• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

CDC Scientist: ‘We scheduled meeting to destroy vaccine-autism study documents’

currer

Senior Member
Messages
1,409
According to the FDA:

“Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration [this means injected into the body] if kidney function is impaired . . . Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates [babies], who received parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity [for a tiny newborn, this toxic dose would be 10 to 20 micrograms, and for an adult it would be about 350 micrograms]. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.” [Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Document NDA 19-626/S-019, Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for Dextrose Injections.]

And also:

“Aluminum content in parenteral drug products could result in a toxic accumulation of aluminum in individuals receiving TPN therapy. Research indicates that neonates [newborns] and patient populations with impaired kidney function may be at high risk of exposure to unsafe amounts of aluminum. Studies show that aluminum may accumulate in the bone, urine, and plasma of infants receiving TPN. Many drug products used in parenteral therapy [injections] may contain levels of aluminum sufficiently high to cause clinical manifestations [symptoms] . . . parenteral aluminum bypasses the protective mechanism of the GI tract and aluminum circulates and is deposited in human tissues. Aluminum toxicity is difficult to identify in infants because few reliable techniques are available to evaluate bone metabolism in . . . infants . . . Although aluminum toxicity is not commonly detected clinically, it can be serious in selected patient populations, such as neonates [newborns], and may be more common than is recognized.” [Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Document 02N-0496, Aluminum in Large and Small Volume Parenterals Used in Total Parenteral Nutrition. Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/oc0367.pdf]

So basically from those documents we learn that if a premature baby receives more than 10 mcg of aluminum in an IV, it can accumulate in their bones and brain, and can be toxic.

The FDA maximum requirements for aluminum received in an IV is 25 mcg per day. The suggested aluminum per kg of weight to give to a person is up to 5mcg. (so a 5 pounds baby should get no more than 11mcg of aluminum.) Anything that has more than 25 mcg of aluminum is *supposed* to have a label that says:

WARNING: This product contains aluminum that may be toxic. Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration if kidney function is impaired. Premature neonates are particularly at risk because their kidneys are immature, and they require large amounts of calcium and phosphate solutions, which contain aluminum.

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration. [http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/.../cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm...]
 

natasa778

Senior Member
Messages
1,774
I have been away from the forums for a couple of years and what surprises me most is that this news (true or false) has not been mentioned AT ALL in the UK. No coverage of a highly newsworthy claim and a congressman following it up.

I knew nothing about this until I read this thread and now I find out it happened last year.

Why have these allegations been so thoroughly covered up when autism and ADHD are such a problem.
Even if they are not true they should have been reported, all sorts of rubbish gets hours of air-time on the media.

If you have a product that is expected to net 50+ BILLION DOLLARS in the coming years (according to stock market predictions) you will make sure to buy friends in high places including all mainstream media editors. Also if you keep buying most of the advertising space in the said media - being the customer who keeps them in business - the owners and editors will want to make very sure they don't piss you off buy publishing stuff that questions the quality and integrity of your holy cash cow.
 

natasa778

Senior Member
Messages
1,774
Just what I said :)


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells Newsmax Health that money is the reason Congress is delaying hearings on accusations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hid a link between the mumps, measles, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism."The pharmaceutical industry is a trillion dollar industry," Kennedy said in an exclusive interview. "There are other trillion dollar industries, but not one that spends as much on Congress as it does.

"The pharmaceutical industry spends twice what the next biggest industry spends, which is oil and gas. They spend four times what defense and aeronautics spend.

"That kind of money — the money they spend in lobbying — buys a lot of influence," he says. "It's why congress people are scared to go against them. There's just a lot of career fear."

http://www.newsmax.com/t/health/article/665437
 

pogoman

Senior Member
Messages
292
Some of you people are living in an alternate world

Just what I said :)

...
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells Newsmax Health that money....

Robert Kennedy has had sketchy associations and behavior since the 80s.
Even Salon and Rolling Stone removed his 2005 anti vaccine article because of its numerous factual errors.


Congressman Posey has the documents

http://vaxtruth.org/2015/07/posey-asks-for-hearings/

Watch the video clip of Congress. They are in Poseys office.....

Posey is one of those Obama birther advocates and part of the Tea Party right wing.
Not very credible.


You post a Louis Farrakhan video.
Someone who has advocated for decades to kill whites and police??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17509/

Why-Japan-banned-MMR-vaccine.htmlWhy Japan banned MMR vaccine

by JENNY HOPE, Daily Mail.....

And followup study showed autism rates increased afterwards.
 

Ian

Senior Member
Messages
283
Merck killed over 100 thousand people with Vioxx, and the worst part of it is they knew the drug massively increased peoples risk for strokes and heart attacks and they did nothing. Actually worse than doing nothing, they made a hit list of doctors that spoke out against the drug.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/merck-c...y-neutralize-or-discredit-dissenting-doctors/

The allegations come on the heels of revelations that Merck created a fake medical journal -- the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine -- in which to publish studies about Vioxx; had pop songs commissioned about Vioxx to inspire its staff, and paid ghostwriters to draft articles about the drug.

Why people are so keen to give this criminal company a free pass when it comes to vaccination is beyond me.
 

Dufresne

almost there...
Messages
1,039
Location
Laurentians, Quebec
I really don't think it's just a matter of money. Vaccines save lives: that's a fact. It's one of sciences' great triumphs and people don't want to return to the days of iron lungs, small pox, and unnecessary infant deaths. Perfectly understandable. The problem in my opinion is the "authorities" on the subject, who genuinely believe vaccines don't cause autism, think they're justified in doing whatever is necessary to maintain vaccine compliance.

There's absolutely no doubt this story was suppressed for the fear of losing the public's confidence. I believe this sort of manipulation is dangerous. And I don't think the issue of vaccines and autism is settled.

I'm not especially susceptible to fringe beliefs but I know from personal experience that chronic Lyme exists, and this is of course at odds with the establishment dogma. I also know at least a dozen reputable people within our community who fell ill with ME/CFS immediately after receiving a vaccine. And if a flu is known to trigger our disease then why not something known to produce flu-like symptoms like a vaccine? And isn't it also plausible another neuroimmune disorder, autism, could be triggered in such a way?

The issue is of course prone to ideological perspective. I believe one's stance on such subjects can pretty clearly be predicted by the introverted/extroverted character of their thinking function. Those with extroverted thinking would likely tell me that MBTI has not been scientifically validated. These are also the people that will likely tell me chronic Lyme doesn't exist, and that it's irrational and unscientific to believe vaccines can trigger autism. These folk look to connect their beliefs to seemingly solid sources on the outside. They wholeheartedly believe in the revered institutions of the establishment they place their trust in. Introverted thinkers on the other hand are more likely going to go their own way with things, and arrive at their conclusion. Their weakness is that they're not as strict in tying their opinions to accepted facts and can be led to some pretty arcane and nutty places. The truth is it takes both types to make the world function in a healthy manner.

So it's a spectrum of conformity and conservative values aimed at developing objectivity against the more independent and subjective side of things in these scientific debates. I think it's important to recognize where one is on the spectrum so as not to be a slave to their ideology. The former should acknowledge the establishment might have this one wrong and may even be corrupt, while the latter has to understand the science is really lacking on this issue and doesn't support their suspicion.

That's my two cents anyway. Let's get back to the bickering. :bang-head:
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
The issue is of course prone to ideological perspective. I believe one's stance on such subjects can pretty clearly be predicted by the introverted/extroverted character of their thinking function

I wasn't going to post again on this thread but since the above is a bit but not a lot off topic, I'd like to address some of your points.

There's a grain of truth with some of the things you write but then I take issue with others.

I highly doubt, but could be mistaken, that being extroverted or introverted is the main factor that influences our opinions or if it is, it's probably low on the list.

If one's opinions happen to agreed with the "establishment", it doesn't necessarily follow that the person is not open minded or are towing the party line as it's more complicated than that.

In fact some who are so against vaccinations are also relying on authority.

I think the question is which authorities we are talking about, why they are chosen as well as how much a preconceived notion is slanting an opinion.

For me, if there was solid science behind the dangers of vaccines or that they cause autism, I would believe that. If this story had more credibility, I would take it seriously

Like you said, reasoning which may lead to less than precise conclusions are not exclusive to one group. Nor is anyone completely neutral when it comes to conclusions.

Barb
 
Last edited:

Dufresne

almost there...
Messages
1,039
Location
Laurentians, Quebec
@barbc56
The introverted/extroverted thing is just an observation of mine based on MBTI theory. My point concerns the introverted/extraverted function of thinking, which is different than most people's understanding of introverted/extroverted. It relates to how one aligns their thinking, either with the object or the subject (self), and not whether they are generally introverted or extroverted as individuals.

It's my opinion those with extroverted thinking generally make better scientists, as they're more objective and also like accumulating a huge amount of data, something people with introverted thinking tend to be turned off by. Sherlock Holmes exemplifies this perspective:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

There's nothing wrong with this viewpoint, it's obviously sensible. However introverted thinking tends to value the theory more than the data. Those with this function use their theory as the starting point and then seek to build from there. And yes they tend to cherry-pick their supporting arguments. Sometimes this leads them astray and sometimes it leads to the theory of relativity or that of natural selection. Both Einstein and Darwin are thought to have had introverted thinking. Incidentally you'll also notice the theme of "the big picture" when it comes to introverted thinking.

Obviously both perspectives are employed by every individual to some extent, but there's usually a pretty strong leaning one way or the other. Science requires both. I just find it useful to step back and realize in the grand scheme of things these perspectives are symbiotic even if we personally quarrel over the issues.

The book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" refers to this spectrum of thinking without tying it to MBTI. Though I think having the MBTI framework is the best way to understand the phenomenon.

I was trying to be as fair as possible concerning my description of the types. I find understanding this idea and keeping it in mind helps temper the inevitable frustration with the other side.

Also my using of the term "establishment" could be construed as cheeky but I didn't mean it as such in this instance. Not consciously, anyway. :)
 
Last edited:

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
Got it! Thanks for the clarification! :)

I should reread Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance as it's been a long time since first reading it.

Barb
 

pogoman

Senior Member
Messages
292

Ian

Senior Member
Messages
283
Fetal tissue has been used in the manufacture of vaccines for decades. If you think a group which stands to make no financial gain from vaccines research is going to be questionable, wait till you found out what kind of research big pharma and their friends have been doing.

Just one example, the Danish autism studies. These studies were heralded by the media of absolute proof that vaccines weren't the cause. However they were run by this guy -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poul_Thorsen He is actually a wanted international criminal -> https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp#other-fugitives Can you imagine if some 'anti-vax' study was run by a guy like that.

The study was meant to measure the effect of reducing thiomersal on the autism rates. The theory was that it would go down, after removal, however the study showed the opposite. But what happened was, Denmark changed the criteria from diagnosis around the same time that the thiomersal was reduced, expanding it's criteria. This alone should have totally invalidated the study, but it didn't stop there. After thiomersal was removed, they added outpatients to the sample pool they counted from, then used absolutely numbers (not even a percentage of the population) to say look, the numbers have gone up. This is the worse kind of junk science imaginable, not even counting from the same sample group.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Nobody has made that claim in this thread that I know of.
I certainly haven't.

You said this after Currer posted a link about Japan banning the MMR.

And followup study showed autism rates increased afterwards.

So what does that mean scientifically according to the publishers of such a a study and why did you post it in response to Currers post? What point where you trying to make scientifically or just as a matter of personal opinion?
 

Undisclosed

Senior Member
Messages
10,157
You said this after Currer posted a link about Japan banning the MMR.



So what does that mean scientifically according to the publishers of such a a study and why did you post it in response to Currers post? What point where you trying to make scientifically or just as a matter of personal opinion?

There was a study done after the withdrawal of MMR vaccines in Japan:

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/vaccines/nommr.html
Comment
The increase in autism and autistic spectrum disorders in this part of Yokohama displays the same increase over time seen in other parts of the world. Here, though, the increase occurred even when the MMR vaccine was withdrawn. This destroys any possible causative link between use of the vaccine and autism.

Perhaps the most important features of the study were that it comprehensively covered a population, and that the population was served by a special service testing children for developmental; disorders and using standard methods over the whole period. The quality and validity of the study is superlative, and the size good.

Whatever causes autism, it is not the MMR vaccine.

Going back to the initial topic of this thread -- destroying data related to an study is very very bad but it doesn't speak to any kind of link between autism and the MMR vaccine.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
There was a study done after the withdrawal of MMR vaccines in Japan:



Going back to the initial topic of this thread -- destroying data related to an study is very very bad but it doesn't speak to any kind of link between autism and the MMR vaccine.

Why did they destroy the data then and how can you make your claim with any confidence when the whole scientific procedure was altered. Isn't the whole point of the thread that the claim is being made that the data was destroyed because it absolutely did speak to a link between autism and the MMR vaccine according to the whistleblower William Thompson? People can chose what they make of his claims but that's a different matter. Why doesn't congress ask him to come forward with his claimed data, discs and documents is the question.

Shutting down a path of study by destroying data means the whole ongoing process gets compromised.

As for the statement.....

Here, though, the increase occurred even when the MMR vaccine was withdrawn. This destroys any possible causative link between use of the vaccine and autism.

The claim that it "DESTROYS any causative link" is without scientific validity just as the PACE study is. Its purely a statistical exercise and we all know how they can be manipulated. The Denmark study is a perfect example of this.

The whole point is that studies often draw no conclusion of true validity but bold claims can be made either way. The CDC issue of destroying data is highly suspect and as I said earlier it poses the question, how many other times has such a thing happened and what conclusions can we draw from such processes especially when enormous sums of money and conflicts of interests are always involved not to mention potential admittance of major mistakes. The Whole point of data being published is so that other people can examine your claims. They can then assess your conclusions.

The reason I questioned pogomans statement was because it said...

And followup study showed autism rates increased afterwards.

That statement followed directly after currers post about Japan banning the MMR. Autism rates did not raise as a result of the MMR being banned, "afterwards".

Your explanation Kina is quite different from that statement and it refers to the study authors claim that autism rates continued to raise at similar rates as they had in other studies in different countries.
I never put all my eggs in one basket so I never "believe" anything either way 100%. I just dont get how people can have such concrete beliefs knowing they often don't have all the data and there are always so many conflicts of interests.

I also am dubious of claims like, "that person is not credible because they said x,y or z on some other subject or they follow a certain political path. The validity of a someones claim is only judgeable by the content of that individual claim and the evidence they claim to have on that one issue.

I have followed the MMR and CDC etc issue on many discussions sites and presentations etc.

We cannot simply say that potential new evidence is not worthy or credible because all the old evidence would already prove it wrong. That is the opposite of what science is about and leaves open suspicion of political involvement. I also find it strange when I encounter opinions like "no amount of evidence new or old will change my mind and I dont need to look at it".

The CDC must answer William Thomsons claims with a credible reply not just ignore them. I may have seen something brief that they commented on regarding his claims if my memory serves me well, but it was very unconvincing and not good enough.
 

pogoman

Senior Member
Messages
292
You said this after Currer posted a link about Japan banning the MMR.



So what does that mean scientifically according to the publishers of such a a study and why did you post it in response to Currers post? What point where you trying to make scientifically or just as a matter of personal opinion?

Your assumptions and arguments are invalid.

And followup study showed autism rates increased afterwards =/= ...getting the MMR reduces the risk of autism.