Anti-vaxxers

bt25

mzungu wrote: »

When was he discounted off hand? He released his paper, it didn't have the impact he thought it would. The poster made a massive link dump and then a list of his credentials, these were hardly put in there for no reason. The reason was an argument from authority (a tactic often used by previous posters in this thread). This was followed by a bizarre link from TruthWiki (a conspiracy site). It is difficult to take that kind of thing seriously.

I never engaged in an argument from authority. Scientific consensus does not back up Exley's opinion. That is scientific consensus, not an argument from authority. I wasn't implying that they had to believe it because of that. The poster is free to dismiss it. But if claims of links to vaccines and autism are to be taken seriously, then they need some solid evidence behind it. The author of this study failed to notify of potential conflict of interests and has in the past accepted funding from anti-vaxx groups. People should be wary of Exley's findings because the evidence thus far does not back it up, and that he has receiving funding from sources that gain from such findings. That's not an argument from authority. That's a call to take a look at the background and come to your own conclusion.


You couldn't be more wrong. A quick glance at the thread will show otherwise...

yes, the truthwiki wasn't a great one to link to and the connections to companies that could prove to be a conflict of interest isn't great as it makes it a more "political" situation as it then starts to be about the person instead of the work though I think the list of credentials was a reasonable post considering the context they were presented. If they were to imply that he was to be trusted as a result I would agree with your assessment but it doesn't seem to be as I'm reading it. I would also point out that the potential of a conflict of interest doesn't actually mean there is one obviously and it wouldn't be unusual for someone who sees something beneficial in their research to invest or even create a company based on it, kind of logical if you think about it so we can't assume one way or the other but I digress.

The consensus is important to help narrow a focus but again, shouldn't be taken as the sole a basis for an opinion. It makes it statistically more likely to be correct but I think we all can think of examples where consensus, even in the scientific community can still not make it "true". To make it the sole basis for an opinion is then an appeal to authority and an appeal to numbers. I'm not saying the opinion is right or wrong, just pointing out the use of the terms are incorrect and muddys the waters and a few more elements for the reasoned position you've taken will go a long way to help readers like me to see your argument more clearly and be more informed. Otherwise it all is just saying stuff and what is the aim of that in the end other than it's own?

mamablue

rawn wrote: »

Sources for these, please?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23653228

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29241213

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27090219

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23041773


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28866046

mamablue

Prolonged exposure to low levels of aluminum leads to changes associated with brain aging and neurodegeneration

"The causation of most of these age-related neurological disorders is not understood but since they are generally not genetic, one must assume that their development is underlain by unknown environmental factors. There is an increasing and coherent body of evidence that implicates aluminum as being one such significant factor. Evidence is outlined supporting the concept of aluminum's involvement in hastening brain aging. This acceleration would then inevitably lead to increased incidence of specific age-related neurological diseases."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X13002825

Capt'n Midnight

mzungu wrote: »

Ah yes. He believes the aluminium industry and governments are conspiring to suppress information that aluminium causes a range of ailments like Alzheimer's. In his view they know this would cause the total collapse of the economic system as we know it. Yeah! He has quite the imagination alright. I will give him that much.

His previous conspiracy theory was that aluminium in vaccines caused autism. We know how that one turned out.

The earth's crust is almost half oxygen, half the rest is silicon, and then nearly a third of everything else is aluminium.

AH reply - You can't avoid the stuff.

mamablue

This one is by Exley, does that mean it to be discredited LOL?
Serously, we have know for YEARS that Aluminium and Alzheimer are linked. There are literally hundreds of studies proving it. I'm really not sure why that's even up for debate. I though we were talking vaccines here.

Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer's disease.

The unique quantitative data and the stunning images of aluminium in familial Alzheimer's disease brain tissue raise the spectre of aluminium's role in this devastating disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28159219

mamablue

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The earth's crust is almost half oxygen, half the rest is silicon, and then nearly a third of everything else is aluminium.

AH reply - You can't avoid the stuff.

In nature aluminium is always bound, mostly as aluminosilicates. It's only when it's mined that it enters our environment (and body) as in it's elemental form. Before we started mining it the level of aluminium in the human brain was... 0. It has a high affinity for silicium which is why water that is high in silicium is good at detoxifying it. There was a research paper from France which showed that the higher the silicium level was in the drinking water of a region, the lower the alzheimers rate. Very interesting. I'm going to look for the paper and link it if I can find it.

mamablue

mamablue wrote: »

In nature aluminium is always bound, mostly as aluminosilicates. It's only when it's mined that it enters our environment (and body) as in it's elemental form. Before we started mining it the level of aluminium in the human brain was... 0. It has a high affinity for silicium which is why water that is high in silicium is good at detoxifying it. There was a research paper from France which showed that the higher the silicium level was in the drinking water of a region, the lower the alzheimers rate. Very interesting. I'm going to look for the paper and link it if I can find it.

Here is: (and not a sign of Exley but still confirming his findings, to quote Muriels wedding: "what a coincindence!!!" )
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809081/

"We found that the cognitive decline and the risk of dementia were higher for high consumption of Al from drinking water. Even if almost the same tendencies as previously published on Paquid (5) were obtained on the effect of geographical exposure to aluminum, this exposure was no more significantly associated with dementia. This result being based on a small number of exposed subjects in this sample (n = 46 with Al ≥0.100mg/l), it may be explained by a lack of power in the analysis. This strengthens the importance of using an individual rather than a geographical exposure. The analysis did not show any evidence for silica intake to be associated with the evolution of cognitive functions; however it showed an inverse association between silica intake from drinking water and the risk of dementia, or more specifically of AD."

Oh now look, it also found that the higher the consumption of Aluminium in the drinking water, the higher the cognitive decline and risk for dementia! But keep injecting that Aluminium, it's absolutely harmless, I double promise!!

CramCycle

Part of my job is reviewing grants and papers, I read quite a few from a variety of sources. I have moved from the private sector and now receive no grants and am paid out of the public purse nowadays. Tis is what i posted earlier, he certainly would not be the first academic through peer review, he won't be the last, the fact that he sits on the board is dubious but may not affect the work. The fact that it got through peer review without some glaring issues being highlighted, is shocking and reeks of a predatory journal.

Exley published a highly dubious paper, then claimed when pointed out that the averages he gave where misleading, that the journal forced him to do this. There were no controls, he sat on the board of the journal and mis-references himself, as well as the only paper I could see of his that he might have meant, still doesn't even come close to saying what he claims, even though he wrote it. In fact, that pair makes it look more like there is not a high level of Aluminium in the brains he looked at but considering there are no controls, no histories and a sample size I can count on my fingers, it is hard to understand how the paper was not pulled yet, more surprised it ever got out the door of his office in the first place it is so poorly constructed.

TL:DR he actually hasn't found anything, and a review of raw data from previous studies would make more sense, but even with that, his own previous papers would indicate that there is nothing there of note.

You keep saying high levels of Aluminium in the Autistic brains, his study did not show that, it showed nothing as there was no control. His own previous work would indicate that the levels were not actually high. So you either buy into his prior research, and accept that this was poorly written and poorly reviewed, or you don't accept his prior work, in which case, what makes this more acceptable considering the errors that are clear and well pointed out.

mamablue

CramCycle wrote: »

Part of my job is reviewing grants and papers, I read quite a few from a variety of sources. I have moved from the private sector and now receive no grants and am paid out of the public purse nowadays. Tis is what i posted earlier, he certainly would not be the first academic through peer review, he won't be the last, the fact that he sits on the board is dubious but may not affect the work. The fact that it got through peer review without some glaring issues being highlighted, is shocking and reeks of a predatory journal.



You keep saying high levels of Aluminium in the Autistic brains, his study did not show that, it showed nothing as there was no control. His own previous work would indicate that the levels were not actually high. So you either buy into his prior research, and accept that this was poorly written and poorly reviewed, or you don't accept his prior work, in which case, what makes this more acceptable considering the errors that are clear and well pointed out.

What do research do you specialise in? Do you have a medical or a science background?
"Predatory" in what? It is supported by a grant from the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, a not-for-profit research foundation.
"he certainly would not be the first academic through peer review" It was certainly not his first paper through peer review, he had had many, many papers before that. I don't accept that it's poorly written and poorly reviewed. As a matter of fact I think it's a fascinating paper: have a look at the amazing pictures, you can literally see the specs of aluminium carried in the immune cells: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763
Please link the vague "previous work" paper indicating the levels where no that high. I agree that no control group is less than ideal but there was no control as he was not given any brains as control To dismiss his findings completely based on that is foolish as it certainly was not the first time he looked at levels of Aluminium in brains.

CramCycle

mamablue wrote: »

What do research do you specialise in? Do you have a medical or a science background?

Science

"Predatory" in what? It is supported by a grant from the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, a not-for-profit research foundation

Predatory related to the style of poor peer review, not the funding. Which I thought would have been obvious. The CMSIR are a recognised anti vax group.wjose funders only provide money to those looking for a negative outcome from using vaccine, highly scientific indeed.

"he certainly would not be the first academic through peer review" It was certainly not his first paper through peer review, he had had many, many papers before that. I don't accept that it's poorly written and poorly reviewed.

It's not poorly written, it is poorly reviewed, hence the poor statistics which would never hold up past most reviewers unless they didn't know what they were looking at. His claim the journal asked for it like this either makes the reviewers complocit or incompetent, or he lied, there is nothing to argue either way.

As a matter of fact I think it's a fascinating paper: have a look at the amazing pictures, you can literally see the specs of aluminium carried in the immune cells: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763

His AAS work looks OK, bit it's been awhile since I done AAS, but his fluorescence work is as patchy as f*CK, you do realise that it might not even be aluminium he is looking at, several ways he could have confirmed it, but for some reason just took it as definite. I have seen people thrown out of lab meetings for such lazy BS.

Please link the vague "previous work" paper indicating the levels where no that high. I agree that no control group is less than ideal but there was no control as he was not given any brains as control To dismiss his findings completely based on that is foolish as it certainly was not the first time he looked at levels of Aluminium in brains.

Less than ideal?!? Holy cow, unless doing it for preliminary studies and ethics approval for further work, it's far below the minimum standard.

Here is his previous work you asked for
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22045115

Billy86

mamablue wrote: »

I read papers most days and have for the last 15 years. I mostly read papers about nutrition and have a particular interest in heavy metals in food. I have read hundreds of papers about heavy/toxic metals and quite a few about Aluminium, some of which were from Exley's research. I have read his paper on aluminium in autistic brains. Me substantiating my claims is not akin to "dumping". The first paper I read linking Aluminium to alzheimer's was over 20 years ago. Back then it was talked about in the news a lot. Have you read any papers?

Translation: no I head not read it, but I did read something, somewhere, some time so I basically read it.

mamablue

CramCycle wrote: »

Science


Here is his previous work you asked for
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22045115

The paper you linked specifically looked at level of aluminium in AGED brains. Aluminium accumulates in brains over a lifetime, so higher level in older people are expected. That is the whole point: the paper looking at aluminium in ASD brains specifically mentions the fact that the levels are similar to those of an older man. That is the whole point of the paper. It asks how such hign levels ended up in a 15 year old brain. You say you read papers for a living and then you make a mistake like that? Sorry but you've lost credibility in my eyes. Especially with comments like " his fluorescence work is as patchy as f*CK, you do realise that it might not even be aluminium he is looking at"

mamablue

Billy86 wrote: »

Translation: no I head not read it, but I did read something, somewhere, some time so I basically read it.

Haha, except I posted lots of relevant studies so far. Read them, read Exley's paper! Post a relevant study! Seriously! Lot's of people with opinions on here but not many seem to actually have any understanding of vaccines! Do you know anything about inflammation? About the immune system? About pathogens, toxins, genetics? I have not heard a relevant scientific non black and white debate yet! Teach me something! Are you all just brainwashed with opinions but nothing to back them up? To be honest, I think I'll just leave you all to argue with each other without having any scientific understanding of what you're talking about. I'll leave you all to get injected nilly willy with aluminium, it's perfectly safe, the pharmaceutical compagnies said so! We have no idea what causes alzheimers, CFS, autism, T2D or all the other disease on the rise but according to you informed lot it's definitely not because we are injecting heavy metal/aluminium,so it's perfectly safe! Good luck! I'm done!

Billy86

mamablue wrote: »

Haha, except I posted lots of relevant studies so far.

...and then completely dodged telling ancapailldorcha which ones OF THOSE YOU POSTED (emphasis for obvious reasons) that you had actually read.

Read them, read Exley's paper!

You haven't read the articles you're posting, so why are you asking me to?

mamablue

Billy86 wrote: »

...and then completely dodged telling ancapailldorcha which ones OF THOSE YOU POSTED (emphasis for obvious reasons) that you had actually read.

You haven't read the articles you're posting, so why are you asking me to?

I have read every relevant study that I posted on here when asked to provide a source.
I can bash too: Please Billy86, you have never read a scientific paper in your life, go back to your video games!
Is that how people make an argument on this thread?

ohnonotgmail

What does any of this have to do with vaccines?

Igotadose

mamablue wrote: »

It is supported by a grant from the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, a not-for-profit research foundation

A not-for profit anti-vax organization run by notorious anti-vaxxer Clare Dwoskin.

Do you believe that aluminium in vaccines causes autism?

https://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2017/05/claire-dwoskin-and-the-childrens-medical-safety-research-institute-cmsri.html

Igotadose

mamablue wrote: »

This one is by Exley, does that mean it to be discredited LOL?

Already been discredited, or at least, an analysis published showing it's full of hooey, like previous papers by Exley.

FWIW, once one has tenure in academia, you can keep cranking out bad science and get it published, that really doesn't carry any weight, and given that scientific consensus has debunked his anti-vax ravings, the rest of his publications are suspect especially given his propensity to do bad science.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/anti-vaccine-pseudoscience-bad-science-autism-aluminum/

Here's the part of the article relevant to the paper you quoted: "
Of course, this isn’t the first time that Exley has shown us bad data with regards to aluminum and brain disease. He took brain samples from 10 Alzheimer’s disease patients, and once again, ignoring the need for controls, show high variability of data. In essence showing us nothing."

CramCycle

mamablue wrote: »

The paper you linked specifically looked at level of aluminium in AGED brains. Aluminium accumulates in brains over a lifetime, so higher level in older people are expected. That is the whole point: the paper looking at aluminium in ASD brains specifically mentions the fact that the levels are similar to those of an older man. That is the whole point of the paper. It asks how such hign levels ended up in a 15 year old brain. You say you read papers for a living and then you make a mistake like that? Sorry but you've lost credibility in my eyes. Especially with comments like " his fluorescence work is as patchy as f*CK, you do realise that it might not even be aluminium he is looking at"

The method they use for looking at Aluminium in cells using fluorescence also causes several other things to fluoresce. There are a number of things that should have been done to show that it was Aluminium, and easily could have been done. There are only two reasons not too, one, he couldn't afford it, in which case, he should have stated possibly, or two, he did and the results are not exactly as he would have liked. I can give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was one, he certainly would not be the first academic to run away with an idea, but that's where peer review should have caught him, which is why I stated that the journal showed signs of being predatory, rushing peer review (and it was quite quick) and not being through.

I am not saying it should not be looked into, I am saying that considering the massive flaws in his methodology, queries over conflict of interest (that non profit you mention only fund studies that state they are looking for negative information on vaccines, they don't even hide it), questions over reproducibility (which could be explained by localisation but he conveniently ignores this when presenting the numbers).

I am not sure which field of Science you work in but I fear it is the poorer for your presence. Everyone should be held to a high level of scrutiny, whether you think they are right or wrong is irrelevant, you either reinforce the hypothesis or you disprove it.

Not overly worried about credibility in your eyes, you apparently give it without investigation so its not worth much to anyone.

People and Scientists make mistakes all the time, nothing to be ashamed of, usually these get hammered out before publication but occasionally not. Exley got around that and for some reason thought he would not get called on it, or simply was so blinded by his beliefs that he felt it had met the standard, the fact that it was published means it may not entirely be his fault without knowing the behind the scenes.

Amantine

Vaccines are safe except when they cause narcolepsy:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy

mamablue

Documentary on aluminium, how it's mined, the impact is has on humans, workers, brains and the environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F0u54gs0iU

Dohnjoe

mamablue wrote: »

Documentary on aluminium, how it's mined, the impact is has on humans, workers, brains and the environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F0u54gs0iU

Am in work, can't watch this, what is the relevance to vaccines?

ancapailldorcha

Amantine wrote: »

Vaccines are safe except when they cause narcolepsy:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy

There's a link, not causation. They are two different things.

ancapailldorcha

mamablue wrote: »

Documentary on aluminium, how it's mined, the impact is has on humans, workers, brains and the environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F0u54gs0iU

Did you watch it or is this yet another dump?

mamablue

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Did you watch it or is this yet another dump?

I've watched it, it's very interesting, no hard to watch!

ancapailldorcha

mamablue wrote: »

I've watched it, it's very interesting, no hard to watch!

It's 90 minutes. What relevant insights to this thread, if any are in it?

mamablue

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's 90 minutes. What relevant insights to this thread, if any are in it?

We are trying to establish if aluminium is safe, since it's an adjuvant in vaccines. This video talks about aluminium and breast cancer, alzheimers, the aluminium industry profits, how it's mined and how it's end up on our plate, body, environment and the health implications of the workers in the mines. And of course how french researchers noticed that people who were injected with aluminium adjuvants had similar symptoms and how the aluminium stays in the body and the health implications, all from a 100% scientific perspective! If none of you ever take the time to read any of the studies I post or watch anything relevant to the subject at hand and don't even seem to show an interest in fascinating information we can't really have a well rounded debate, can we? Watch it tonight instead of some braindead series and learn about the world you live in. If you've had the time to post 17618 post on here, you have time to watch something educational

Billy86

mamablue wrote: »

I have read every relevant study that I posted on here when asked to provide a source.
I can bash too: Please Billy86, you have never read a scientific paper in your life, go back to your video games!
Is that how people make an argument on this thread?

You've not read it.

Anyway, you should have mentioned earlier that you're a performance artist. Maybe tone it down a little, you're kind of coming over a bit too obvious.

ancapailldorcha

mamablue wrote: »

We are trying to establish if aluminium is safe, since it's an adjuvant in vaccines. This video talks about aluminium and breast cancer, alzheimers, the aluminium industry profits, how it's mined and how it's end up on our plate, body, environment and the health implications of the workers in the mines. And of course how french researchers noticed that people who were injected with aluminium adjuvants had similar symptoms and how the aluminium stays in the body and the health implications, all from a 100% scientific perspective! If none of you ever take the time to read any of the studies I post or watch anything relevant to the subject at hand and don't even seem to show an interest in fascinating information we can't really have a well rounded debate, can we? Watch it tonight instead of some braindead series and learn about the world you live in. If you've had the time to post 17618 post on here, you have time to watch something educational

Aluminium and Aluminium-based adjuvants aren't the same thing. You would need properly conducted, ethically and peer-reviewed studies showing that specifically the adjuvants are causing harm. A 90 minute video proves nothing in that regard.

mamablue

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Aluminium and Aluminium-based adjuvants aren't the same thing. You would need properly conducted, ethically and peer-reviewed studies showing that specifically the adjuvants are causing harm. A 90 minute video proves nothing in that regard.

Haha, so when I post studies you don't read them. When I post educational videos you want studies. All these demands but it doesn't matter what anyone posts, as all you do is keep bashing when really you're another one who is really quite ignorant:
Actually no one questions that aluminium is a neurotoxin, even the CDC has a toxicity guide for aluminium: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-22.pdf

and this is what the CDC has to say:

The most sensitive target of aluminum toxicity is the nervous system.
Impaired performance on neurobehavioral tests of motor function, sensory function, and cognitive function have been observed in animals. Neurobehavioral alterations have been observed following exposure of adult or weanling animals and in animals exposed during gestation and/or lactation.
Respiratory effects, such as impaired lung function and fibrosis have been observed in aluminum workers.
Aluminum-containing over the counter medications such as antacids and buffered aspirin are assumed to be safe in healthy people at recommended doses based on historical use. There is some indication that skeletal effects (e.g., osteomalacia) can result from long-term use in some individuals.

Children’s Health
Children who are exposed to high levels of aluminum exhibit symptoms similar to those seen in adults, including neurological effects and skeletal effects.
We do not know if children are more susceptible than adults to aluminum toxicity.

I'll post another study, are you going to read it since you asked for it, or your attention span too short?

Reconsideration of the immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum (July 2019):
By our calculations, and in consideration of the route of exposure using the Rule of Exponents to calculate the HED, the correct daily (all sources, all doses) MRL in the pediatric population should have been determined to be no more than 10.31-16.01 μg/kg per day at birth to 58.12 μg/kg per day at 2 years of age. Current exposures from pediatric vaccines exceed these levels; for a median weight (US) 3.3 kg male, HepB vaccine with 250 μg leads to 75.75 μg/kg/day. The two-month vaccination visit repeats the excess. Excess exposures in low birthweight and neonatal infants is obviously even more problematic. The use of HepB vaccine in a 2-kg infant (FDA’s unofficial cut-off for vaccination in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, NICU) leads to 150 μg/kg/day. Vaccination practices in the NICU must be revisited.

While the effect of our proposed reduction on the final antigenicity of the vaccine is unknown, the full effects of the high injected doses of aluminum on the developing brain are also unknown. Indications of accumulation of aluminum associated with autism were recently published





https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950