it long past time for a certain someone who is just o’ such a joy to join their very special buddy Eduardo out in banland?

ETA: (Personally, I have grown sick of reading her pathetically contrived replies.) Really, what is the point anymore? ...Oh, I suppose this also makes me a liberal?

 

[jmdrake]

Open Access means that anybody can get something published as long as it isn't offensive and the pay the publication fee. Nothing in them has to be verified.

Ummmm....no! Open Access means you don't have to pay to read them. The journals are still peer reviewed. It's a shame to see so much ignorance from people claiming to be "pro science".

 

[jmdrake]

[/B]1) You're misreading that article.

No I'm not.

Journals either charge the authors to publish or the readers to read, not both.

That's exactly what I said! You are the one misreading. You're misreading me. Or rather you are creating straw men.

Journals which charge the reader have an incentive to publish only good articles in order to gain and maintain their customers. Journals which charge the author have no such incentive.

Authors don't want to pay good money to be in a crappy journal.

2) Guy who started pay-to-publish journal says pay-to-publish journals are the best. In other news, water is wet.

Ah. The attack the messenger fallacy.

3) When your editor-in-chief resigns from the journal in protest at how shit the articles are that you're publishing, it's a warning sign.

Except that's not why he resigned.

Reski says that while he cannot judge the new paper's scientific merits, he argues that any article by Séralini should be vetted with extra care and that the timing alone was enough to make him suspicious.

So Reski never said the articles were "shit". He resigned because he didn't like other work done by the author. You're basically just making up crap as you go along.

4) I had other complaints too.

I see you've ignored the fact that the NIH apparently deems this journal a reputable source.

 

[TheCount]

I see you've ignored the fact that the NIH apparently deems this journal a reputable source.

Do you suppose that's true of all 11,700 journals listed on the NIH's site?

 

[presence]

Anybody with $30 bucks can publish this.

[]

You should all be banned as trolls.

What's good for the goose?

Publication Ethics

Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. Hindawi is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and abides by its Code of Conduct and aims to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/ethics/

Several studies, for example, including three of the six studies covered in this review, have found Thimerosal to be a risk factor for tics [10, 17, 24, 25, 34, 35]. In addition, Thimerosal has been found to be a risk factor in speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism [10, 11, 15–17, 24, 25, 34].

Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies. A list of the most common methodological issues with these six studies is shown in Table 1. Importantly, other than the Hviid et al. [23] study, five of the publications examined in this review were directly commissioned by the CDC, raising the possible issue of conflict of interests or research bias,

since vaccine promotion is a central mission of the CDC.

Its a political forum. This shit doesn't belong here to begin with.

lol

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/247218/

References

J. G. Dórea, “Low-dose mercury exposure in early life: relevance of thimerosal to fetuses, newborns and infants,” Current Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 32, pp. 4060–4069, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
D. A. Geier, L. K. Sykes, and M. R. Geier, “A review of thimerosal (merthiolate) and its ethylmercury breakdown product: specific historical considerations regarding safety and effectiveness,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health B: Critical Reviews, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 575–596, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
D. G. Fagan, J. S. Pritchard, T. W. Clarkson, and M. R. Greenwood, “Organ mercury levels in infants with omphaloceles treated with organic mercurial antiseptic,” Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 962–964, 1977. View at Scopus
D. S. Matheson, T. W. Clarkson, and E. W. Gelfand, “Mercury toxicity (acrodynia) induced by long-term injection of gammaglobulin,” Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 153–155, 1980. View at Scopus
J. H. Axton, “Six cases of poisoning after a parenteral organic mercurial compound (merthiolate),” Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 48, no. 561, pp. 417–421, 1972. View at Scopus
A. Patrizi, L. Rizzoli, C. Vincenzi, P. Trevisi, and A. Tosti, “Sensitization to thimerosal in atopic children,” Contact Dermatitis, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 94–97, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
O. P. Heinonen, S. Shapiro, R. R. Monson, S. C. Hartz, L. Rosenberg, and D. Slone, “Immunization during pregnancy against poliomyelitis and influenza in relation to childhood malignancy,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 229–235, 1973. View at Scopus
A. Vojdani, J. B. Pangborn, E. Vojdani, and E. L. Cooper, “Infections, toxic chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue enzymes are major instigators of autoimmunity in autism,” International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 189–199, 2003. View at Scopus
K. J. Koh, L. Warren, L. Moore, C. James, and G. N. Thompson, “Wells' syndrome following thiomersal-containing vaccinations,” Australasian Journal of Dermatology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 199–202, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
H. A. Young, D. A. Geier, and M. R. Geier, “Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the vaccine safety datalink,” Journal of the Neurological Sciences, vol. 271, no. 1-2, pp. 110–118, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
C. Gallagher and M. Goodman, “Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1–9 years,” Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 997–1008, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
D. Mrozek-Budzyn, R. Majewska, A. Kieltyka, and M. Augustyniak, “Neonatal exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and child development in the first 3 years of life,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 592–597, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
J. G. Dórea, R. C. Marques, and C. Isejima, “Neurodevelopment of Amazonian infants: antenatal and postnatal exposure to methyl- and ethylmercury,” Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, vol. 2012, Article ID 132876, 9 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
D. A. Geier, B. S. Hooker, J. K. Kern, P. G. King, L. K. Sykes, and M. R. Geier, “A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the united states,” Translational Neurodegeneration, vol. 2, article 25, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
C. M. Gallagher and M. S. Goodman, “Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997–2002,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A: Current Issues, vol. 73, no. 24, pp. 1665–1677, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
D. A. Geier, P. G. King, L. K. Sykes, and M. R. Geier, “A comprehensive review of mercury provoked autism,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 383–411, 2008. View at Scopus
J. P. Barile, G. P. Kuperminc, E. S. Weintraub, J. W. Mink, and W. W. Thompson, “Thimerosal exposure in early life and neuropsychological outcomes 7–10 years later,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 106–118, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
D. A. Geier and M. R. Geier, “A meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States,” Neuroendocrinology Letters, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 401–413, 2006. View at Scopus
Immunization Safety and Autism, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/00_pdf/CDCStudiesonVaccinesandAutism.pdf.
T. Verstraeten, R. L. Davis, D. Gu, and F. DeStefano, “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in first month of life,” in Proceedings of the Epidemic Intelligence Service Annual Conference, vol. 49, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga, USA, 2000.
K. M. Madsen, M. B. Lauritsen, C. B. Pedersen et al., “Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data,” Pediatrics, vol. 112, no. 3 I, pp. 604–606, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
P. Stehr-Green, P. Tull, M. Stellfeld, P.-B. Mortenson, and D. Simpson, “Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 101–106, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
A. Hviid, M. Stellfeld, J. Wohlfahrt, and M. Melbye, “Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 290, no. 13, pp. 1763–1766, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
N. Andrews, E. Miller, A. Grant, J. Stowe, V. Osborne, and B. Taylor, “Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association,” Pediatrics, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 584–591, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
T. Verstraeten, R. L. Davis, F. DeStefano et al., “Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases,” Pediatrics, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 1039–1048, 2003. View at Scopus
C. S. Price, W. W. Thompson, B. Goodson et al., “Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism,” Pediatrics, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 656–664, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
K. M. Madsen, A. Hviid, M. Vestergaard et al., “MMR vaccination and autism–a population-based follow-up study,” Ugeskrift for Laeger, vol. 164, no. 49, pp. 5741–5744, 2002. View at Scopus
B. S. Hooker and J. A. Trelka, “More on Madsen's analysis,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, vol. 9, no. 4, 2004.
T. K. Gronborg, D. E. Schendel, and E. T. Parner, “Recurrence of autism spectrum disorders in full- and half-siblings and trends over time: a population-based cohort study,” Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics, vol. 167, no. 10, pp. 947–953, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
M. F. Blaxill, “The rising incidence of autism: associations with thimerosal,” in Immunization Safety Review: Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
M. F. Blaxill and P. Stehr-Green, “Concerns continue over mercury and autism (multiple letters),” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 91–92, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
M. C. DeSoto and R. T. Hitlan, “Vaccine safety study as an interesting case of “over-matching”,” in Recent Advances in Autism Spectrum Disorders—Volume I, M. Fitzgerald, Ed., P.M.F., 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
C. Price, A. Robertson, and B. Goodson, Thimerosal and Autism, ABT Associates, 2009.
W. W. Thompson, C. Price, B. Goodson et al., “Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 357, no. 13, pp. 1281–1292, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
D. A. Geier and M. R. Geier, “A two-phased population epidemiological study of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow-up analysis,” Medical Science Monitor, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. CR160–CR170, 2005. View at Scopus

 

[jmdrake]

Do you suppose that's true of all 11,700 journals listed on the NIH's site?

I'm sure the NIH didn't put all 11,700 journals in at the same time. I'm sure the NIH has some kind of review process to decide what journals to archive. And if the NIH's review process is crappy then why do you trust them?