Since late 2016 we have entered the age of disclosures! Fasten your mental safety belt and enjoy the ride! Heretic

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Vaccination studies

I am posting few links collected in the course of on-line reading. They are by no means complete or definite but a place to start. I will be adding to the list and will include more screeenshots (if the links are paywalled) as we go.

New Study: Hepatitis B Vaccine Triples the Risk of Autism in Infant Boys


To begin with, it is unscientific and perilously misleading for anyone to assert that “vaccines and autism” have been studied and that no link has been found. That’s because the 16 or so studies constantly cited by critics of the hypothesis have examined just one vaccine and one vaccine ingredient.

And, the population studies themselves have had critical design flaws and limitations.

The current US childhood immunization schedule calls for 28 injections with 11 different vaccines against 15 different diseases by two years of age. Of those 11 vaccines, only the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) shot has been studied in association with autism, (although a CDC study of an MMR-plus-chickenpox vaccine did show that the risk for febrile seizures in infants was doubled.) Meanwhile, those 11 vaccines contain scores of ingredients, only one of which, thimerosal, has ever been tested in association with autism.

More studies


john said...

Vaccines are a topic like global warming. You see so many strong opinions, yet most of those people have never read a single research paper. It's not something I have looked into myself, but I am wary of any push for an idea where some group has lots of money to gain--or anything that's popular. Ask yourself, "Is there a scientific consensus?" It's likely incorrect, especially if it has government support.

JC said...

Stan Bleszynski said...

Fake science!

Stan Bleszynski said...

That Low Carb Study, by
Ally Houston, Aug 22, 2018

Stan Bleszynski said...

@DrFeinman 's response to Medscape article on Seidelmann et al's "Low carb kills" paper.

See also the link The Latest Attack on Low-Carb Diets: Science or Politics? Nina E. Teicholz, MPhil; Fabiano M. Serfaty, MD, September 14, 2018

Robin P Clarke said...

(Stan, I have just now found your website. Well, better late than never.)

I have produced the definitive independent review of the vaccines-autism evidence in Chapter 7 at Experts Catastrophe.
If this or that vaccine did indeed produce a threefold increase of autism risk, then such an increase would be easily visible in the time-series prevalence graphs. But there is no such observation. The data is not sufficient to rule out a possibility that some thousands have indeed been "vaccine injured", but not more than a minor proportion. And the increase data is fully explicable in terms of causation by the change to non-gamma dental amalgams from 1976 onwards (as detailed in Chapter 3 at Experts Catastrophe

The vaccines-cause-autism people have not been helped by the hostile establishment which has reacted by producing some disgracefully sloppy studies such as from Denmark, rightfully encouraging distrust. But just because your opponents are slimey liars does not make your belief true.

V-causes-autism believers have long been engaged on a sort of broadside fishing expedition. If you shoot down theory version A, then theory version B pops up with a different ingredient or different timing or gender. And if there is contrary evidence, then it gets dismissed as lies. The problem is once you start dismissing reports as mere lies, you can justify anything you like and dismiss anything you don't. In my experience, there are a lot of liars in medical research, but very little actual published false results, other than in respect of some drugs trials.

Robin P Clarke said...

Oops, that should have been Chapter 6 for the vaccines-autism review.
Chapter 7 is the antiinnatia theory of autism instead.

Robin P Clarke said...

Among other things, that Chapter 6 shows that neither aluminium nor vax-mercury nor mmr caused the autism increase.

Stan Bleszynski said...

Hi Robin P. Clarke,

Thank you for posting of the links, I am going to repost your links and the links to your book, and some comments in a separate post, if you don't mind. I have always suspected that the vaccine problem lies in an improper activation or overactivation of the immune system due to its organic contents, and is inherent in the method itself, rather than mercury or aluminium. I will respond to your other posts later this week.

The issue of integrity and truthfulness among medical scientists is a big one. One of the problem is that the academic institutions have probably reached the end of their natural institutional lifecycle, which is about one hundred to a couple of hundred years maximum. Beyond which they almost always tend to degenerate beyond repair. There is no easy solution other than taking the matter of research out of their hands and doing some work ourselves, sort of "citizen-research" project. I am discovering that a lot of information and insights can be obtained using simple methods and some unconventional techniques that the mainstream science has been rejecting or denying. Then the information obtained in such a way could be consolidated and corroborated thru normal scientific method.

Best regards,

Robin P Clarke said...

Thanks Stan, I note some ideas very much corresponding with my own there. Thirty years ago I "published" an article to my filing cabinet (could not think of anyone who would want to publish it), in which I reckoned that civilisations are founded by small groups of honest competent people but then gradually become decadent due to incompetent charlatans taking over. And while that took several centuries, there's a faster process of "institutional decadence". Institutions are founded by competent people (e.g. Autism Research Institute, and London Institute of Psychiatry), then more ordinary people are attracted by the status and they decline. Inst of Psych used to be world leading place but now is a bit of a world-leading pseudo place.

A problem with the "citizen research" is that it is like trying to be noticed in a space where there is the very brightest light shining on some other "proper" experts. For some reason, "professors" have to have their own "publicists" as if being indexed in journals isn't good enough anyway.

In the uk only big money corporate organisations are allowed to call themselves "institute" or "university". The rest have to make do with being called also-rans at best.

PS I have just made slight edits to the "about" and "home" pages to remove some words which have evoked a peculiarly irrational reaction from some readers. One "professor" on The Conversation quoted a (completely irrelevant!!!) sentence of mine, with no comment about it, and refused to discuss it, but supposedly it proved something like I was either a fool or evil (no-one actually bothers to state what they are finding "wrong(?)" with it), and as a result my account on The Conversation was closed down with no attempt at explanation other than something to do with mere words elsewhere stating a (proposed) fact.

Robin P Clarke said...

Re the preceding, the fact that people avoid engaging in discussion about something they have a strong domineering attitude to, in my view betrays that they have some awareness that their position is patently indefensible. Ironically the censoring "professor's" article was about the need for free discussion in science!

Stan Bleszynski said...

Re: "...betrays that they have some awareness that their position is patently indefensible. "

- I always had the same impression about people exhibiting such attitudes! Many such seem addicted to "being right" (rather than seeking knowledge) and are just showing off. I find people like that toxic to my mind since there is neither any reciprocality nor co-operation.

I recently allowed a couple of acquaintances like that to fall out of my life. I am glad I did.

I need more time to read more of your material from your web page but this will have to wait past the next week (I will be travelling).