A repository for all things science and science related including health and nutrition. Defense of BS woo will be deleted so only bring your A-game. The line "do your research" is not allowed, Monsanto is not the only player in town, and vaccines don't cause autism. In other words, scientific consensus rules the day.
Who ever you are,,, at least I have the fucking balls to make my profile public and not hide from those that disagree with me. At least I don't call people a "who're" then run away like a petulant child. At least I don't brag all over my FB page what a great Christian I am, going so far as displaying the so-called Christian flag, and then turn around and in a "private message" call people names.
If you're so proud of your actions you fucking twat-waffle why don't you broadcast it for all to see. (Don't worry, I have done it for you.) If you want to talk "ugly" you may want to look in the mirror first. You're a disgrace to humanity, and it is because of people like you I don't post my photo. But, if you had done a wee bit of homework (foreign concept for you I'm guessing), you would have easily found my picture on this here blog and my twitter.
You see, you have just exemplified my "photo" and why I fight against idiots like you. Not just religionists but anti-vaxx crank-meisters like you, people who don't have an original thought for themselves. WTF did you think was going to happen when you posted to Science Based Medicine? That those of us that value science and its contribution would ignore you? You can't even stand behind the bullshit you spew.
I don't know who you are, and I really don't care,,, but I will fight you and your ilk every step of the way!!
The ACID/ALKALINE (diet) "hypothesis" which is actually the basis for many of the other claims currently "on the market."
As I noted in my initial post on this topic, "[t]his post is based on 8 years of digging for information for personal use. I regret that when I gathered this information I never thought I would be conveying it in any meaningful way and therefore I do not have citations for this information. Basically these are my "notes" re-written, I am not the originator of any of this information."
Since that time I have been attempting to re-create my original source material or things relatively close. The basic outline of the entire piece is from the following all mish-mashed together:
I went on the Internet and googled acid and alkaline. There's been a few books written, but no one has really come up with an exact answer because a person's acid/alkaline balance has to do with their own body. But there are foods that definitely produce acid, like red meat, processed food, and dairy. So I cut all of that out, and when I was on chemo I ate purely alkaline foods, which are fruits - especially citrus fruits - vegetables, potatoes, and avocado. I would drink lemon water all day long - it's like Pepto-Bismol in your stomach!
Once you realize how powerful food is, that it can make you better when you come out of the chemo, you want to stay balanced. Instead of eating 70 percent acid, it's 70 percent potatoes, avocados, asparagus, fruits, and these types of wonderful things. Then you realize, I can have that hot-fudge sundae with my kids every couple weeks and it's not going to hurt me. It's about balance. I don't do without anything - I love it all! I just don't do it every day.
In other words, our stomach is an acidic environment (a pH of about 3). Food enters the stomach (regardless of its acid or alkaline-producing qualities) and is immediately combined with hydrochloric acid (HCL) before it enters the digestive tract. Very bad for the body IF there wasn't a naturally occurring means for the body to reduce/eliminate that acidity. Lo and behold, guess what the pancreas does, it secretes a slurry to cancels out the acid the stomach has just introduced into the rest of the body. So, regardless of the food you have just eaten, it will be combined with a highly acid substance and then subsequently a highly alkaline substance.
Our bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow range, anything that changed acidity in our bodies would make us very sick and could even kill.
Think of it this way, what happens when you hold your breath?
Carbon dioxide accumulates in your bloodstream very rapidly and your blood turns acidic. Do it too long you will become uncomfortable or even pass out, which forces you to start breathing again and the pH returns to normal. Or if your kidneys are damaged and cannot regulate the acidity of your bloodstream, chemical reactions stop, poisons accumulate in your bloodstream, and you can die. [1]
The main premise:
When we eat “acid-forming” products our bodies turn “acidic” and illness results. To compensate we then leach calcium from our bones. If we continue to maintain a high acid diet, our bodies will shed calcium and we can end up with osteoporosis, and other chronic diseases.
There are studies that clearly back that simple response, these are but a few:
A causal association between dietary acid load and osteoporotic bone disease is not supported by evidence and there is no evidence that an alkaline diet is protective of bone health.
Together these results support the role of base forming foods and nutrients in bone maintenance. The role of protein appears to be complex and is probably dependent on the presence of other nutrients available in a mixed diet. A balanced diet with ample fruit and vegetables and adequate protein appears to be important to bone mineral density.
There were no associations between either urine pH or acid excretion and either the incidence of fractures or change of BMD after adjustment for confounders.
Urine pH and urine acid excretion do not predict osteoporosis risk.
The nutritional acid load hypothesis of osteoporosis is reviewed from its historical origin to most recent studies with particular attention to the essential but overlooked role of the kidney in acid–base homeostasis,,,.It stemmed from classic investigations in patients suffering from chronic kidney diseases (CKD) conducted in the 1960s.
When we digest things like protein, the acids are buffered by bicarbonate ions in the blood. This produces carbon dioxide and salts, which are exhaled through the lungs, and are excreted by the kidneys respectively. This process is cyclic and is how the body maintains the pH of the blood. As the kidneys produce ‘new’ bicarbonate ions, which are returned to the blood to replace the bicarbonate that was initially used to buffer the acid. No involvement from the bones whatsoever.
These results suggest that, with a possible exception of older men, dietary acid load does not have a measureable negative effect on bone health, regardless of total calcium intake.
The objectives of this study were to determine whether 1) low urine pH, or 2) acid excretion in urine,,,predict: a) fragility fractures; and b) five-year change of bone mineral density (BMD) in adults,,,. Urine pH and urine acid excretion do not predict osteoporosis risk.
When you metabolise foods and extract the energy (calories) from them, you are actually burning the foods, except that it happens in a slow and controlled fashion.
When you burn foods, they actually leave an ash residue, just like when you burn wood in a furnace.
As it turns out, this ash can be acidic or alkaline (or neutral)… and proponents of this diet claim that this ash can directly affect the acidity of your body.
So if you eat foods with acidic ash, it makes your body acidic. If you eat foods with alkaline ash, it makes your body alkaline. Neutral ash has no effect. Simple.
Acid ash is thought to make you vulnerable to illness and disease, whereas alkaline ash is considered protective. By choosing more alkaline foods, you should be able to “alkalize” your diet and improve health.
Here is a bit more in depth answer but simplified. Yes, foods can influence our urine pH. No, foods don’t influence our blood pH (overall body pH).
Measurement of an acidic pH urine does not reflect metabolic acidosis or an adverse health condition. The modern diet, and dairy product consumption, does not make the body acidic. Alkaline diets alter urine pH but do not change systemic pH. Net acid excretion is not an important influence of calcium metabolism. Milk is not acid producing. Dietary phosphate does not have a negative impact on calcium metabolism, which is contrary to the acid-ash hypothesis.
This calculation methodology, primarily based on PRAL, allows an appropriate prediction of the effects of diet on the acidity of urine. For practical applicability in dietetic prevention of recurrent urolithiasis or in other fields of dietetics, the additionally determined correlation (r = .83; P < .001) between NAE and urine pH can be used to ascertain NAE target values for a desired urine pH modification.
All foods leave behind acid or alkaline ash which is determined by the relative content of acid-forming components (ie. phosphate and sulfur) and alkalis (ie. calcium, magnesium, and potassium.). In general, animal products and grains are acid forming, while fruits and vegetables are alkali forming. So if we have, let's say, steak and eggs for breakfast, our urine will be more acidic; if we have a kale smoothie it will tend towards alkaline. But bare in mind, our urine is the waste dump of metabolic processes, our bladders are the sealed storage container. Measuring the urinary pH is nonsense because your blood pH does not change unless you’re seriously ill.
"Proponents of the alkaline diet have put forth ideas about how an acidic diet harms our health." According to Chris Kesser, the claim that we can change the pH of our blood by changing the foods we eat, and that acidic blood causes disease (while alkaline blood prevents it), is not true. As mentioned above, the body tightly regulates the pH of our blood and we cannot influence it by changing our diet. And FYI Scientists have known since the 1930s that the foods we eat do have an effect on our urine pH, but if they were to significantly alter the balance of acidity/alkalinity in our blood, we would die. In other words, the A/A hypothesis of diet is old news.
"Cancer cells grow faster in an acidic environment" Destroyed by Science recently put out a nice piece explaining both.
I honestly wonder if pseudoscience sellers deliberately find pieces of science that they can deliberately twist and take out of context in order to sell their products and ideas; or if they genuinely believe in their own intellectual dishonesty. Here for instance, the fact that the acidic microenvironment caused by cancer cells has been hypothesised to lead to more aggressive invasive behaviour during carcinogenesis (9); is used dishonestly in two ways. Firstly, to lead people to believe that their “acidic” body pH has caused them to develop cancer in the first place, and secondly, to believe that they will be able to create an alkaline environment in their body that will be unfavourable to cancer cells, causing them to grow more slowly or perish selectively, leaving healthy cells untouched.
Leaving aside the fact that results from in vitro experiments cannot just be translated to what occurs in a living organism; most studies on cancer cells are done in a medium with a pH of 7.2-7.4 (10) which is not acidic. The reason that these conditions are used is that this also conveniently happens to be very close to the pH of extracellular fluid (blood plasma, interstitial fluid) (11) experienced within the human body. The human body also conveniently has a number of mechanisms that ensure this pH does not go outside a very strict range (7.35-7.41) – if it does, the consequences are dire, as in, death. A blood pH level of 8.5 would be a very bad thing. Lets be honest- whether or not cancer cells can be killed by an extreme environment is irrelevant if the extreme environment is going to lead to the death of a patient. This is really no different from saying “Hey, I can destroy these cancer cells in this test tube with napalm. Who wants in?”.
He’s [referring to Otto Warburg] a Nobel Laureate, and his discovery of how cancer cells shift to glycolysis and continue to rely primarily on glycolysis rather than respiration even in the presence of adequate oxygen. Indeed, this effect, called the Warburg Effect, is an important difference between tumor cells and normal cells. Moreover, this difference in metabolism is the basis of drugs like dichloroacetate,, a frequent topic of this blog. Of course, even ol’ Otto had a bit of trouble with hyperbole. For one thing, animal cells certainly can undergo glycolysis; muscle cells do it all the time under duress. Long distance runners, in particular, are familiar with glycolysis. That’s why it’s overstating the case a bit to say that “one can scarcely picture a greater difference,” particularly since not all tumors even exhibit the Warburg effect. I can forgive Warburg, though, a bit of hyperbole–although it is known that he became a bit of an eccentric in his later years. In any case, Dr. Young’s invocation of Warburg is especially wrong, given that the lactic acid generated by glycolysis is a result of the alteration in cancer cell metabolism, not a cause. It’s like saying the exhaust fumes from a car are the cause of the car’s motion,,,.
There is limited evidence to suggest that dietary acidosis alone is sufficient in increasing cancer risk, but it may function in concert with other factors associated with cancer risk. Obesity or metabolic syndrome,,,,.
In conclusion, there are numerous systemic pathways affected by diet-induced acidosis that may be cancer promoting, but a causal role is poorly defined. Moreover, the contribution of diet-induced acidosis in driving carcinogenesis would be difficult to measure especially since the effects appear to accumulate for a long period of time.
This paper has received much attention. None of it, outside the echo-chamber is good,,,
What Delong does, "[s]he correlated rates of coverage of the government recommended full set of vaccines in the 51 US states including Washington D.C., with registered rates of autism in those states six years later." As Neuroskeptic notes, Delong's conclusion, "The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT,,, The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted."
After doing some statistical magic of his own, NS states. "My conclusion is that this dataset shows no evidence of any association. The author nonetheless found one. How? By doing some statistical wizardry,,, but when the raw data shows zilch and you can only find a signal by "controlling for" stuff, alarm bells start ringing. Given sufficient statistical analysis you can make any data say anything you want."
My take from NS writing, there's no correlation between change in vaccination and change in autism.
Hoping for a bit more clarity as I am 20+ years removed from statistics,,,
One note the Orac makes concerning "just" the abstract, ",,,I can’t resist pointing out a bit of misinformation right in the abstract. For example, the reason for the rapid rise of autism in the U.S. is not really much of a “mystery.” It’s very likely the result of diagnostic substitution in the wake of the broadening of the diagnostic criteria for autism and autism spectrum disorders that occurred in the early to mid-1990s, as Paul Shattuck has shown. Oh, there may be a genuine increase in autism prevalence over the last 20 years (although even that is debatable), but, if it exists, it’s so small that it’s not even clear that there is one."
The crux of Orac's analysis is design, methodology, and confounders:
Then there’s the design of the study itself. Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick, there’s the design of the study itself! If this is the sort of research design that is considered acceptable and routine in economics and business, no wonder our economy’s in such a mess. First (and most egregious), there’s the issue of why DeLong combined SLIs (see abstract above) with autism diagnoses to do her analysis. ,,, Then there’s the methodology chosen for trying to find correlations, described here,,, Besides DeLong’s having fallen for the ecological fallacy (group level comparisons rather than individual-level comparisons), she doesn’t provide much in the way of a good justification for why she chose ages 2 and 8 as their vaccine time point and prevalence time point. ,,, Then there’s the issue of confounders. DeLong tried to control for ethnicity, but in explicably she used the CDC’s National Immunization Survey rather than, say, U.S. Census data to derive ethnicity figures. Other potential confounders examined included family income, other disabilities, and the number of pediatricians in each state.
The take away from Orac's analysis, "DeLong used inappropriate data to reach inappropriate conclusions. She publishes to her audience, not science."
What I find perplexing about this paper, for all intents, it starts with the claim that childhood shots contain mercury, a powerful neurotoxin with no safe level of use. At issue, thimerosal was removed from all recommended children's vaccines since 2001. (Varicella, inactivated polio, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal.
Influenza (flu) vaccines are currently available in both thimerosal-containing and thimerosal-free versions.) Prior to that point it was only in 3 vaccines; it was never present in the MMR.
Since 2010, "Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines and Immunoglobins and Risk of Autism" has been available. "This study revealed no increased risk of ASD associated with receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines. No increased risk was found for subtypes of ASD, including ASD with regression, and prenatal exposure was not associated with a risk of ASD."
Two rhetorical questions: 1] Why are the authors focusing on a ingredient that wasn't in use for 11 years at time of publication? 2] Why are AVers citing this study as relevant in 2016?
A second issue as noted by SW, ",,,the conclusion relies on correlation of source data from the VAERS database. This is a self-reporting & unverified database. Anyone can report and the reports are not confirmed. Authors have declared interests as they are paid to be witnesses in vaccine trials."
__
*One note of import, Mark Geier was engaged as an expert witness to Hooker’s ongoing court case concerning vaccine injury.
So initially I was going to make one big post concerning this list, what will now be known as AV Gish Gallop #1. (There are at least four similar lists with many repeat papers that I plan on tackling in some manner.) This particular one remains unattributed ATM:
I'm not going to broach the pHARMA Gambit, but focus only on the studies presented.
A few points before we begin,
I am a layman and therefore rely on those resources that I consider smarter than I.
Any personal commentary is just that, my thoughts on said paper.
Before you accuse me of ad hom, make sure you know what it means.
As noted by a friend, all these papers (not necessarily this particular list) have a common theme: "Thimerosal, Biased researchers, Nothing to do with vaccines, Linky no worky, It's not aluminium in vaccines but aluminium salts, Small scale,,, Ah you know the drill"
Many of the papers have repeating authors.
Papers published in questionable or low quality journals.
Questionable peer review process.
And, oft times the papers are severely outdated.
With that in mind, I will be linking to abstracts (and the papers when possible). When the paper is not available, I will be relying on sources for a portrayal of what is published. If it is found that source misrepresented what is published, I will correct with adequate evidence of said error.
What it is, in actuality, is yet another example of the Geiers [http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf - his paper purports to show that autism rates had started to dip since early 2003, when the last lots of thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines expired] mining the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database for purposes for which it was never designed and misusing the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) database similarly. First, off, as I pointed out extensively before, the VAERS database is designed only as an early warning system for reporting adverse events thought to be due to vaccines. It is not designed to track the incidence or prevalence of vaccine complications. One reason is that anyone can make entries into it, not just medical professionals, and the results are only checked in the most perfunctory way.,,, Worse, as I described before, the database has been corrupted by litigation, with a dramatic increase of entries linked to litigation claiming that thimerosal caused the plaintiff’s child’s autism.
,,,
The bottom line is that the VAERS database is not a reliable source to determine autism prevalence or incidence, period. It’s too prone to being affected by scares, like the recent hype over mercury supposedly causing autism, and even outright manipulation, and its entries aren’t even examined by medical professionals in sufficient detail to determine whether adverse events reported were or could be reasonably inferred to have resulted from vaccines. Of course, that never stopped the Geiers from diving into that database again and again and again, all without acknowledging the shortcomings of this database. And it actually wouldn’t be all too surprising if reports of autism attributed to vaccines in the VAERS database did indeed fall after 2003, given that it was widely publicized that thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines around that time, making it less likely after then that parents would attribute their children’s autism to vaccines.
To start with, VAERS is a surveillance system that is designed to alert the FDA and CDC if there is a unforeseen adverse reaction to a vaccine (http://goo.gl/uryjgl). But the catch here is the system is set up to allow anyone to submit a report. In deciding this, the FDA and CDC are trying to prevent underreporting, which in the case of a serious issue could be deadly.Several people have demonstrated how this might swing too far the other way by submitting very obvious fake reports. One person described developing powers much like the Incredible Hulk after receiving a vaccine and another person submitted a report saying that they had developed powers like Wonder Woman (http://goo.gl/XCxVub). So clearly, not every report in VAERS is accurate or the result of vaccination.
But how do researchers properly utilize this system? The simple answer is through verifying the reports and using it as the starting point for a study. A good example of this is the FDA and CDC noticing a potential increase in febrile seizure after the administration of an influenza vaccine (https://goo.gl/cq6wwp). Because they noticed a potential problem, this is the starting point for a carefully designed study to determine if the risk is due to the vaccine and how often it happens. As part of that starting point, reported cases of febrile seizures were verified by checking the medical records.
Unfortunately many people abuse the system and link all adverse events that happen to occur after vaccination, including deaths due to murders, suicides and car accidents, to a given vaccine. Because this happened shortly after vaccination, some people draw the conclusion that the vaccine killed them when it is a tragic coincidence that had nothing to do with vaccination. This type of study is referred to as "dumpster diving" in VAERS and is used to support all sorts of wild accusations about the danger of vaccines despite the lack of actual evidence. I mentioned this practice a few days ago in a post (https://goo.gl/yGlbmj).
So in the simplest terms, VAERS is designed to warn those responsible for the safety of vaccines, in the US, before a huge problem emerges. However, much like vaccine inserts, it does not provide a complete picture of what the potential risks of vaccinations are nor does it show that vaccines cause specific adverse events. It is a highly useful tool if you understand the limitations of the system and what it was meant to do. It can provide researchers a glimpse into what risks might be associated with a given vaccine so that a proper study can be conducted to answer that question. In this way it is highly useful. As a source to show a causal effect, not so much.
For part of another posting I have been doing some information gathering, primarily video and audio presentations. It concerns Kent Hovind and Mary Tocco and their stance concerning vaccines. Being that I have touched on their dribble before and I am in the process another posting, I'm not going to go into much detail concern that issue.
What I found fascinating, for lack of better, specifically a interview with Dr. Larry Tyler. What followers are my notes concerning what he and Hovind presented and my reaction and/or rebuttal. In other words, if presented with the same information in a discussion, how would I counter it? This is by no means comprehensive or in a fully presentable fashion BUT I found the counter information useful.
__ Come on Larry show me something original that hasn't already been stated by someone else. Something new,,, anything. I mean seriously dude, ya got 15 years (at time of interview) of quack medicine experience.
Sorry to say, you are under-qualified and peddle information and "treatments" that are not supported by science. (This guy practiced chiropractic manipulation on a 2 day old child - his own.) The profession isn't based in science and many of the fundamental ideas the profession holds isn't scientifically plausible. It's not so bad that you peddle this crank, but this garbage is what you are taught.
(FYI my uncle was an MD as well as a doctor of chiropractics. He was my primary doctor until well into my 20s till he retired. Thankfully he was an MD first a chiro second. His philosophy, if you want to call it that, was one of chiro being a "therapy" (like massage therapy) not a primary treatment. While he still had some crank views based on the notions behind chiro, they were well balanced by his training as an MD (ie. he didn't try to "fix" an ear infection by cracking my neck).
My second chiro had the same attitude but regretfully I am paying dearly for the learned ignorance built into their field. I don't feel they are responsible for the issues I deal with now, but my "distrust" or hesitation I currently carry is from their philosophy.)
At high enough concentrations and with long-term exposures—such as occupationally—formaldehyde can indeed be toxic. The highest risk of toxicity from formaldehyde is from inhaling it in conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure.
Under normal conditions, the human body is producing and eliminating its own formaldehyde continuously. Our body uses the molecule to build proteins and nucleotides, two of the four most critical building blocks of life (the other two are lipids and carbohydrates).
According to the U. S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA),
The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern.
We humans are efficient at metabolizing formaldehyde. Our body does not distinguish between formaldehyde from vaccines, and that which is naturally-produced or environmental. Either way, our body goes ahead and breaks formaldehyde down and excretes it the same. Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the human body. Post-vaccination, formaldehyde is gone from the muscle at the injection site within 30 minutes. Any remaining formaldehyde is less than 1% of the existing, naturally-occurring level in the body.
As the meme notes, equating the three, elemental mercury (Hg) / methylmercury (CH3Hg+X-) / ethylmercury (CH3CH2-Hg+X-), AVers refuse to provide any mechanism to how thimerosal is changed to either elemental mercury or methyl mercury, or how they can be attributed the same chemical properties. Drawing conclusions on thimerosal toxicity from methyl mercury is also flawed.
If you really want to get an AVer's goat, ask them if they have any tattoos.
Concerns about how aluminum affects health arose in the 1960s and 1970s, when it was thought that there may be a link between Alzheimer's disease and exposure to large amounts of aluminum (subsequent research has largely discredited this idea among scientists, yet it persists among fringe scientists and in public opinion). Similarly, anti-vaccine activists blame the aluminum used as adjuvants in vaccines as a cause of autism. Aluminum is neurotoxic at high levels of exposure, such as among patients with renal dysfunction who are undergoing dialysis with an aluminum-containing dialysate, but it takes a lot of aluminum to cause neurological effects. Even then, its effects are not identical to the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease or autism.
,,,
Some vaccines only use parts of bacteria or viruses, rather than the whole thing. Because of this, large amounts of those parts are required to generate an immune response strong enough to produce immunity. That is, unless an adjuvant is used. An adjuvant is something that is added to a vaccine to boost the immune response, meaning that less of the antigens (those bits and pieces of bacteria and viruses) is required. In adjuvanted vaccines, the antigens are essentially stuck onto aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate (aluminum salts). The aluminum salt serves a few primary roles. First, it gets the immune system's attention. First-responder phagocytes at the injection site will binge on some of the aluminum until they die from overeating, releasing particles that signal cell damage. The next line of phagocytes encounter all of this and are more likely to signal an inflammatory response, recruiting immune cells to find out what's going on. Second, because it is not very soluble, the aluminum salt stays put at the injections site for a while, preventing the antigens from being swept off into the bloodstream and diluted through the body. Keeping the antigens localized gives the immune system more time to investigate and get to know the antigens so that the next time you're exposed, your immune system knows what to do and how best to respond in order to keep you from getting sick. Finally, although not related to its adjuvant activity, it helps stabilize the vaccine and prevent the antigens from precipitating out of solution and sticking to the side of the container. (Sorry about anthropomorphizing the antigens, but sometimes you just have to.) Using an adjuvant like aluminum hydroxide means that less antigen is needed to produce an immune response. That means a reduction in the side effects caused by the antigen and the ability to produce more doses of vaccine without needing to increase antigen production.
The biggest concern about the use of aluminum-based adjuvants is safety. If aluminum is neurotoxic at high, chronic levels of exposure, does that mean it is also neurotoxic at the amounts found in vaccines? The short answer is no. Aluminum salts have been used in vaccines for about 70-80 years. Aluminum adjuvant is not used in any "live" vaccine (MMR, varicella, rotavirus), inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), nor in any influenza vaccine in the U.S.
Even if a minute number of fatalities were proved to have resulted from the MMR vaccine, it would still be impossible to accurately contrast that figure with deaths due to a disease no longer spreading in the United States during the period selected. That speculation itself, however, is a big "if." According to the article, their figures for MMR deaths were culled from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but VAERS does not exist to track specific and proved adverse reactions to vaccines. The purpose of the system is clearly denoted on the VAERS site (in a disclaimer not reproduced by the article spreading the claim):
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
Submission to VAERS alone is not evidence of vaccine-related injury or illness. The overwhelming majority of young children residing in the United States receive the MMR vaccine early in their lives, and a small number of those children have become ill (some fatally) due to reasons found to be unrelated to the vaccine. There is nothing to preclude individuals from submitting VAERS reports of sickness or death that are wholly unrelated to vaccines, and the system exists not to track substantiated incidents of vaccine injury but to identify potential trends in vaccine administration.
So based on a very quick search, one finds that within 2-3 minutes Tocco has imbibed in her first set of hyperbole. What I have found is, all told, 220,000 people were infected; 70,000 developed muscle weakness. Of 164 people who developed paralysis in response to the vaccine, 10 died. Though tragic, the global end to polio transmission would have been inconceivable without the vaccine. (Think of the total number vaccinated in the US alone.)
It is also important to remember that in the 1950s, protecting the public from polio was a national project. (It was a national campaign financed by the March of Dimes that made it such.) Every effort was made to see that the vaccine would be widely available to all children and polio would be wiped out. In the U.S., the last case of naturally occurring polio happened in 1979.
While tragic, as all deaths are, it sometimes happens. Medical treatment is not without risk, but how many millions world-wide have been saved.
Big pHARMA-medical conspiracy, ex. Asthma
Although video does not address Tyler’s points directly, the sentiment is the same when an individual forgoes SBM for woo.
I have a piece coming concerning Big pHARMA and the pHARMA shill. As I noted,
If you really believe the world is so devoid of compassion and human decency that scientists would go out of their way to intentionally harm the population; that probably says more about your cynical morals that anything else. I know you aren’t going to change your mind, because every high quality, peer reviewed study is “bought and paid for” and you will discard any piece of evidence unless it agrees with you. If you want my advice, go move away to your own colony and spend your days tickling each others’ confirmation bias until you realise that vaccination has a purpose and that it works. The sad thing is that your parents and grandparents likely had the good sense to vaccinate their own kids; but you won’t vaccinate your own. The chances are that your children are the ones that are going to suffer.
This is what I am left with after listening to Tyler's diatribe especially concerning asthma.
It should be noted that this video I believe came out in 2004 or 2005. Just prior to Hovind going to prison. What is important to note, the "talking points" have not changed in 11+ years. I am not aware of Tyler's views currently and my criticism is solely based on this video.
As I said these are just notes to gain perspective on Hovind's health views but some of the rebuttal information I felt was important to share as I don't know what the final product may be.
Recently SavvyMom posted an article from I Don't Blog titled I Believe in Science so I Immunize My Kids. While the comments were generally tame, talking about a delayed vaccine schedule. There were some questionable postings and some outright misinformation. Of course I had to throw my two cents in.
The findings suggest a possible role for the aluminum adjuvant in some neurological features associated with GWI and possibly an additional role for the combination of adjuvants.
The assumption (if I can make such) of the initial post, aluminum is bad because,,,
However, there are additional concerns with those studies that limit any potential value for hypothesis generation. These include: incorrect assumptions about known associations of aluminium with neurological disease,,,
The FDA analysis indicates that the body burden of aluminium following injections of aluminium-containing vaccines never exceeds safe US regulatory thresholds based on orally ingested aluminium even for low birth-weight infants. GACVS concludes that this comprehensive risk assessment further supports the clinical trial and epidemiological evidence of the safety of aluminium in vaccines.
Vaccines containing adjuvants are tested extensively in clinical trials before being licensed. Aluminum salts, monophosphoryl A (a detoxified bacterial component), and squalene (a compound of the body’s normal cholesterol synthesis pathway) are the only materials that can be used as adjuvants in the United States. The quantities of aluminum present in vaccines are low and are regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).
The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life.
The article then provides a listing of the amounts of aluminum in various vaccines as well as two videos by Paul Offit:
While not the definitive answer I think SSM was wanting (or demanding), the issue of how the .85mg/dose was reached is shown not to be willy-nilly affair.
We shall see if what was presented is enough to show there is actual studies involved, ie aluminum levels are not arbitrary. Or whether this individual is sniping just to be an ass.
As I suspected, when presented with evidence of the "other side" our adversary went quiet. Now whether this is due to absorbing new information, which I highly doubt, or talking to that brick wall, who knows.
Correction, here I had thought our adversary hadn't made a comment. Keep in mind what KSH and I both posted; specifically this :
Vaccines containing adjuvants are tested extensively in clinical trials before being licensed. Aluminum salts, monophosphoryl A (a detoxified bacterial component), and squalene (a compound of the body’s normal cholesterol synthesis pathway) are the only materials that can be used as adjuvants in the United States. The quantities of aluminum present in vaccines are low and are regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).
So the data is there, unless you are willing to believe our governmental organizations and scientists are part of a genocidal scheme, one must be willing to accept their science.
This is what SSM had to say, reading comprehension is obviously not his strong suit.
Regretfully the data may not be readily available as many of the papers are behind paywalls, it is there.
,,,we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.
Just what kind of bottom feeding scum are some individuals. From information given to me, Paul* is a UK residentcitizen working in the psyche/medical field in Aussieland. [10/27 Edit] Being such she is pro-vax and friends with many in the community (I am not one of them, although that may change).
Now, it is obvious that Angela is not friends with this woman. Why bring her into the conversation? What is the purpose Angela? Did Paul cite some factoid that countered one of your opinions? You just trying to piss-off those within the community
Here's the thing Angela, don't make the battle personal or I and many others will continue to call you scum. I and many others will continue to call you out on your bullshit, publicly. Keep it to issues that we are in disagreement on, but have the science to support your statements.
In my last post concerning your misinformation, not once did you provide proper citation for your opinion. Do you have the inside track on groundbreaking information we are not aware of, then cite it so we can become edumacated like you. Your opinion is worthless without proper, accurate support.
I really am at a loss as to what this accomplishes other than to fuck people off. Care to explain yourself? Comments are open if you do.
*Please note that name and pronouns are subject to change upon verification of preference. Also photo is altered to prevent further harassment.
Bear with as I transfer some older postings from other blog over to this one :)
When a theory has been confirmed so completely by facts as has the proposition that vaccination effectually performed will prevent an individual from contracting small-pox, or at least so fundamentally modify the disease that it is no longer a serious malady, there is in many minds a natural distaste to fight the battle again or to be constantly defending the position against the attacks of ill-informed or prejudiced persons.
Just goes to show that the anti-science mentality or science denialism is not just a "right side of the isle" issue. Not that I considered it as such, but many consider Bill Maher to be a "liberal" because of his anti-religion stance. Be that as it may, Maher Gish Gallops quite well through the "failures" of Western Medicine, (ie. false in one thing, false in everything) too bad he is mis-informed.
Just how predictable is Maher in his anti-vaxx stance, starting at the 4:25 mark, leading in to what I discuss below, he makes this statement,
,,,that's not true of the medical industry. They have had to retract a million things because the human body is infinitely more mysterious. People get cancer, and doctors just don't know why,,, I remember my father had ulcers and they treated it wrong when I was a kid,,,
Now compare Maher's statement (remember, it's 2015) to a 2006 posting over at Respectful Insolence discussing falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything):
A particular favorite example of this ploy is to point out how medicine was wrong about the cause of duodenal ulcers, having previously thought them due to diet or other predilections until it was shown over the last 20 years or so that most cases of such ulcers are caused by a bacterium, H. pylori. Never mind that it was science, not alties, that figured out the[ir] own error and that treatments used for duodenal ulcers before the discovery of H. pylori were in fact fairly effective (just not as effective as the treatments we have today and all too often requiring surgery)
Gorski then goes on to explain why FIUFIO doesn't work in science:
The problem is, this principle doesn’t work in science,,, In most cases, being incorrect doesn’t mean the scientists were lying, and it is the totality of the evidence that must be weighed. Moreover, it is not valid to treat all of science as a single source. Science is not a single witness that can be interrogated. Well-accepted scientific theories (like evolution, for example) are supported by many interweaving lines of evidence from many different sources. If you impeach one minor source or piece of data, that does not invalidate the rest of the supporting data,,, when scientists find inconsistencies in the data supporting a hypothesis or theory, they do not reject the entire theory out of hand in this manner,,, they use such anomalous pieces of data or experimental results as a chance to improve our understanding of a phenomenon. They see if the theory can be modified to account for the observation. They make hypotheses about potential explanations of the anomalous observations and then test them experimentally. If they see if a new theory with better predictive power and utility than the old can be developed that takes account for the new observations.
Stated another way FIUFIO is, as a principle of law, meant to be applied to a single witness or source of authority; something we know science is not. The use of vaccinations and immunization is not based on one scientist or one kind of science. FIUFIO has no effect on other witnesses/authorities, let alone on objective evidence that does not rely on testimony for its validity. As this comment points out, "applying FIUFIO gets you no further than to refute a single argument; it does not prove any other. " [See comment #2]
,,,[I]f you’re not antivaccine, then stop repeating long discredited antivaccine talking points as though they were scientifically valid. That’s what antivaccinationists do, and if you continue to do such things, then you shouldn’t be surprised when people conclude that you are antivaccine. It’s a reasonable conclusion based on your own words and failure to be educated over the course of many years.
This is why countering the tripe that comes out of Maher's mouth is important. His arguments are not original and if one were to visit any anti-vaxx site, these exact same arguments used by Maher will be found. Dissecting Maher’s anti-vaxx stance from a layman's POV is useful; if I can do it, so can you. It also shows how lazy Maher is being; it reminds all skeptics and atheists that they can be just as irrational as believers in the woo-woo and proponents of pseudoscience if we leave our critical thinking skills at home.
For someone who considers himself as being rational and skeptical, tooting his own horn about his atheism, Maher certainly seems to be rather credulous about other things that do not fit into his anti-establishment world-view. What Maher and his anti-vaxx buddies like to forget:
[A]ll scientific knowledge is provisional and vulnerable to be proven incorrect by future experiments or evidence. That self-correcting mechanism of science is not a weakness at all, but rather sciences’ greatest strength, in which present concepts and theories are constantly subjected to testing and attempts to falsify them. Those hypotheses that can stand up to such attempts become accepted as closer to the “truth” than previous understandings (and may even reach the level of being called a theory), and, with each successive iteration, scientific understanding eliminates error and comes closer to the way things “really are."
What it boils down to for me is this, you know who else says she is not anti-vaccine (besides Amy Holmes and Marianne Williamson) Jenny McCarthy! To just accept Maher's assertion that he is not anit-vaxx, we would also have to accept McCarthy's as well.
Thinking I should have titled this, “Bill Maher, leads the Anti-Vaxx Movement."
This is one of the popular, AV lists allegedly proving a link between autism and vaccines. Currently deconstructing the list that is presented. If by "treatment" she means shoving bleach up a kids ass, I will respectfully decline.
Two questions were asked concerning aluminum and vaxxed-unvaxxed studies. Again SW a bit faster on the draw than I.
"More accurate methods of measuring volumes in that minute a range would be techniques called gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, or GC/MS, in which chemicals are ionized (having an electron removed, usually), and the now-electrically charged molecule or chemical is measured by its mass and charge. This is a longer (and expensive) procedure, but extremely accurate. Gas chromatography, the “GC” part, is carried out before the “MS” step, and separates your targeted chemical from other chemicals in your sample.
"Peter Davies, an emeritus professor of plant biology at Cornell, in an interview with the Genetic Literacy Project warned against ELISA as a useful test at very low concentrations,,,"
One of the "new" tropes used is the Thompson Debacle concerning the CDC. They like to trot out Thompson's statement via his lawyer. BUT they leave 2 things out,,, his full statement and the fact that Hooker's re-analysis (which Thompson's statement is based on) has been retracted.
So when that doesn't work, they pull their big gun, or what they think is their big gun - CDC Blocks Testimony of Vaccine Whistleblower says World Mercury Project. What Kennedy et al neglect. The Hazelhurst claim is a civil malpractice case and a simple rule of law. "[M]edical malpractice is assessed based on what is known at the time, not in hindsight."
Some new ammunition the AVers are adding to their arsenal.
What I find odd concerning this letter, it is dated August 29 it is now October 23. The only public statement pertaining to this issue is via USRTK and Robert Kennedy, Jr.. You would think two months passing would be enough for MSM to catch wind of this accusation or at least some rumblings in the blogosphere. There is nothing that I can tell. Not that it means much but it does make you wonder.
I'll be honest, this appears as another Thompson Debacle.
What I have been able to find comes from Gillam's piece,
A group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in writing in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). The members of the group have elected to file the complaint anonymously for fear of retribution.
While Gillam notes that USRTK is a "public watchdog organization", their claim to fame is primarily an anti-GMO organization. What is a food watchdog group doing in the vaccine domain?
USRTK’s funding is substantial: after all, launching lawsuits against entire universities is an expensive business. USRTK also recently recruited Carey Gillam, an ex-Reuters reporter whose notoriously biased wire pieces obviously indicated an alliance of anti-GMO ideological interests. ,,, But here the problems begin. OCA has published numerous articles on its website promoting anti-vaccine and other anti-science campaigns. For example, one article claims that the deadly ebola virus “can be prevented and treated naturally”, for example by using “intravenous Vitamin C”. OCA also promotes homeopathy, and publishes numerous pieces claiming child vaccines cause autism.
On its swine and bird flu pages, the Organic Consumers Association makes the following absurd and dangerous statement: “It is important to know how to protect your children and yourself with homeopathic and natural alternatives to vaccines to build your natural immunity to the swine flu.” OCA also publishes 9/11 Trutherconspiracy theory material.
Lynas notes further,
I wanted to give USRTK’s director Gary Ruskin a chance to respond to concerns that its funding from anti-vaccine activist groups might lead people to suspect that USRTK shared an anti-vaccine ideological agenda as well as an anti-GMO one – there are many overlaps in these two campaigns, as I have written before. ,,, I am still waiting for a response. I tried following up via Twitter, but… crickets.
My adversary in his last posting, closed with this statement, "Only those who are involved know the truth, the rest is speculation."
My question, still unanswered was this, "have any of the papers in question been retracted?"
So as I sit a wait for a reply, not that I will get one, I ponder what may become of the SPIDER Debacle. Will we once again have to combat utter bullshit, or is reason beginning to prevail?
So like most AV trolls, it seems Angela is a hit and run artist. Finds her name referenced in some way, drops by and spits her venom. Doesn't bother to respond when questioned or asked for supporting information. Like many she is all talk but needs an audience in order to perform; she has to have minions to show off to. Me on the other hand, I could give two shits who reads my stuff. I don't do it for the audience, I do it for me. If someone finds the information useful so be it. Guess that is why after 16 years I'm still doing it. But I digress,,, And FYI Angela I don't do phone or email. I work out in the pubic sphere for all to see. So no, I won't be calling you or emailing you as we all know how that turns out. And I know you follow my antics on twitter so you will be notified of this posting asking for your responses. Your failure to respond will be taken as you have no response and acknowledgement that the information is rehashed garbage. And bring your A-game darling.
Anywho, in my last post concerning Angela, she took a few minutes to respond. While you can read the responses there I thought for shits and giggles that I would compile them into a blog posting. __
Why do you have such an issue with this article, calling for an end to "highly implausible treatments", if you are so against the "bad medicine" of vaccination? It would be right up your alley as you believe vaccines are "implausible" preventive measures.
Not to be critical but if you want to be taken seriously you should really provide proper URLs or citations to articles (or blog posts) to avoid confusion.
While you call Scott Gavura's article "disgusting" and state the photo "fake", you offer nothing to refute Scott's presented information.
In his article he documents the case of Heather Dexter, one of many examples available on the inter-web. Are all the documented cases false? What about all the photo's, are they all fake?
Please, by all means, if you can provide well established medical and scientific information refuting Scott's information, I would be happy to read it. Although you would have to provide proper citation to such so I (and others) can find it.
And what exactly are pathologist going to tell Dr Gorski that he already doesn't know? If you read his offerings on SBM concerning vaccines and vaccinations, you will find his writing very well researched and cited with relevant supporting material. You on the other hand provide nothing but opinion.
Thank you for catching my typo, it has been corrected. As a recent stroke victim, my eyes are not as good as they used to be and big pHARMA doesn't pay their shills very well, if at all, to get them completely fixed. I haven't received jack shit since moving to Mumbai a year ago.
Actually I live in north-central PA, USA, as a PT dishwasher. Currently, although a year from my first stroke, I am still in recovery and unable to work FT. If you want to hear what I sound like you can catch me on BTTP, a weekly atheist themed show I am a co-host. (Thought I would save you the trouble of snooping on my FB page,,,lol,,,although it is public.)
While that is besides the point, it's nice to know that your grammar and typing ability are so perfect that typos are not part of your repertoire. Had you actually read Scott's article you would have realized I was speaking to DTaP and not DtP.
As you state DtP has not been used in the US since 1996, what you fail to mention is that "t]here are several formulations of vaccines used to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Some are combined with vaccines to prevent other diseases and reduce the total number of shots that someone receives at one office visit. In the U.S., DTaP, Tdap, and Td vaccines are most commonly used. One of these (DTaP) is given to children younger than 7 years of age, and two (Tdap and Td) are given to older children and adults." Regretfully the nomenclature is easily confused.
Please cite where you are getting the figure of ",,,460000 PER CENT increase in whooping cough in USA, since 1996,,,". I can not find this figure in any literature. Is that a typo? And specifically what age group are you referring to as DTaP is only used under the age of 7? (Tdap is given to older children and adults.)
Exactly what is your issue with GE or GM vaccines?
Do you or anyone close to you require Humulin? If so might want to rethink that as Humulin is a GE/GM product. Or are you against the use of insulin as well?
You may want to reconsider this statement, ",,,this untested, untrialled vaccine based more on GMO,,,"
The pertussis vaccine clinical trials conducted during the 1990s were widely regarded as highly successful. The need to conduct the trials was clear. Industry, academia, and US and international governmental partners quickly came together, which resulted in the trials largely starting and concluding in the first half of the decade. In addition to rapidly generating efficacy data that supported the licensure of acellular vaccines in many countries, the unprecedented level of collaboration across these groups laid a foundation for ongoing vaccine development efforts and collaborations in many different areas—a legacy that persists today,,, http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/209/suppl_1/S4.long
Although differences were observed in reaction rates among the DTaP vaccines given as a fourth dose, the DTaP vaccines were, in general, associated with fewer adverse events than a US-licensed DTwP. For DTaP vaccines, fever; irritability; and injection site pain, redness, and swelling occurred more frequently after the fourth dose than after the third dose of the same vaccine in the primary series. No DTaP was consistently most or least reactogenic or immunogenic. Although serologic correlates of pertussis immunity are not defined, it is clear that most DTaP vaccines can stimulate comparable or higher serum antibody responses than DTwP for those antigens contained in the vaccine.
Just two of many if you utilize PubMed or Google Scholar. "Even FDA clearly stated in 2013, that the vaccinated, WERE THE CARRIERS SPREADING WHOOPING COUGH TO BABIES, without symptoms."
I'm not quite sure what you are insinuating. Might it be that science was not aware that the acellular pertussis vaccine is not as protective as the whole cell version? We alreadyknew that.
And, you do realize this study was performed on baboons? As the paper notes, "[a]lthough a variety of small-animal models have been used to study pertussis, none of them adequately reproduce the human disease." It is why this study is important, while animal models don't always cross over to the human population ",,,we recently developed a nonhuman primate model of pertussis using baboons (Papio anubis) and found the disease is very similar to severe clinical pertussis."
And just an FYI, this notion of pertussis vaccination with asymptomatic infection has been documented at least since 2000. It's not something new and exciting.
Or maybe you're trying to say that only those who have been vaccinated carry the disease. Or worse yet, that the vaccine causes the asymptomatic infection. Put another way, vaccines are useless because people still transmit pertussis.
First, let me address the notion of vaccines CAUSING the asymptomatic infection. Because, I think that is what you are trying to say. It is very simple really, it's not possible!!
Why?
The vaccine contains antigens, but not the whole bacteria. There is nothing alive in the vaccine, so there’s nothing to transmit.
Taken all together is shows the importance of attaining and maintaining herd immunity. A concept I assume you do not accept as being real.
Really Angela I am quite disappointed. For all your bloviating, you got nothing. No originality in thought what so ever from someone of your alleged background.
