I don't understand the Anti-Vaccine crowd. I see no possible way for what they espouse to be morally responsible. Without vaccines the mortality rate of children to these diseases would be higher than the total rate of autism. This means that you would have more kids die than get autism even if every case of autism was directly caused by a vaccine.
This leaves us with two options for the beliefs of the anti-vaccination crowd.
1. They believe that a dead child is better than one with autism.
2. They are comfortable letting everyone else's children take the "risk" of getting a vaccine while they sit back and rely on herd immunity.
Although I certainly don't condone the anti-vaccine crowd, I do at least understand them: most of the "crowd" has only vaguely heard the idea that vaccines may be linked to autism. A distant relative (who had a seven year old and was pregnant with baby #2) repeated her worries about vaccines to me over Thanksgiving, and when I told her there was no real link to autism she reacted somewhat skeptically, so I told her to read _Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure_, which discusses why people want to associate vaccines and autism.
The shortest, most obvious version is that most people have trouble disentangling correlation and causation: kids tend to develop obvious signs of autism around the same time they get vaccines. So people think one causes the other when they don't.
Furthermore, most people don't have the training or inclination to really study the data. Journalism, in the meantime, promotes the "two sides of the controversy" school of writing, which often works well for politics and other areas without clear right answers. This works appallingly poorly in matters of science, where right answers are often demonstrably right but non-scientists have trouble distinguishing between competing claims, especially when multiple credentialed sources make compelling-seeming arguments. For more on this, see James Fallows' recent discussion in another context: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/year-e... .
You can see the same kind of thinking in reporting on global climate change, which is almost certainly happening and being caused or accelerated by things we're doing. Yet you often see a climate scientist discussing this, on which there's widespread consensus (and consensus that more study is still needed) followed by a bogus climate skeptic. Same thing for vaccines. People hear this stuff in the air and repeat vague claims at family gatherings, but most of them (and us) don't really understand them.
I see no possible way for what they espouse to be morally responsible.
It is very simple: they don't understand much about science. If you are ignorant of science, then it is easy to believe that autism symptoms that develop in your child after they get a vaccine are caused by the vaccine. The obvious flaws in this claim just won't appear to you just like bugs are often invisible to the developers that write them. Unless you've spent a fair bit of time thinking through causation claims and how they've been wrong, you won't have the practice to get this sort of analysis right, especially on such an emotionally fraught topic.
While I don't agree with the factual basis on which they are making their decision, it is entirely rational given their belief.
MMR are [edit] usually temporary and can typically be effectively treated by the medical systems of industrialized nations, whereas autism is permanent and generally untreatable.
It is analogous to purchasing a large heavy vehicle (e.g. SUV) based on the superior crash protection it provides passengers and despite the increased risk to other vehicles in a collision and the potential for increased long term environmental degradation.
I think there are a few factors at work:
1) In the developed world for people with good incomes and health insurance, people live in relative safety and misjudge risk. Many diseases are rare or nonexistent, so are not viewed as risks as compared to autism (which may receive more media attention, than say the last measles outbreak).
2) Difficulties with distinguishing correlation/causation
3) Interested parties intentionally muddying the waters. The tobacco industry is a prime example of this and Merchants of Doubt makes for excellent, albeit chilling, reading.
4) A desire for control--it's easier to blame someone else if your kid gets autism then to ascribe it to unknown causes. For a parent (who believes that the risk of not vaccinating is small), it may be more satisfying to believe that they can protect their kids against autism, rather than face the fact that either due to unknown environmental or genetic (or an interplay between the two) factors, their child may become (or was diagnosed with) autism and there is nothing that they can currently do (have done) to prevent it....
I have a friend with an autistic son and she is firmly convinced it was caused by his vaccine(s) (according to her, no symptoms prior). Her younger son is perfectly healthy but never vaccinated.
I get that you don't agree with anti-vax people but it can't be too hard to see where those directly affected are coming from—can it?
Those aren't the only two options. But I mostly avoid discussions like this on HN because the atmosphere here is pretty openly judgmental and hostile (a la your remark) so I don't see any real good coming out of trying to discuss it. It doesn't help that anyone here who is anti-vax tends to post in these threads in a manner that just promotes the view that we are all extremist nutcases, unfamiliar with basic logic, etc. So posting the type of remark you have just posted (in a forum that is already pretty biased on the topic) is highly unlikely to get you a real explanation of a third option. Thus you get your own "confirmation bias" stuff going on.
I get the impression that the tide has turned in the battle, and we should start seeing an improvement in vaccination rates over the next few years. Pity there will be a large lag as children who weren't immunized grow up and continue to get sick from these preventable diseases.
The sad thing is that for a lot of this sort of propaganda to be effective, it don't have to prove anything; it suffices to just raise the question and spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Even sadder is that they cite Wakefield being exposed as a fraud as evidence of tampering by "Big Pharma".
As much as I'm convinced this guy is scum and perpetrated a cynical fraud for his own professional and monetary gain, I have to admit this is a fair accusation if you replace "Big Pharma" by the medical community as a whole. It was done with good intentions, but the way they treated the study (and Wakefield) proves that the science is subject to non-scientific considerations. Wakefield's study was accepted and published and didn't immediately cause a scandal, so there must be hundreds of published papers just as shoddy, many of them containing fraud perpetrated for an author's professional gain. Far from ending careers and discrediting ideas, the vast majority of those papers will continue to boost careers and promote their conclusions in some small way until the journals are dusty and forgotten.
Wakefield's study was singled out for special justice in order to manipulate the public debate on vaccines. It was done in the name of truth, will certainly save lives, and didn't inflict on Wakefield anything he didn't deserve. However, it was "tampering" with the normal process, it was done as propaganda, and it was also done for PR motivations, to compensate for the impression that the medical community was complicit in Wakefield's fraud by holding his science to such low standards. It isn't sad if people notice that. It's just sad that the medical community was forced to stage a show trial to put an end to Wakefield's deadly and self-serving BS.
"The sad thing is even though the study has been thoroughly discredited, it continues to hang around and be cited by anti-vaccine activists."
Unlike HN commenters constantly promoting dangerous psychiatric drugs that are no more effective than placebos, extrinsic rewards for children who read/exercise, Bill Gates' KIPP-based school reforms, the conflation of homeopathic and naturopathic medicine, using GPA for hiring, etc.
The study's author "misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study." Oh, and he was paid by a law firm which was looking to sue vaccine manufacturers.
The net result: vaccination rates dropped, and measles cases have gone up sharply.
Poking around a bit, the British Medical Journal itself has a much more in-depth and interesting article on the web, which the CNN story is but a pale reflection of: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full
great link, definitely worth reading the full BMJ article.
Here's a quote from the senior clinician on the project, after the journalist presented information from one of the parents that conflicted with the data in the study: “Well I can’t really comment,” he said. “You really touch on an area which I don’t think should be debated like this. And I think these parents are wrong to discuss such details, where you could be put in a position of having a lot of medical details and then try to match it with this, because it is a confidential matter.”
no wonder why so many people are losing trust in science ...
The latest developments being reported are new. Previously the study had been found to be erroneous, it is now been decided parts of the study are outright fraudulent.
There is a big difference between fraud and making mistakes. Mistakes in study methodology or in drawing conclusions are expected to happen in science, hence the peer review process. Fraud on the other hand usually ends a scientist's career.
The news isn't new. But it is welcome news that the "mainstream" media is giving it play - since negative results generally get neglected. Especially compared to dramatic, scary faux findings.
Wow. It boggles the mind that somebody, a physician no less, would jeopardize children all over the world for half a million dollars. It is beyond comprehension.
In two respects, really--first, that it's reprehensible for a physician to jeopardize people's lives in this way, and second, that the magnitude of the motive (only half a million dollars) is nowhere close to the magnitude of this evil.
> They have spent a lot more time thinking about the risks and consequences than most of the other people, for whom there is no direct and immediate concern.
This can be detrimental to rational examination of the facts.
They are valid arguments to either side and nothing is conculsive. I think it is best to do your own research from medical journals/studies etc and do what you think is best for your children.
I think that is one thing everyone here has in common, we all want to do what is best for our children.
The whole problem with the vaccine scare is that some parents believe the FUD and make the actually rational decision that they'd rather have their kids get measles and live, than get autism and be damaged for life.
These parents do what they think is best for THEIR children.
But the cost for doing this is that OTHER children that rely on herd immunity will start dying of measles.
So by having every parent do a local "optimization", the net result, an unvaccinated world, is much, much worse. And then to add insult to injury, it's just plain wrong that vaccines cause autism, so the parents that believe this are only making the world a worse place for everyone and not really doing what's best for their children in any way.
Vaccines do cause autism. Here is a peer reviewed paper in the journal of Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, the abstract:
Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds
Authors: D. A. Geiera; P. G. Kingb; M. R. Geierc
Abstract
Thimerosal (ethylmercurithiosalicylic acid), an ethylmercury (EtHg)-releasing compound (49.55% mercury (Hg)), was used in a range of medical products for more than 70 years. Of particular recent concern, routine administering of Thimerosal-containing biologics/childhood vaccines have become significant sources of Hg exposure for some fetuses/infants. This study was undertaken to investigate cellular damage among in vitro human neuronal (SH-SY-5Y neuroblastoma and 1321N1 astrocytoma) and fetal (nontransformed) model systems using cell vitality assays and microscope-based digital image capture techniques to assess potential damage induced by Thimerosal and other metal compounds (aluminum (Al) sulfate, lead (Pb)(II) acetate, methylmercury (MeHg) hydroxide, and mercury (Hg)(II) chloride) where the cation was reported to exert adverse effects on developing cells. Thimerosal-associated cellular damage was also evaluated for similarity to pathophysiological findings observed in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (ADs). Thimerosal-induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies. Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined. Future studies need to be conducted to evaluate additional mechanisms underlying Thimerosal-induced cellular damage and assess potential co-exposures to other compounds that may increase or decrease Thimerosal-mediated toxicity.
Keywords: autism; glial; lead; mercury; mercuric; neurodevelopmental
Nether of these papers were written by Wakefield. Just because we have a bad scientist doesn't mean the science is flawed.
In fact, the "vaccine doesn't cause autism" scientist have been caught creating fruad as well: Scientist who "debunked mercury vaccines" caught in fraud, steals $2 Million, skips town
A Danish scientist who was a key researcher in two studies that purport to show that mercury used in vaccines and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine do not cause autism is believed to have used forged documents to steal $2 million from Aarhus University in Denmark according to reports in the Copenenhagen Post Online and a statement from Aarhus University.
Poul Thorsen, MD PhD, headed up a research unit at Aarhus University that was hired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prepare a series of studies that would exonerate thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative and adjuvant used in vaccines, and the MMR vaccine from any role in causing autism. The veracity of the two studies he co-authored is now in doubt.
These studies formed the foundation for the conclusions of several Institute of Medicine reports that claimed that it was highly unlikely that thimerosal or MMR were implicated in autism.
In a statement Aarhus University officials said that believe Thorsen forged documents supposedly from the CDC to obtain the release of $2 million from the University. Thorsen resigned abruptly in March 2009 and left Denmark. Since then Thorsen has held several jobs in the US, first at Emory University in Atlanta and then at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Documents show that as late as January 22, 2009. Thorsen was employed at Drexel. Any reference to Poulsen has now been deleted from the Drexel website.
http://info-wars.org/2010/03/11/researcher-who-said-mercury-...
> Dr. Geier, who is a geneticist and an obstetrician, is not qualified to give a neurological diagnosis.
> Dr Geier's testimony is not reliable, or grounded in scientific methodology and procedure. His testimony is merely subjective belief and unsupported speculation.
> Because Dr. Geier has made a profession of testifying in matters to which his professional background (obstetrics, genetics) is unrelated, his testimony is of limited value to the court.
Your argument that "vaccines cause autism" has huge problems, not the least of which are thimerosal-free vaccines over the last decade.
In addition, the authors of the first study you cited appear to be involved in vaccine litigation and in a business that purports to treat autism by "chelation therapy" and would thus seem to have a vested interest in research findings that show heavy metals cause pathology.
Your second link doesn't go to a paper - you linked to some anti-vaccine website which itself doesn't link to a paper.
You can read the paper for yourself - but I am personally not at all impressed by an N=16, with N=3 in the control group. Complete MRI data in this study were obtained on N=9 in the treatment group, and only N=2 in the control group.
Another discussion of the posters that preceded this second paper's publication can be found at:
You rather carefully chose to note that neither paper was "written" by Wakefield. However, the authors of the second paper noted that Wakefield reviewed their paper and actually helped design their study:
"We thank Drs. Saverio Capuano and Mario Rodriguez
for veterinary assistance; and Dr. David Atwood, Carrie
Redinger, Dave McFarland, Amanda Dettmer, Steven
Kendro, Nicole DeBlasio, Melanie O’Malley and Megan
Rufle for technical support. Special thanks to Dr. Andrew
Wakefield for assistance with study design and for critical
review of this manuscript; and to Troy and Charlie Ball
and Robert Sawyer. This work was supported by the
Johnson Family, SafeMinds, The Ted Lindsay Foundation,
the Autism Research Institute, the Greater Milwaukee
Foundation, the late Liz Birt, David and Cindy Emminger,
Sandy McInnis, and Elyse Roberts. Prior to 2005, Carol
Stott was involved in vaccine litigation."
Papers aside, some anti-vaccine folk seem to have a great deal of emotion invested in the issue:
May I suggest a couple of links to some in depth analysis of these studies by scientists in a form the layman can understand? Links about researchers stealing money from their university do not add to your cause as it has no bearing on whether or not a particular immunizations are more dangerous than the disease they prevent.
And to address your concerns re Thimerosal. Apart from the fact the general scientific consensus is it isn't dangerous it was removed from almost all vaccines around 2001. For more information: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/Questions...
Well your latter link is a study based on primates, to which diseases and vaccines have markedly different reactions, so without further information is wholly irrelevant to the debate. Especially considering the fact that measles testing on Rhesus Macaques (IIRC the most accurate measure for measles to humans) has to use specially selected strains or all data is irrelevant due to the monkeys immune system responding wholly different from the human immune system. What assurances are there that the test on these vaccines was even controlled in such a way to ensure the right strains of vaccines were used.
So riddle me this. Why did a peer reviewed Polish Study find that the MMR vaccine actually showed decreased autism rates over a standard measles vaccination, when the anti-vaccination groups constantly talk about 'vaccine overload'. A triple vaccine should seriously be harder on the system than a single, so why is the evidence suggesting it is either wholly irrelevant or actually beneficial by decreasing autism rates?
Autism-vaccination link researches have the god awful stench that cold fusion and perpetual motion physicists had several decades ago. The original evidence was wholly and undeniably fabricated, but you're posting links to articles that tout they're proving Wakefield right... I'm sorry but all they're showing is that they're producing results that show an unintentional bias because they obviously care that they prove Wakefield right.
You don't have good science until a scientist does it that is happy whether or not he is right or wrong. The anti-vaccination scientists are consistently producing bad science and are consistently bad scientists.
Don't just vote him down, folks...he's posting links and support for his position. Surely someone on HN is knowledgeable enough on this subject to respond with something more detailed than clicking a down arrow...
People here don't want to believe this. They will still vaccinate their kids and worse will be in favor of forced vaccinations. They trust the government research. They trust the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies. This stuff is just a bunch of nonsense by troublemakers.
[+] [-] johngalt|15 years ago|reply
This leaves us with two options for the beliefs of the anti-vaccination crowd.
1. They believe that a dead child is better than one with autism.
2. They are comfortable letting everyone else's children take the "risk" of getting a vaccine while they sit back and rely on herd immunity.
[+] [-] jseliger|15 years ago|reply
Although I certainly don't condone the anti-vaccine crowd, I do at least understand them: most of the "crowd" has only vaguely heard the idea that vaccines may be linked to autism. A distant relative (who had a seven year old and was pregnant with baby #2) repeated her worries about vaccines to me over Thanksgiving, and when I told her there was no real link to autism she reacted somewhat skeptically, so I told her to read _Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure_, which discusses why people want to associate vaccines and autism.
The shortest, most obvious version is that most people have trouble disentangling correlation and causation: kids tend to develop obvious signs of autism around the same time they get vaccines. So people think one causes the other when they don't.
Furthermore, most people don't have the training or inclination to really study the data. Journalism, in the meantime, promotes the "two sides of the controversy" school of writing, which often works well for politics and other areas without clear right answers. This works appallingly poorly in matters of science, where right answers are often demonstrably right but non-scientists have trouble distinguishing between competing claims, especially when multiple credentialed sources make compelling-seeming arguments. For more on this, see James Fallows' recent discussion in another context: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/year-e... .
You can see the same kind of thinking in reporting on global climate change, which is almost certainly happening and being caused or accelerated by things we're doing. Yet you often see a climate scientist discussing this, on which there's widespread consensus (and consensus that more study is still needed) followed by a bogus climate skeptic. Same thing for vaccines. People hear this stuff in the air and repeat vague claims at family gatherings, but most of them (and us) don't really understand them.
[+] [-] MichaelSalib|15 years ago|reply
It is very simple: they don't understand much about science. If you are ignorant of science, then it is easy to believe that autism symptoms that develop in your child after they get a vaccine are caused by the vaccine. The obvious flaws in this claim just won't appear to you just like bugs are often invisible to the developers that write them. Unless you've spent a fair bit of time thinking through causation claims and how they've been wrong, you won't have the practice to get this sort of analysis right, especially on such an emotionally fraught topic.
[+] [-] brudgers|15 years ago|reply
While I don't agree with the factual basis on which they are making their decision, it is entirely rational given their belief.
MMR are [edit] usually temporary and can typically be effectively treated by the medical systems of industrialized nations, whereas autism is permanent and generally untreatable.
It is analogous to purchasing a large heavy vehicle (e.g. SUV) based on the superior crash protection it provides passengers and despite the increased risk to other vehicles in a collision and the potential for increased long term environmental degradation.
[+] [-] ylem|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callmeed|15 years ago|reply
I get that you don't agree with anti-vax people but it can't be too hard to see where those directly affected are coming from—can it?
[+] [-] Mz|15 years ago|reply
Peace.
[+] [-] philk|15 years ago|reply
[1] Even sadder is that they cite Wakefield being exposed as a fraud as evidence of tampering by "Big Pharma".
[+] [-] hartror|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aheilbut|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkarl|15 years ago|reply
As much as I'm convinced this guy is scum and perpetrated a cynical fraud for his own professional and monetary gain, I have to admit this is a fair accusation if you replace "Big Pharma" by the medical community as a whole. It was done with good intentions, but the way they treated the study (and Wakefield) proves that the science is subject to non-scientific considerations. Wakefield's study was accepted and published and didn't immediately cause a scandal, so there must be hundreds of published papers just as shoddy, many of them containing fraud perpetrated for an author's professional gain. Far from ending careers and discrediting ideas, the vast majority of those papers will continue to boost careers and promote their conclusions in some small way until the journals are dusty and forgotten.
Wakefield's study was singled out for special justice in order to manipulate the public debate on vaccines. It was done in the name of truth, will certainly save lives, and didn't inflict on Wakefield anything he didn't deserve. However, it was "tampering" with the normal process, it was done as propaganda, and it was also done for PR motivations, to compensate for the impression that the medical community was complicit in Wakefield's fraud by holding his science to such low standards. It isn't sad if people notice that. It's just sad that the medical community was forced to stage a show trial to put an end to Wakefield's deadly and self-serving BS.
[+] [-] Alex3917|15 years ago|reply
Unlike HN commenters constantly promoting dangerous psychiatric drugs that are no more effective than placebos, extrinsic rewards for children who read/exercise, Bill Gates' KIPP-based school reforms, the conflation of homeopathic and naturopathic medicine, using GPA for hiring, etc.
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
The net result: vaccination rates dropped, and measles cases have gone up sharply.
[+] [-] jerf|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
Here's a quote from the senior clinician on the project, after the journalist presented information from one of the parents that conflicted with the data in the study: “Well I can’t really comment,” he said. “You really touch on an area which I don’t think should be debated like this. And I think these parents are wrong to discuss such details, where you could be put in a position of having a lot of medical details and then try to match it with this, because it is a confidential matter.”
no wonder why so many people are losing trust in science ...
[+] [-] carey|15 years ago|reply
Also worth reading is Roald Dahl’s account of his eldest daughter’s measles infection at http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=715 .
[+] [-] hartror|15 years ago|reply
There is a big difference between fraud and making mistakes. Mistakes in study methodology or in drawing conclusions are expected to happen in science, hence the peer review process. Fraud on the other hand usually ends a scientist's career.
[+] [-] FluidDjango|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayzee|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ceejayoz|15 years ago|reply
This can be detrimental to rational examination of the facts.
[+] [-] _gtvz|15 years ago|reply
They are valid arguments to either side and nothing is conculsive. I think it is best to do your own research from medical journals/studies etc and do what you think is best for your children.
I think that is one thing everyone here has in common, we all want to do what is best for our children.
[+] [-] neworbit|15 years ago|reply
Erroneous consensus or agreement to disagree is NOT superior to objective truth.
[+] [-] henrikschroder|15 years ago|reply
These parents do what they think is best for THEIR children.
But the cost for doing this is that OTHER children that rely on herd immunity will start dying of measles.
So by having every parent do a local "optimization", the net result, an unvaccinated world, is much, much worse. And then to add insult to injury, it's just plain wrong that vaccines cause autism, so the parents that believe this are only making the world a worse place for everyone and not really doing what's best for their children in any way.
[+] [-] IvarTJ|15 years ago|reply
At the same time there have been massive targeting of parents of autistic children by quack therapists.
[+] [-] yannk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aj700|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bubing|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] davidj|15 years ago|reply
Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds Authors: D. A. Geiera; P. G. Kingb; M. R. Geierc
Abstract Thimerosal (ethylmercurithiosalicylic acid), an ethylmercury (EtHg)-releasing compound (49.55% mercury (Hg)), was used in a range of medical products for more than 70 years. Of particular recent concern, routine administering of Thimerosal-containing biologics/childhood vaccines have become significant sources of Hg exposure for some fetuses/infants. This study was undertaken to investigate cellular damage among in vitro human neuronal (SH-SY-5Y neuroblastoma and 1321N1 astrocytoma) and fetal (nontransformed) model systems using cell vitality assays and microscope-based digital image capture techniques to assess potential damage induced by Thimerosal and other metal compounds (aluminum (Al) sulfate, lead (Pb)(II) acetate, methylmercury (MeHg) hydroxide, and mercury (Hg)(II) chloride) where the cation was reported to exert adverse effects on developing cells. Thimerosal-associated cellular damage was also evaluated for similarity to pathophysiological findings observed in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (ADs). Thimerosal-induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies. Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined. Future studies need to be conducted to evaluate additional mechanisms underlying Thimerosal-induced cellular damage and assess potential co-exposures to other compounds that may increase or decrease Thimerosal-mediated toxicity. Keywords: autism; glial; lead; mercury; mercuric; neurodevelopmental
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~...
The PDF of the paper is on the page.
This is a peer reviewed article.
Here is another one:
"Vaccines May Cause Brain Changes Found in Autism" - Journal Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 2010
http://www.autismny.com/2/post/2010/08/vaccines-may-cause-br...
Nether of these papers were written by Wakefield. Just because we have a bad scientist doesn't mean the science is flawed.
In fact, the "vaccine doesn't cause autism" scientist have been caught creating fruad as well: Scientist who "debunked mercury vaccines" caught in fraud, steals $2 Million, skips town A Danish scientist who was a key researcher in two studies that purport to show that mercury used in vaccines and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine do not cause autism is believed to have used forged documents to steal $2 million from Aarhus University in Denmark according to reports in the Copenenhagen Post Online and a statement from Aarhus University.
Poul Thorsen, MD PhD, headed up a research unit at Aarhus University that was hired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prepare a series of studies that would exonerate thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative and adjuvant used in vaccines, and the MMR vaccine from any role in causing autism. The veracity of the two studies he co-authored is now in doubt.
These studies formed the foundation for the conclusions of several Institute of Medicine reports that claimed that it was highly unlikely that thimerosal or MMR were implicated in autism.
In a statement Aarhus University officials said that believe Thorsen forged documents supposedly from the CDC to obtain the release of $2 million from the University. Thorsen resigned abruptly in March 2009 and left Denmark. Since then Thorsen has held several jobs in the US, first at Emory University in Atlanta and then at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Documents show that as late as January 22, 2009. Thorsen was employed at Drexel. Any reference to Poulsen has now been deleted from the Drexel website. http://info-wars.org/2010/03/11/researcher-who-said-mercury-...
[+] [-] ceejayoz|15 years ago|reply
http://www.casewatch.org/civil/geier.shtml
> Dr. Geier, who is a geneticist and an obstetrician, is not qualified to give a neurological diagnosis.
> Dr Geier's testimony is not reliable, or grounded in scientific methodology and procedure. His testimony is merely subjective belief and unsupported speculation.
> Because Dr. Geier has made a profession of testifying in matters to which his professional background (obstetrics, genetics) is unrelated, his testimony is of limited value to the court.
And that's a court order.
[+] [-] klondikered|15 years ago|reply
In addition, the authors of the first study you cited appear to be involved in vaccine litigation and in a business that purports to treat autism by "chelation therapy" and would thus seem to have a vested interest in research findings that show heavy metals cause pathology.
Your second link doesn't go to a paper - you linked to some anti-vaccine website which itself doesn't link to a paper.
There actually is a paper in JANE here:
http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf
You can read the paper for yourself - but I am personally not at all impressed by an N=16, with N=3 in the control group. Complete MRI data in this study were obtained on N=9 in the treatment group, and only N=2 in the control group.
Another discussion of the posters that preceded this second paper's publication can be found at:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=100 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1989
and the second paper itself at:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/new-paper-vaccines-cause-auti...
You rather carefully chose to note that neither paper was "written" by Wakefield. However, the authors of the second paper noted that Wakefield reviewed their paper and actually helped design their study:
"We thank Drs. Saverio Capuano and Mario Rodriguez for veterinary assistance; and Dr. David Atwood, Carrie Redinger, Dave McFarland, Amanda Dettmer, Steven Kendro, Nicole DeBlasio, Melanie O’Malley and Megan Rufle for technical support. Special thanks to Dr. Andrew Wakefield for assistance with study design and for critical review of this manuscript; and to Troy and Charlie Ball and Robert Sawyer. This work was supported by the Johnson Family, SafeMinds, The Ted Lindsay Foundation, the Autism Research Institute, the Greater Milwaukee Foundation, the late Liz Birt, David and Cindy Emminger, Sandy McInnis, and Elyse Roberts. Prior to 2005, Carol Stott was involved in vaccine litigation."
Papers aside, some anti-vaccine folk seem to have a great deal of emotion invested in the issue:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/carol-stott.htm
[+] [-] hartror|15 years ago|reply
Something along the lines of this but from the opposing viewpoint: http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/more-ev...
And to address your concerns re Thimerosal. Apart from the fact the general scientific consensus is it isn't dangerous it was removed from almost all vaccines around 2001. For more information: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/Questions...
[+] [-] electromagnetic|15 years ago|reply
http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=2408084&#...
So riddle me this. Why did a peer reviewed Polish Study find that the MMR vaccine actually showed decreased autism rates over a standard measles vaccination, when the anti-vaccination groups constantly talk about 'vaccine overload'. A triple vaccine should seriously be harder on the system than a single, so why is the evidence suggesting it is either wholly irrelevant or actually beneficial by decreasing autism rates?
Autism-vaccination link researches have the god awful stench that cold fusion and perpetual motion physicists had several decades ago. The original evidence was wholly and undeniably fabricated, but you're posting links to articles that tout they're proving Wakefield right... I'm sorry but all they're showing is that they're producing results that show an unintentional bias because they obviously care that they prove Wakefield right.
You don't have good science until a scientist does it that is happy whether or not he is right or wrong. The anti-vaccination scientists are consistently producing bad science and are consistently bad scientists.
[+] [-] ryanwaggoner|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bugsy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RP_Joe|15 years ago|reply