Current Immunization and Austism.

[ken]

www.academicjournals.org/journal/JPHE/article-full-text/C98151247042

The aim of this study was to investigate a previously overlooked, universally introduced environmental factor, fetal and retroviral contaminants in childhood vaccines, absent prior to change points (Cps) in autistic disorder (AD) prevalence with subsequent dose-effect evidence and known pathologic mechanisms of action.....

... Nevertheless, between birth year 1992 through birth year 1998, there are sufficient numbers of children vaccinated or not vaccinated with Varivax® (chickenpox), whose data is maintained in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), that could be used to determine the relative risk of an autistic disorder diagnosis for those who did or did not receive this heavily contaminated fetal cell manufactured vaccine (Yolken et al., 2000). This overlooked potential trigger for the worldwide autism disorder epidemic demands additional studies in order to assure the safe manufacture of routine recommended childhood vaccines, particularly since reverting to animal based manufacturing methods is readily available.

A possible related consequence from fetal tissue cell lines.

[stevec]

Okay, let's see what we have here.

Btw, I've been reading a lot lately concerning autism on Science Daily? None of it related to DNA material injected after birth through immunization. Off the top of my head, autismism's causes/beginnings are in utero, not after birth, but I will check this paper as best I can.

[ken]

Sept 24, 2014 17:26:58 GMT -6 stevec said:

Okay, let's see what we have here.

Btw, I've been reading a lot lately concerning autism on Science Daily? None of it related to DNA material injected after birth through immunization. Off the top of my head, autismism's causes/beginnings are in utero, not after birth, but I will check this paper as best I can.

I'm sure that autism can happen in utero.

[stevec]

Red flags with the author and her biases, but let's see what happens with further research.

5 year old journal, but no red flags.

[ken]

Sept 24, 2014 18:00:20 GMT -6 stevec said:

Red flags with the author and her biases, but let's see what happens with further research.

5 year old journal, but no red flags.

I found it balanced when the journal said (paraphrased) - "All this means is that we should do further research to make sure".


"Bias", in many cases, is only in the eyes of the reader.  If one doesn't agree with their position, they call it bias.

[stevec]

.... Nevertheless, between birth year 1992 through birth year 1998, there are sufficient numbers of children vaccinated or not vaccinated with Varivax® (chickenpox), whose data is maintained in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), that could be used to determine the relative risk of an autistic disorder diagnosis for those who did or did not receive this heavily contaminated fetal cell manufactured vaccine (Yolken et al., 2000). This overlooked potential trigger for the worldwide autism disorder epidemic demands additional studies in order to assure the safe manufacture of routine recommended childhood vaccines, particularly since reverting to animal based manufacturing methods is readily available.

Ken,

The funny thing about her analysis, and playing fast and loose with statistics.................. the Yankees won three World Series Championships between '92 and '99, so I suspect following the Yankees cause autism. From what I'm learning, her statistical analysis and her causation theory is highly flawed. She's an anti-abortion advocate, and the organization she heads was formed for the sole purpose of elimination fetal stem cell research and use. That's putting the cart before the horse, but more about that later when I put together a formal response.

What were you saying about James 1, or more appropriately, what did I say?

[ken]

Sept 25, 2014 9:50:39 GMT -6 stevec said:

.... Nevertheless, between birth year 1992 through birth year 1998, there are sufficient numbers of children vaccinated or not vaccinated with Varivax® (chickenpox), whose data is maintained in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), that could be used to determine the relative risk of an autistic disorder diagnosis for those who did or did not receive this heavily contaminated fetal cell manufactured vaccine (Yolken et al., 2000). This overlooked potential trigger for the worldwide autism disorder epidemic demands additional studies in order to assure the safe manufacture of routine recommended childhood vaccines, particularly since reverting to animal based manufacturing methods is readily available.

Ken,

The funny thing about her analysis, and playing fast and loose with statistics.................. the Yankees won three World Series Championships between '92 and '99, so I suspect following the Yankees cause autism. From what I'm learning, her statistical analysis and her causation theory is highly flawed.

I'm not sure your analogy is correct and certainly this does have the hue of bias.  Information that you have not provided:


1)  When did fetal stem cells begin to be used?
2)  When did fetal stem cells begin to be used n vaccines?


It would seem highly probable that 1990's is a good time to begin a study after implementation was used and enough data can be harvested.

What were you saying about James 1, or more appropriately, what did I say?

I don't remember what you said but I do remember that I said it seems like some atheists check out and probably could use that prayer to get some (paraphrased)  

[stevec]

Sept 25, 2014 7:52:02 GMT -6 ken said:

Sept 24, 2014 18:00:20 GMT -6 stevec said:

Red flags with the author and her biases, but let's see what happens with further research.

5 year old journal, but no red flags.

I found it balanced when the journal said (paraphrased) - "All this means is that we should do further research to make sure".


"Bias", in many cases, is only in the eyes of the reader.  If one doesn't agree with their position, they call it bias.

If you believe that we're dealing with a balanced report and that Dr. Dreisher was simply asking for more research, you'd be sadly mistaken. Follow the link below, and you'll find an email letter she wrote to a Minnesota judge asker her/him to write an order to halt the use of the vaccines in question. In the email Dr Dreisher included testimony before a MN legislature committee and her research paper. A few things stick out, first, Dr Dreisher's moral position on the use of fetal DNA; second, her dubious attempt to get her research published; and third, her financial interest in a venture to provide alternative vaccines. Finally, the testimony indicates that her claims were considered interesting at best, meriting more research, but they were mostly refuted. Dr Dreisher is not seeking additional research, she wants to shut down these vaccines based on her unsubstantiated and probably bogus theories. If she had asked for more research, that would have been fine, but she went over the top by asking that these vaccines be banned.

The peer reviewed journal that ended up publishing her research was not the one she mentioned in her legislature committee testimony. That indicates to me that her reseach was rejected by at least one peer reviewed journal. The journal that finally published her research was an "open access" journal. I'm going to do some research tofind out what that means.


Edit - link doesn't work. I'll try to find another.

[stevec]

Okie dokey, it's a 72 page download that includes legislature committee testimony and Dr. Dreisher's research. Warning - a lot of reading

www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/immunize/immrule/comments/comment1.pdf

[stevec]

There's no problem with open access journals and the one Dr Deisher got published in seems very legit based on the articles it has published. I think what saved her paper was the fact that she concluded that more reseach is needed. That's a light year away from concluding that vaccines cause autism. As we have seen with ID related claims, it's the impression that research is peer reviewed in a scientific journal that is important, rather than the actual conclusions produced. Anybody can see that Dr Deisher wanted this impression to work in her favor, rather than letting the reseach speak for itself. Her research does not show that vaccines in question cause autism, yet that is what she wants people to conclude based on the impressions she is creating in religious circles.

[ken]

Sept 26, 2014 11:06:32 GMT -6 stevec said:

There's no problem with open access journals and the one Dr Deisher got published in seems very legit based on the articles it has published. I think what saved her paper was the fact that she concluded that more reseach is needed. That's a light year away from concluding that vaccines cause autism. As we have seen with ID related claims, it's the impression that research is peer reviewed in a scientific journal that is important, rather than the actual conclusions produced. Anybody can see that Dr Deisher wanted this impression to work in her favor, rather than letting the reseach speak for itself.

I believe that is what I said, just in different words..

Her research does not show that vaccines in question cause autism, yet that is what she wants people to conclude based on the impressions she is creating in religious circles.

Opinion unless you can support it more substantially.

incidentally, it wasn't about vaccines in general but simply those derived from fetal tissue.  (This is where one can see your bias as you read the article as well all the whole tone of your statements).  I wish you would just let science correct itself and trust science a little more.

[ken]

Sept 25, 2014 22:27:24 GMT -6 stevec said:

Okie dokey, it's a 72 page download that includes legislature committee testimony and Dr. Dreisher's research. Warning - a lot of reading

www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/immunize/immrule/comments/comment1.pdf

Will check it out.

[ken]

Sept 25, 2014 22:19:33 GMT -6 stevec said:

Sept 25, 2014 7:52:02 GMT -6 ken said:

Sept 25, 2014 7:52:02 GMT -6 ken said:

I found it balanced when the journal said (paraphrased) - "All this means is that we should do further research to make sure".


"Bias", in many cases, is only in the eyes of the reader.  If one doesn't agree with their position, they call it bias.

 In the email Dr Dreisher included testimony before a MN legislature committee and her research paper. A few things stick out, first, Dr Dreisher's moral position on the use of fetal DNA;

Obviously, if it might cause autism, there is a moral position to be said.

second, her dubious attempt to get her research published;

sounds bias to me.  Every scientist tries to get research published.  Perhaps other people in favor of fetal use in vaccines (and the money they get, was a mitigating factor?) I don't know.

and third, her financial interest in a venture to provide alternative vaccines.

Are you saying that she shouldn't have a financial recompense for her efforts?  Did you work for nothing?


these three points show your bias.

Finally, the testimony indicates that her claims were considered interesting at best, meriting more research, but they were mostly refuted. Dr Dreisher is not seeking additional research, she wants to shut down these vaccines based on her unsubstantiated and probably bogus theories. If she had asked for more research, that would have been fine, but she went over the top by asking that these vaccines be banned.

Bias?  If it mitigated more research, how can you say "unsubstantiated and probably bogus theories"?  If it was as you said, it wouldn't merit additional research.  Bias with a big "B".

The peer reviewed journal that ended up publishing her research was not the one she mentioned in her legislature committee testimony. That indicates to me that her reseach was rejected by at least one peer reviewed journal. The journal that finally published her research was an "open access" journal. I'm going to do some research tofind out what that means.

That's more like it.

[stevec]

Ken,

Just one point to make, do you think that these vaccines should be discontinued?

[ken]

Sept 26, 2014 12:58:31 GMT -6 stevec said:

Ken,

Just one point to make, do you think that these vaccines should be discontinued?

First, I'm not sure how many vaccines that includes--do you know?  I think that if there is a possibility of a side effect, at the very least, it should be placed as a BIG warning and at the most going back to the previous vaccines that were made without fetal tissue until further test show that it is OK.

We know how much money drives pharmaceuticals.  The last thing we want is to wait until multiple problems appear.  Like the antibiotic Alatrofloxacin made by Pfizer that was withdrawn because of liver toxicity and death.  Phizer has paid out of their ears for malpractice before because of the love of money.

 Why not do the extra mile and protect lives?  For goodness sakes, let science double check this!