I must admit, I’ve been enjoying my vacation thus far and have hardly paid attention to the blog, other than a couple of quick posts. For me, this is quite amazing. Still, every so often there pops up a story that I can’t resist commenting on, particularly given that I’m just sitting around watching the Olympics, and I’m deadly tired of beach volleyball. (As an aside, notice how it’s always women’s beach volleyball that NBC shows, not men’s, no doubt because the powers that be think that toned young women in bikinis playing volleyball translate into big ratings. Unfortunately, they seem to be right.)
While I was sitting there thinking about changing the channel out of boredom, I happened to check out the comments on my post from a couple of days ago, when I noticed an off-topic discussion beginning (which, I guess, sometimes happens when my blogging activity falls off) that caught my attention. It’s a story out of New Zealand about an 18-year-old woman named Jasmine Renata, who tragically died nearly three years ago of unclear causes, although what happened sounds consistent with the sort of idiopathic heart conditions that sometimes (and, fortunately, very uncommonly) cut short the lives of young people in their teens and early 20s. Now, Jasmine Renata might never have been known outside of her grieving family and friends, except for one thing. Her mother is convinced she knows the reason why Jasmine died. In brief, she has an explanation for her daughter’s death that is simple, emotionally resonant, and almost certainly wrong, and that explanation is that Gardasil was the cause of her daughter’s untimely death:
The mother of a teenager found dead in her bed has told an inquest that her daughter’s physical and mental health deteriorated sharply when she was given the Gardasil cervical cancer vaccination.
Jasmine Renata, 18, died in September 2009 in a sleepout at her home in Upper Hutt, north of Wellington.
She had received the last of three injections of Gardasil six months earlier.
Once again, whenever I encounter a story like this, I am saddened, first of all because the life of someone so young ended so unexpectedly. It’s quite understandable that a parent, faced with such a tragic loss and consumed with shock and grief, would look for an explanation and grasp at any seemingly plausible explanation she can find. In this case, Rhonda Renata has latched on to Gardasil, even though the timing doesn’t even argue particularly persuasively for causation by Gardasil. In other words, while humans frequently confuse correlation with causation, in this case there doesn’t even appear, on the surface at least, much evidence of correlation. Six months after the last booster shot of Gardasil is a long time. Now, nearly three years after her death, there is a coroner’s inquest into Jasmine’s death, and two familiar figures have entered the picture. More on that later.
By way of background, various reports suggest that Jasmine had suffered symptoms that could indicate that she had a cardiac anomaly. Sudden death among young people is rare, but when it happens, it’s often due to cardiac causes, most commonly hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, coronary artery abnormalities, or the long QT syndrome (LQTS), the latter of which can cause a rapid, chaotic heartbeat and sometimes ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest. Since her daughter’s death, Ms. Renata has steadfastly refused to have herself, her husband, or any of her family tested for gene mutations associated with sudden cardiac or tested for idiopathic heart disease because she knows of no history of heart disease in her family if you don’t count the death of her daughter. While on the surface this sounds like a reasonable argument, it is not a good reason to conclude that Jasmine couldn’t possibly have had an idiopathic heart condition. For example, some of the gene mutations that are associated with sudden cardiac death increase the risk of such an outcome; they don’t guarantee it, and carriers might not be symptomatic or might be so mildly symptomatic that they are never worked up for a cardiac condition. More likely, Ms. Renata doesn’t want to look for evidence that might disconfirm her now fixed belief that Gardasil killed her daughter, or, as she wrote two years ago:
Even though we have not yet received a final autopsy report and the pathologist has only recently begun doing tests based on my belief that the vaccine sent Jasmine’s health on a downhill spiral to death. During the autopsy the pathologist did not find any health problem that could have contributed to Jasmine’s death and I know in my every being that the vaccine was the cause.
In the same piece, Rhonda Renata describes a history of vague symptoms suffered by Jasmine:
During a routine visit, Jasmine’s doctor persuaded her to get the Gardisil vaccine because it would help keep her safe from developing cervical cancer in the future. Jasmine received her first Gardisil vaccine in September 2008. Jasmine was always concerned about her appearance and she was quite distressed that shortly after the vaccine she noticed dry skin and warts appearing on her hands. She complained that she thought she was losing more hair than usual and that her pimples were getting worse. On the 20th of October Jasmine visited the doctor to treat her warts and dry skin. Jasmine had 4 or 5 warts frozen off. The doctor also said that her immunity was compromised so he prescribed a multivitamin as well as Locoid cream for the dry skin. The Locoid cream didn’t help the dry skin.
What this means is unclear. For one thing, there appears to be no record, at least none mentioned in the press accounts that I’ve been able to find, of these complaints. Indeed, several press reports state that the nurse testified that she asked Jasmine whether she had had any problems after her Gardasil doses and whether she was feeling well. Jasmine reported no side effects. What we do know is that Ms. Renata somehow hooked up with an antivaccinationist named Hilary Butler, who blogs for the antivaccine crank organization the International Medical Council on Vaccination and blogs on her own at Beyond Conformity. Indeed, she has written several posts about Jasmine Renata, including Did Gardasil Kill Jasmine? It’s full of conspiracy mongering, insinuations that some sort of coverup was occurring. It includes a link to the autopsy report, which showed no structural abnormalities in the heart or evidence of an inflammatory process. The report does note, however, that heart tissue had been taken and submitted to the Inherited Diseases Group in Auckland so that the “decendent’s genetic structure and family can be investigated in case there is a molecular abnormality of the cardiac electrical conduction system that might result in sudden unexpected death.” It was also noted that “this process usually takes many months and requires the cooperation of family members.”
Interestingly, the pathologist also noted that Ms. Renata had contacted Dr. Christopher Shaw, who urged the use of the Morin stain to test for aluminum in Jasmine’s brain. In response to this, the pathologist noted:
The pathology laboratory is unable to offer a routine specific test for aluminum in neurones (I believe that this is very much a research tool rather than a diagnostic tool). Even if aluminum were to be found, I would not know how to interpret its presence. I was unable to see evidence of damage to, or a reactive process involving, neurones in Jasmine’s brain.
You might recall Christopher Shaw. He published a truly awful “review” of the medical and scientific literature trying to link aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvants to autism and appeared in the antivaccine movie The Greater Good arguing—you guessed it—that aluminum adjuvants cause autism. In fact, he went further than that and said in the movie that we’re all living in a “toxic” soup and that vaccines are part of that soup, all overlaid with a cartoon of green, stylized people floating in a disgusting soup of pollution, vaccines, and garbage. It turns out that Dr. Shaw was scheduled to testify at the inquest. Apparently, Dr. Shaw examined some of Jasmine’s brain tissue. Anyone want to bet that Shaw will report that he found aluminum there and that it caused massive damage to Jasmine’s neurons?
No, don’t bother. That’s about as sure a bet as I can think of, and only a sucker would bet against it. After all, Ms. Renata wouldn’t have called Shaw to testify if he hadn’t found what she wanted him to find. Given the time difference between here and New Zealand, it’s likely that by the time you see this he will have already testified, and I’m sure readers will post news accounts in the comments. Oh wait, there already is. (Yes, I added this bit of paragraph after finishing my post and doing one more Google search.) Dr. Shaw behaved as expected, claiming he found both HPV and aluminum in Jasmine’s brain, as well as unspecified abnormalities. This particular news report did not explain how Dr. Shaw found these things, and, given his track record, I’d want to know his methodology, in particular his negative controls for HPV before I’d believe him. Indeed, as I explained before, the amount of HPV DNA in Gardasil is minuscule; so it defies plausibility that the vaccine could be the source of so much HPV, if it really were there. Remember, in order to detect HPV DNA in the vaccines themselves, it took a super-sensitive PCR test (perhaps so sensitive as not to be specific). In other words, the amount of HPV DNA in Gardasil in the vaccine itself is minuscule, barely detectable only with an extremely sensitive assay. Now introduce it subcutaneously into someone’s body, thus diluting it enormously, and then wait six months? No, it’s utterly implausible to assume that the presence of HPV, if what Dr. Shaw is reporting is not a completely spurious result (which it probably is, given his track record), means that it could only have come from the vaccine.
Which brings us to the next “expert,” another member of the rogues’ gallery of antivaccine doctors and scientists, who testified before Dr. Shaw:
Dr San Hang Lee a pathologist at Milford Hospital in Connecticut gave evidence on the second day of the inquest by videolink.
He had been sent Jasmine’s post mortem blood and found her blood and spleen were positive for the human papillomavirus, or HVP.
The Gardasil vaccine is given to prevent some strains of HPV.
He said it was not the result of a nature HVP infection, most likely the DNA was bound to aluminium which was also found in Jasmine.
“The HPV gene is foreign DNA and its detection six months after injection is not normal,’’ he told the inquest.
He said the DNA may cause a reaction that could lead to lethal shock although it was not known if it caused her death but it needed further investigation.
He said it was not known if it was the cause of death but it needed further investigation.
Dr Lee said he also tested five samples of the vaccine sent from New Zealand and found HVP in each.
One wonders if the inquest board was aware that Dr. Lee was unceremoniously given the boot as director of the diagnostic laboratory at Milford Hospital in December 2010. His chairman also didn’t recommend that Dr. Lee’s medical staff privileges be renewed. Given that you can’t get medical staff privileges without the endorsement of the chair of your department or the chief of your clinical service (in a nonacademic hospital that doesn’t have chairmen, for example), that means Dr. Lee’s chair basically fired him from the hospital altogether. The last time I blogged about this (October 2011), Dr. Lee was appealing and still had medical staff privileges. I also said at the time, if I were a new chair of a department and found someone like Dr. Lee consorting with a loony antivaccine group like SaneVax, I’d can him too.
As I pointed out above, the amount of HPV DNA in Gardasil is so tiny that it requires nested PCR to detect it. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be homeopathic. Actually, that gives me an idea. Maybe it was the memory of HPV that resulted in all that HPV being detected in the autopsy specimens! But apparently that tiny amount of HPV is so powerful that it can cause “microcompetition.” Well, not really. As I explained before, the amount of HPV DNA involved is so tiny as to be inconsequential and it is not easy to get DNA into cells, much less to get it to express its proteins.
I do note, however, yet another morphing of a hypothesis. Or maybe I should call it the merging of two woos. Now it’s not just the HPV DNA or the aluminum adjuvants. Now, apparently, somehow the evil aluminum combines with the dastardly HPV DNA (as tiny amount as it is) in order to become synergistically diabolical. One wonders how this came about. Maybe Drs. Lee and Shaw met at a SaneVax meeting. Who knows? However this happened, in retrospect I suppose I should have seen it coming. Now, not surprisingly, SaneVax is all over it, citing Dr. Lee as saying, “The naked DNA in the vaccine was probably stabilized through a chemical binding between the mineral aluminum and the phosphate backbone of the double-stranded DNA.” One notes that there is not a plausible chemical mechanism by which aluminum can do this in the body in the manner that Dr. Lee claims.
In the meantime, what I see is a tragic story of a young woman cut down in the prime of her life, most likely (although not certainly) by a genetic defect in cardiac conduction that led to arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. A grieving mother, shocked by the suddenness and randomness of the tragedy, is unable to accept the most likely explanation, particularly given the uncertainty, latches onto something she can blame. Why? Who knows? But it didn’t help that she hooked up with antivaccinationists like Hilary Butler, who immediately began flogging the Jasmine Renata case as “proof” that Gardasil kills. The end result causes harm not just to public health but to Rhonda Renata as well. She’ll never be able to let go and heal as long as she is convinced (almost certainly mistakenly) that Gardasil killed her daughter.
873 replies on “A sad, premature death cynically exploited by antivaccinationists”
Yay! Quackadoodles!
*facepalms*
When my kids were younger I stated that my job as a mother was to make sure they were alive when they went to bed. This was used as an excuse to not homeschool then, especially with a particularly stubborn middle child.
Then my oldest was diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with obstruction when he was fourteen years old. I realized how lucky we were when he was diagnosed because of a heart murmur instead of the typical way: autopsy after sudden cardiac death.
There is an online forum dedicated to HCM, but I found it too depressing. It turns out that the abnormal heart muscle growth also screws up the heart cells electrical functioning. Many times a person who is thought to be perfectly healthy goes to bed, but in the morning is discovered dead.
After learning this, I found myself fearing the morning. Like today, when he overslept. I had to wake him up for cardiac rehab because he has had surgery to remove the extra heart muscle. Even though the obstruction is gone, there is still the mucked up electrical orientation of the cells. So there is a still a bit of fear when I call to him to wake up.
The genetic tests concluded my son had none of the known genetic sequences. If it had, we would have tested his siblings (and his siblings), but that did not work out. So all direct relatives (parents, siblings) need to be tested. Later this month we go in for a family echocardiogram session.
I hope that NZ asks for an independent verification of Shaw’s bullshit claims, and that they realize that Lee is on the woo wagon.
I hate people like that. They prey on the vulnerable and prevent them from grieving properly.
Instead of learning to cope and move on they cling to a cause and fight to blow open a scandal that doesn’t exist.
Hilary Butler is also the founder of the Immunisation Awareness Society (IAS) that I’ve had occasion to address, e.g.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/02/24/ias-talks-about-vaccination/
Over recent years that group has locked itself up – i.e. no comments on their blog and removing any comments they don’t like from their Facebook page, no matter how polite or relevant. The group runs under a by-line of “for an informed choice”, but only supplies an anti-vaccine angle.
It’s interesting how almost every time a case like this comes up, the “experts” prove to be someone you’ve already written about. Shows how small the world of hard-core antivaccination really is: the number of people with actual medical credentials (of any sort, however dubious) involved is tiny. Ms. Renata couldn’t find people to testify her way in New Zealand, she had to import them from Canada and the US. That alone might make the court take a hard look at these so-called expert witnesses.
various reports suggest that Jasmine had suffered symptoms that could indicate that she had a cardiac anomaly.
Specifically, the autopsy report mentions episodes of “real bad chest pain” and a racing heart in the weeks before Jasmine died.
Still not sure why Dr Shaw thinks that aluminium and HPV — detected in Jasmine’s brain tissue via his Super-Secret methods — have anything to do with her death.
she knows of no history of heart disease in her family if you don’t count the death of her daughter.
That was the part I liked. “There is no ill-health in my family, apart from the ones who die!” Ms Renata has spoken of the long lives of her parents, and her parents’ parents, studiously omitting any mention of her husband’s family history.
Orac, I was planning to send you some links about this case because the mere thought of the family refusing tests for an inherited condition is so stunning, but I thought I’d wait until the ‘expert’ witnesses had appeared – and meanwhile you beat me to it! As the mother of an 11 year old daughter i’ve followed this case with particular interest but my conclusion – today’s ‘dodgy’ evidence not withstanding- is still that this vaccine is truly remarkable!
” Since her daughter’s death, Ms. Renata has steadfastly refused to have herself, her husband, or any of her family tested for gene mutations associated with sudden cardiac or tested for idiopathic heart disease because she knows of no history of heart disease in her family if you don’t count the death of her daughter. While on the surface this sounds like a reasonable argument, it is not a good reason to conclude that Jasmine couldn’t possibly have had an idiopathic heart condition.”
Perhaps the saddest part of the mother’s blog is this..
“Jasmine earlier that year had bought and hid two brand new bikes for her brothers for Christmas. She never got to see them open them. It certainly wasn’t a happy Christmas for us without her.”
Doesn’t this grieving mother realize that by her refusal to permit her two surviving children to be tested for genetic mutations and for cardiac anomalies, she may be putting either one, or both of her sons, at risk for sudden cardiac death?
These are the same type of parents who lose an infant to SIDS and forevermore are convinced that a vaccine killed their baby.
One wonders if the inquest board was aware that Dr. Lee was unceremoniously given the boot as director of the diagnostic laboratory at Milford Hospital in December 2010
The coroner is not completely uninformed. Right at the start of the inquest, he invited testimony from a high-ranking public-health adviser (about the checks that had been performed on this particular batch of Gardasil, and about the information available for informed choice) from a cardiologist; from the nurse.
I suspect that the coroner knows perfectly well about Dr Lee’s current situation of self-employment, but one aspect of his job is to let grieving families say whatever makes them feel better… and if this involves letting their experts’ claims about professional standing go unchallenged, so be it.
herr doktor bimler,
In the interests of disclosure: I’ve quoted you on my blog 😉 —
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/08/09/dodgy-experts-in-the-coroners-inquest-into-jasmine-renatas-death/
Hmm, even one link gets moderation here. Ah, well – that’s the way it goes.
herr doktor bimler – I’ve quoted you in the link above.
Hi – my comments are being held up for moderation. Could you let me know what’s causing this so I can avoid it. Can’t see anything untoward that I’m doing. Perhaps it’s that your blog now doesn’t like links in the “location” field?
(Excuse this.)
(Repeating this testing if my comments are held for moderation over using a different email address than usual.)
Hilary Butler is also the founder of the Immunisation Awareness Society (IAS) that I’ve had occasion to address, e.g.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/02/24/ias-talks-about-vaccination/
Over recent years that group has locked itself up – i.e. no comments on their blog and removing any comments they don’t like from their Facebook page, no matter how polite or relevant. The group runs under a by-line of “for an informed choice”, but only supplies an anti-vaccine angle.
herr doktor bimler – heads-up and all that – I’ve quoted you in my latest post at sciblogs (that points readers here).
One more try. Maybe this blog wants only my first name and other variations are blocked as possible sock-puppets?? (My previous comments have now vanished and the most recent is still under moderation.)
Hilary Butler is also the founder of the Immunisation Awareness Society (IAS) that I’ve had occasion to address, e.g.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/02/24/ias-talks-about-vaccination/
Over recent years that group has locked itself up – i.e. no comments on their blog and removing any comments they don’t like from their Facebook page, no matter how polite or relevant. The group runs under a by-line of “for an informed choice”, but only supplies an anti-vaccine angle.
herr doktor bimler – heads-up and all that – I’ve quoted you in my latest post at sciblogs (that points readers here).
@orac – I, too, am amazed that the typical anti-vaccine crank believes that the very small, miniscule amount of “whatever toxin of the week” they are ranting against, can suddenly turn into what seems to be gallons of product inside the body.
How exactly is stuff like Aluminum and “mercury” supposed to multiply by itself? Or what chemical process can they point to that would have any hope in hell of producing it on its own (perhaps they believe in alchemy & turning calcium into mercury or something).
They aren’t rational, they can’t even keep their own conspiracy stories straight – because if you take a step back and look at everything that the anti-vaccine loonisphere is claiming – if it was all true, just about everyone should be dropping dead the moment they receive a shot (of anything!).
As a pathologist, it is painful for me to hear about antivax nonsense enabled by other pathologists.
Earlier we had dubious path reports of “inflammation” in small bowel biopsies from autistic children allegedly linked to vaccination with MMR. Now there’s Dr. Lee bizarrely claiming that DNA from the Gardasil vaccine could have caused fatal shock – 6 months after the last injection! (how he found a difference between “natural” HPV DNA and Gardasil HPV DNA in this patient is another matter we can only wonder about).
From Orac’s article:
“…the autopsy report…showed no structural abnormalities in the heart or evidence of an inflammatory process. The report does note, however, that heart tissue had been taken and submitted to the Inherited Diseases Group in Auckland so that the “decendent’s genetic structure and family can be investigated in case there is a molecular abnormality of the cardiac electrical conduction system that might result in sudden unexpected death.”
It should be noted that evaluation of heart tissue for conduction system abnormalities is not a routine part of hospital or forensic autopsies. It requires a specialized technique and evaluation by someone with the proper training (unclear it that was done in this case). Even in instances where such study is performed, I doubt a localized abnormality can always be discovered.
This entire train of circumstances antivaxers are blaming on the Gardasil vaccine reeks of implausibility and nonsensical woo.
Blaming Guardasil or MMR or vaccines in general absolves the parents for the genetic ‘gift’ that likely killed their child. It allows them to live with the repressed guilt. Neither the vaccine nor the parents are to blame but Guardasil is an easier target for the rage.
The saddest part of the story are the pain, suffering and death to come. The girl’s siblings are not tested, possibly exposing them to the same fate. Also, some people will be moved by the irrational and unproven connection to Guardasil risking more girls pain from HPV. A sad business indeed.
Toned young women in bikinis doing ANYTHING translates into big ratings. I’m not sure there’s anything unfortunate about it, though.
@ Chris: Thanks so much for sharing your son’s heart problems with us. My heart goes out to you and your family for all the years of concern until your guy had his surgery.
As (I think) you know, my husband had A-flutter which required a right atrial ablation…and then A-Fib which required a left atrial ablation. Even after each ablation, he had quite irregular heartbeats…attributed to the fact that the ablation procedures themselves irritated the chambers of his heart…which slowly resolved as the weeks and months passed, post ablations.
I hope this is the case with your son…but if he does eventually need these procedures, please try not to worry about them. I have some excellent cardiac ablation retrospective studies that I can link you to. 🙂
lilady:
It was not an ablation, but a surgical scooping out of the abnormal muscle growth inside a chamber. And it does irritate the heart, which caused very rapid heart beat. The assistant surgeon described it as making the heart “angry.”
There is the thing, the hear functions with electrical impulses, that can be affected by things like levels of calcium, and other things.
I can tell you that, among people who are volleyball fans, a very large number of whom are male (that includes me), there is a lot of disgust regarding the beach outfits. Volleyball fans, of course, claim that the sport itself is what is great, and that parading players in skimpy bikinis is basically “selling out” – it’s turned into basically the Lingerie Football League. The counter argument is that it makes the sport popular, and isn’t that a good thing? So what’s the price of dignity these days?
The indoor team is playing right now (US up 1 set over Korea)
In other news:
Jake aggravates Seth Mnookin via Twitter.
The sky continues to be blue.
Dogs and cats usually don’t like each other.
Something is wrong on the internet.
.
.
I knew a woman long ago whose young husband died unexpectedly while at home alone with their child while she ran an errand. The cause of death was determined to be long QT syndrome. When she told her husband’s family, along with a recommendation that they get tested themselves, they went absolutely NUTS. They ransacked her house while she wasn’t there and found some paperwork indicating that she had given up a baby for adoption when she was very young, and then accused her of killing her husband by revealing this information. They refused to get tested. All I can conclude is that the death of a seemingly healthy young person is so traumatic and the unexpected idea that the death might have occurred because of a genetic legacy so unacceptable that some people just lose their ever-loving minds and try to blame anything at all for the death rather than a well-known syndrome.
@ Chris: I know your son had a far more complicated cardiac procedure than dear hubby’s ablations. His cardiac arrhythmia first occurred with acute onset EBV infection…at age 64! He underwent cardio-version and was prescribed anti-arrhthmia medication which seemed to hold him for a few years, but then the right and left ablations were required.
He still has benign bigeminy and trigeminy episodes, which he has adapted to…being that he is more than four years “out” from his last ablation.
BTW, did you read Dr. Hall’s book review of Heart 411?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/an-owners-manual-for-the-heart/
It is a superbly written book and my husband and I both read it. We got a copy from our local library and it is, I believe, available as an E-Book.
Disclaimer: (I think I can speak for Dr. Hall)..we are not shilling for the authors.
@ Pablo ( a/k/a MMM);
Believe it or not, I have been watching men’s field hockey and have logged in quite a few hours of handball, football, volleyball and obviously tennis. The jerseys and short pants are very attractive. So says me and probably a few million gay men.
Lilady, I hope it all goes well, and you hubby never needs to get an implanted defibrillator. Due to some weirdness in the EKG of my son’s stress test last November, that was a test the hospital wanted to do again. They were double checking to make sure they did not have to give him one.
They said that while the implanted defibrillator can save a life, it also can go rogue with false alarms. The resulting shock is quite painful, so they were glad when the recent stress test showed he did not need one.
I have not read the book yet, but I’ll try to see if it is in my local library again.
I have not had a chance to get to that book yet.
Chris: I have had an implanted defibrillator for 4 years and it has never zapped me. I’m glad because the sensation is likened to being kicked in the chest.
it is good that he did not need one.That is one less surgery he will have and no quarterly check-ups. Right now I think it is a pain, but I am sure I will change my tune if I ever need it.
@ Elizabeth Reid:
My cousin’s father always re-counted sad tales of young relatives dying tragically back in Ireland- having read O’Neill , she always assumed it was consumption or another infectious disease: many years later, her 40-something brother needed a pace-maker and then, a teenager needed one as well. Many people in this huge family were tested and several have related heart problems, including her.
My great-uncle dropped dead in the middle of Basic Training during WWII, very likely of this exact same kind of genetic condition (though he is the only one in the family who has).
Thank you, Rose. That is good to know. The physician’s assistant at the cardiologist must have wanted us to know all the risks. She was quite dramatic with her description, and told us they really wanted to make he did not need one.
HPV and girls: Head and neck cancers associated with HPV have been increasing. They are mostly men. I haven’t been able to exactly compute it, but I think we have reached the point where it’s associated with more male than female deaths. (H+N is more common than cervical cancer.)
Guys: get the jab.
Sports: let the men wear nothing.
“Toned young women in bikinis doing ANYTHING translates into big ratings”
There’s a lesson there for the shooting contestants, although recoil might be a limiting factor.
@ Rork…I’m not going anywhere near your naked men in sports remark 🙂
About the incidence of HPV head and neck cancer in men, it seems you are correct:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20037508.html
Evidence now shows two-thirds of the cancers of the tongue and tonsils are caused by HPV — and 80 percent of these cases occur in men.
“It seems like ten or more sexual partners is the threshold, that’s where we start seeing a bigger jump in risk,” said Dr. Anna Giuliano, author of the study and leader of cancer and epidemiology at Moffitt Cancer Center.”
“Researchers found that while 50 percent of the 1,158 healthy men ages 18 to 70 who participated in the study were infected with genital HPV, only six percent had the strain that causes most (90 percent) HPV-linked head and neck cancers. In 90 percent of people, the virus goes away on its own. But it may persist in men more than women.”
The researcher Anna Giuliano PhD quoted in the CBS news article has been involved in multiple HPV studies; here take your pick…
http://ccrab.moffitt.usf.edu/research–clinical-trials/individual-researchers/anna-r–giuliano-phd
Surely this is incorrect (quoted from Orac’s “Dr. Shaw behaved as expected” link above):
There is no virus in Gardasil. If he really thinks he found the virus itself, it most certainly did not come from the vaccine. I have to assume he really claimed to have found either HPV proteins (which are the active components in the vaccine)or HPV DNA (which could theoretically represent trace carry-over from the recombinant genes used to express the HPV proteins in yeast). Either way, it would be outrageous to claim that such could only have come from the vaccine.
And in any case, since when is Shaw qualified to test autopsy samples for HPV contaminants? Even assuming he has the experience to do such tests for research purposes, he has no business claiming definitive results unless he’s validated his methods for such purposes. Anyone want to wager that he has?
Good news, everyone. My preventricular contractions are all but gone. Amazing what getting enough sleep, drinking less coffee, and ignoring the trolls can do for your heart.
Well, I know that there is an AED near the waiting room I was in earlier today.
@ Ren: I hope I don’t cause any more PVCs…but I need some help over at the Ho-Po:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/08/baby-website-mmr-vaccine-autism_n_1754439.html?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D121437&just_reloaded=1
This Ho-Po article is all over the anti-vax websites and the “troops” are out in force.
Any other posters who want to join me…are invited, as well.
qetzal,
There’s a few problems in the media reporting. I haven’t got the link handy, but one of the SaneVax articles quotes from the testimony. My recollection is that he is saying the portions HPV DNA, with “bound” aluminium, were found but the media has misreported this. It’s the reason I noted wanting a copy of the original testimony in my own article on this issue before commenting on the science. It seems to me that there is just too much inaccurate reporting going on in the MSM.
PS: Apologies for the multiple comments earlier – it seems my previously “deleted” comments have been resurrected!
There’s a lesson there for the shooting contestants, although recoil might be a limiting factor.
Not to mention all that hot brass being ejected.
I’ve changed my mind. Tattoos and body paint permitted.
I perhaps wasn’t clear earlier either. I was trying to say that perhaps HPV now kills more men than women per year, adding up all cancers (not just H+N). ( I realize we have not demonstrated that the vaccine will reduce HPV-positive H+N cancers – that will take years to prove directly – but my biologist think it is likely true.) So get the jab and be more relaxed when doing tricky deeds desired by your loved one(s).
@ rork:
I called several female tennis players and ran your suggestion past them verbatim: no one objected, a few were enthusiastic. Oh, why not?
@ lilady:
I took a peek at the huff”s comments: be aware that in the fevered imagination of PRN, the phrase ‘offiicial truth’ is used as an equivalent to tobacco science, the orthodox position, junk science etc. You can tell who they reference by their pet idioms: another fave, “Do your homework!” and variants thereof.
The combination of phenomena is beyond the grasp of the human intellect. But the impulse to seek causes is innate in the soul of man. And the human intellect, with no inkling of the immense variety and complexity of circumstances conditioning a phenomenon, any one of which may be separately conceived of as the cause of it, snatches at the first and most easily understood approximation, and says here is the cause.
Count Leo Tolstoy, “War and Peace”
@ rork:
re body paint: might be historically accurate for the present Games. Go, Blue!
I’m curious about this DNA they say is bound to aluminum. I mean, I know that magnesium ions are cofactorial to DNA, and I found a paper that shows aluminum phosphate makes a very good vaccine adjunct for DNA microparticles:
(Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jan 18;97(2):811-6.
Cationic microparticles: A potent delivery system for DNA vaccines.)
What I’m wondering, though, is why they get to propose an entirely new way for aluminum to act on biomolecules? Don’t you have to have some sort of supporting work when you advance a hypothesis like that?
My heart goes out to Jasmine’s family.
c0nc0rdance,
“I’m curious about this DNA they say is bound to aluminum.”
– That’s a large part of the reason I wanted the original testimony.
If tiny traces of HPV DNA cause sudden death, I would expect most warts (which are essentially HPV DNA factories) to be fatal.
As for beach volleyball, apart from finding it hard to get my head around the venue, between Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence Old Admiralty Building, I can’t stand the brief blasts of music. It sounds like a bizarre game of musical chairs.
I agree, Krebozien. The suggestion that DNA could “cause a reaction that could lead to lethal shock” is ludicrous.
Newsflash for Dr. Lee: we’ve injected milligram doses of DNA into thousands of people in hundreds of gene therapy trials. Some of those have even included (gasp) DNA mixed with aluminum adjuvants, in an effort to develop DNA vaccines If DNA could cause “lethal shock” we’d know it by now.
It was not a cardiac disease (though one branch of my father’s family – his sister, and both her sons, died of sudden cardiac events before 45), but when my father tested positive for a dominant hereditary condition he wrote me one of the most painful letters I have ever read. He actually apologized for ever having … well, contributed to my existence. I can’t remember ever feeling more heartbroken for him. It is a very hard thing as a parent to know that you might contribute to your child’s suffering. I guess that there are those who have a knee-jerk reaction that puts them immediately on “denial” and they don’t ever open their mind again after that moment. It’s sad, especially if they might contribute to the death of their children in doing so.
Everyone is ignoring the mother’s statement- “At an inquest in Wellington yesterday before coroner Ian Smith, Rhonda Renata said her daughter was fit, rarely got sick, didn’t smoke and rarely drank alcohol.
But after her first Gardasil dose in September 2008, she developed pains in various parts of her body, suffered a racing heart beat, weak arms, tingling in her hands and legs, and became tired and irritable.
Her hair started falling out and she was sleeping as much as possible.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10825660
This is a mere coincidence??
Gardasil side effects
http://www.gardasil.com/what-is-gardasil/gardasil-side-effects/
I think I’ll make a list of vaccines to get this year:
– Gardasil
– DTaP (or DTwP if available)
– Flu
what else?
Cheers to oretch for starting another wild circle jerk of barking jackals. Just one question to the leader of the pack and any little jacks: If jasmine died from hocm or cad how do you suppose that went unnoticed on autopsy? And then I wonder if you ever ever think a vaccine has done anything harmful?
Cervical Cancer Statistics
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/
Make your own inferences about the necessity of this vaccine.
[Makes own inferences]
Sounds good to me.
@ ken, no one is ignoring the mother’s testimony, however it is the mother’s testimony and not that supported with medical evidence which we don’t have yet. I also don’t see what she described as a reported side effect from Gardasil. Don’t forget, the same was said of the poor young girl who died hours after her Cerevix jab and her autopsy revealed a malignant tumour. It very well could be a mere coincidence and it is without question, not what Dr. Shaw is submitting.
Yes, Alain is smart enough to have drawn his own conclusions about the necessity of this vaccine.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm/
ken are you TTP? these are all possible symptoms of heart disease. They are so vague they also qualify as the majority of symptoms in anxiety and panic disorders.
Ken,
Yes. It is plausibly a coincidence. I can think of two issues:
1. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that the first caused the second and
2. The mother’s memory is human and therefore fallible. Hopefully the inquest sought documentation.
Bsbuster,
Do you have access to the autopsy report? You imply that you do.
@ken
12 410 woman have cervical cancer, that’s 12 410 too many according to my tastes.
regarding the side effect, I’ve had mild side effect both after being vaccinated and before being vaccinated and the side effect were worse before being vaccinated (fainting) as compared to after (a small red circle at the site of the needle).
Alain
Oh, and before anyone ask, I’m being screened annually for cardiac risk (I have 2 immediates relatives having cardiac issues) including when I fainted before receiving my flu vaccine.
Alain
Here’s a letter that includes copies of correspondence between Dr. Shaw and R. Renata:
see: http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5EA5EDFC-14EE-4A81-B055-5893D1FAEB40/156853/49SCHE_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_9658_1_A61610_JoeandRhondaR.pdf
(Thoughts welcome.)
Here in Australia, it was announced recently that the federal government will fund Gardasil for boys (previously only girls) in year 8 (age ~13) from January 2013.
Even if the benefit for men is less than for women, it will reduce the risks for women. So winners all round.
Ken – six months ago I switched to a new medication. One month later I’d completely lost the use of my legs, the ability to speak clearly, and a total inability to get out of any position I was placed in.
Should I sue the manufacturers? Should I also consider action against the pub I’d eaten in that week, my best friend who may have doomed me with her kisses, and my mother, for ever bearing me?
Grant, I’ll reply on my blog (http://www.securivm.ca) sometime this week-end.
Good night.
Alain
I made sure my daughter had the full Gardasil series.
I also plainly explained to her that while HPV is (or was) considered a sexually transmitted virus, getting the shot would not protect her from everything, only the 4 strains of the virus present.
When my son is old enough, I’ll be getting him the series too. As someone who has had HPV – a ‘wedding gift’ from my first husband – I know the risks of cervical cancer.
You’re damn right I’m going to do everything to prevent my children from going through what I have.
But after her first Gardasil dose in September 2008, she developed pains in various parts of her body, suffered a racing heart beat, weak arms, tingling in her hands and legs, and became tired and irritable.
Her hair started falling out and she was sleeping as much as possible.”
This is a mere coincidence??
Ken, you ignorant little plonker, you might want to look at the side-effects of depo-provera, which the dead women was also receiving.
The moral of the story is that if your daughter starts reporting chest pains and tachycardia, then rather than write them down in a comprehensive list of “Nasty side-effects caused by EVUL VAXXINES”, perhaps it is a better idea to make an appointment with a heart specialist.
@HDB – the mother probably chocked this up to “typical teenage angst,” or something similar, at the time.
But, if my son started showing those types of symptoms, you bet your ass I’m getting him down to the cardiologist, just to be on the safe side.
They have been running commercials recently to highlight the risk of congenital heart defects in children & teens – that fairly simple testing can spot these problems early & it is possible to, if not totally correct, at least take steps to minimize the overall risk.
This sucks that a potentially very relevant and concerning affliction – congenital heart defects – is totally being overshadowed by this woman’s vendetta against vaccines.
Lawrence,
I’ve read what I take to be the report the mother filed to CARM (NZ’s equivalent to VAERS) & I have to admit I’m taken aback by why she didn’t have the symptoms checked out further – or least that’s hindsight for you.
Who is Orac? I know who Jasmine Renate was… and yes she did matter! To say Orac (name?!) out of boredom I happened to check out….? Jasmine meant more than that!
Jasmine just didn’t suddenly die, her health deteriorated. She did have side effects after each vaccine.
Rhonda saw her daughters health deteriorate.
6 months after her last immunization Jasmine died… she had a lot of side effects prior to that time.
Immunizations were once about one of lifetime immunity…
suddenly it’s life long immunizations for the same diseases.
Just one immunization to protect you… no sorry two…. no sorry three….whoops I meant four….
That will be the case for the HPV vaccine also. Life long immunization.
Never immune…. never safe.
Do some more research before you so abruptly write such an article. Perhaps her parents are incorrect in this instance but doesnt mean that Gardasil is safe. For more information check out this website http://truthaboutgardasil.org/injuries/
With all this intelligent commentary from Orac and Grant (and Alison), the case is calling out for some stupid commentary as well.
@ Shay
All rifle and pistol events now use .22 rimfire. Even the 12 gauge loads for trap and skeet competition are pretty light.
Sorry for the derail. SIWOTI syndrome this morning.
[…] about whether I’d bother to post anything or not, given that I happen to be traveling. After yesterday’s post, the subject of which was profoundly depressing to me because I hate it when quacks take cynical […]
@ Grant: That email sent to the Judge, *written* by the parents is a script…authored by a doctor. If the *case* goes forward, I hope someone remembers to question the mother about her objections to submitting themselves and their sons to testing…and hear *in her own words* about her objections.
If the mother (she’s the one who is promoting the Gardisil angle as the cause of death), is so well-versed in laboratory science jargon…why isn’t she aware that testing might reveal a genetic cause for her daughter’s death?
She’s no different than some of the parents who brought their children to Wakefield for his *study*…after being referred to the lawyer, by an anti-vaccine group, to make the case against the MMR vaccine manufacturer.
I’ve lost a whole lot of sympathy for these parents.
Is this the same Dr. Sin Hang Lee…who is no longer employed by Milford Hospital as a pathologist? Look what he’s be up to now…
http://www.cankercillin.com/sutton_pharm,_inc_.htm
I *think* it is a topical treatment for canker sores, but maybe it is a treatment for oral cancers…
“Canker Sores are recurring, shallow, painful ulcers of the mouth. During 2009 canker sores will afflict an estimated 575,060,800 people in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Member States of the European Union, Russia, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Generally, an estimated 20 percent of the general population of each country suffers from this recurring disease. The incidence rates of recurrent cancer sores among patients with autoimmune disorders, such as HIV/AIDS, Crohn’s Disease, and Behcet’s Disease are even higher, approaching 100% under certain subsets of patient population.” (dumb editing)
I have to agree with Lilady.
If my kid is having shortness of breath, etc I’m going to be marching her right to the doctor’s and insisting on testing be done.
God forbid if I lost a child like that, you bet your ass everyone in my family is getting tested for that defect. No exceptions.
@ Darwy: I actually had my son’s blood tested (and paid for the test, as well) for chromosomal abnormalities just after he was born in 1976. It was fascinating to see the large photograph of his paired chromosomes, which were normal. I wanted to know if there was a chromosomal abnormality that my daughter needed to be concerned about.
The results of the de novo gene mutations study, implicated in his rare genetic disorder, were published a few months before my son died in 2004.
Now Mrs. Renata is *stuck* with her statement about palpating her daughter’s rapid pulse and her steadfast refusal to have her family members submit to testing.
Coming later to the comments so often means there are multiple points to address. Just two today:
1) Aluminum is the third most common element in the Earth’s crust. There should be nothing shocking about finding at least some in human tissue.
2) I watch the women’s beach volleyball and the bikinis have something to do with it. But now we have this thing, the Intertoobz I think it’s called, and if I choose I can find women to watch wearing less and doing more remarkable things than volleyball any day at any hour. Even if it was the volleyball, Google searches on “naked beach volleyball” and “nude beach volleyball” between them came up with over 30,000 hits. So for at least some viewers, me for one, there is something I can’t quite define that makes it far more appealing than naked Playboy bunnies flopping around the California shore. I also believe (strictly in the interests of fairness, don’cha know) that the male beach volleyball players should wear only tight shorts.
@ Ella: I’ve already done some research, have you?
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html#studies
From the correspondance between Renata and Shaw. In other words, they’re not interested in any results that don’t vilify Gardasil. Shaw should be sacked from his university for what he is doing.
The antivaccine hive must have received word from their overlords about this post this morning. I expect a flood of long debunked nonsense soon.
ken would like us to “make your own inferences” about the necessity of the Gardasil vaccine – his inferences apparently being that over 12,400 cases of cervical cancer annually in the U.S. and 4,000+ deaths are too piddly to be concerned with.
Antivaxers typically focus only on deaths from infectious diseases, the better to minimize the impact of these diseases (in their own minds; rational people find the death statistics alarming enough). In the case of Gardasil, what antivaxers overlook is the incidence of cervical dysplasia (precancers) due to HPV infection (in the range of 250,000 to 1 million cases diagnosed per year). The cost for those women is increased surveillance, biopsies and more invasive and painful procedures to eliminate dysplasia (electrosurgery, laser surgery, cone excisions and hysterectomies), potentially loss of childbearing ability and of course economic costs as well.
My inference from all this is that Gardasil has value in sparing women (and men) from the consequences of HPV infection.
ht_p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_dysplasia
sarcha king:
When was that? Tetanus boosters every ten years have been required for decades.
And as far as who Orac is, try clicking on his name under the article title, you’ll find this:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/author/oracknows/
Thinking of kids and heart issues – back in high school, my eldest was sent home from field hockey practice (very active, athletic child) with a message that she had complained of feeling faint and the coach, upon feeling her pulse, felt she was WAY too tachycardic for the exertion she’d had – mind, this was mid-late season, so she was in great physical shape. I had her IN the ER and and EKG done that night! I can’t imagine not doing anything like that, especially when you have the good health care Australians do. Yes, I had to pay a hefty copay for the ER visit. It was worth it ( – IIRC, a mild cardiac murmur was found, with possibly some PVCs due to mild dehydration. She was fine after hydration, and the murmur has never been a problem).
@ MI Dawn: When my son was a few days old and tachypneic in the NICU, the neonatologist detected a heart murmur…which was confirmed by the pediatric cardiologist.
My son underwent heart catheterization when he was eight days old. It took several hours to do the procedure because he was so tiny and he required *one unit of blood* One unit of blood for him was 20 ccs (estimated total blood volume for a 5 lb. infant is 200 ccs).
The cardiologist assumed that he would find Tetralogy of Fallot:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/tof/
Instead, the cardiologist found a huge atrial septal defect, which would, “never spontaneous heal” and would require surgical closure. So, he was medicated with Lanoxin (digoxin) to slow down his heart rate, which was administered in his gavage feeding tube. I continued to monitor his heart rate and continued to administer the Lanoxin through the gavage feeding tube, one he was released from the NICU 10 weeks later.
Slowly his heart rate came down and the heart murmur was no longer heard. At six months of age, his cardiologist determined that the huge ASD closed spontaneously. The cardiologist really did call the healing “a miracle”.
I’m so glad we had my son in our lives for twenty-eight years, and the spontaneous closing of the ASD allowed us to donate his cardiac valves upon his death.
@ Ken – from that same link you posted – Gardasil is a PROTEIN component – there IS NO VIRAL NUCLEIC ACID in the vaccine.
“Q: Is it possible to get HPV or any disease caused by HPV from GARDASIL?
A:No. It is not possible to get HPV or any disease caused by HPV from GARDASIL. That’s because there is no live virus in the vaccine.
Instead, GARDASIL contains a protein that helps the body’s immune system produce antibodies against HPV—without causing an infection.”
One other thing about this HPV DNA (they are implying an “infection”) in the brain. Let’s take a step back and remember the TYPES of cells that papilloma viruses infect: SQUAMOUS CELLS. That’s right, HPVs do not infect neurons. No receptors on neurons for papilloma viruses. This does not even go into the facts surrounding what you would see if there was some sort of rogue papillomavirus infection. The most sensitive biomarker in cervical cancer lesions is the overexpression of HPV oncogene mRNA – I have no doubt that this will soon be found to be the best biomarker for H/N cancers as well (see IncellDX’s work on this subject). If there was some sort of neural infection you would expect stains like p16 to be positive, as well as perhaps an immunostain. I am sorry for this mother’s loss, but feel she is doing her remaining children a grave disservice by not having them checked out for herediary cardiac problems and instead focusing on strawmen.
Is this the same Dr. Sin Hang Lee…who is no longer employed by Milford Hospital as a pathologist? Look what he’s be up to now…
Ah, so he’s invented an ointment for mouth ulcers that contains penicillin to kill bacteria. I bet everyone else is kicking themselves and wishing they’d thought of that.
In the Cankerkillin website, the “world-renowned scientist and researcher” asserts that he is still “a pathologist at Milford Hospital and the director of Milford Medical Laboratory”, before citing his inclusion in a series of notorious vanity Who’s Who publications.
@ Herr Doktor Bimler:
Is this the same Dr. Sin Hang Lee whose marketing of his tea…has come to the attention of the FDA…twice?
http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/QualifiedHealthClaims/ucm301644.htm
Thanks for the link to the Wikipedia article on Who’s Who.
I looked up the Tea for Health website while blogging on Dr Lee’s entrepreneurial zeal, and yes, it’s the same guy.
Elsewhere on that website he again lists his “Who’s who” inclusion as evidence of his credentials; we also learn that he is a pioneer in breast-cancer research (“the first FDA-approved histochemical estrogen receptor assay for breast cancers”), and in detecting “Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection”. At least he doesn’t repeat the claim to be still employed at Milford.
Dr Lee has made lemons into lemonade and cites the repeated attentions from the FDA as official evidence of their approval:
the FDA has officially allowed the first qualified green tea health claim as follows:…
IANAL..but married to a lawyer.
Here’s the decision that Dr. Sin Hang Lee bases his claim, on
http://www.hpm.com/pdf/blog/Fleminger%20QHC%20GT%20Decision.pdf
Fast forwarding to the end of the 54 page decision…
“As the Pearson I court acknowledged it is not the role of the courts to draft
precise declaimers but instead “leave[s] that task to the agency in the first
instance.” Pearson I, 164 F.3d at 659. The Court accordingly remands
Fleminger’s health claim to the FDA for the purpose of drafting appropriate
disclaimers consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.3”
So not only is the good doctor a pseudo-scientist, he is also a pathological liar.
herr doktor bimler – thanks for low down on these two experts. It seems there’s rather more to them that at first appears…
lilady – I (and at least one other at my blog) suspect the assistance is from the local anti-vaccine community rather than a doctor. (Hilary Butler is a possible, if not likely, candidate. Her articles on her website indicate she approached Renata soon after the death of her daughter. Jasmine died 22nd September; Hilary says she approached Rhonda and was in touch with her “since October” [paraphrased])
Darwy – Here’s what I take to be the CARM report mentioned in my earlier comment: http://bit.ly/P5C1Zd
(Accessed via a google search; the original is from Hilary Butler’s “Beyond Conformity” website. I take it that ‘depo inj’ means an injection of Depo Provera, the contraceptive.) If you think that what written in the letter is striking, this, to me, is more so.
There’s plenty more on-line, of course. One google search that’s particularly informative is
site:http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/ jasmine
The PDFs you’ll find are the formal correspondence associated with this case filed on Hilary’s site (hence the site: portion of the search). Hilary’s articles are, unsurprisingly, one-sided anti-vaccine efforts (I have to admit the word “rant” often comes to mind when I read her material…)
Thanks for that comment, Dede Pierry. I should have thought of the virus’s cellular specificity & didn’t (& now I am metaphorically kicking myself). Have updated my blog post accordingly 🙂 (http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2012/08/dodgy-experts-gardasil-further.shtml)
Look what I found…
http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/106-hilary-butlers-letter-to-medsafe.html
Q. What’s wrong with this letter?
lilady,
Saw the same letter here earlier:
http://beyondvaccination.com/showthread.php?1583-Jasmine-Renata.
There’s quite a bit wrong with that letter – starting with the date Hilary has written at the top of it… It’s dated as before the dates in the letter, including before Jasmine’s death. A time-travelling anti-vaccinist?! 🙂 Seriously, there’s her take on the national immunisation register, for one. (You’ll see a similar slant again and again in her articles. It’s maddening that she keeps pushing that out.) And… er, I’ll leave it at that. There’s a lot more of this. If you do the search I mentioned earlier you’ll find she’s written a series on it (sigh).
[…] considering if I should write something on this well-known blogger ‘Orac’* has spoken out. In particular, he questions if two of the expert witnesses are fair or […]
My dad took the other path. He just didn’t tell us – and nor did mum. I was pretty annoyed when I found out. And even more put out when I tested positive. Though the test wasn’t desperately necessary – the physical abnormalities are pretty obvious when you know what you’re looking at.
@ Grant:
More for you about Dr. Sin Hang Lee; he posted here…
http://lymedisease.org/news/lyme_disease_views/blumenthal-lyme-legislation.html
There’s a whole background story on Senator Blumenthal and how he is being used by patients who claim to have chronic Lyme disease…and had their LLMDs (Lyme Literate Medical Doctors) send blood to Milford Hospital for Sin Hang Lee’s bogus Lyme B.burgdorferi PCR blood tests.
Here’s the letter sent by the good doctor’s lawyer to the Connecticut Department of Health for an investigation into his being booted out of the pathology lab. Scroll on down and see since his dismissal, that Milford Hospital is not accepting packages with serum submitted for HPV PCR tests or Lyme B. burdorferi PCR tests…heh…heh.
http://www.canadiangardasilawarenessnetwork.com/uploads/8/1/8/2/8182128/09-27-2011_dph_complaint-1.pdf
since his dismissal, that Milford Hospital is not accepting packages with serum submitted for HPV PCR tests or Lyme B. burdorferi PCR tests
Suspicious minds will recall that Lee took Milford Hospital to court to retain his medical privileges there, with SaneVax supporting his lawsuit, their argument being that without access to the Hospital’s laboratory facilities he would have nowhere to perform his tests.
So where is he performing them now?
No wonder the results are always positive.
Perhaps he’s doing them on the HiFi DNA site?
Hmm. The contact for that looks like in a mall. (Hawley Lane Mall, Trumbull.) Anyway, good question.
The sense of privilege in that lawyer’s letter is impressive: “Milford Hospital should continue to provide Dr Lee with access to their laboratory facilities because otherwise he will unable to continue running his private business there.”
It may be time to bring it to the attention of a few NZ journalists.
I grew up in CT; I’m well familiar with Lyme disease (grew up ~20 mins from Lyme and Old Lyme).
Blumenthal is (as usual) pimping this to test the waters for a hop to a bigger political pond.
@Grant
I was on Depo for 2 years. (Personal anecdote inc): you couldn’t pay me to ever take it again. My MD told me that she wouldn’t allow anyone to use it for longer than 2 years, because it could impact your bone density.
I was cranky and irritable after my injections and the weight gain wasn’t a plus either. I had a bone density test done when I came off it, I was one of the lucky ones, my losses were minimal.
Hmmm, maybe he’s doing PCR testing at a nearby hospital:
http://www.avvo.com/doctors/sin-lee-2288750.html
@ Darwy: Richard Blumenthal already pimped his way from Connecticut Attorney General to U.S. Senator, by his threats against the IDSA…
http://www.theday.com/article/20100423/OP01/304239950
I should have thought of the virus’s cellular specificity & didn’t (& now I am metaphorically kicking myself).
I don’t know if the target specificity of HPV is going to convince anyone. Obviously the anti-Gardasil crowd have been careful to remain vague, avoiding particulars about the nature of the threat posed by the purported trace contaminants of HPV-DNA in the vaccine… they may give the impression that the DNA is actively infecting the recipient of vaccination, but you would be hard-pressed finding someone who says that explicitly.
Dr Lee’s own argument is that (1) these are DNA fragments, not the intact HPV genome; (2) the fragments are not the native infective HPV, but rather the recombinant DNA used to produce antigenic proteins (and his magic test is fine-tuned just to pick up the rDNA, not the native form from warts), and (3) the DNA is bound somehow to colloidal microparticles of aluminium hydroxide from the adjuvant, so it can’t enter cells, and remains in the bloodstream indefinitely — because his test finds it in blood samples.
Why this otherwise-invisible DNA/Al chimera should be a bad thing as it sloshes around through the circulation is never explained.
I say again, there is the *implication* that the DNA is being expressed (despite being bound to Al particles, and outside cells), and is multiplying (despite the absence of fresh sources of Al to make new copies of the DNA/Al chimera), but you won’t catch anyone saying so in as many words.
lilady, under the resume section of that page is, subsection ‘license’ there is: “We have not yet received this doctor’s license history—including disciplinary actions, if any—from the state authority.”
herr doktor bimler,
There seem to be a lot of odd things about his Al-DNA conjugate might-be-trouble idea. Personally I’d want to know the actual amounts involved and some solid evidence that the DNA can actually get any real distance from injection site (on top of the obvious hurdles of the DNA trying to get into a cell, integrating, being expressed… when you add all this up it looks rather incredible eh?) Orac’s earlier article “Oh, no, there’s DNA in my Gardasil”) is worth reading – it covers most of this.
(Maybe I’ll stop trying to work out if there’s a cheap USB TV tuner I can get to make iMac able to show & record Freeview and get back to the science, or rather “science”, of this story…)
@Lilady
I used to be a Day subscriber, but since I’m not local anymore I didn’t see the point of paying for the newspaper – even the online version when the Bulletin was still free to read. I’ve been so busy out here I’ve lost touch with the political scene in CT – I hadn’t realized folks had actually elected Blumenthal to the Senate. That’s some scary shit right there.
@Herr doktor bimler
They’re going on about the rDNA-Al complex because trashing Al is a tenet of the AV camp. I expect they’ll soon start quoting Tom & Shaw’s crappy aluminum papers (I can never spell her name right and don’t feel like looking it up), and then ride on the ‘OMG NEUROTOXIN” train.
…and it looks like my comment(s) will be held up in moderation.
Sigh.
As others have already pointed out, DNA in the blood causing issues is quite a wild assumption. If it was true for any DNA, we should be falling like flies on a daily basis. Just for myself, I always have some cold virus preying on my sinuses, so I would guess that my blood DNA level is quite high, from all the infected cells getting blown up.
If it’s specific of the HPV DNA, well, I won’t say it’s impossible, because I don’t know everything, but… [citations needed], please, doctor. From other scientists, preferably.
@ Sarcha king
Err, no. Immunity, especially if induced by illness, was once thought to be lifelong, but that turned out not quite true.
As Chris pointed out, “booster” vaccines have been part of vaccination schedules from the beginning. It’s just that only children vaccination is more or less mandatory. Adults do whatever they want and don’t necessarily keep their vaccinations up to date.
Also, you overlook one reason why childhood illnesses are, well, affecting mostly children: in most societies through history, adults are in daily contact with children, their own and those of the extended family, or of the families next door… Thus exposing them continuously to the pathogen agents, and keeping their immunity well-exercised and up to date to the latest strains.
One result of mass vaccination is that a number of these wild pathogens are not circulating anymore that much (measles, chickenpox), thus not granting to most adults a “natural” vaccine booster anymore. Thus, no lifelong immunity anymore.
I won’t say I’m sorry about this. The idea that children should fall ill so I can keep my immunity up and running is not very appealing to me.
@ Heliantus: Somewhere in the far reaches of my mind, I recall that immunity to viral illness, whether contracted by a past history of the disease or through the appropriate vaccines M-M-R and Hepatitis B vaccine, is considered lifelong. Bacterial diseases, such as D-T-P have always (or in the recent past) required booster vaccines every 10 years. Until the licensing of Tdap vaccine, the booster dose given in 10 year intervals for adolescents and adults was the Td vaccine.
I’ve linked to the very strict recommendations for health care workers..
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr6007.pdf
This rather long article, seems to confirm my recollections. I attended the yearly CDC teleconferences each year, until my retirement from public health eight years ago, where the Recommended Childhood and Adult Vaccine Schedule was always discussed.
My State’s health department strictly followed the CDC health care workers recommendations…as did every hospital and health care facility with the County I worked, which included testing older prospective employees who were born before 1957 for the presence of positive IGG antibodies to M-M-R…and once the varicella vaccine was licensed, testing all prospective employees and employees for IGG antibodies against varicella. (Born before 1957 always got you a “pass” for M-M-R titer testing or documented history of vaccination to enter college). No “pass” was ever given, IIRC, for employment as a health care worker, even if you were born before 1957.
Very few people (health care workers or *civilians) who had the actual M-M-R diseases or the 2-dose MMR vaccine have ever been exposed to actual cases of these diseases…so they don’t have the benefit of the “boosting” effect, yet they remain immune. The varicella vaccine is relatively new, so it would be hard to predict yet, if absent the boosting effect, people remain immune if they had varicella…or if they had the vaccine.
Regarding the hepatitis B vaccine; the CDC believes it confers lifelong immunity. HCWs who received the serum-derived vaccines starting 1981 and HCWs who received the recombinant DNA vaccine, starting 1991, were tested for immunity (positive surface antibody titers) immediately following the completion of the 3-dose series. When retested years later the overwhelming majority were found to be immune. The few whose titers dropped below immune status or who “lost” their surface antibody, it is believed by the CDC, will have an anamnestic boosting response, if exposed to the virus again:
http://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts_hepb.asp
It is entirely too premature to determine whether the HPV vaccine which is manufactured in a similar way…using rDNA technology…as the hepatitis B vaccine is…might confer lifelong immunology.
These are just my thoughts…I welcome your opinion.
Grant: The Connecticut Medical Licensing Board…is not a super user-friendly site. Under “physician”…not doctor, I located his license. He is currently licensed, with no apparent presently pending actions:
https://www.elicense.ct.gov/Lookup/LicenseLookup.aspx
Grant: Type in “Sin” for first name and “Lee” for last name and scroll down to highlight “Connecticut”.
The question of whether viral vaccines confer lifelong immunity came up recently. Reaching back into my immunology classes some years ago, and having dug around a bit I think the answer is that they probably do, but we aren’t really sure yet, partly because of the natural boosting effect mentioned above.
Also, antibody titers are not always a good way of measuring immunity unless they are measured after an antigen challenge i.e. your antibody levels may have waned but your memory beta cells are still primed to produce more antibodies if exposed to the appropriate antigen, so you won’t actually go down with the disease and if you do it is likely to be mild.
Whatever way you look at it, the idea that natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity is wrong.
@ Krebiozen:
“natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity”-
the meme that launched a thousand rants.
And all they’ve got.
Oooh, Krebiozen! You know how often vaccine-refusers talk about the need to have titers checked before getting boosters? Are you saying that they are mistaken?
I remember someone telling me that I should have had my son tested for titers before he got a Tdap vaccine. I told that kind person that with my son’s heart issues along with other medical issues I would have known if he had had pertussis. Because he may not have survived.
They just keep forgetting that many of those diseases actually cause serious harm.
@ Liz Ditz: I forgot about the anti-vaccine crowd saying that you should get titers drawn before boosters for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis.
Another of their favorite themes is that the “natural” disease confers lifelong immunity as opposed to the “temporary” immunity conferred by vaccination. Remember the “pox parties” and the mailing of chicken pox lollipops that was advocated last year. Sid Offal made his radio debut on a cross Atlantic hook-up to a U.K. late night radio show , where he defended the pox parties and the sharing of lollipops. He got his *kishkes* handed to him, by a physician/professor of immunology/infectious diseases.
A past infection with the hepatitis A virus does confer lifelong immunity Here’s the CDC Pink Book-Hepatitis A chapter; note the statement about prolonged immunity with the newer hepatitis A vaccines
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/hepa.pdf
“Both vaccines are highly effective in preventing clinical
hepatitis A. The efficacy of HAVRIX in protecting against
clinical hepatitis A was 94% among 40,000 Thai children 1 to
16 years of age who received two doses 1 month apart while
living in villages with high HAV disease rates. The efficacy
of VAQTA in protecting against clinical hepatitis A was 100%
among 1,000 New York children 2 to 16 years of age who
received one dose while living in a community with a high
HAV disease rate.”
Data concerning the long-term persistence of antibody and
immune memory are limited because the current vaccines
have been available only since 1995 and 1996. Estimates
of antibody persistence derived from kinetic models of
antibody decline indicate that protective levels of anti-HAV
could be present for 20 years or longer.”
Here’s the “Needle Tips” publication available on the Immunize.org website. It is an excellent reference that deserves a “bookmark” on your computer:
http://www.immunize.org/nslt.d/n52/askexperts.pdf
On a personal note…I see Bill Atkinson is retiring…what a loss to the public health community. He presented at Immunization conference sponsored by the CDC and also on most of the teleconferences I attended when I worked in public health.
Liz Ditz,
That would be surprising wouldn’t it. [/sarcasm] As with all diagnostic tests, the important question is what effect the results have on the management of the patient. It makes more sense to have antibody titers checked after, not before, vaccination. It’s perhaps worth noting that a booster will not do any harm whether or not immunity has waned, and the risk of an adverse event following venepuncture is considerably greater than the risk of an adverse event following vaccination, though both risks are miniscule.
Incidentally, there is a cultural difference surrounding venepuncture (or should it be “venipuncture”, since I do my best to use US English on this blog?) in the UK and the US, which may partially explain Andrew Wakefield’s casual birthday party child phlebotomy. In the UK you do not need any qualifications to be a phlebotomist, and phlebotomists are among the lowest paid healthcare professionals you will find in a hospital, quite wrongly IMHO considering the skill required and the importance of the job. In the US I think I’m right in thinking that phlebotomists have to be trained, qualified and registered in most states.
@ Krebiozen:
“Venipuncture” (American style)
In order to draw blood (outside of a hospital)…you usually don’t have to be licensed…although when I have ever had blood drawn in a doctor’s office…it is usually drawn by a “trained” medical tech.
http://www.americanmedtech.org/Certification/Phlebotomist.aspx
In the acute care setting, there are venipuncturists, who probably undergo some training within that hospital to become certified. They draw all the bloods for tests that doctors have ordered and they “cruise” the hospital floors constantly to draw blood on patients whose doctors have ordered blood tests. If there is a “stat” order for a blood test, doctors or nurses assigned to that patient will draw the blood and make certain the ward clerk brings it to the hospital lab…stat.
IV lines/replacement of IV lines are usually done by roving teams of IV nurses..who are also trained to start a PICC line. Simple peripheral IV lines are often done by the ward nurses.
Central lines, IIRC, are only done by a doctor.
Lilady,
That sounds very similar to the UK, where phlebotomists get training (of course!) but don’t legally require certification. We have phlebotomists doing ward rounds, others doing outpatient bloods and still others doing GP bloods; only a few GPs in my area have their own phlebotomist which is something I have been trying to change, as getting to the local hospital and then waiting for hours to have blood taken is a serious problem for many patients. I have often been amazed at watching a phlebotomist finding an invisible (to me) vein, calming and then getting blood out of a squirming screaming child (or sometimes an adult).
I see where my mistaken idea came from as I recall being amused at finding out that Robert O. Young isn’t qualified to take blood for the bogus “live blood analysis” he performs, but that’s because he is in California which, according to your link, “requires all Phlebotomy Technicians to be certified and to have a state license”, even for a capillary (fingerprick) sample.
I also meant to mention that we have increasing numbers of advanced nurse practitioners who can put in central lines and perform other tasks that were previously solely the domain of doctors. ANPs are just as good at this as doctors, not surprisingly.
Perhaps someone can explain why, even if it were true that having the disease conveys lifelong immunity, that would be preferable to vaccination, even with regular boosters?
The whole point of vaccination is to avoid getting the disease. Natural immunity fails at preventing the disease. By definitin. The best you can can say is that it prevents getting the disease … Again.
Personally I’d want to know the actual amounts involved and some solid evidence that the DNA can actually get any real distance from injection site (on top of the obvious hurdles of the DNA trying to get into a cell, integrating, being expressed… when you add all this up it looks rather incredible eh?)
Before any of that, I would like some solid evidence that the DNA *actually exists*.
@ MMM: See my posts and Krebiozen’s posts above, for the difference between bacterial diseases/vaccines and viral disease/vaccines. We both tried to recall our immunology courses and my CNE courses when I worked in public health.
Basically you should have long term/possibly lifetime immunity against a particular virus…as long as that virus doesn’t mutate…and there is no difference in that immunity whether if comes from “natural” infection or a vaccine. You cannot possibly catch the EXACT same cold virus that you have had before. But, cold viruses can mutate which leaves you vulnerable…and there are literally hundreds of cold viruses circulating at any given time, in the environment.
Antigenic drift and antigenic shift in circulating influenza viruses, are the reason why a new seasonal influenza vaccine is manufactured every year. The H1N1 influenza virus which appeared Spring/Summer 2009 was particular devastating to infants, young children and pregnant women. They were the ones who were offered the H1N1 vaccine first when it became available in limited supply, October 2009. Older people (quite older people), were not a priority, because they had exposure to very similar influenza strains 40-50 years before. The H1N1 strain is one of 3 strains that is now incorporated into the seasonal influenza vaccine each year, since 2010.
The smallpox vaccine (actually vaccinia vaccine) “Dryvax” which was used exclusively in the United States for childhood vaccination before 1971, when it was discontinue and used for travel to foreign countries for a number of years after that, was also used to immunize a small group of health care workers during the run-up to the WMDs scare. That is the vaccine I got when I volunteered to be vaccinated. I located the Dryvax VIS dated 2003, for you:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/pdf/smallpox-vis.pdf
There have been some good studies since the WMD Dryvax vaccination program that state that immunity lasts quite a bit longer (up to 50 years), than what that old VIS states.
The bacterial diseases/vaccines do not confer longterm/ lifelong immunity…hence the 10 year booster recommendation for Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis.
Of course, I would love Ren, to come posting here, to check out and correct any misinformation I have posted here. He’s the “real expert” on immunology.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/pdf/smallpox-vis.pdf
Marry Me Mindy,
Like Denice I’m intrigued by the psychology of these odd beliefs. There does seem to be an idea that somehow childhood diseases are a rite of passage that makes a child’s immune system stronger, whereas vaccines are evil and unnatural and weaken a child’s immune system. However, I have never managed to figure out how a child’s immune system is supposed to be clever enough to figure out that an antigen belongs to a vaccine that weakens it and not a to a pathogen that strengthens it. I also don’t understand why a fever, which is about the worst common adverse event you can expect from vaccination, is somehow worse than the considerably nastier symptoms induced by most of these childhood diseases. Like most of these beliefs it doesn’t bear close scrutiny and I don’t really understand why so many people cling to it.
herr doktor bimler – 🙂
Same thing if the amount = 0 😉
Leaving aside straight-out scamming or other dubious practices for the sake of argument:
Considering the route to the brain tissue from the injection site, it seems extraordinary that he’d find any at all and then at truly minute amounts. The thing for me is that’s a red flag to look closer at what he’s actually finding. Or not. I wouldn’t be all that surprised in trace amounts of DNA near the injection site but the idea that he can detect it in brain tissue after 6 months is a little too “striking” to go unquestioned. As far as the inquest goes it seems to me that scientific evidence there should be beyond this sort of questioning or it’d be near here nor there and thus useless to the inquiry. They need to not only present the evidence, but also the standard of it, the “state of play” of that technique in the field, etc. This need is indicated briefly in the autopsy report (or one of the other reports); I’d like see if that was laid more clearly in the inquest. Hopefully I’ll get around to elaborating on this point on my blog later today. (Time and interest permitting…!)
MarryMeMindy @August 11, 5:27 pm
And not always: my anecdata includes a family member who contracted the chicken pox twice, fortunately both times while still young.
Krebiozen @August 11, 6:58 pm
I’m with you on that one. My own posting here on RI began with a days long discussion with a mother who thought the one instance of a somewha high fever her child suffered post-vaccination was somehow much more awful than my then-3.5-yo’s weeklong high-fevered bout with H1N1 (before vaccine was available, and we gave it to him anyway once it was just in case).
I can only imagine that there are a lot of folks out there who are lucky enough to have not had to watch their children bereally sick for several days.
Vaccines are a victim of their own success indeed.
apologies for the html fail – post activated itself while I was proofreading. Whacky laptop.
It should read:
who are lucky enough to have not had to watch their children be really sick for several days.
Chemmomo:
I got mumps twice as a kid. I guess one reason the vaccine is not perfect is that there are several like me who cannot become immune to i.
Chris: Mumps! My house has proof than immunitym however acquired, works. My sister (not vaccinated; it was the 70s) got the mumps. She gave them to my mother, who’d never had them. My dad and grandma had had them as children, and didn’t get them.
Neither did I: I was given the MMR at the beginning of the outbreak. Through the school system. They didn’t give it to my sister’s grade because that’s where the outbreak started.
Le sigh. We both provide evidence that anecdotes are not data.
My parents actually brought me to the base infirmary thinking it was something else. They were amazed that I could get mumps again. It was the year the vaccine became available (1968). I was miserable for a couple of weeks (only to eclipsed a couple of years by dengue fever, but that is another story).
There is someone else on this blog who has had a similar experience. And I remember, but cannot find the news report, there was a doctor during the mumps outbreak in the MidWest a few years ago who ended up with mumps multiple times during that year.
Viruses are funny things. As are our own unique immune systems.
Along with how many funny voices my twenty-one year old son can make as a dungeon master. He is between housing situations. I really hope his friends find a house for them to rent before their college classes start this fall. I want his cat out of this house (she does not get along with daughter’s cat).
I only just got around to pursuing all the links in Orac’s original “DNA in my Gardasil” link-farm — post, I mean — and found this one:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031535_HPV_screening.html
The SaneVax / Lee collaboration turns out to be far, far sleazier than I had previously realised. Not only do they claim that Gardasil has *side-effects*, but they claim that it *doesn’t work*, because all the researchers who have specialised in HPV are wrong about the dangerous varieties.
Apparently there are “13 high-risk HPV genotypes” — not just the two singled out by the NCI — and it has taken a non-specialist in the form of the Nobel-Prize-worthy Dr Lee to work this out. Do not trust the HPV-genotyping offered by the NCI! What do *they* know?
But fret no longer, you can send a tissue sample plus $50 (“Most health insurance companies will reimburse this cost”) to SaneVax and Lee for his special “short-target DNA sequencing PCR”, and they will tell you whether you in danger! This is yet another of his business activities — linked to his tests for recombinant DNA, obviously, but targetting a different consumer group.
In the same post, Orac asks Which vaccines are “necessary” and “effective”? The answer, it is increasingly clear, is “ones to be developed and sold by SaneVax and Lee”.
@ Doktor Bimler: Dr. Sin Hang Lee is also listed as a treatment *practitioner* for people who are HPV vaccine-damaged. Take a look at this rogue’s gallery; the practitioners include a chiropractic neurologist, a nutritionist and ta-da…Dr. Rebecca Carley.
http://sanevax.org/medical-professional-listing/
Carley is possibly the craziest person I’ve ever met, inside or outside a psychiatric hospital:
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/carley1.html
Update on Dr. Carley…her NYS medical license was revoked.
lilady –
Ha. I’m reading “Dr. Carley no longer practices medicine, and does NOT give medical advice. Rather, she teaches her students what she would do if she were you after reviewing your individual history of assaults to your body’s immune system” as to mean that she practices medicine, and gives medical advice, just at arm’s length.
(Q: is the medical profession aware of her activities? Sounds a breach to her conditions of non-practice – ?)
Note Dr. Lee is the only one on that list that they offer no website, but ask that readers email SaneVax and that they will forward the message on. (Perhaps related to the he no longer works at Milford as they claim – ?)
@ Grant…She’s a doctor of naturopathy now, practicing in Florida? maybe.
When I stated she is crazy…that is just not my opinion. Here’s the findings from the New York OPMC (Office of Professional Medical Conduct):
http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/58220a7f9eeaafab85256b180058c032/777c474f253ed8d085256d5f0053955e?OpenDocument
Grant: Reading anything on her website, or listening to any of her broadcasts, could rot your brains…
http://thelightofdayradioshow.com/archives/RBN-BACKUP/commercialFree.html
@lilady
I knew it! The Masons just had to be behind it all. Dr. Carley and Dr. Sin Hang Lee should have known better than to mess with the Masons 🙂
It was the Masons, the Illuminati, The CDC Zombies attacks and the Zionists…all along.
Somehow, she got my name and my direct line at the health department and I would hear from her every few weeks. She was literally frothing at the mouth with her verbal gibberish about vaccines and the their role as the the true weapons of mass destruction. After about 15 minutes on the phone, my eyes would roll to the back of head while I slowly sunk down in chair, lost my equilibrium and would crash to the floor. If ever a nurse deserved combat pay…I surely was a candidate.
I’m curious about Chris Shaw, the aluminum-obsessed Canadian neuroscientist (and anti-Olympic activist, oddly). Does anyone know how he ended up sliding down the antivaxx rabbit-hole?
HPV is nasty. I had a large chunk of cervix removed a long time ago as a result. Personally, I advocate all boys and girls getting either one of the two HPV vaccines – boys can spread it unknowingly (especially if unwilling to do the right thing and use condoms), girls can get it (if they are raped or bullied into not using condoms for some stupid starry-eyed reason)…or either party might be drunk/high and forget.
@ Krebiozen: One of my best *sources* for falling down the rabbit hole is whale.to
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/shaw_h.html
@lilady,
I glanced at that page earlier and just took another look, which sent me on a diversion about acetaminophen, not vaccines, supposedly causing autism, and also asthma (which caught my attention as salicylates give me asthma attacks). This seemed odd coming from aluminum-obsessed Shaw, until I realized that whale.to had goofed and put links to a different Dr. Shaw on the same page. Anyway, there must be some back-story to a neuroscientist at a real university producing such poor research. I shall continue digging.
Off topic to the current discussion but I have a new post up, it’s not to my standard of quality but better to push something based on a sufficiently complex article than wait 5 weeks until I do a review of 5-6 articles.
http://www.securivm.ca/2012/08/bonjour-lecteurs-pour-ce-blogue-je-vais.html
plenty of neuroscience and neuroimaging, 99% of it in english (the first line just says that I’ll do a version in french next friday) but it’s not complete; I skipped the neuroimaging result for the pattern matching test and focused instead on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrix.
Enjoy
Alain
Going further into the Google, it does look as if Dr Sin Hang Lee’s genotype test for the different HPV strains is an important part of the backstory behind his issues with the virology mainstream that has failed to recognise his genius.
In 2008 he was suing the FDA (through his company HiFi DNA Tech) because they refused to endorse his test. The FDA argued that Lee had showed them insufficient evidence that his test was any more specific or reliable than existing tests, what with extravagant claims not being enough on their own. Evidently their argument was convincing since the court found for the FDA, and in 2009 we find Lee appealing to the 2nd Circuit Court, amid a flurry of accusations of conspiracies and conflicts-of-interest between FDA officials and the suppliers of tests that are endorsed.
Conspiracy is also responsible for the NEJM declining to publish a manuscript from Lee on the economics of HPV screening (and how much better it would be with his test). We find him harassing the editorial board here, and appealing to a professional group that he believes can over-rule them
There was a Dr Sin Hang Lee, of Connecticut, sacked from a shared pathology practice in 2003. In 2006-2010 he was (unsuccessfully) suing the employment lawyers of that practice for allowing him to sign a revised employment agreement. Of course there might be *multiple* pathologists of that name in CT with the habit of employment-loss-related litigation.
Now reading Alain’s post.
@Kreb-
Chris Shaw video
@Herr Doc
“Ken, you ignorant little plonker, you might want to look at the side-effects of depo-provera, which the dead women was also receiving.”
Orac DID NOT MENTION THIS-his blogs are long enough without having to source more.
@Kreb- At 26+ minutes into the video Chris Shaw actually states and uses the term “rabbit hole” and explains why he went down it.
Krebs, to save you the trouble of watching the video, here is Chris Shaw’s write up for the UBC Neurobiology group.
Turns out that he’s not so much an anti-vaxer as an anti-aluminiumist, meaning that he considers Al as the cause of ALS, autism, Parkinson’s etc etc.
The video is more detailed and comprehensive and goes into
depth about the research which I’m sure Orac would love to
demolish, maybe Krebs too.
@ ken:
Here’s the prescribing information for Depo Provera, which has a “boxed warning” about Bone Mineral Density being affected by the drug.
http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=522
“It is unknown if use of Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection during adolescence or early adulthood, a critical period of bone accretion,will reduce peak bone mass and increase the risk for osteoporotic fracture in later life. (5.1)”
On other medical sites, I learn that doctors are quite reluctant to prescribe Depo Provera for adolescent girls ages 13-18 because of the unknown consequences and unknown increased risks for osteoporosis/fractures as these women age.
Scan the Prescribing Information document to see that each and every one of the symptoms that the mother reported for Jasmine…and that she later attributed to the HPV vaccine…have been reported by Pfizer in the Prescribing Information for Depo Provera.
ken: Orac DID NOT MENTION THIS-his blogs are long enough without having to source more.
So you couldn’t be bothered reading anything about the inquest?
Please explain why you believe your opinion to be of either interest or value.
sheepmilker:
Christopher Shaw is antivaccine. He was one of the orgaizers of the so-called Vaccine Safety Conference that took place in Jamaica last year. The list of speakers(http://www.vaccinesafetyconference.com/speakers.html) makes that clear i.e. such luminaries as Russell Blaylock, Barbara Loe Fisher and Wakefield.
Another clues: Shaw’s bio for this conference proudly states that his youngest child is not vaccinated.
I am ashamed that this tool is on the same faculty of medicine that I graduated from.
@Herr D-My opinion does not matter- I never said it did-I am not a scientist. You have the option of ignoring my posts.
Loss makes people act irrationally at times w/o substantial evidence.
True, you are under no obligation to have an *informed* opinion before sharing it.
Or mocking them ruthlessly. That works, too.
(Of course, this from the wag who came up with “Provide links not rhetoric- you are getting tiresome.”)
Thanks TBruce for the above link.
I prefer Dr. Blaylock’s evidence to those of wannabes narad and herrd.
Jealous? because this is your only audience-ha ha.
Thanks for the info TBruce. Yikes.
Somewhat appropriate:
What’s a physiologist?
A pharmacologist who doesn’t know the dose!
@ Narad:
Yours truly addresses the wag @ the Jamy Ian Swiss thread.
You would appear not to be particularly familiar with the meaning of thiis word.
@narad-you are still not a convincing source.
If my wife had breast cancer I would not send her to a neurosurgeon. Extrapolate from there. You are w/o substantial credentials to bother to listen to.
An exploration of Dr Sin Hang Lee’s commercial activities is currently in moderation — too many links — so I’ll link to a comment at Bioblog saying much the same thing.
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2012/08/dodgy-experts-gardasil-further.shtml#comment-7687
I’m sorry, what are you babbling about?
ken and sheepmilker & TBruce,
Thanks for the links re: Chris Shaw which I shall peruse. In regard to Blaylock, a couple of years ago I spent a lot of time deconstructing one of his articles about the Simpsonwood conference, looking at his references and going back to the original source material. He had twisted and/or misinterpreted so much of this that I came to the unavoidable conclusion that he is either deliberately dishonest or he is an idiot, or possibly both.
I’m going with “both.”
Ugh. I like the bit about flu vaccine causing Guillain–Barré syndrome. You know what causes far more cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome? Flu. It’s a bit like complaining about the broken ribs a seat belt can cause in an RTA but ignoring the damage that hurtling through the windshield can cause.
ken,
Why, then, should we bother to listen to you? By your own argument we should ignore everything you have to say until you present relevant credentials.
I think my favorite so far is “if you vaccinate the entire country particularly concentrating on the young people we may end up with a mass problem of infertility in our country.” Deagle doesn’t seem to have picked up on the trope-nod. The looming schizophrenia epidemic isn’t bad, though.
@narad
This is not a blaylock interview-this is a sham pretense of an interview to discredit the man.
I’m confused, ken…are you claiming that the interview itself is fabricated or that it distorts Blaylock’s true viewpoints?
How does the incidence of Guillain-Barre Syndrome equate with actual influenza infection and infection with Campylobacyteriosis?
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm
I really don’t think he needs any assistance in that area.
Reading up on some of Shaw’s mainstream research, I came across the Sharks-fins-are-neurotoxic story. With shark-cartilage pills being another risk factor for Alzheimers.
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/news-events/press-releases/2012/neurotoxins-in-shark-fins-a-human-health-concern/
Herr Doktor – one wonders what he’d think of those folks who offer shark cells for autism etc (mentioned previously by our esteemed host)
Oh, do elaborate.
That interview is as mad as a box of frogs.
Since ken (and I can empathize with losing the bulk of one’s majuscule fortune in the Great Alphabet Crash, I promise) seems to have insinuated one of a couple of things, the audio is here. Now, existence aside, I’m not sure where he would intend to go other than that Blaylock was somehow duped. Nonetheless, he was right back on the show on August 18.
Re the shark fin pills, I almost hope that meme gets around just to reduce the demand for shark fins in supplements (as well as soup).
losing the bulk of one’s majuscule fortune in the Great Alphabet Crash
Clearly it was a mistake to invest all one’s wealth in uncial script.
Loath though I am to harp on Dr Sin Hang Lee, I just can’t give him up. Here, the FDA responds to his request that he be allowed to make stronger claims for his cancer-preventative tea. One page of the document (my emphasis):
—————————————————————
g) You claim that some studies are more relevant that others in considering the total body of evidence in support of a relationship between green tea and cancer because some study populations had access to higher quality green tea than others. Your assertions along this line include the following.
• The articles by Suzuki et al. (2004) and Sonoda et al. (2004) should not have been used by the FDA because they were conducted in northern rural Japan where the quality of green tea is of poor quality.
• Green tea consumers in Los Angeles know where to get quality green teas because they are descended from the Middle Kingdom of China, which values quality of green tea, as opposed to the residents of Miyagi, Japan who filled out the Suzuki et al. (2004) questionnaire.
• The Sonoda et al. study finding no relationship between consumption of green tea and reduced risk of prostate cancer is flawed because the cases came from two regions of Japan that consume green tea of very different quality because of different access to quality green tea — one region borders a famous tea producing region, the other does not produce tea.
• Jian et al. should have received more consideration because it was conducted in a region of China that has access to high-grade green tea with more EGCG by weight than lower quality green tea.
In support of your arguments, you reference a picture of a tea peddler in Hangzhou, China and a map of tea producing regions of Japan and two studies (Fujiki et al. 2003; Fujiki 2005) which you claim are relevant to the question of quality of green tea consumed in different locations of Japan and its effects on cancer prevention.
… even though I am south of his border.
Herr Dokter Bimler, did you see this article on Shaw:
http://www.vancourier.com/Responses+vaccine+paper+problem+free+scientific+inquiry+expression/6073466/story.html
You don’t even want to imagine what happens when one forgets to close out a long position on raw serifs in the futures market. Cash settlement? Heh, not these people.
It proves there’s the potential to exploit the gullible.
This strikes me as a particularly amusing example of “aluminum phobia” among ani-vaxxers. Exactly what IS it supposed to prove when organic tissue is found to contain ONE OF THE MOST COMMON ELEMENTS ON EARTH?
David N. Brown
Time travel rears its ugly head–my response to david at 1:47 arrives at 1:46. I blame Chopra…
David:
Just for clarity: the CNS tissue in question was run through a battery of IHC assays. Morin was not used, rather a variation of a stain used by Walton and colleagues based on their AD studies. We never claimed that aluminum caused the CNS damage or the death, merely that it was
there. We also did not claim it came from the vaccine since there are numerous sources of aluminum, vaccines being only one such. As for the HPV antibody assays: these used a commercial antibody to a piece of HPV 16 protein. What is is doing in the CNS samples is anyone’s guess
at this point. Maybe it is common, maybe not. Maybe, as you suggest, it is a fluke of this particular assay or our technique. We’ll know more when we have more samples from other cases.
I realize that you enjoy ad hominem attacks on others and that much of your readership seems to relish the same. Fine, enjoy, but don’t confuse these with discussions about science. An ad hominem comment (Latin for “to the man”), as you know, is a logical fallacy as it attempts to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
Re methods: If you, or your readers, want to see the methods, great, I’m happy to send them since they
are hardly “secret.” or “mysterious”. The same applies to our other assays for autoimmune markers. Otherwise, I’m going to assume that your commentary is not about the science but about scoring points with a built-in cheering section.
Finally, in regard to the ad hominem stuff: apart from the
entertainment value, there is really very little need to insult those you disagree with. You are, after all, a scientist and a professor. Therefore, it might be nice if you acted a bit more professorial and professional. Let your readers do the insults if they wish, but it is really beneath you.
With regards.
PS. I haven’t published on shark fin or anything of the sort, but thanks to one of your readers for asking.
PPS. UBC doesn’t “sack” me because it actually is an institution that believes in academic freedom. Academic freedom, at least here, means the freedom to question all the so-called received wisdom in any field. Without the ability to do so, science could never advance. I
direct your readers to Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific
Revolutions for a discussion of how science progresses.
.
Chris Shaw wrote: “We also did not claim it came from the vaccine since there are numerous sources of aluminum, vaccines being only one such.”
Could you please quantify the relative exposure of people to aluminum? Here are some facts to start with:
“During the first 6 months of life, infants could receive about
4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. That’s not very much: a milligram is one-thousandth of a gram and a gram is the weight of one-fifth of a teaspoon of water. During the same period, babies will also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk, about 40 milligrams in infant formula, or about 120 milligrams in soy-based formula.”
And:
“By the time children become adults, they will have
accumulated between 50 and 100 milligrams of aluminum, almost all of which comes from food.”
http://www.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/aluminum.pdf
Can you please tell me how much aluminum is in the HPV shots? For the other readers who may not be willing to wait for your response, “Gardasil contains 225 mcg (0.225 mg) of aluminum per dose.”
0.225 mg x 3 is less than 1 mg. Food provides 50-100 mg. Which is likely to be more important?
I don’t, I imagine that the data structure for some reason is a stack with minute-binned pops. Then again, the last I checked, the NG monkeys still hadn’t figured out how to set a clock. Let’s see… 22:00:00 EDT at the press of “submit.”
Yup, they’ve actually managed to worsen the previous four-minute error.
Your numbers are no doubt correct, but you neglect the route of administration which may be key to the extent and timing of any toxicity. Dietary aluminum, except in those with insufficient kidney function, is rapidly removed by the kidneys.Where it is not, as in the former cases of dialysis associated encephalopathy, is highly neurotoxic. Injected aluminum, insofar as the work of Prof. Romain Gherardi and his colleagues is correct, goes into the draining lymphatics and from there is picked up by circulating macrophages. It is apparently transported by these cells into the CNS. Given that we don’t know what level of aluminum or aluminum complexes are toxic in CNS, this may be problematic. Or not…however, given that aluminum tends to be toxic to most biological systems on Earth, it may be a safe bet that it is a bad thing to have inside your brain. I’d suggest you refer to the work of Dr. Chris Exley on this topic about aluminum in general or Dr. Dan Perl, a neuropathologist, who has noted the correlation of aluminum deposits and NFT in AD patients. Of course, the latter is only correlation, but could mean that it participates in the cascade of events known to occur in AD. I’d also refer you to the work of Dr. Walton who has a model of AD in aged rats. Her work, incidentally, is about dietary (water) based aluminum exposure so may be relevant to your initial query.
This could be a good point to note that Dr Shaw is not responsible for the distorted way that SaneVax or the NZ media have misrepresented his testimony to the Renata inquest. I disagree with the Tomljenovic / Shaw aluminium-autism paper but in future I’ll try not to be unfair about his work.
Dr. Shaw:
I believe they are discussing your shoddy research methods. Much like it was discussed here.
Then there is your claim of finding actual human papillomavirus in the young girl’s tissues, when there are none in the vaccine. So from the CDC Pink Book’s HPV chapter:
And Gardisil in particular:
Dr. Shaw, is it an “ad hominem” to ask how come you cannot tell the difference between the virus and one of its proteins?
Oh, by the way: how was your trip to Jamaica? Was it all work and no play, or did you get to relax a bit?
There are other routes for aluminum to enter the body. After all, it is one of the most abundant elements on earth. I’d appreciate you directing me to references that show that aluminum tends to be toxic to most biological systems on earth. I would think that biological systems must have evolved to deal with the regular exposure to aluminum from many sources besides food. What about scratches which accumulate dirt? Dirt is full of aluminum. What about breathing? – dust contains aluminum. How is that aluminum cleared from the body?
You say that dialysis associated encephalopathy suggests that Al is neurotoxic. Turns out that the IV administered is very high in Al. “Dialysis fluid aluminum was high at 140 microg/liter. ” Wow. That’s a HUGE amount of Al compared to the total amount administered in vaccines – people on dialysis are given large doses, over long periods of time. The dose makes the poison.
Thanks for the last. Please, readers, and Orac, feel free to contact me at [email protected]. As long as you keep it respectful, I’m happy to address any of your questions/concerns/critiques. If I don’t know the answer (and this may be too common, alas), I’ll tell you so.
I find it amusing and particularly telling that Dr. Shaw decided to leave as soon as HPV DNA was mentioned…
Why not discuss it here, Dr. Shaw?
It is telling that he does not wish to answer questions on a public board. I know he goes to anti-vaccine conference (like the one in Jamaica), but does he present papers at actual scientific conferences?
Perhaps he should write a paper on how he found the actual virus in the tissues and present it at the next annual meeting of the American Society of Virology. I am sure they would be delighted to hear how virus like particles turned into full viruses.
Then there is your claim of finding actual human papillomavirus in the young girl’s tissues, when there are none in the vaccine
Ah, a journalist reported that Dr Shaw found viral DNA, but it is far more likely that the journalist — who may not even have attended the inquest — was simply conflating a hearsay summary of Dr Shaw’s testimony with earlier claims from Dr Lee.
Too bad he’s gone: I was wondering what he thought of his colleague, Dr Tomjenovic, being a guest at the Progressive Radio Network today: is that an appropriate venue for a serious researcher?
Dr. Shaw seems not to understand what an ad hominem attack is. Hint: Most insults are not ad hominems; rather, an ad hominem is an argument that states that the person making it is wrong because of some characteristic of that person. For instance, saying that Chris Shaw is wrong because he’s an idiot (or, less inflammatory, because he’s a Republican or Democrat, for instance) would be an ad hominem attack. However, saying that Chris Shaw is ignorant and citing a bad argument he made about a scientific topic as evidence to support that characterization of him would not be an ad hominem.
See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Dr. Shaw just doesn’t like what I said about his testimony, as reported in New Zealand news sources, which is what I had, and his previous activities or my mentioning his previous activities in support of the antivaccine movement. For example, as one might recall, Dr. Shaw co-authored an astonishingly bad review article trying to link aluminum vaccine adjuvants to the rising prevalence of autism:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/
The above links to a detailed deconstruction of Dr. Shaw’s review article without a single ad hominem in it, although the criticism of what Dr. Shaw writes is harsh and somewhat sarcastic—and deservedly so, given how hideously bad the article is.
In any case, let’s look at what Dr. Shaw is reported to have said during his testimony:
This would seem to conflict with what Dr. Shaw just said above:
So which is it, one wonders? That the HPV “could only have gotten there through the vaccine” or that what the HPV “is doing there is anyone’s guess”? Does Dr. Shaw even have the slightest clue just how tiny the amount of HPV DNA is in Gardasil, given that it takes an incredibly sensitive nested PCR reaction to detect it? Here’s a hint: It’s certainly not enough that it can somehow find its way into neurons (or other CNS cells) and express actual HPV 16 protein. Not even close. It’s rather disappointing that a neuroscientist would not realize this instantly.
A far more likely explanation for the detection of HPV 16 protein is a false positive, which is why I’d want to know the positive and negative controls. Certainly, the positive result can be explained by numerous other things other than the HPV vaccine; yet apparently Dr. Shaw testified that that was the only way it could have gotten there. If Dr. Shaw’s testimony has been accurately reported, then it’s hard not to conclude that he is clueless about some very basic aspects of molecular biology.
And saying that is not an ad hominem. It is making an inference from Dr. Shaw’s reported sworn testimony. If that sworn testimony was not accurately reported, then now is the time for Dr. Shaw to correct it for the record.
Dammit! Did Shaw leave already? I have a bajillion questions about his aluminium papers methods.
Funny how he questions our host’s professionalism when he is taking advantage of a desperate woman using his academic credentials and institution to do so.
D’oh! I should have looked that up. It would have made my post so much more effective.
In all fairness, it’s possible that the antibody Dr. Shaw used was to the L1 protein, but unless he comes back and tells us we have no way of ever knowing. Even if that were the antibody that Dr. Shaw used, it wouldn’t change the basic ridiculousness of the assumptions that underlie his claim that the HPV protein he detected (even if not spurious, which it almost certainly was spurious).
It’s truly sad to see someone who appears to have been a decent scientist before descent so rapidly into antivaccine crankery. It depresses me to observe it. One can only hope there’s still time for him to turn away from the Dark Side.
What makes it worse is that I only have an undergraduate degree in engineering, though with some graduate classes in applied math and I have only ever taken one biology course.
But even I know that modern vaccines are not made by just disabling a virus with formaldehyde, etc. Oh, and I also know that the CDC Pink Book has very clear descriptions of how the vaccines are made.
(perhaps it helps that I am addicted to Dr. Racaniello’s three podcasts. Much of it goes over my head, but I do learn quite a bit.)
To all:
Alas, I don’t really have a lot of time to linger on any blogsite, this one included.
The correctness of Prof. Gherardi is indeed a pivotal assumption. It has been called into question in earlier RI comment threads. Reservations about Gherardi’s work stem from (a) his choice of Medical Hypotheses as a place to publish [‘poisoning-the-well’ fallacy, I know], and (b) the non-reporting of his ‘macrophagic myofasciitis’ clinical entity outside of his own research group.
Continuing…
I’m not trying to duck any serious discussion, but, honestly, a blog is not the place for scientific reviews. One reason for this is simple: if I provide this blog with the complete ms (still in preparation), then it is not publishable in a main stream journal as it would be considered prior publication. How about this: once we submit it and, if, it is accepted, I’ll post it here and David and others can shed it to their heart’s content? In fact, David, I’d be happy to suggest you as a reviewer. Of course, you’d have to park your “attitude” at the door and do a real scientific review, but you have the background and training to do so, right? Perhaps you’d reject the ms for various reasons and claim it was “awful”, but at least in a peer review, unlike here, you’d have to be very specific about why. And cite references, etc. You’ve been holding AMA and JIB to task for publishing our recent studies, so how about trying to make the science better by offering some constructive criticism before, rather than after, the fact? I’ll happily return the favour and would be only to happy to review any of your estrogen receptor studies. Fair enough?
One correction: we didn’t find the virus, we found something the 16 antibody binds to. The HPV 18 ab was negative. No doubt various reviewers will deal with this issue in great detail when we do submit. For everyone’s information, the JIB paper had three rounds of reviews by three reviewers and then was gone over by the editor and associate editor in detail. Maybe some would say they are all idiots, but I’d venture to guess that they actually have at least the scientific credentials of Orac and got where they are by having some scientific knowledge. I invite the readers to check the editorial board and convince themselves of this.
Finally, my offer stands: my email is posted and any who want to discuss anything related to our work are free to write me.
Cheers.
PS: Yes we do present at “regular” conferences. For example, the various Keele meetings on aluminum (2009 and 2011) and the recent International Conference on Autoimmunity (May), neither “anti vax” meetings by any standard.
I’m not surprised HDB, after all Shaw also invoked Exley but left out Talbot, Priest, Keith and Flarend just to name a few whose works are relevant to IV and IM injected aluminium, excretion and tissue retention patterns.
Sorry Orac, I’m afraid that Shaw is going to be providing blog fodder for a long time to come.
Dr. Shaw,
Spare me. My blog post criticizing your review article was quite detailed and explained exactly why its arguments are wrong. Certainly, I haven’t seen you refute any of the critiques in it. In particular, your identifying spurious correlations and trying to infer potential causation from them was one of the biggest howlers I’ve ever seen in the peer-reviewed literature anywhere anytime. Clearly, whoever reviewed the manuscript did not include a competent epidemiologist. That’s a newbie mistake that a first year epidemiology student should recognize.
“a blog is not the place for scientific reviews”
Heard that one before, I’m afraid, and for me it doesn’t ring true.
I’m a scientist. A blog is just a means of communication – just like email. That it’s open doesn’t make what is said “wrong”.
You might like to look at your UBC colleague Prof. Rosie Redfield’s blog by way of example: http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/ (I’d encourage you to try talking to her.)
Personally, I would encourage you to continue. By limiting yourself to email I feel you’ll be making yourself part of the problem rather it’s solution.
A problem (for us in New Zealand too) is that media reports have tied your and Lee’s testimonies to the vaccine (something you claim you didn’t do) – not necessarily through explicit statements but (also) implied through headlines or simply not explicitly saying otherwise, etc., as is often the case with the media.
People have been trying to get an accurate picture by what means they can. If you limit yourself to email, people can only return to trying to get an accurate picture by what means they can – and the situation you are objecting to. In the meantime there will be no reasonable way to present an accurate picture to people.
(One frustration I have expressed elsewhere is the lack of transcripts of the inquiry, which would have been very helpful to clarify—or correct as the case may be—media reports.)
You write that you don’t want to talk because a manuscript is “still in preparation” – forgive me for asking, and I realise there are deeper issues this being involved in an inquest, but do you think it appropriate to present work that has yet to be tested by peers, as such, at an inquest? As a (tentative) parallel, would you consider what is known as “publication by press release” sound? (There someone talks to media ahead of the paper being available for critical examination.)
A issue to all this is once an idea is placed into the general public’s mind they can be very hard to remove and can cause considerable problems.
taking advantage of a desperate woman using his academic credentials and institution to do so
That’s hardly fair. Dr Shaw was invited into the imbroglio, presumably through Hilary Butler; he is above-board in the correspondence that Ms Renata’s parents made available.
Not anti-vax huh? Let’s see what you presented at the 2009 Keele Meeting: One of your dodgy aluminium studies: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013409001809 And the 2012 International Congress on Autoimmunity. Shaw chaired and presented and his little post-doc presented in Vaccine Safety. Also chaired by none other than Claire Dwoskin the matron saint of Jamaican anti-vaxx junkets and who told John Stossel on Fox, “Vaccines are a holocaust of poison on our children’s brains and immune systems.”
Oh no, not anti-vaxx at all.
Dr. Shaw:
Looking at “International Conferences on Autoimmunity”, I found one last September. So using the search terms “International Conference on Autoimmunity May shaw”, I found this:
http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/vaccinations
Where Ms. Manookian tells us:
You might want to be a bit more clear about which “scientific” conferences you attended. Oh, wait, I found it:
2nd International Symposium on Vaccines
Sponsored by the “THE DWOSKIN FAMILY FOUNDATION.” Isn’t that the same family who sponsored your conference in Jamaica, and includes a member who has been a board member of NVIC, with an email address that starts “novaccine4me”?
I disagree HDB; Shaw is operating outside his expertise and Mrs. Renata was on a fishing expedition. Dr. Shaw could have easily and ethically informed her that the aluminium present in a Gardasil vaccine would not cause neurotoxicity as he should know that the brain is the last tissue of deposition and given the minute quantity of aluminium in the vaccine is not enough to cross the toxic threshhold. Instead he jumped at the chance and already, his testimony for Mrs. Renata and what he is reporting here has inconsistencies.
@ Chris, I have a link-heavy comment awaiting moderation that repeats some of the same information you posted. Guess what is at the bottom of the programme? A screening of the “Greater Good”.
Yes, Science Mom, it looks likes it directly contradicts his claim: “neither “anti vax” meetings by any standard.”
Looking at the link provided by herr doktor bimler, I see Dr. Shaw wrote: “Some of the bahavioural symptoms (memory lapses; tingling in hands and feet; unilateral weakness in arm) are symptomatic of neurological disorders.”
Actually they are symptoms my son experienced with his genetic heart disorder! What do you think happens with tachycardia and reduced blood flow out of the heart! I am just an engineer, and even I know that reduced blood to the extremities and brain cause these symptoms.
Ms. Renata responds to reasonable and standard request to talk to and test family members for the possibility of a cardiac electrical conduction issue by saying: “Since a sample has already been sent to the Cardiac Inherited Diseases Group for testing, how will talking to us assist in the sampling for a molecular abnormality?”
Well I can answer that, as a parent of a child with an inherited cardiac disease that has never shown up in our family histories: some of those molecular abnormalities have to do with things that can only be seen in living patients, not just tissue. If they do an EKG on each family member, and also do some metabolic screens that narrows down what genetics they need to look for. Genetic testing is not like it is on police forensics shows.
By the way, next Monday morning we have family echocardiogram session at the cardiologist. My son is going in to see how his heart is several weeks after surgery, and the rest of us are being screened to see if we have the abnormal anatomy. My son’s genetic test did not shown any of the eighteen known sequences for the disorder.
Mea culpa time. I did refer to Chris Shaw as a “tool”. Perhaps that wasn’t the nicest thing to do, but keep in mind the Urban Dictionary’s definition of a tool as: “One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used.”
As I am fond of saying: “It’s not an insult, it’s a description.”
While a side-story away from what this properly about, those who wish to discuss “a blog is not the place for scientific reviews” are welcome to join in:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/08/16/a-blog-is-not-the-place-for-scientific-reviews/
I seem to have missed the part where anyone requested any manuscripts in preparation. There is certainly no embargo on things that don’t exist, nor is discussing aspects of one’s work “prior publication.” Pretend it’s a poster presentation.
Aluminium’s bioavailability is poor… about 0.1-0.3 percent of what is ingested. An adult absorbs, on average, about 7ug per day. A baby, about 1ug per day, a bit more with formula and soy fed babies…
A 6 week old baby in New Zealand at least, even premature babies weight 1-2 kg, gets injected with 1,320ug of aluminium… repeated at 3 months and 5 months… a total of 3,960 ug… over 108 days… that’s an average of 36 times the expected amount absorbed via food, in bolus doses.
It is not scientifically defensible to claim that the amount of aluminium injected into babies is the same as consumed via food… as a tiny fraction of what’s in the food gets absorbed.
@ Ron, please look at the data instead of using emotional knee-jerk responses. It does appear to be scientifically-defensible: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
Ron Law,
The insoluble aluminum salts injected into muscle as vaccine adjuvants slowly dissolve in interstitial fluid and are excreted by the kidneys. At no time do blood aluminum levels reach anything even close to toxic levels after vaccination, and no one has managed to reproduce Dr. Romain Gherardi’s work that he claims shows that aluminum nanoparticles are transported from muscle to the brain by macrophages, something that seems extremely unlikely to me.
Only a small proportion of aluminum in food is absorbed, it is true, but there is a great deal of aluminum in food and in medicines. If 0.2% of ingested aluminum is absorbed, and 5,000 to 10,000 µg are ingested every day, I make that an average of 15 µg absorbed each and every day. Someone taking an aluminum antacid may absorb as much as 5,000 µg (0.1% of 5 grams) every day without ill effects. Compare that to the 4,000 µg injected in vaccines over a period of 6 months, or about 22 µg per day, which is only absorbed slowly into the bloodstream. By the way, what exactly do you mean by “a bolus dose”? See Aluminium Toxicokinetics: An Updated MiniReview for more details of aluminum toxicokinetics.
Also see Flarend 1997 for some elegant work on aluminum toxicokinetics rabbits using radioisotopes of aluminum.
In rabbits, I meant, New Zealand White rabbits, no less. Aluminum, rabbit-holes, rabbits, is there a pattern developing here?
@ Krebiozen, it puzzles me why an aluminium researcher like Chris Shaw does not use aluminium radioisotopes in his work. And how he should know what you stated yet entertained Mrs. Renata anyhow.
@ Science Mom,
Indeed. It does seem Chris Shaw has been misrepresented to some extent, but I think he would do well to unequivocally distance himself from the lunatic fringe before his reputation is irreparably damaged. By the way I came across a video of Dr. Romain Gherardi talking about aluminum being transported to the brain by macrophages in case anyone is interested.
@ Krebiozen, I don’t think Shaw has been misrepresented nor duped in any way. He is thoroughly immersed in the lunatic fringe along with his post-doc Lucija Tomljenovic, both co-organised the event along with Claire Dwoskin and Barbara Loe Fisher. Have a read here: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/10/06/the-2011-vaccine-safety-conference-in-jamaica/ and here: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347?tab=responses
@ Science Mom,
Yikes, he’s a bit further down that rabbit-hole than I realized. Point taken.
… while son is doing post-surgical cardiac rehab. Something the late young Ms. Renata should have had a chance to do years ago.
Dr. Shaw, you should seriously try to present a paper at this conference:
http://www.vaccinecongress.com/
Perhaps you can convince the Dwoskin Family Foundation to pay your way as a way to present in a mainstream medical conference. And if you survive the feedback, you might get just a wee bit more respect. Or perhaps you’ll open your mind to learning how to become a more competent researcher.
@ Science Mom, 9:37 AM
It puzzles me why an aluminium researcher like Chris Shaw does not use a stain that is specific for aluminum. He keeps publishing using Morin stains when it is known that Morin crossreacts with iron, zinc, and scandium (which is sometimes used in aluminum processing). There are control assays used by competent researchers to exclude these signals (Perl’s stain for iron, which doesn’t detect Al, to rule out that specific crossreaction) however Shaw does not do mention any of these controls in his published papers. Shoddy.
He also believes that Gherardi’s work with macrophagic myofacsciitis in genetically restricted human populations constitutes replication of his mouse data… Astonishing. Neither I nor any of my colleagues can replicate his mouse data, even though we inject over 400 times more Alum than he reports, unless we inject directly into the spinal column. Yet he insists that his work is defensible and replicated based on Gherardi’s slop – which if anything looks like a genetic defect in metabolism in a very very small population.
Crap science all around.
Interesting Jay, I wasn’t aware of the Morin stain non-specificity. I would like to talk to you if you’re game. You can go on my blog and click the “contact us” link. No pressure, only if you like.
Happy to.
@ Chris Shaw,
If the manuscript issue is a concern: a number of biologists have deposited papers in the arXiv preprint archive before formal publication. At this point in time, I believe you need to clear this with the journal, but it can be done. Rosie Redfield, who I mentioned earlier, did this with her critique of the ‘arsenic life’ work.
Did you have chance to talk with Rosie Redfield? (I feel a little guilty in mentioning her name without asking first if she’s happy to help; I just hope my mentioning her is OK.)
@ Krebiozen – I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing your response to Ron Law (August 16, 8:52 am) over on the NZ Sciblogs site (http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2012/08/10/dodgy-experts-gardasil-further-questions/comment-page-3/#comment-1060) as we’ve been discussing the same thing there. Very much appreciate your insights – thank you!
Alison, he has not addressed the question… he’s given inflated adult data in answering a question about babies whose intake is only 1ug per day from food… and babies receive their im doses over 3.5 months, not 6 as stated. Also, the higher the dose ingested, the lower the proportion absorbed… 0.01% or so… citrate and other ligands also moderate absorption.
A 12 year old reference seems to be a bit outdated, too…
@ Ron, that 12 year-old reference is a good one and is available in full text; I suggest you read it to get a handle on aluminium adjuvant kinetics as they relate to infants. I also provided you with a very relevant (as in directly addresses your question) one year-old reference. What is your complaint with that?
Ron, you are talking crap. Here is the NZ vaccination schedule http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/immunisation/new-zealand-immunisation-schedule
The vaccines are:
INFANRIX 0.82 mg of aluminium salts = 0.24 mg Al
SYNFLORIX 0.5 mg of aluminium phosphate = 0.11 mg Al
That adds up to 350 mcg of Al at 6 weeks, at 3 months and at 5 months. Not 1,320 mcg of aluminium.
Dr Shaw:
I haven’t published on shark fin or anything of the sort
Sharks’ fins came up in this thread because (a) shark products as a purported Alternative Therapy have been mentioned previously at RI, and (b) I encountered the story about their neurotoxic properties while educating myself about the BMAA bio-accumulation theory for the Guam ALS / PD syndrome. No implication was intended that you have personally researched the topic.
You’ve been holding AMA and JIB to task for publishing our recent studies, so how about trying to make the science better by offering some constructive criticism before, rather than after, the fact?
Well, there are concerns about the particular issue of the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry in which the Tomljenovic / Shaw paper was published — the special issue on Aluminum and Life – Living in the Aluminum Age (ed. Exley). It does put you in the same company as the “deodorant causes breast cancer” story.
Ah Ron Law, vaccine expert, whose qualifications consist of degrees in Theology and Business Studies. Just in case you’re thinking we’re all mad in NZ, maybe we are. This priceless story appeared on the NZ Herald site this afternoon only to vanish 4 hours later. By then it had been picked up by an Australian publication. Enjoy! http://www.qt.com.au/story/2012/08/17/name-change-cured-baby/
nz sceptic – that story is embarassingly bad. I wish I’d seen it on their site; periodically I have a go at the results of some of their reporters’ complete lack of sceptical thinking & that would have been a doozy.
Ron Law has degrees in Theology and Business Studies. That might explains his lack of understanding of chemistry. It doesn’t explain his lack of logic.
That’s an interesting location, Alison 🙂 Understandable, though. I had a mind to do a quick post on it myself – being Friday night at all that.
Science Mom, have you read Mitkus? It provides no evidence re aluminium adjuvant kinetics as they relate to infants. The paper is theoretical models based on a study of one (ie 1) adult and four rabbits… hardly convincing given the hundreds of millions of children injected which a known toxin.
ChrisP, I’m afraid you have made up stuff… can you state what page on the NZ Immunisation Book you reference gives your figures? The figures you quote are for aluminium, not the salts…
nz sceptic, and ChrisP… I don’t mind personal attacks like this as they demonstrate you are not able to argue the evidence, and you demonstrate that you don’t have a clue as to my background, interests, or even modus operandi.
It intrigues me how easy so-called objective-evidenc-based defenders of the faith resort to inuendo and personal attacks when they have no evidence to put up.
Um… Ron… Is publishing your qualifications really a personal attack? Aren’t you proud of your academic achievements? Don’t worry, I’m well aware that you go by the rather grandiose title (self-styled, of course) of risk and policy analyst but it doesn’t exactly make you a vaccine expert – does it?
RonL:
ChrisP, I’m afraid you have made up stuff […] The figures you quote are for aluminium, not the salts…
I’m not seeing the made-up component. These are ChrisP’s figures: “INFANRIX 0.82 mg of aluminium salts = 0.24 mg Al
SYNFLORIX 0.5 mg of aluminium phosphate = 0.11 mg Al”.
Let me Google that for you…
According to the specs, SYNFLORIX also contains 9-16 micrograms of Protein D carrier protein, 5-10 micrograms of tetanus toxoid carrier protein and 3-6 micrograms of diphtheria toxoid carrier protein and 0.5 milligrams of Aluminium phosphate.
And from here: aluminium hydroxide, hydrated (Al(OH)3) 0.5 milligrams Al3+
aluminium phosphate (AlPO4) 0.32 milligrams Al3+
Need I add that ChrisP’s figures are correct, for the weights of the aluminium component of these aluminium compounds?
Alison,
Please feel free to post any of my comments on SciBlogs. I hope you will forgive me if I don’t join you guys there.
Ron Law,
Since you accuse me (on SciBlogs) of a lack of critical analysis, allow me to explain what convinced me that concerns about aluminum in vaccines are unfounded. Firstly, we know that aluminum adjuvants are poorly soluble, we know that they are injected into muscle, and we know that after intramuscular injection in rabbits these substances take several weeks to dissolve in body fluids and get excreted by the kidneys. In monkeys the same experiment has been done but looking at how much aluminum is left in the muscle after several weeks. The muscle physiology in these mammals is similar to human muscle, and there is no reason to expect human muscle to behave any differently. There have also been human experiments that support that conclusion. We also know that the aluminum concentration in the blood of babies post vaccination with an aluminum-containing vaccine barely increases; in fact it is only recently that methods sensitive enough to measure such a tiny increase have been developed. Blood aluminum levels after ingestion of aluminum-based antacids have also been measured as has the time it takes for these levels to return to normal and its excretion in the urine.
Secondly, we know how high blood aluminum levels have to be to cause neurological problems from kidney patients and premature babies (who also often have impaired renal function) who suffered from aluminum poisoning in the past. Normal levels of aluminum in blood are around 1-2 micrograms per liter. Ingestion of antacids can increase that to around 30 micrograms per liter, but in people with normal kidney function they rapidly fall and after a few hours are back to normal again. People with kidney disease are less able to excrete aluminum and when levels reach 80 micrograms per liter they may suffer neurological problems. The amount of aluminum in vaccines is clearly far too small to cause problems even in a premature baby with poor kidney function.
If you dig around in PubMed and other scientific websites you will find plenty evidence that supports all of my assertions. I have only mentioned a fraction of the available evidence (a useful source of references is here. The only evidence that seems to contradict this comes from people like Shaw who seem determined to find evidence to support the idea that vaccines are bad at any cost.
Rabbits are a good surrogate for infants and they made excellent corrections for infant glomerular filtration rates based on infant/child data. What do you base your claim that “children injected with a known toxin” on?
It’s also perhaps worth mentioning that the study Ron quoted on SciBlogs concludes:
That supports what I wrote above, and strongly suggests that very little of the injected aluminum ends up in the brain where it could cause problems. Also, Ron seems to have a poor understanding of the scientific method, as he criticizes some of the research I cited as being old and only using a few subjects. If more recent and higher quality work has superseded earlier work, it is fair to point to the later work. The age of a paper is not per se a valid reason to criticize it. Also, in a clinical trial, the statistical power of the analysis depends on the number of subjects. If you simply want to find out what happens to radioisotopes of aluminum when they are injected intramuscularly, a few subjects are sufficient to give a good idea of what is going on.
Ron Law, I have to half apologise to you, but only half. The values for Infanrix were indeed Al as the salts, but those for Synflorix were not. http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/consumers/cmi/s/synflorixinj.pdf
Alison,
If you’ll forgive me, I’ve copied Krebiozen’s comments over so that they might be there at earliest convenience, as it were.
That story on QT is a horrible example of what happens when you put headlines above quality journalism. I honestly can’t understand how any self-respecting writer would take that assignment, let alone make it “balanced” (ie uncritical).
On the contrary; a degree in theology has as a prerequisite the willingness to abandon logic when it conflicts with preexisting beliefs.
@flip – it almost makes me think you’ve never been in a supermarket checkout line…I just assumed QT must be no different than “The Star,” “The National Enquirer,” etc. Was I wrong and QT is considered a reputable publication?
@Mrs Woo
My problem is not that I never go into supermarkets. It’s that I don’t watch the news, read newspapers, or buy magazines. (Outside of an occasional National Geo. or something similar)
I find most news programs and magazines to be full of ‘fluff’, gossip, and warmed over media releases. So I never pay any of them any attention. Particularly at the checkout.
Mrs Woo – the ‘name change’ story was originally published in the NZ Herald, which used to pride itself as being our preeminent daily newspaper (before a regrettable slide into woo in some of its reporters).
@flip – fascinating. I kind of enjoy it. The ludicrousness of some of the stories amuses me (hate it, though, when Mr Woo actually wastes money purchasing them for their “informative research”).
@Alison – that is disappointing. I would think, at most, this could be posted under “human interest,” but even then it should have had some kind of balance to it (i.e., stories of other rare infants who survived, what a rarity it is). The way it was done implied too much credibility to the name causing illness (that doesn’t even begin to be plausible to the average person). Wow… you have to wonder if woo is becoming that commonplace or if too many education systems have been “dumbed down” in recent years.
Alas! it seems to be quite commonplace now eg: http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2012/05/nz-herald-what-are-you-thinkin.shtml
Science Mom, have you read Mitkus?
It would be gracious at this point to credit Alison for sending RonL a copy of the Mitkus paper.
hdb -as it would be gracious of RonL to credit Science Mom with having read it, since she provided the reference in the first place 🙂
ChrisP… thanks for correcting the 50%… now regarding Synflorix… there is an error in the doc you link to… it is the consumer sheet… the one for professionals has this, “adsorbed onto Aluminium phosphate (0.5 mg Al3+).”
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/s/synflorixinj.pdf
Google synflorix and WC500054346 and you’ll get the eu 70+ pager… with same 500ug Al3+
Don’t believe everything you read… critical analysis is a good skill to develop.
herr doktor bimler, with respect, 0.5 and 0.32 of Al3+ = 0.82… Al3+… so ChrisP’s figures are wrong… and there is an error in the consumer sheet.
Excuse, but don’t you have to be a minimum age to receive the HPV? Why are you all talking about infants?
nz sceptic, I gather you have not studied theology… One of the finest set of skills I learnt was in the exegetical studies. That and ferreting references dating back more than 1,000 years, and critiquing historical evidence with oral traditional records, and geology/archeology. It would be fair to say that the method was much more robust than many I’ve seen in undergraduate university classes.
As for my comment about posting qualifications… you omitted a significant portion of my background. For the record;
I have been a risk and policy adviser for more than a decade… that’s what people pay me to do… give them risk and policy advice… on a wide range of issues mostly environmental and health. I have only ever spent $300 on a single advert, which got me a got worth $300!
My career spans twenty years as a medical laboratory scientist,( including 10 years as a clinical biochemistry lecturer when I spent a day a week immersed in the medical library,) 5 years as a university business management lecturer, including research methodology, 4 years as executive director of a trade association, and
more recently as an independent risk & policy analyst. I have a masters degree in international business studies as well as a double major bachelors degree in applied theology, studies which included linguistics, cultural anthropology, and exegetical studies. I was appointed by the Ministry of Health as a member of the expert group that advised the Director General of Health on the reporting and management of medical injury in New Zealand’s healthcare system.
I won’t bore you with the details, except to say that I smile when I see people attack my credentials as it is evidence that the science can’t bee too bad if they have difficulty critiquing that. Besides, I doubt many posters here have any qualifications in medical science at all…
mmm… neither here nor there… just that it demonstrates that you ow me the other 50% of the apology… Didn’t you mention something about crap and credibility before???
Re HPV… the studies were done on older teenagers and adults, but the vaccine is given to 9-12 year olds…
The discussion is regarding the reliability of evidence that aluminium injected im is safe/unsafe… and the plausibility that aluminium can/can’t/could cause health problems.
Mr. Law, then why do you think babies get the HPV vaccine?
I never said they got the HPV vaccine routinely, though there are examples in NZ at least where the doctor has given it to newborn babes by mistake… and then everyone jumped up and down and said it was perfectly safe for the baby…
Ron,
If it matters I trained and qualified as a biomedical scientist specializing in clinical biochemistry in Cambridge UK and also have a degree from London University as well as over 20 years clinical experience working and lecturing in various UK hospitals. You don’t seem to have much to say about my comments above. I have explained what I think happens to the aluminum when a child is given an i.m. injection of a vaccine with an aluminum adjuvant and I have explained why. That happens to coincide with the mainstream view. What do you think happens, based on what evidence?
I did thank Alison for the paper…
Mr. Law, do you have anything to say about it being reported that Dr. Shaw found HPV in Ms. Renata tissues, when the vaccine does not (it has only a certain protein)?
RonL -yes, you did 🙂
Chris (Neither here nor there…),
Because Ron is side-tracking to aluminium in vaccines, a wider thing. Sidetracking to his own interests is something he often does. Some in the anti-vaccine community are pushing this angle and, I guess, hoping to use this inquest as part of their pushing it. Lousy connecting the dots, as you say, but that’s the anti-vaccine groups for you.
Just a heads-up even though it’ll be obvious by now. Standard practice from Ron Law is to studiously avoid what others have presented to him and nit-pick whilst “overlooking” the important relevant points raised. For him more about “winning” and “point-scoring” than the science.
By way of example, he’s avoided replying Krebiozen by playing word games to throw mud at me to try set me up to answer Krebiozen’s points over at Alison’s blog. But that’s RL for you. Disingenuous as ever.
@ Ron Law: I don’t think I’ve responded to you in this discussion, but I would like to inform you that I am 1)no one’s sockpuppet and 2) a Registered Nurse with nearly 30 years experience, Bachelor’s of Science in Nursing and Master’s of Science in Nursing, as well as a Certified Nurse-Midwife.
So, there you have my qualifications in medical science. Many of the other commentors also have medical science experience (physicians, nurses, medical researchers). Your plea to authority can be answered by a good many of us.
Grant:
Since most of the “oh noes aluminum in vaccines is bad” papers comes from Dr. Shaw, perhaps Mr. Law is trying to deflect from Dr. Shaw’s incompetence.
Vis-a-vis qualifications, I use a Teutonically-themed nym so that no-one has any right to complain or act surprised that I’m being pompous & pedantic.
Chris,
“Since most of the “oh noes aluminum in vaccines is bad” papers comes from Dr. Shaw, perhaps Mr. Law is trying to deflect from Dr. Shaw’s incompetence.”
I’ve often thought that’s (part of) his game. He only seems to turn up at our place (sciblogs) when he feels on of the “supporters” of an anti-vaccine position is being shown in a bad light and does invariably try to side-track the discussion through his own brand of trolling.
By the way – link to Alison’s blog to catch his re-directed reply to Krebiozen:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2012/08/10/dodgy-experts-gardasil-further-questions/#comment-1081
(I’m going to ask Ron to simply talk to the person who he’s actually replying to!)
Excuse me pursuing this diversion, but it’s an area that interests me and I think perhaps it’s worth making this very simple. Normal blood aluminum is 1-2 µg/L resulting from constant absorption of aluminum from water and food and in the air we breath and constant excretion by the kidneys. That’s how toxicokinetics work; constant absorption and excretion results in a steady state; increased absorption results in increased excretion and an increased steady state blood concentration. Small amounts of aluminum are retained, mostly in bone but also in other organs including (lastly) the brain. Our kidneys have a large excess capacity to excrete far more aluminum than we normally absorb, not unexpectedly considering the ubiquity of aluminum in our environment. Neurotoxicity from aluminum occurs at blood levels exceeding 80 µg/L. Blood levels of 30 µg/L do not cause any symptoms in adults after ingestion of aluminum antacids and this is rapidly cleared by the kidneys, and even daily doses of aluminum antacids in people with normal renal function do not cause neurological symptoms. An adult taking aluminum antacids will absorb as much aluminum every day as a child will absorb over a period of several months. The evidence for aluminum neurotoxicity in AD is limited, and even if you accept it, it occurs after a lifetime of accumulation of aluminum in the brain. Blood aluminum levels are barely elevated after vaccination with vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants, perhaps 10% above normal and certainly not exceeding 2µg/L. Why would anyone expect neurotoxicity from the small i.m. doses of aluminum in some vaccines? I just don’t see this as at all plausible.
Krebiozen:
Remember these are the same people who think that if there was no history of cardiac disorders in a family, that automatically rules out any kind of cardiac disorder in the young woman. And then there is Dr. Shaw who thinks that the symptoms exhibited by the young woman could only be neurological, when they are common with many cardiac disorders. The same Dr. Shaw who is reported to see full HPV in her tissues, even though the vaccine only contains “virus like particles” in the form of proteins.
Do you see a pattern?
RonL Re HPV… the studies were done on older teenagers and adults, but the vaccine is given to 9-12 year olds…
Possibly because we know that children not much older than that can be sexually active, & so at least this way they have some protection against the HPV strains implicated in cervical cancer?
Also, back on Sciblogs(NZ), & regarding your claims concerning Al neurotoxicity in infants (my emphasis), you’ve said if I was giving advice to the politicians and vaccine industry about politics and risk I’d be advising them to do some legitimate studies on babies and pre teens to put the issue to bed
So you now seem to be saying that the Al adjuvant in vaccines is also a Bad Thing for children (not ‘just’ prem babies)?
Also, just what would you regard as a ‘legitimate’ study? After all, since you seem to regard Al as so toxic, then what would be the experimental & control arms of your study?
A small comment on Ron’s analogy on SciBlogs:
That’s a terrible analogy, as if we expect a material to be constantly exposed to small amounts of water, we waterproof it. Our bodies are designed to excrete small amounts of aluminum that we constantly absorb from the environment; in your analogy the tap is constantly dripping, but you expect us to believe that if it drips twice as fast the wood will rot, when we know that even if you turn the tap on to a trickle the water drains away safely and the wood still doesn’t rot. The amount we absorb from vaccines is similar to the amount that we absorb from other sources, and we have a large excess ability to excrete it.
The top three elements on this planet’s surface are oxygen, silicon and aluminum.
Now oxygen is vital to our survival, but according to some reading I have done it was exhaled by the earliest forms of life like cyanobacteria, for which it is a toxic. Obviously certain lifeforms formed that were tolerant of oxygen, and even used it.
Silicon is very similar to aluminum in that it is very reactive. It is important to biology, but mostly sea creatures (diatoms), and plants. Not so much land dwelling animals. So we are okay with eating silica, and our bodies manage to deal with and get rid of it. I know my kids have eaten plenty of sand.
So it seems to me that animals have evolved to deal with the environmental quantities of aluminum. It is everywhere, from the soils used to grow food to much of the structures used in modern life (like fences, laptop chassis, and aircraft). It does react with biology a bit more than silicon, but you still need rather large quantities.
Persevering on the teeny tiny bits in the HPV vaccine versus the obvious things that could have lead to Ms. Renata’s symptoms is unrealistic.
And now the basement computer has the proper cookies to get the recent comments to update. Time for some dinner, and then back to figuring out how to pay college tuition for three kids and a car loan (the latter is a unexpected expense because we had to replace the car that was totaled when someone ran a stop sign, our insurance is now going after the driver because she did not have insurance). Monday I am selling off a stagnant mutual fund.
Ron Law enters this discussion with:
Then later says:
My qualifications are noted above. I admit to having an education in engineering with only one college level class in biology.
Yet, even I know that the HPV vaccine is not given to infants. Dude, what were you thinking?
I have learned more because of a kid who is much too interesting. And that includes the only member of this family to have this particular cardiac disorder.
So, sorry, about knowing all of the ins and outs of what it is like to live with cardiac disease in your own child. I used to joke that I did not homeschool my kids because as a mother my job was to make sure they went to bed alive. And considering the attitude of middle kid, his longevity would have been in question if I had to teach him. But then my oldest ended up with a heart murmur, and turned out to be obstructive hypertrophic cardiomypathy. There was (and still is) a chance that while he goes to bed alive, his heart may not be beating in the morning.
I’m a bit irritated that Ron came here and made some assertions about aluminum that I responded to, but is now sniping at me on another blog, so I have signed up at SciBlogs to continue the discussion there.
Chris – I was hit by an uninsured driver several years ago and found that in the UK there is an uninsured drivers fund that insurers pay into to compensate people in your situation. It may be worth finding out if there is something similar in your locality that your insurers haven’t mentioned. In my case the driver turned out to be from a large well-known criminal family and managed to evade the police until the time limit on his prosecution had expired, but at least I got my expenses back.
The presence of an acid (lactic, citric) will raise the solubility of an ingested aluminum compound. If the mother exercises at all, there will be lactic acid found in the breastmilk. As many mothers are pressured into losing the baby weight as fast as possible or to ‘regain their bodies’ – there is certainly an elevated amount of aluminum being taken up by their breastfeeding infants.
As far as the dangers of an Al ligand, Ron neglects to consider the competition for ligand formation, as the amount of Al 2+/3+ is dwarfed by the amount of Fe2+/ 3+ present in the muscle tissue.
so I have signed up at SciBlogs to continue the discussion there.
And it’s very nice to see you there – thanks for coming over. Although – herr doktor seems to have had the last word for the moment, regarding goalposts 🙂
@Mrs Woo
I guess for me it’s mainly that I’m not interested in argument from authority, which is what most of the gossip-y news is about (ie. you’re famous, therefore you must be of interest to the average person).
Regular news is ok, but it depends on where I get it from. I tend to watch the more European shows which I find to be less sensational.
I’d also point out in regards to the article in question that these days journalists aren’t given a lot of time to research an article. Let’s say you have a quota to fill each day before deadline and one of those articles requires a lot of scientific knowledge… you may just put in minimum effort. Especially if you’re not all that aware of the obvious logical fallacies behind these things.
It’s like I said above: newspapers are putting more effort into attention-catching headlines than the content that goes into the main article.
He does indeed. I suspect Ron will be back though. I find it odd that he accuses us, presumably including me, of being “unable to critique the science” when I have done nothing but point to evidence that strongly contradicts his position and that he appears to be incapable of refuting.
Krebiozen,
You wrote: “I find it odd that he accuses us, presumably including me, of being “unable to critique the science” when I have done nothing but point to evidence that strongly contradicts his position and that he appears to be incapable of refuting.”
He frequently accuses others of what he’s doing himself. There are more examples of this general things by Ron elsewhere in that thread. See Chris’ comments re Ron, too (above).
@ alison’s blog, RonL complains that a there is a “distinct lack of critical analysis” at sci-blogs ( 1 day ago).
Being a psychologist, I wonder what he feels DOES have critical analysis. People get their ideas from specific places from which they synthesise their own ideas about a subject.
So Ron, if you’re still around: Who/ what do you read? A simple list of influences would be sufficient: courses at a university, texts, periodicals, blogs, books, specific writers et al all count.
Krebiozen:
Thank you, but my insurance premiums include a small bit to cover uninsured drivers. We were compensated for the loss of our seventeen year old car, and the company itself is taking action with the driver.
What Ron Law is doing is very common with the anti-vax crowd. They try to divert the discussion away from the flaws of their brave maverick researcher, and persevere on tiny little pointless details. They like to talk about the zebras, but miss the horse that is about to trample them.
Now Ron thinks water with something dissolved in it is not water.
What next?
The guy is unbelievable.
I think I have give up in the face sheer… I don’t what word to put here.
Chris, I’m reminded of a baby boy of six weeks who was injected with Gardasil vaccine by mistake… he died a few weeks ago aged three… of a rare form of leukaemia… of course, the two events are entirely co-incidental…
Grant, would you drink a glass of water with arsenic in it?
Ron,
“Grant, would you drink a glass of water with arsenic in it?”
Word games, twisting meanings and shifting goalposts. All you ever do.
@Ron – please care to explain how the biological mechanism would work for Gardisil to give a baby leukemia?
@Ron Law: citation requested. Not that I doubt your claim that a child was accidentally injected at 6 weeks with Gardisil (although I do find it highly unlikely), and then died 3 years of later of a rare leukemia (type of leukemia, please). But without more information -VAERs citation, whatever, your information cannot be verified and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof….
@Ron
Arsenic is found in groundwater in many places; New England being one of them.
Remember the phrase, “The dose makes the poison.”
So chances are if you’ve been to New England, you’ve had a glass of water with arsenic in it. Chances are, if you’ve eaten rice, you’ve eaten rice with arsenic in it.
But the amounts of arsenic in the groundwater we drink and the foods we eat isn’t really the issue here, is it?
Try to stay on topic.
@ MI Dawn: Save yourself the trouble. Ron Law will now come back with a *report* of a six week old boy in New Zealand who was supposedly was given Gardisal vaccine in error. He later was diagnosed ~ 2 years of age, with AML.
He reminds me of “Grandma Marsha” and “lurker”…two cranks who posted here with little factoids about the “deleterious effects” of vaccines, that they read on the internet
I played the *game* with them for a little while…but it is a never ending pastime for them. Best to just ignore this troll.
@ Ron Law:
In order for us to believe that Gardisil is indeed a danger we would ALSO have to believe that there is a vast conspiracy of medical organisations, universities, journals and governmental agencies that are suppressing the truth whilst promoting Gardisil as being safe and effective; obviously, they would be further enabled by the media around the world who would assist in keeping the real story out of the news.
There’s something wrong with this: such an imbroglio of inter-connections would be difficult to maintain and would need thousands of willing operatives to keep in place AND
probably eat up any profits from the vaccine. You would have us believe that ALL of these people, companies, agencies and associations were un-trustworthy.
And who precisely is giving us this alternate version? How trustworthy are they? Could they possibly be grieving parents angry at medical services and researchers eager to use the situation to make a name for themselves? Might others who promote these ideas be alternative medicine advocates with an axe to grind against SBM who might profit- in monetary terms or in reputation- by promoting these ideas?
So should we trust the experts and governments across the globe or a few contrarians and supplemen salesmen? Which is more likely: thousands of cheats or a few?
I asked Ron Law earlier if he doesn’t care for the Mitkus et al. paper, what does he accept in terms of publications that demonstrate aluminium from vaccines is dangerous for infants. He has responded to others but hasn’t answered that question.
Why Ron?
Mr. Law:
By that logic off the kids in this video, including the young man who created (the one in the orange t-shirt) were accidentally given a dose of Gardisil.
Mr. Law, when you hoof-beats you are thinking of zebras, not horses.
When I hear a helicopter, I think that a child is quite ill. But unlike you I have a real reason. I happen to live a few blocks of where that video was filmed. I see many kids like that and their parents in the local grocery story, and near the Ronald McDonald house that is in my neighborhood.
You seem to have forgotten there are so many ways for kids to get sick, and there are more obvious answers than one tiny vaccine.
And unfortunately, there are several serious heart disorders that cause sudden death in young people. My son has one, but he was diagnosed early. It is a shame that the late Ms. Renata was not screened. Unfortunately there is debate the costs of doing those screenings, which is why one family created a foundation to do them: in memory of a son.
Chris, you are wrong… again… Ms Renata WAS screened… all tests came back negative… but that hasn’t been reported by the media which seems to be the only source of evidence objective-science-based-scibloggers seem to go by… anecdotal evidence.
The lab report dated 20 September 2010 states, “Conclusion: The genetlc test result reveals no currently known pathogenie mutations within the selected genes linked
to Long GT syndrome…”
CIDG Recommendations: CIDG recommends that a sampie ofDNA should be retalned by Lab Plus wlth family consent
in case new genes related to arrhythmie syndromes are dlscovered,…”
What more can I say? Objective-science-based-scibloggers don’t exercise much objectivity?
For the record, the lab report was signed by the Chairman of the Cardiac Inherlted Dlsease Group at ADHB.
Genetic screening does not count. It is quite clear that my son has a genetic heart disorder, but his genetic screening came up negative. They have not discovered all of the genetic sequences that cause the issues.
Do you have evidence that she had an EKG, a stress test or metabolic screen?
I assume, Mr. Law, that you did not click on any of URL links in my comment. I will repeat one of them, and challenge to to tell me which tests Ms. Renata received:
http://nickoftimefoundation.org/programs/screenings/
From Orac’s article:
“…the autopsy report…showed no structural abnormalities in the heart or evidence of an inflammatory process. The report does note, however, that heart tissue had been taken and submitted to the Inherited Diseases Group in Auckland so that the “decendent’s genetic structure and family can be investigated in case there is a molecular abnormality of the cardiac electrical conduction system that might result in sudden unexpected death.”
Orac obviously is drawing conclusions from incomplete information… as noted above the results were reported nearly two years ago…
“Conclusion: The genetlc test result reveals no currently known pathogenie mutations within the selected genes linked
to Long GT syndrome…”
CIDG Recommendations: CIDG recommends that a sampie ofDNA should be retalned by Lab Plus wlth family consent
in case new genes related to arrhythmie syndromes are dlscovered,…”
What more can I say? Objective-science-based-scibloggers don’t exercise much objectivity? Or they comment on the ‘facts’ when they don’t have the facts?
The little boy RonL refers to was Chace Topperwien, who did indeed receive the Gardasil vaccine as an infant. He died earlier this year of acute myeloid leukaemia (http://sciblogs.co.nz/infectious-thoughts/tag/topperwien/). However, as Siouxsie Wiles points out in the post I’ve linked to here, the odds that the two events are linked (ie that the vaccine caused the cancer) are extremely low.
All my sympathies are with Chace’s parents; it must be terrible to lose a child, and I can understand how they could cast around to find a cause.
RL: “Conclusion: The genetlc test result reveals no currently known pathogenie mutations within the selected genes linked
to Long GT syndrome…”
CIDG Recommendations: CIDG recommends that a sampie ofDNA should be retalned by Lab Plus wlth family consent
in case new genes related to arrhythmie syndromes are dlscovered,…”
My emphasis added. As Chris has noted, you can have a negative test but still have the disease; all this means is that scientists haven’t identified the markers for your variant yet.
Chace died in June 2012. The “sciblog” Alison linked to says, “The HPV proteins that Chace inadvertently received are highly unlikely to have interrupted his immune system. More likely they will have vaccinated him against HPV.”
Highly unlikely and more likely are not definitive terms… Tragic deaths like this must be included in pharmacovigilance databases so that signals can be investigated… this is a signal in itself…. If gardasil had been injected into a single baby rabbit and the rabbit had developed
In 2009 the media reported this…
Nurse gives Hamilton boy wrong vaccine
The Immunisation Advisory Centre reassured the couple their son was unlikely to suffer an adverse reaction. However, they wrote to the clinic’s practice manager and a meeting was arranged with senior medical staff and a centre representative to discuss their son’s welfare.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2870462/Nurse-gives-Hamilton-boy-wrong-vaccine
So wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask the question if your baby was given the wrong drug… and were told, It’s unlikely to cause problems, but we’ll monitor him… and then two years later he develops a rare form of leukaemia only to be told be defenders-of-the-faith that there is no link… with no evidence or even causality assessment????
Of note, the Gardasil package insert states, “13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.”
I should have completed the sentence, If gardasil had been injected into a single baby rabbit and the rabbit had developed a rare form of cancer surely that would have raised suspicions warranting further studies?
Alison, I agree with you totally re testing… my point is that the known tests WERE done on Jasmine… and they were negative… but Orac was either not aware of that or he chose not to report it. Why should the family be vilified if the tests were negative? And for what it’s worth, the family have never refused testing of parents/siblings etc… they certainly have asked what’s the point if Jasmine’s tests were negative and there is no history in the family… they have always agreed to testing once other test results were reported.
Chris, you are wrong… again…
Let us be charitable and assume that RonL is here conflating commenter “Chris” — experienced in the genetics of heart disorders — and the commenter “ChrisP” whom he earlier accused of “making stuff up”. Different nyms and gravatars, I know. But otherwise the gratuitous accusation of repeated wrongness makes no sense at all.
@ Ron Law, please stop dodging and answer my question. It was quite straightforward.
Science Mom, it is straight forward. Mitkus et al MRL’s supposedly developed by
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR ALUMINUM
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
September 2008
There’s only one problem. The ATSDR never established MRLs for intramuscular route of entry.
Have a read of that 350+ page document… scan for the term half life and read around the hits… at one point it even says, “When 26Al levels were monitored more than 3 years after a single subject received the injection, a half-life of approximately 7 years was calculated (Priest et al. 1995). However, when the subject was re-examined approximately 10 years after the injection, a half-life of about 50 years
was estimated (Priest 2004).”
Clearly ingesting aluminium is not the same as having it injected.
I haven’t read any, but are you aware of any studies injecting 160-200mg of Aluminium (Al3+) intramuscularly into an adult over three months? I haven’t seen any.
Mr. Law:
You obviously did not understand that Ms. Renata should have been screened when she was alive. The EKG (or ECG) taken at an autopsy would be quite flat and boring.
I am saying that she should have had a more thorough exam sometime between the onset of her symptoms (like the numb extremities) and her death.
Health screenings are only done on people who are alive. And when a family member is found to have some kind of cardiac disorder (either through symptoms or sudden cardiac death), then all first degree relatives need to be screened. In this case, the young woman’s younger brother.
IV dialysis of renally-impaired patients were taken into consideration. The aluminium MRL has a huge correction factor built in to err on the side of caution (and incompleteness of reporting). Why would IM administration cause more problems?
I did and don’t you think that also applies to any retained aluminium? You are also ignoring the order of tissue deposition which puts the brain last.
Clearly it’s not but you don’t get to make shit up. The data, taken together do not implicate IM aluminium as the bogey man you and Shaw like to make it out to be. I’m absolutely for research into any vaccine excipient where there are gaps but I’d like to see those done with good methods, not the tripe Shaw produces.
Quite dodging my earlier question. Given the citations in the Al MRL report (funnily no Shaw/Petrik cites), the numerous citations in PubMed that you readily dismiss, surely you can produce some compelling studies that have caused you to latch onto your belief. What are they?
Mr. Law, do you have any reference to Ms. Renata having a perfectly normal electrocardiogram?
@Chris
I suspect this why her parents have such a great need to blame the HPV vaccination. With the benefit of hindsight, they are aware at some level that they missed these symptoms and they may have been able to prevent her death. By putting the blame on the vaccination, they do not have to face this.
Ron Law
I
I such a study existed you would reject it anyway if it did not support your hobbyhorse.
” I’m absolutely for research into any vaccine excipient where there are gaps but I’d like to see those done with good methods…”
OK then, if there are no significant gaps in the use of aluminium adjuvants, can you please explain the following…
1. How they ACTUALLY work, as opposed to how it is THOUGHT that they work…
2. What happens to the aluminium once it’s injected over time.
3. What studies have been done to demonstrate that injecting 4mg of alunimium (Al3+) into prem babies over the space of 3.5 months is safe.
Chris, as far as I know Jasmine never had an ECG because there was never need for one. The seven genetic screen tests were all negative and the pathology was uneventful.
Can you tell us what the statistical correlation between a “perfectly normal (whatever that is) ECG and sudden death of a teenager is?
The lab report dated 20 September 2010 states, “Conclusion: The genetlc test result reveals no currently known pathogenie mutations within the selected genes linked
to Long GT syndrome…”
A source for this information would earn my gratitude.
LOL… the reports say they are only addressing oral and dermal exposure, another references that and uses it to validate intramuscular exposure and I’m the one dogged to coughing and spluttering regarding the dodgy referencing????
Besides, where have I said that aluminum is harmful? What I have said, and I’ve seen it consistantly over 42 years of involvement one way or another with medical science (and other sciences) is that the use of Finnigans Finagling Factor is alive and well… Thomas Khun was so right…
Ah, the devastating Juggalo gambit.
@ Ron Law:
“Of note, the Gardasil package insert states, “13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.”
Hmmm, let me FTFY, by providing the complete Prescribing Information and the large studies conducted pre and post-licensing:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajhwHFRYbUBQ
Did you happen to forget the rest of that statement?
13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.
GARDASIL administered to female rats at a dose of 120 mcg total protein, which corresponds to approximately 300-fold excess relative to the projected human dose, had no effects on mating performance, fertility, or embryonic/fetal
survival.
Also check the rest of the Prescribing Statement for carcinogenicity and genotoxicity and the lack of any carcinogenicity and genotoxicity, reported after the licensing of the vaccine.
You sure sound like Grandma Marsha and lurker, the two trolls who came posting here months ago…flitting from topic to topic about the HPV vaccine, that they had read on anti-vaccine sites on the internet. (Just as dumb when it comes to immunology, disease process and understanding of pre-licensing and clinical trials of vaccines…as well as the continuous monitoring for safety, for all vaccine).
From that same Gardisal Prescribing Information that you referenced from Merck…here are the reported deaths from the large pre-licensing study for the vaccine:
@ Ron Law:
From that same Gardisal Prescribing Information that you referenced from Merck…here are the reported deaths from the large prelicensing clinical study for the vaccine:
Deaths in the Entire Study Population
Across the clinical studies, 24 deaths were reported in 25,274 (GARDASIL N =13,686; AAHS Control N = 11,004, saline placebo N = 584) subjects (9- through 45-year-old girls and women; and 9- through 15-year-old boys).
The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations. The most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (4 subjects who received GARDASIL and 3 AAHS Control subjects), followed by overdose/suicide (2 subjects who received GARDASIL and 2 subjects who received AAHS Control), and pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis (1 subject who received GARDASIL and 1 AAHS Control subject). In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, 1 case of arrhythmia, 1 case of pulmonary tuberculosis, 1 case of hyperthyroidism, 1 case of post-operative pulmonary embolism and acute renal failure, and 1 case of systemic lupus erythematosus in the group that received GARDASIL; 1 case of asphyxia, and 1 case of acute lymphocytic leukemia in the AAHS Control; and 1 case of medulloblastoma in the saline placebo group.
I
Mr. Law:
I can understand how that can be missed. When my son was thirteen he fell and hurt his arm. We obviously thought the pain in his arm he experienced later was from the fall, but the heart murmur heard at his “well child check up” to get his tetanus booster at age fourteen changed all of that.
But still, the record shows that Jasmine experienced the symptoms of tachycardia prior to her death. I quoted Dr. Shaw earlier:
Actually, they are also symptoms of cardiac issues, but no one followed up on them. I can understand that.
This does not rule out a genetic cardiac issue, and the Renata family still needs to be screened with EKGs and echocardiograms.
@ Chris:
Mrs. Renata, in her own statement to the media said this about her daughter’s ongoing tachycardia…
“But after her first Gardasil dose in September 2008, she developed pains in various parts of her body, suffered a racing heart beat, weak arms, tingling in her hands and legs, and became tired and irritable.”
Yet, Mrs. Renata twice refused to have herself, her husband and her two young surviving sons undergo cardiac testing to rule out (or rule in), the possibility that there are familial cardiac anomalies. Foolish woman.
Chris, for the record, I dislike titles… always have… they belong in a by-gone era IMO… Ron is fine… Are you suggesting that all children should have ecg’s routinely? At what cost? For what benefit? So that we end up with another screening industry that lines the pockets of the medico/pharma industries? Economists have already shown that more doctors at the margins cause more deaths…
Lilady, don’t believe everything you read. In this case the report is factually incorrect… and besides, the genetic tests done on Jasmine were negative. Mrs Renata has not refused genetic testing as reported. That is well documented in evidential records before the court. She is not a foolish woman at all… grieving? Sure… but definitely not foolish. And certainly not uninformed as many commenting on this blog so obviously are.
Across the clinical studies, 39 deaths were reported in 29,323 (GARDASIL® N = 15,706; Placebo N = 13,617) individuals (9- through 45-year-old girls and women, and 9- through 26-year-old boys and men).
http://www.merck.ca/assets/en/pdf/products/GARDASIL-PM_E.pdf
A big problem with this reporting is that there were nowhere near that number of placebo subjects.
And certainly not uninformed as many commenting on this blog so obviously are.
I am here to learn stuff and inform myself. Any links to the records before the court documenting the genetic tests would be appreciated.
RL: Are you suggesting that all children should have ecg’s routinely?
No. What Chris is suggesting is that where a child has symptoms that could indicate a cardiac problem, then an ECG could be a means of confirming that or ruling it out. As Chris pointed out, you can have a negative genetic test but still have the disease confirmed by other means.
where have I said that aluminum is harmful?
Not in so many words, perhaps, but if you don’t think it is, for some reason you’re spending an awful lot of time (& words) trying to give the impression that you do.
herr doktor bimler,
I can post the link to the report Ron referred to later (have to get a very late dinner sorted first), but my recollection is that
it was made in the context of their pushing for their “experts” to do testing and pushing aside testing from other sources.
If you’re inclined to find these yourself, use the google search I mentioned in the comments on my thread, picking out the PDF files; they’re documents hosted on Hilary’s website and include what Ron is referring to.
What is unknown to you isn’t unknown to others. Well that and what Narad said, juggalo fallacy indeed (I think he just coined a new term).
You don’t know? It’s in the ADSTR document and this is quite helpful: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/ Although they don’t tell you how effing magnets work.
Infants do not get 4 mg of aluminium over 3.5 months. There is no indication that the small amount of aluminium in vaccines is unsafe particularly since they have been used for over 60 years.
Here and as Allison said, you’re certainly implying it.
Anyone who pulls the toxin gambit is obviously not in favour of something. I’m not interested in your claims of ignorance or your inflated numbers. I want to know if you think aluminium is a toxin, what led you to believe that.
Nitpicking really, but Al3+ implies a dissolved ionic form, not the form injected in vaccines which is Al(OH)3 or AlPO4, which slowly dissolve in carboxylic acids in interstitial fluid to form Al3+.
@Krebiozen
It’s not really nitpicking because Shaw’s claiming the Al 3+ forms a ligand with the HPV DNA – and the amount of Al 3+ in the interstitial fluid is dwarfed by the amount of Fe 3+ making such an Al-DNA ligand rare.
Mr. Law:
Anyone who has tachycardia like Ms. Renata did should definitely get an ECG. The young woman was showing symptoms, what part of that do you not understand? And I am going to post this link for the third time, I suggest that you actually click on it and read what it says:
http://nickoftimefoundation.org/programs/screenings/
Also for the third or fourth time Mr. Law: not all genetic sequences for heart disorders have been discovered.
When my son was first diagnosed no sequences were known to cause it. Then about five years ago the first HCM sequence was found. The Mayo Clinic brochure said there were fourteen, but my son was tested for eighteen. And a quick look on PubMed shows that there are some other candidates for genetic sequences.
The Renata family may be carriers for another kind, and they do need to have a cardiac screening with ECG and echocardiograms.
Ron,
As others have said, and I’ll repeat: Saying “all the genetic tests given were negative” doesn’t prove that there wasn’t a genetic problem. The reason being that we don’t have tests for all possible genetic problems — in fact, we don’t know what all of those problems are!
Even if we could definitively rule out genetic and/or developmental issues, it still would say nothing about what the actual cause was. The proposition “If not genetics then Gardasil” lacks a lot — starting with a plausible connection between Gardasil and cardiac problems. The connections I’ve heard here sound very much like the “but what if…” games I played with my kids when they were young.
The fact that the young woman’s cardiac issues were loosely correlated in time with her Gardasil injection proves absolutely nothing. I realize that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a very powerful idea, but it’s a blatant logical fallacy.
@ Ron Law you now link us to this study:
http://www.merck.ca/assets/en/pdf/products/GARDASIL-PM_E.pdf
Across the clinical studies, 39 deaths were reported in 29,323 (GARDASIL® N = 15,706; Placebo N = 13,617) individuals (9- through 45-year-old girls and women, and 9- through 26-year-old boys and men).
Ron…you now make this ludicrous statement:
“A big problem with this reporting is that there were nowhere near that number of placebo subjects.”
Are you that dumb that you don’t understand that no matter which arm of the clinical study a subject was in, (Gardasil N=15,706; Placebo N=13,617, “The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations.”
“Deaths in the Entire Study Population
Across the clinical studies, 39 deaths were reported in 29,323 (GARDASIL® N = 15,706; Placebo N = 13,617) individuals (9- through 45-year-old girls and women, and 9- through 26-year-old boys and men). The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations.
The most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (5 individuals who received GARDASIL® and 4 individuals who received placebo), followed by drug overdose/suicide (2 individuals who received GARDASIL® and 6 individuals who received placebo), gun shot wound (1 individual who received GARDASIL® and 3 individuals who received placebo)”
Motor vehicle accident was the reported cause of death for five individuals within the Gardasil group 5/15,706 = 0.0003 and motor vehicle accident was the reported cause of death for four individuals within the Placebo group 4/13,617=0.0003
STATISTICALLY EQUAL
Drug Overdose/suicide was the reported cause of death for two individuals within the Gardasil group 2/15,706=0.0001 and drug overdose/suicide was the reported cause of death for six individuals within the Placebo group 6/13,617=0.0004
THE PLACEBO GROUP HAD FOUR TIMES AS MANY DEATHS FROM DRUG OVERDOSES/SUICIDES AS THE GARDASIL GROUP.
Gun shot wounds was the reported cause of death for one individual within the Gardasil group 1/15,706=0.00006 and guns shot wounds were the reported cause of death for three individuals within the Placebo group 3/13,617=0.00022.
THE PLACEBO GROUP HAD FOUR TIMES AS MANY DEATHS FROM GUN SHOTS WOUNDS AS THE GARDASIL GROUP.
My statistics show that reported deaths from motor vehicle accidents were STATISTICALLY EQUAL in both the Gardasil group and the Placebo group. Deaths from drug overdoses/suicides were reported at FOUR TIMES the rate within the Placebo group versus the Gardasil group. Deaths from gun shot wounds were reported at FOUR TIMES the rate within the Placebo group versus the Gardasil group.
Do check my statistics out for yourself.
@ lilady:
If we weren’t SB we could therefore trot out statistics that show that Gardasil protects people from gun shot wounds, drug overdoses and suicides.
IF…
@ Denice Walter: I was *so tempted* to make that observation 🙂
Several comments before I go back to work:
First, I can only think the Renatas are using the vaccine to protect themselves from the possible knowledge that IF they had had their daughter’s symptoms checked out by a physican, she might still be alive. Personally, as a parent, ANY time my child complains of palpitaions, shortness of breath, anything, she will see a doctor. The fact that Ms Renata got all 3 injections makes me wonder what on earth they said to her physician, that she got the 2nd and 3rd vaccines with no determination of the cause of the symptoms (allergy? cardiac? neurological?)
Second: while AML may be rare, it is NOT unheard of, even in very small children who haven’t gotten the Gardasil vaccine. So there is no real proof there. I tried to find some good statistics, but my Adobe Reader keeps locking up.
Third: @lilady and Denice: Gardisil IS protective. Neither of my children have had gun shot wounds, drug overdoses OR committed suicide. They got all 3 injections…(Gardisil is also protective about MVA deaths: they’ve both been in MVAs but with little or with no injury)
@ MI Dawn:
Here’s are the statistics for the yearly diagnoses of all types of leukemia, including AML, within the adult and childhood populations of New Zealand:
http://www.leukaemia.org.nz/uploads/file/a734abd35d338879bb7c7f39392e74af.pdf
• Each year in New Zealand around 700 adults and 40 children are diagnosed with leukaemia.
• Of these around 150 adults and around 10 children are diagnosed with the type of leukaemia called acute myeloid leukaemia (AML).
• AML is a relatively rare type of cancer but it is the most common type of acute leukaemia diagnosed in New Zealand adults. AML can also affect children but it more commonly occurs in adults.
• Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is more common in children than in adults. Around 35 New Zealand children are diagnosed with ALL each year making it the most common type of cancer in children aged 0 to 14 years.
• Overall, chronic leukaemias are more common in adults than acuteleukaemias. They rarely occur in children. Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is about twice as common as chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML).
The nurse who administered Jasmine’s 3rd Gardasil injection gave evidence at the coroner’s inquest. She said Jasmine did not mention any problems or possible side effects she might have experienced in the period since the initial dose.
(Just a wee bit) O/T…our very own Autismum, is celebrating her one year blogging anniversary. Congratulations are in order for her and her great blog:
http://autismum.com/2012/08/18/one/#comments
“Conclusion: The genetlc test result reveals no currently known pathogenie mutations within the selected genes linked
to Long GT syndrome…”
Repeating the repeated request to RonL to a source for this report.
@lilady: thanks! I had the ACS site open, looking for statisiccs but it kept freezing in Adobe Reader, and I had to get back to work so fighting with it wasn’t an option
@nz sceptic: thank you. Very interesting. If I though my kid was ill in any way, I would have mentioned it, even if at the time I wasn’t playing “blame the vaccine”.
nz sceptic, it would be very interesting in the coroner’s inquest to hear what the doctor who was treating the young lady will have to say. We can assume that her symptoms warranted a visit to the GP.
Regards the source of Ron’s quote – best ask him, you’ll want his source after all and as a pragmatic matter I’m short on time. Some of the documents are scanned images (in PDF format) – no keyword searching available unless OCR is applied and I haven’t time for that or a manual screen.
If you’re googling around, look for long QT syndrome rather than long GT syndrome. (The typos suggest Ron has typed this in rather than cut’n’pasted the quote.)
Tangentially related, this by Hilary Butler (haven’t time to relate a more complete context – bear that in mind): “The family again refused to see Dr Neas [who offered the genetic tests] until the tests had been done in Canada,”
(Source: http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/BlogRetrieve.aspx?PostID=72887)
Mi Dawn & Chris,
The CARM report Rhonda Renata filed (I think I linked to it earlier in this thread) is built around a medical file with the mother inserting her own accounts in between portions of the medical file on her daughter. Check for yourself, but my recollection is that the doctor only notes the daughter’s symptoms once, despite seeing her several times later. You can read that several different ways (i.e. with “fault” on different people) but that it’s only noted once has been bothering me.
I have just read the CARM and the coroner’s report. I am bothered by the interpretations of the mother in the CARM. She noted the depo-provera injections, and I wonder why the daughter’s symptoms were not brought up with those.
What was interesting about the coroner’s report was that the first page says the mother claimed no symptoms, but then later he says she brought up many more.
This is why I am interested in the testimony of the medical care practitioners.
Chris,
One factor is that the D.P. injections may have been done by a nurse, so those visits may not have been doctor’s visits as such.
Lilady said, “Ron…you now make this ludicrous statement:
“A big problem with this reporting is that there were nowhere near that number of placebo subjects.”
Are you that dumb that you don’t understand that no matter which arm of the clinical study a subject was in, (Gardasil N=15,706; Placebo N=13,617, ”
I absolutely understand what the term placebo means… There were no 13,617 in the placebo group… there were two small studies done with a placebo… the others used the AAHS formulation that’s used by Merck in the manufacture of Gardasil.
So, with the greatest of respect, I’m not dumb, and placebos are rarely used in vaccine studies, and mostly were not in studies of Gardasil. If you look at page 7 of the monograph, it says, “GARDASIL® or AAHS control were given to a total of 1133 women (vaccine N = 582, placebo N = 551)”
Notice the sleight of hand… AAHS control becomes the innocuous placebo just like that…
Further down it even refers to mothers who received “AAHS placebo.”
AAHS can never be a placebo.
Further down it says, “In clinical trials, GARDASIL® was generally well tolerated when compared to placebo
(Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS) Adjuvant or saline).
So, if AAHS is reactive and Gardasil which contains AAHS and AAHS are compared and there is no difference, how on earth can one say that Gardasil has been tested against placebo for adverse reactions????????
Table 1 on page 8 also helps explain the sleight of hand…
So, with respect, I’ll let you sort out the rest of your confusion by yourself
R
Grant says I should pop over as you were all missing my contributions… How nice.
herr doktor bimler, source was lab report.
@ Ron Low:
Back at you…You made reference to this study:
“Ron Law
August 20, 4:17 am
Across the clinical studies, 39 deaths were reported in 29,323 (GARDASIL® N = 15,706; Placebo N = 13,617) individuals (9- through 45-year-old girls and women, and 9- through 26-year-old boys and men).
http://www.merck.ca/assets/en/pdf/products/GARDASIL-PM_E.pdf
A big problem with this reporting is that there were nowhere near that number of placebo subjects.”
Do you understand that you have just eliminated one of two popular bêtes noires from competition?
Ron is still going on about teh ebil aluminium? The absolute effects of the antigens in Gardasil were being tested, not the aluminium adjuvant so a placebo prepared with everything but the antigens is a proper placebo. There was also a small saline arm.
Would Ron like to tell us how aluminium causes suicides, automobile accidents, drownings, gunshot wounds, etc.? And how that the Gardasil antigens seems to magnify those causes of death? Or maybe Ron, shit just happens. Ockham’s Razor and all that.
lilady… I know I gave the reference… but that doesn’t mean one accepts everything one reads without critical analysis…
the fact is, the study claims to have used placebo but ready it in detail it soon becomes obvious they didn’t.
What did it thus eliminate?
What a shame… the objective scibloggers closed the discussion on the NZ blog down. I wonder why…
He’s a post I’d like a response from Krebiozen
Krebiozen said, “So if 4 mg of aluminum phosphate is injected only 0.0032644 µg per hour will be absorbed, which works out to less than 0.1 µg per day.”
Let me try and understand the maths.
4,000 ug is injected (and keep in mind it is a mix of phosphate and hydroxide… mostly hydroxide) and has an absorption of “only 0.0032644 µg [ie 3.2 picograms] per hour” that equates to an absorption of 0.0783456ug per 24 hours. at that rate it would take 51,055.83466 days to clear… that’s 139.8789991 years (give or take a little bit for leap years.)
That’s interesting, because our medicines regulator just told the Coroner at Jasmine Renata’s inquest that the vaccine is bound to aluminium and the reason that the aluminium is there is so that the vaccine is – the injection goes into the muscle and it can gradually be exposed to the bloodstream. But the aluminium and the vaccine, if you were to put a vaccine in without the aluminium it would all be destroyed within a few days of its initial injection. So the idea of putting it in the aluminium is it forces it to hand about, as it were, around the vaccination site for a period of time so that all the aluminium is not absorbed at once. It’s actually absorbed over a period of time, up to several weeks, in fact, so it’s not that you get a sudden big burst of high levels of aluminium in your blood. You get a gradual increase over several weeks and then a gradual decline again back down to your normal background level…
In response to a specific question from the Coroner relating to the fact that Jasmine died 6 months after her last Gardasil vaccine dose, the medicines regulator said that the amount of aluminium that would have been present in the injection, at the injection site, would have been, I would expect to be almost non-existent.
So who is correct? Are you saying that the New Zealand Medicines Regulator in Chief has provided the Coroner with false and misleading information???
@ Ron Law: You don’t get to define what a placebo is in a vaccine study.
“What a shame… the objective scibloggers closed the discussion on the NZ blog down. I wonder why…”
Why don’t you tell us why the scibloggers closed down the discussion Ron?
Are you saying that the New Zealand Medicines Regulator in Chief has provided the Coroner with false and misleading information???
Without a source for the claims you keep making about the inquest, you are asking people to disagree with hearsay.
the objective scibloggers closed the discussion on the NZ blog down. I wonder why…
Perhaps it had become repetitious, with one of the participants treating the thread like a form of simultaneous chess. Displaying one’s ability to repeat the same insults, deflect questions and ignore evidence from multiple foes at once must be great for the self-esteem, but it kind of misses the central point of a comment thread — i.e. the opportunity to marshal one’s evidence, make a case, and convince people.
i asked admin to close it down because, frankly, the ‘discussion’ was going nowhere. As Ron is aware, I had also made my expectations around common courtesy quite clear. He is also quite free to setup his own blog to share his point of view; there is no obligation on me, as the host, to provide an endlessly available soapbox.
Ron,
First, “placebo” doesn’t mean what you think it means. If you are testing a new antigen, you don’t usually compare it against water (although you can); you usually compare it against a null vaccine; all the same ingredients as the real vaccine, but without the antigen. It cannot produce immunity. If there is a synergistic effect between the antigen and the adjuvants (which is, I presume, what you mean by “vaccine is bound to aluminum”, since that phrase is fairly nonsensical from a chemistry standpoint), then you will be able to tell from this sort of a placebo; if there is such a relationship, the effects will only be apparent in the study group, not the control group.
Secondly, if there are side effects due to adjuvants alone, they should show up equally in both groups. This is how the placebo used in this case is helpful; it makes it possible to tell not only that there is a problem, but also gives a good idea of where to look to find the culprit. In science, it is always a good idea to try to reduce the possibilities when you’re running an experiment, so you have some way of discerning what’s going on and don’t bury yourself in confounding variables.
BTW, I am skeptical that the coroner was actually told such a thing, because that sounds absolutely absurd. Not just the nonsensical “vaccine bound to aluminum” (vaccine is a concoction of many ingredients, including aluminum; you’d think they’d be a teensy bit more accurate when speaking to professionals and say what they think is bound to the aluminum) but also the idea that including aluminum stops it breaking down too fast or creates a controlled-release formulation of some kind. I’m not a medical scientist, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works at all.
Look what I found about Ron Law (he also has his own page at whale.to)
http://immunoblogging.blogspot.com/2005/12/ron-law-at-his-anti-vaccination.html
And…Ron Law at rense.com
http://rense.com/general34/law.htm
O Lordy, a science blogger could make a career of posts about Ron.
Ron,
Regards the source of your quote, you haven’t added any more information given your quote itself already gives (“The lab report dated”).
Clearly herr doktor bimler (and I, for that matter) are asking for more than that or we wouldn’t have bothered to ask in the first place.
I think it’s clear what herr doktor bimler and I mean by sources* are URLs so we can view the full source ourselves, access to the original being the whole point of it and all.
—–
* Plural, there are several statements you’ve have made regards testimonies or content of the inquest that you seem to be avoiding substantiating.
lilady – if you’re looking to be entertained, one more:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/sci.med.immunology/HwDbXZsc15U%5B1-25%5D
Thanks Grant…He really is a crank anti-vaccinationist, isn’t he?
He also obviously knew nothing about the meningococcal disease prevalence amongst Pacific Islanders and the Maori populations in New Zealand, which I studied intently circa early 1990s.
What about his “credentials”, heh, heh? And, how about the old dog still pulling his same old tricks of stalking bloggers on the internet?
Send more our way, so we can all enjoy the spectacle. 🙂
Wait, is the BZP part real?
herr doktor bimler 12:27 am
“[RL]Are you saying that the New Zealand Medicines Regulator in Chief has provided the Coroner with false and misleading information???
[hdb] Without a source for the claims you keep making about the inquest, you are asking people to disagree with hearsay.
OK… let’s assume my source is impeccable (which, trust me it is..) so IF I’m correct, Are you saying that the New Zealand Medicines Regulator in Chief has provided the Coroner with false and misleading information???
RL: OK… let’s assume my source is impeccable (which, trust me it is..)
Now, why on earth would we do that? Grant & hdb have both repeatedly asked you for your actual evidence in support of what you’re saying here. Why won’t you simply provide it, if it’s so ‘impeccable’?
Actually, I have no page anywhere that I’m aware of… if others set up pages that’s for them… I’ve never had any communication with whale.to or rense as far as I know…
Maybe this link on New Zealand’s Ministry of Health website will also suggest I’m a woo-ist…
Toward Clinical Excellence: learning from experience
http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/clinicalexcellence-workingpartyreport.pdf
Yep, I’m obviously a woo-ist!!!
So why not focus on the science????
Holy cats, it’s real>/a>. There’s a level of hypocrisy one doesn’t see every day.
^ Eh, sorry. Link still works.
Grant pleads, “I think it’s clear what herr doktor bimler and I mean by sources* are URLs so we can view the full source ourselves, access to the original being the whole point of it and all.
—–
* Plural, there are several statements you’ve have made regards testimonies or content of the inquest that you seem to be avoiding substantiating.”
Grant, it is clear you do not have access to information I have access to, and yet you are more than willing to shadow box beyond your weight.
Trust me, what I’ve stated is factual… and since when did evidence have to be available via a URL…
You clearly are out of the loop… so you should wait until you are able to discuss matters from an informed source.
As you should know with the MeNZB scandal, Sumner and I had access to information, statistics, opinion from even MOH and Ak University researchers that most people don’t have access to…
One day all will be revealed… meantime, you are shadow boxing beyond your weight… enjoy!
Narad, if you had studied the risks associated with over 30 million doses of BZP use in New Zealand then you would be able to make an informed comment, rather than a simple snide remark based on anecdotal comment.
Your comments don’t bother me, although I’m sure they’ll increase the salivation of members of the so-called objective sci-blog community.
I have done a lot of work for a lot of clients with only ever advertising once (a $300 add that got me $300 worth of work… essentially a pro-bono job.) I have never taken a job with a pre-determined outcome, and have regularly turned down good paying work when asked to…
Don’t focus on the packaging… look for the chocolates.
Yes Narad the “party pill” is real…it’s similar to methamphetamine.
Odd eh, how the cranks call us *Big Pharma* shills. I think Ron is shilling for *Big Pharty Phills”
Is this how Ron harasses science bloggers?
http://immunoblogging.blogspot.com/2006/01/email-from-ron-law.html
Why should we believe anything this crank posts?
Norad, for the record, I prepared a code of practice for the social tonic industry in NZ… it included manufacture of pills under GMP conditions, upper levels per dose, restrictions on pack size etc… I worked with the legal industry and we got about 90 percent of the product complying with the code… a few idiots supersized doses and even sold the white powder in sachets… which I always argued should be illegal. The Ministry of Health and Food Safety NZ threatened manufacturers that they would lose their licenses if they manufactured these legal substance… and so the industry went and manufactured anywhere with few controls… even though their products were explicitly legal under New Zealand drug law.
Government funded research was being undertaken which was canned by the researchers when they realised that the BZP was improving driving… go figure…
Anything can be taken out of context… and twisted…
Alison, you’ll just have to live with it until all is revealed…
“Narad, if you had studied the risks associated with over 30 million doses of BZP use in New Zealand then you would be able to make an informed comment, rather than a simple snide remark based on anecdotal comment.”
Here’s the research folks…enjoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzylpiperazine
Have all the countries which have banned BZP, including New Zealand, now unbanned it?
Calli Arcale, 12:34 am
“BTW, I am skeptical that the coroner was actually told such a thing, because that sounds absolutely absurd.”
All will be revealed in time… it is a fact… but the media didn’t report the absurdity… only what suited.
Lilady, the wikipedia article is not bad but is incomplete and includes outdated data…
I agree fully with this… “Adverse effects have been reported following its use including acute psychosis, renal toxicity, and seizures.[2] No deaths have been reported following a sole ingestion of BZP, although there have been at least two deaths from the combination of BZP and MDMA.”
The report noted the tens of millions of doses consumed in NZ, so it is not surprising that there are some reported adverse effects…
Can I suggest you step back and think about this… 30,000 people given gardasil or control substance and 30 or so die and that’s to be expected…
30,000,000 doses of BZP are consumed with a few reports of adverse reactions and two deaths which were attributed to other drugs and all hell breaks loose as to how evil and dangerous this substance is.
Can I suggest you step back and reflect on this.
R
Ron,
“OK… let’s assume my source is impeccable”
I wrote: “so we can view the full source ourselves, access to the original being the whole point of it ”
There was no questioning of the nature of the source, but wanting to see the full source. You’re evading giving the source, as you have with every remark you made directly about the inquiry itself to date.
For example, earlier you made some remarks about the Renatas asking for other tests, but left out the full context. It’s not that the source is good or not, but if your representation of what was said is fair and accurate. We should be able to judge that for ourselves. To do that we need the full context, just like your remarks about the medicines regulator at Alison’s bog. (I haven’t found time to catch up with comments there yet to see what was written since I last wrote there.)
Another possibility, one that herr doktor bimler touched on, is that you don’t have a independent source, that’s it’s just your recollection, in which case it’s hearsay.
That sounds eerily familiar to what most cranks say. Ron, would you care to put a date on *when* your truth™ will be revealed?
And will it include a link to any evidence other people can read, or will it just be provided by your assertion?
“Can I suggest you step back and think about this… 30,000 people given gardasil or control substance and 30 or so die and that’s to be expected…”
How many individual doses of Gardisal have been administered and how many people have died?
(Citations desperately needed)
We are all waiting for “all to be revealed”>
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html
let’s assume my source is impeccable (which, trust me it is..) so IF I’m correct
No, I will not assume that. Rather than criticise a third party based on your hypothetical stipulations, I prefer to work within this reality. You have given me no reason to trust you or the insider knowledge to which you claim access. You may or may not be quoting documents accurately, with the proper context — we do not know.
If this knowledge is not publicly available, then it serves no purpose in the discussion — other than to shut down arguments in lieu of winning them — and as far as I am concerned it doesn’t exist. You might as well cite the messages you receive from the leprechauns in your trousers. If the full facts will vindicate you at some point in the future, feel free to wait until then. Gloating in expectation of that future vindication is all very well but it doesn’t convince anyone.
To clarify an earlier comment…
one’s ability to repeat the same insults
I am not complaining about insults per se, and indeed am in no position to complain. But they should be varied. When it is the same sneer each time, the entertainment value soon wears off.
“Alison, you’ll just have to live with it until all is revealed…”
So you are saying you are offering unsubstantiated material out of the full context needed to determine their accuracy about an inquiry whose report has yet to be released?
Shows you’re two-faced, presenting potentially misleading material ahead of the coroner’s report. I’ve already seen you offer one such item well out of context. Others might choose to infer from that example that any other remarks from you are equally out of context.
“Alison’s bog”
Erp. Sorry Alison 🙂 That should be Alison’s blog.
RL “Can I suggest you step back and think about this… 30,000 people given gardasil or control substance and 30 or so die and that’s to be expected…”
O-kay, so someone receives the vaccine & some months later is killed in a car crash. How, exactly, does this demonstrate the causal relationship that you are attempting to demonstrate?
The complete details (from the monograph linked to by lilady):
The most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (5 individuals who received GARDASIL® and 4 individuals who received placebo), followed by drug overdose/suicide (2 individuals who received GARDASIL ® and 6 individuals who received placebo), gun shot wound (1 individual who received GARDASIL® and 3 individuals who
received placebo), and pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis (1 individual who received GARDASIL® and 1 individual who received placebo). In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, 1 case of arrhythmia, 1 case of pulmonary tuberculosis, 1 case of
hyperthyroidism, 1 case of post-operative pulmonary embolism and acute renal failure, 1 case of traumatic brain injury/cardiac arrest, 1 case of systemic lupus erythematosus, 1 case of
cerebrovascular accident, 1 case of breast cancer, and 1 case of nasopharyngeal cancer in the group that received GARDASIL®; and 1 case of asphyxia, 1 case of acute lymphocytic leukemia, 1 case of chemical poisoning, and 1 case of myocardial ischaemia in the placebo group.
So, which of these deaths should have caused alarm about the vaccine, & why?
Alison, that the data in the medicines datasheet… what it doesn’t say is some of those deaths occured more than a year after the last dose. I have never said that those deaths were caused by the vaccine, have I? Where have I said that?
What I object to is double standards on the one hand, and sleight of hand on the other.
For example, IF (and I simply say IF) aluminium adjuvant is a problem as suggested by some rightly or wrongly, using it as a so-called ‘placebo control’ does not enable claims of safety for Gardasil, does it? Especially when 1:750 of the subjects died during the study period (however long that is.)
On the other hand, when none of 200,000 plus users of BZP die (2 if you include the two who had consumed illicit drugs) then it is demonised by some and banned.
I might add that the experts who looked at BZP said it wasn’t dangerous enough to prohibit… it was demonised and prohibited for political reasons only.
herr doktor bimler, Alison, Grant, if you know someone who can meet me in west auckland I’m happy to show you my primary source documents…
Grant & Alison have my email so feel free to nominate anyone… perhaps we could meet at Westgate McCafe for a coffee… my shout…
How many Gardisal vaccines have been administered?
How many deaths have been caused by the vaccine?
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html
The study’s main findings include the following:
More than 23 million doses were administered nationally since the HPV vaccine was licensed in June 2006. There were a total of 12,424 reports to VAERS of adverse events following HPV vaccination through December 2008.
Since the HPV vaccine was approved, the vast majority (94%) of adverse events reported to VAERS after receiving this vaccine have not been serious. An adverse event is considered serious if it is life threatening, or results in death, permanent disability, abnormal conditions at birth, hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization.
The most common events reported were:
Syncope (or fainting)–common after need injections, especially in pre-teens and teens
Local reactions at the site of immunization (pain and redness)
Dizziness
Nausea
Headache
Of the 12,424 reports of adverse events, 772 (6% of all reports) described serious adverse events, including 32 reports of deaths.
The 32 death reports were reviewed and there was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where there was an autopsy, death certificate, or medical records, the cause of death could be explained by factors other than the vaccine. Some causes of death determined to date include diabetes, viral illness, illicit drug use, and heart failure.
There were two reports of unusual neurological illness (per autopsy, probable variants of Amytrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) often referred to as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”) that resulted in the death of two young females. There is no current evidence suggesting that the HPV vaccine caused these illnesses, but researchers from several highly regarded academic centers are studying the cases.
There was increased reporting of syncope and pulmonary emboli (blood clots of the lungs) compared with what has been found for other vaccines given to females of the same age. Of the people who had blood clots 90% had a known risk factor for blood clots, such as taking oral contraceptives (birth control pills). VAERS reports cannot prove the vaccine caused the adverse event in women with these risk factors. However, this finding needs further investigation.
Time to shut this anti-vaccine citationless troll down now.
I’m happy to show you my primary source documents
The offer is kind. Does it include making a copy of the documents, to read at leisure? I am a fast reader, but you do not state how many pages there are. And I have a reasonably good memory, but it is far from eidetic.
I have been careful through this thread to use words like “access” or “available” in connection with RonL’s sources of inside information. To my mind, “being shown” does not fit with either of these words.
A brief examination of the appropriate threads at Alison’s and Grant’s blogs reveal any number of times when RonL has mercilessly mocked the insufficient skepticism of Science bloggers, who simply take the innocuous nature of aluminium on faith, trusting what they hear from Authorities, rather than carefully scrutinising every detail of the source documents. I imagine he will be gratified that in this case I do not take things on faith or trust what I am told.
Alison,
I was more worried that some people might read it in the sense of Kiwi slang, y’know that place you relieve yourself… (“at Alison’s bog”)
Ron:
Email a scanned copy to us care of the SMC, their details are on their website.
“For example, IF (and I simply say IF) aluminium adjuvant is a problem as suggested by some rightly or wrongly, using it as a so-called ‘placebo control’ does not enable claims of safety for Gardasil, does it?”
You’re travelling a circle – you’ve raised this before and it was pointed out to you that it was done that way to test the antigens, etc. etc.
And, no, you have not “simply said” you are examining if the aluminium adjuvant might be a problem – you have been persisting in trying to wave away what doesn’t appeal to you.
A problem you have is that you start with what you would like to be true, then try alter or fit things to it.
“So why not focus on the science????”
Pretty rich coming from you, given I tried over days to get you to do that and instead you persisted in mud slinging, etc., at me.
“Alison, that the data in the medicines datasheet… what it doesn’t say is some of those deaths occured more than a year after the last dose. I have never said that those deaths were caused by the vaccine, have I? Where have I said that?
Here, Ron…
“Can I suggest you step back and think about this… 30,000 people given gardasil or control substance and 30 or so die and that’s to be expected…”
I suggest that you think about your anti-vaccine activities. Don’t you think you’ve done enough harm with your “preaching” to credulous parents about the *dangers* of the meningococcal vaccine, while lying about the approval process and lying about the epidemic of invasive meningococcal Type B disease among Pacific Islanders and Maori populations?
Grant says, “Ron:
Email a scanned copy to us care of the SMC, their details are on their website.”
RALFL… Grant you simply don’t understand NZ’s legal system, do you… It’s simple… if you know someone in Ak who can meet me for a cuppa coffee I’m only too happy to SHOW them… obviously you objective-minded sci-bloggers are arguing your case blind…
Ron
herr doktor bimler, if I was allowed to give you copies, I would… do you know anyone prepared to meet for a coffee? Or hot choc, if they aren’t into drugs.
Lilady, for the record, I have never told anyone they should not vaccinate. The MeNZB issue was a specific issue, and all of what Sumner Burstyn & I wrote was sourced from official documents, company documents, documents obtained via official information requests, or documents that simply arrived unsolicited.
@ Grant:
Ron Law has no credibility here…or within the science community. What he does not realize is that his conduct here, his faulty reasoning, his juvenile refusal to answer questions, his lies and his inane rants will be all over the internet within a few days.
We gave him enough rope to hang himself and he has done just that.
You’re busted Ron.
@Ron Law:
How about at comment 294, where you said:
Yes they are, actually.
You are using the old tactic of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), you claim that you have impeccable data but refuse to show it, you cite reports out of context and you (mis)use VAERS in a dishonest attempt to make Gardasil look dangerous.
Lilady, I’m not busted… I work independently and anything said on sites like this have zero impact on me… hence I do not hide behind pseudonyms like many on here…
I don’t advertise my services. I simply help people with no preconditions.
@Ron Law:
Yes, you most definitely are.
Julian Frost, as you’ve noted, I never said the vaccine caused the death… if you had any understanding of pharmacovigilance you would know that causality can’t be determined on a whim…
What intrigues me is how Jasmine is claimed by some to have most likely died of a genetic defect, when there is no evidence to suggest she did. There is some evidence to say she didn’t…
When Jasmine’s mum says her daughter suffered this or that it is hearsay. When the autopsy report mention symptoms (presumably info obtained from the mother) it is science… I’m afraid that how the system works…
Don’t even bother to explain any of your actions Ron…or that of your partner Sumner Burstyn.
You’ve been busted.
@ Julian Frost: Wait until the other science blogs pick up on this thread. Poor Ron’s been busted.
@Ron Law:
You insinuated it. Like I said: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
You cited VAERS reports of deaths and mentioned a story where a child developed cancer literally years after getting a Gardasil jab. You owe me a new Hypocrisy Meter.
@lilady: that should be fun. I wonder if Abbie of ERV will have anything to say.
If I’m going to be “BUSTED” I may as well post some links to some resent work I’ve done. As a person who is fully vaccinated, whose children are fully vaccinated, whose grandchildren are fully vaccinated, I guess by your definition that does make me anti-vaccine…
Anyway, this will obviously be damning….
http://www.nyrnaturalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/UK_Bubbles_Graph_2012_9_July_Final.jpg
http://www.nyrnaturalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/EU27-Relative-Risks-Society-vs-Individual-August-2012.pdf
Slightly older
http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/ronlaw/relative_risk_boeing72.pdf
These are all sites that have put my work on their websites… they are not my websites… and they did not ask..
Thanks
“and mentioned a story where a child developed cancer literally years after getting a Gardasil jab. You owe me a new Hypocrisy Meter.”
It was two years after… hardly years in the context of cancer development…
“Email a scanned copy to us care of the SMC, their details are on their website.”
Grant you simply don’t understand NZ’s legal system, do you
RonL, you are in effect telling us that e-mailing a scanned copy is illegal under NZ law. Truly your knowledge of the legal code runs deeper than mine. Now I live in fear of the knock at the door for all the times I have violated this statute.
Perhaps you mean that the documents are *confidential* — but that cannot be, for you are willing to break their confidentiality by allowing someone to read them (you *are* offering a reading, aren’t you?)
Do you mean that someone asserts copyright over them? Let us know who, and under what clause of the copyright law, and perhaps we can find an exemption.
Is it a case of official secrecy? Rest assured that as a legacy of my previous employment, I retain a high-level security clearance (Alison can vouch for this claim).
herr doktor bimler, if I was allowed to give you copies, I would… do you know anyone prepared to meet for a coffee? Or hot choc, if they aren’t into drugs.
Ah. You are suggesting that if some acquaintance of mine were to see the documents on which you base your statements (about genetic testing, and the incompetence of NZ’s health officialdom in the course of an inquest) — no talk of actually *examining* them — this would somehow allay my concerns that you have misunderstood them or made some error in your summaries, or that you have omitted some crucial context in the details you have represented here, or that those details are representative of the documents.
Does this *really* strike you as a reasonable proposition?
So you now admit that you were insinuating the jab caused the cancer?
Keep the comments coming Ron. I’m enjoying the target practise.
herr doktor bimler, it’s your call… if you want confirmation of what I’ve said I’m offering it to you… if you don’t that’s your call…
It doesn’t bother me… I know what I’ve said is correct… the offer stands.
Why does Ron remind of another Australian poster that graced our presence a couple of months ago? “Keeper of the Secret Knowledge” and all that….perhaps Ron has been visiting the guru in his Lean-To in the Australian Rain Forest?
I love it, when in response to massive amounts of evidence that contradicts their position, the crank will respond with “Trust me, I have a source” but reveal nothing…..evidence people, it does not mean what Ron thinks it means…..
You are not offering confirmation. You are offering the opportunity for someone else to be shown a pile of papers.
Elsewhere, you complain that science bloggers are too willing to believe Authorities’ assurances about the innocuous nature of aluminium, blissfully trusting what they are told when they should personally scrutinise every detail of the source documents.
hdb: you *are* offering a reading, aren’t you?
As in the sense of, a chance for a quiet sit-down to go through the documents in detail? Somehow, the suggestion that they be ‘shown’ to you or your proxy makes me doubt it…
Firstly, Ron, how do we know that you haven’t taken the data out of context and aren’t showing incomplete data?
Secondly, and forgive my suspicious nature, how do we know that if we take up your offer you won’t suddenly turn around and say that there’s a problem and you can’t show us the evidence after all.
In short, proof or GTFO.
As in the sense of, a chance for a quiet sit-down to go through the documents in detail?
With coffee! Or hot chocolate!
As in the sense of, a chance for a quiet sit-down to go through the documents in detail.
With coffee! Or hot chocolate!
You asked for verification… I’m offering it…
Julian Frost… 6:00 am
“Firstly, Ron, how do we know that you haven’t taken the data out of context and aren’t showing incomplete data?”
If I have whoever sees them will be able to report back that you’ve all been duped… it’s my credibility at stake here.
“Secondly, and forgive my suspicious nature, how do we know that if we take up your offer you won’t suddenly turn around and say that there’s a problem and you can’t show us the evidence after all.”
Why would I embarrass myself by doing that????
You asked for verification… I’m offering it…
In which case, how about a bit of clarity as to what is actually being offered? As herr doktor has said, he’s a fast reader but not that fast. Would he or his proxy have the opportunity to read carefully through the totality of those documents on offer, or is this more along the lines of ‘look, here they are, see!’. I ask because there is a world of difference between showing someone something, & allowing them to examine it thoroughly for themselves. Herr doktor has pointed out that you complain that science bloggers are too willing to believe Authorities’ assurances about the innocuous nature of aluminium, blissfully trusting what they are told when they should personally scrutinise every detail of the source documents.
So you can hardly be surprised when we try to nail down exactly what it is that’s being offered.
Lawrence I don’t want to sound pedantic but much as it pains me to say this, Ron is a New Zealander, not an Australian, although if they would like him……….
nz sceptic,
“not an Australian, although if they would like him……….”
After all, he’s already rubbed shoulders with Viera Scheibner in the on-line comments section at BMJ 😉
This is just precious. “Medically-qualified” because you did rote monkey work in a lab? And you get dose makes the poison? And then there is this gem:
Gee Ron Risk Analysis Advisor, do you think there might be a difference in the reporting schemata for those enrolled in a controlled clinical trial as opposed for those taking recreational drugs?
lilady, too much I could suggest but you could google: “ron law” BMJ
Ron,
You meant nanograms not picograms as you mentioned on Alison’s blog. I did give you the reference for those dissolution figures: Priest (PMID: 15152306), and he quotes dissolution of aluminum phosphate as 8.1 x 10-4 mg h -1 g -1 and of hydroxide as 2.7x 10-4 mg h -1 g -1. Priest gives his reference for this as Hem who used Flarend’s figures. If you think they or I have made an error, do please point it out. I used the more soluble phosphate to be charitable, but if you prefer we could figure it out for
hydroxide. 2.7 x 10-4 mg is 0.27 µg so 0.27 µg of every gram of aluminum hydroxide injected dissolves every hour, 4 mg is 0.004 grams and 0.27 x 0.004 makes 0.00108 µg per hour, multiplied by 24 makes 0.02592 µg per day, if you’ll forgive the ludicrous number of decimal places. I don’t think I have made an error in my math, but do feel free to correct me if I have.
I’m interested in ball park figures within an order of magnitude or two, and as I’m thoroughly weary of repeating, and whatever way I look at it the amount of aluminum even a premature baby with renal impairment can excrete is many times greater than the amount absorbed from vaccines. If you have any substantial evidence that refutes that, or some reason to refute the evidence I have presented that doesn’t involved nitpicking irrelevant details, please share it, otherwise I’m becoming extremely bored by this discussion.
There is a difference between being exposed to the bloodstream and the various components of the immune system it contains, and dissolving in the bloodstream. It sounds as if your medicines regulator is trying to put this in terms a layperson can understand. As I understand it the antigen is adsorbed onto aluminum phosphate or hydroxide, rather than being chemically bound to it. Anyway, several studies have found aluminum remaining at the injection site even years later, which is the reason for the known local irritation problem aluminum adjuvants cause, so that figure isn’t so unlikely when you consider that the rate of dissolution slows as the amount remaining falls, which is of course how half lives work. In theory the aluminum will never clear entirely, just as Xeno’s arrow will never hit its target.
@ Grant: Thanks for the reference to the BMJ Quick Response site.
Not only has our *expert* risk analysis commenter rubbed shoulders with Vera Scheibner…he’s in *good* company with John D. Stone and Clifford Miller. Is he that clueless that he doesn’t know the many etiologies of NPAFP?
He’s NOT ANTI-VACCINE….so how many other vaccines has he commented on and lied about? So far I count Gardisal, Meningococcal and Polio.
What vaccines does the Ron Risk Analyst think, in his *professional opinion* are safe? Do any of them have aluminum adjuvants?
Grant, you and Alison were more that patient with this creep. Trust me “all is now revealed” about Ron Law…he’s busted.
I also wanted to respond to one other thing Ron wrote on Alison’s blog. I wrote, “Do you not agree there is a difference between experiments which result in blood aluminum concentrations of 150 µg/L and vaccines which result in blood aluminum concentrations of less than 6 µg/L?” Ron responded:
How is this in any way conflicting experimental evidence? I suppose it does conflict with your prejudices about aluminum. There is no conflict at all if you simply accept that aluminum is not neurotoxic except when absorbed by the body in quantities that cannot be readily excreted, leading to grossly elevated blood concentrations. You seem to believe that aluminum can be transported from muscle to brain in excessive quantities without traveling through the bloodstream on its journey. I assume that’s why Prof. Romain Gherardi has come up with the idea that macrophages can somehow transport aluminum to the brain without being detected. If all the aluminum rushes straight to the brain via macrophages after injection, I have to wonder at the excessive levels of aluminum found at the injection site (11,000 mg/kg in the case of aluminum hydroxide) six months later in monkeys (PMID:15661384). What a hoot indeed.
Oh, I knew the substance was real. I mean the shilling for it part. The idea that someone could, with a straight face, complain that Gardasil studies aren’t up to his standards while at the same time going on about the safe-as-milk nature of a barely studied neurotransmitter knob-twiddling white powder (which barely studying nonetheless turned up two cases of status epilepticus, for crying out loud, in 80 adverse events in the course of six months in Christchurch alone) is truly impressive. The man is a living monument to intellectual dishonesty.
@ Narad: Even more hilarious (?), is how Ron Risk Analyst defended his shilling for the “party pill”, right here, when you busted him.
And now we have this from Medscape.com… do we accept it uncritically? Critically examine it then decide? or do we reject it uncriyically?
Doctor Sentenced to Death for Ordering Unnecessary Scan
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/769111
Andrew J. Vickers, PhD, DPhil
Posted: 08/16/2012
Dr. Philip Bird, a family practitioner in Oxford, Mississippi, has been sentenced to death by lethal injection for ordering an MRI on a patient with uncomplicated low back pain. Bird’s sentence is believed to be the first under the state’s new “get tough” 3-strikes law. The presiding judge, the Honorable Marsha Williams, told the court that although she sympathized with the defendant, the law left her no discretion. Bird twice previously had been found guilty of ordering unnecessary scans: a CT for a woman reporting pregnancy-related tension headache and a bone scan for a patient with localized prostate cancer.
Prosecuting attorney Luke O’Neill said that justice had been served. “It gives me no pleasure to send a man to death row,” said O’Neill, “but Dr. Bird had a choice and knew the consequences of that choice.” State senator Grant Douglas, Jr., a former hospital administrator who introduced the “3 strikes” law, said that he hoped the case would “serve as warning to the medical community. We’ve tried everything to bring down the rate of unnecessary scans. We’ve done studies, presented evidence, written guidelines — hell, I’ve even gone down on my hands and knees and begged — but nothing doing. Scratch your ear in front of a doctor and next thing you know you’ll be shoved into a CT machine. Really, they left us no choice but to threaten them with death.”
Dr. Josephine Watkins, a medical economist, said that she doubted the ruling would affect medical practice. “The economic and malpractice incentives to scan are so extreme that even the possibility of years in a windowless cell followed by a botched execution is unlikely to be a deterrent.” Bird himself was unrepentant. In a statement released by his attorney, he said that Douglas “needed his head examined” and that either CT or functional MRI should be considered.
If you accept “(which barely studying nonetheless turned up two cases of status epilepticus, for crying out loud, in 80 adverse events in the course of six months in Christchurch alone)” uncritically then you accept all of the adverse reactions and Sudden Unexplained Deaths following Gardasil… I don’t think you have connected the dots yet. What are the background levels of illness?
More deflection Ron? It seems to me you have made a number of statements that have elicited queries. Perhaps stay focused (like I tell my six year-old) on the task at hand and stop with the inane attempts at distraction.
@Ron – are you reading the Onion now?
Krebiozen said, “As I understand it the antigen is adsorbed onto aluminum phosphate or hydroxide, rather than being chemically bound to it.”
That’s been the understanding… an understanding that Dr Lee has challenged in his evidence… time will tell weather he’s correct or not.
Dr Lee has said that if the relationship was a simple one of adsorption, then they would separate at a high pH, which he claims didn’t occur… he said the plausible explanation was that they had become chemically bound, which makes it a new/novel compound that hadn’t been studied.
So Dr Lee’s results challenge your understanding… that’s one of the key points of his evidence… the other relates to finding fragments of DNA in Gardasil that regulators had, until now, said were not present in the vaccine. Whether/how significant that is is yet to be determined. The regulators have accepted the fact and said it’s normal and to be expected… they just have denied it in the past.
Alison, it’s simple… I made some statements, denialists have said I made it up and want verification, I’m offering a means to verify what I said.
It doesn’t bother me if denialists disagree/or name call/ or whatever… that’s what denialists do…
I made a couple of statements… how long does it take to verify a couple of statements?
I think “we” note that it is styled as “From Medscape Humor” and then laugh at you instead.
Lawrence, it’s enough to make ones eyes water… alas, it is an article on Medscape.com… They acknowledge it comes from onion, though, whatever that is.
@Ron – you’ve either been hiding under a rock or have been using too much of your own product if you don’t get the “part of the Medscape Humor Series” clearly labeled in the article.
@lilady – glad to be back. Been slumming in the comments section on USToday.com – omg, I thought the trolls here were bad…..
@ Lawrence: Welcome back; we missed you. Ron Risk Analysts doesn’t realize that it was a humorous article placed on Medscape.
BTW, Ron Risk Analyst…have you ever seen someone in status epilepticus? It is a major medical emergency.
Still trying to deflect the well-deserved criticism you received for your street drug party pill shilling, eh? You’re still busted, Ron.
@ Lawrence…I posted directly online at Christine on that “other blog”…or yes I did…about the lack of enforcement of their comment policy. Care to join me?
As a matter of interest, in light of snide comments above about how Gardasil protects people from MVAs etc.
A government funded study was canned under the pretense of serious adverse effects when in fact the alleged effects were not serious at all… the study revealed that taking BZP improved driving ability…
The Ministry of Transport got the ESR to test hundreds of MVA cadavers for recreational and pharma drugs… not a single one contained BZP which was not what they were expecting given that 10-20 percent of the populace were using it.
BZP is not the same as amphetamine… early studies showed it had about 1/10th the psychoactive effects, but it was not addictive and no one was ever arrested in NZ for adverse behaviour due to BZP use… Alcohol is by far… by a country mile, far more problematic than BZP ever was…
From my extensive reading of the literature, and seeing research undertaken at Auckland University (but not allowed to be published) BZP (100mg) has a similar effect as 2-3 espressos.
…*or yes did*…= *oh yes I did (brain fog)
Actually, Lilady, I was fully aware it was humour… hence my comment about “do we accept it uncritically? Critically examine it then decide? or do we reject it uncri[t]ically?”
One thing I learnt many moons ago, Critically examine it then decide… especially medical science.
I wrote a totally factual comment on the BMJ about AFP/Polio and it gets tagged with woooooooo by association…
If I was concerned about “being busted” [by the way, to whom, and who cares anyway???] then why would I be one of the few on here to not hide behind a pseudonym???
“From my extensive reading of the literature, and seeing research undertaken at Auckland University (but not allowed to be published) BZP (100mg) has a similar effect as 2-3 espressos.”
More super secret suppressed studies, busted one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzylpiperazine
I must, however, thank Ron Law for having caused me to pick up another papillomavirus tidbit: the jackalope is real.
“BTW, Ron Risk Analyst…have you ever seen someone in status epilepticus? It is a major medical emergency.”
I used to work with someone who had regular seizures… we would simply make sure his immediate environment was safe, and he soon came too and got on with life… he’d fit once a week or so, despite the best of medication…
200,000 users… two admissions to ED with SE… coincidence? or causal? What’s the background rate?
Who cares whether or not you hide behind a ‘nym Ron?
Truth be told, we all have our reasons. A number of science bloggers have been contacted relentlessly through their email accounts…just like you behaved toward science bloggers in New Zealand. Some science bloggers have had their livelihood threatened by persistent trolls. A sixteen-year-old blogger from Wales received threatening emails.
I myself have my very own cyber-stalker, since banned at RI, who still “lurks” here and pursues me on other science blogs. A cannabis-addled troll threatened my professional license, by calling me a drug pusher.
Ron Risk Analyst, I read all your BMJ “Instant Responses” about NPAFP….and you are clueless and still busted.
I’m thinking “nothing to lose anyway.”
And cervical cancer is by far… by a country mile, far more problematic than aluminum adjuvanting ever was. HTH. HAND.
@ Ron Risk Analyst: I’m calling bullshit on your work colleague whom you state was in status epilepticus….you saw someone with a grand mal seizure…not in status epilepticus.
My son was in status epilepticus for hours, until IV push medication (lorazapam) finally stopped the seizure. He was resuscitated and left with post-ictal Todd’s paralysis, which resolved 12 hours later.
I used to work with someone who had regular seizures
“Regular seizures” =/= Status epilepticus. The latter is not handled by ensuring a safe immediate environment.
I always wonder why people tout “oh, I don’t hide behind a pseudonym!” As if any of us would even be able to tell. Or care. Your arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, Mr Law, not on your name. It is also telling that in response to my criticisms, and those of others, your only response is that “all will be revealed”. I have to wonder just what it is you hope to accomplish by that. It’s an admission that you have nothing with which to convince us. Not that it matters, since you hedge your position like a politician, perhaps in order to avoid being wrong about something.
I have a comment stuck in moderation…perhaps because I actually used the word b*llsh*t on a post back at Ron Risk Analyst about status epilepticus.
Here again, using the asterisks, is my post
@ Ron Risk Analyst: I’m calling b*llsh*t on your work colleague whom you state was in status epilepticus….you saw someone with a grand mal seizure…not in status epilepticus.
My son was in status epilepticus for hours, until IV push medication (lorazapam) finally stopped the seizure. He was resuscitated and left with post-ictal Todd’s paralysis, which resolved 12 hours later.
Ron, Could you please tell us how Gardasil and/or an aluminium adjuvant caused the CODs listed in the clinical trials? Could you please tell us how you can compare the surveillance between an RCT and recreational drug use?
Ron, it sounds as if your co-worker suffered from grand mal epilepsy. This is in no way, shape or form the same as status epilepticus: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1164462-overview & to dismiss the latter shows you didn’t even bother to look it up.
And I see lilady has pointed this out rather more strongly.
The term “grand mal” is now deprecated in favour of “Tonic-clonic” seizures. Only the most up-to-date epilepsy nomenclature here!
It’s a U-shaped distribution, Rob. Do you think just maybe a history might have been taken in these cases? Mebbe zum eckzahminaayshooon? Zum laabveerk? “Background rate,” my ass: your question is “how many non-drug-using kids otherwise corresponding to the bathtub-psychoactive demographic show up in the ED with SE?” Maybe you should check with your super-sekrit sources.
Doggerel #7: “You’re Just an Anonymous Blogger!”
I’m glad I posted that entry. That’s one fallacious argument that really rubs me the wrong way. I think it touches heavily on the authoritarianism inherent in woo: It doesn’t matter to them if your arguments are sound, it’s who you are and all the irrelevant details of your personal life that determine whether they should be closed-minded or open-minded.
Just some general thoughts. Excuse my replying to several people in one comment. Not good form, but I haven’t time to wait for the blog “comment pause” feature to clear a second, third, etc. Still haven’t found time to read the last posts on Alison’s nor all the new ones here either so my apologies in advance if I’ve missed some.
Ron wrote: “If I have whoever sees them will be able to report back that you’ve all been duped…”
That’s not what is at question here. (As can be see from his other comments it’s typical of Ron re-frame things to insinuate others. It’s also inaccurate another way: duping is when the writer intentionally seeks to mislead. I doubt very much that journalists nor those at the inquiry acted with intention to deceive as his use of the word ‘dupe’ would imply.)
Ron wrote: “What intrigues me is how Jasmine is claimed by some to have most likely died of a genetic defect,”
It was pointed out that the most frequent cause of “unexplained” deaths in fit younger people have apparently proven to be rare inherited heart disease, etc., etc.
Ron wrote: “when there is no evidence to suggest she did. There is some evidence to say she didn’t…”
Which is neither/nor there.
Lilady wrote:
– We’ve asked similar over the years. Ron’s anti-vaccine through and through. He’ll now come along an deny that; that circle is (very) familiar.
Krebiozen,
Good replies. Is one aspect to Al being in the interstitial space is that it’s not interacting with anything in a harmful way as it potentially could within cells?
Ron: wrote “And now we have this from Medscape.com” – bait’n’switch? Waste of time.
Ron wrote: “Alison, it’s simple… I made some statements, denialists have said I made it up and want verification, I’m offering a means to verify what I said.”
Not correct. It’s already been explained to you (several times now) it’s the full context people are after. (Ron’s dig at denialists is a silly dig at me from Alison’s blog. Nothing new there. Alison: I got the ‘l’ this time!)
Regard RL’s BZP statements, he was a former representative or whatever for the (“natural”) supplement industry. (Haven’t time to elaborate or verify, but I believe he in effect appointed himself to this position, applied for NZ to join the international organisation who subsequently threw him out by way of throwing the NZ branch/organisation/whatever out. I’ve always wondered what he did to piss them off that much. He had a huge hissy over this including putting the letter rejecting him/his organisation on-line. But all that’s past history, right Ron?)
lilady: “A number of science bloggers have been contacted relentlessly through their email accounts” – While I wouldn’t say “relentlessly” in his case, Ron used to email me even after I asked him not to, one of the reasons I developed the comment policy in my About page.
Sorry about that.
Oh, darn. I occasionally get a left-right typing error over / and the single-letter HTML tags, which result in them not being closed properly. *sigh*
The Christchurch study is here, BTW. I’ve just scanned it, but “selected cases with severe toxicity had urine or blood samples sent to confirm the presence of BZP or other illicit substances.” Whether this is supposed to imply that there were unselected cases with equally severe toxicity (to put the cart before the horse) is not entirely clear upon a quick scan.
Alison, Grant and Doktor Bimler: Has Ron Risk Analyst ever graduated from any university program that has anything to do with human immunology, bacteriology, virology, chemistry, etc., etc.? (Those *foreign* letters after his name are unfamiliar to me)
I stand corrected Dr. Bimler…I should have used tonic-clonic seizures to refer to my son’s seizure disorder. He also had psychomotor seizures. Since his death eight years ago, I’m only dealing with my *other son*…my son’s best friend…and his Lennox Gestaut seizures.
@ Grant: You should have wielded the ban hammer…months ago…when Ron Risk Manager first started his cyber-stalking. 🙂
Vis-a-vis lilday’s query, I will repeat a comment I left at Alison’s blog when the question of qualifications came up there:
There are otherwise-sensible people at the Respectful Insolence blog who care about credentials and qualifications but I don’t get the point. I mean, this is the Internet, so we are in effect all anonymous. I could be Herr Doktor Hans-Peter Bimler the orthodontic surgeon and inventor of Bimler’s Apparatus (who died a few years ago, lauded and loved by colleagues and family); I could be Doctor Richard Bimler, devout Lutheran and president of Wheat Ridge Ministries; I could be some other Bimler who co-authors and reviews and edits papers on neurotoxicology. Or more to the point, I could be some18-year-old anarchist adopting the identity of any of these gentlemen. You don’t know, so any experience I might claim are moot. I would be very disappointed if anyone were to take any of my comments as more or less frivolous depending on whom they believe me to be.
Grant,
I don’t think so. Neurotoxicity and interference with bone metabolism seem to be the main areas where aluminum can cause problems so you would not expect a non-soluble form of aluminum to cause any problems at all as it can’t get to the brain or to the bones without passing through the blood first, and once it appears in the blood it is rapidly excreted in the urine. As Wikipedia observes, aluminum is remarkably nontoxic.
@ Narad: Thanks for the Christchurch Emergency Room study.
@ Grant: Were you aware that Ron Risk Analyst was engaging in that same behavior here?
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ias.htm
From my reading of Goodman and Gilman while bored during night shifts I know that this is also true of small doses of dextroamphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine. These drugs improve alertness and reaction time which is why they have often been used during wartime by pilots and by generations of truck drivers and students. The problem is they are very prone to abuse and are addictive as Japan discovered after WW2 when the market was flooded with surplus amphetamines, starting a drug problem and an organized crime industry that plague Japan to this day. My point is that finding that a drug improves some aspects of a person’s behavior under some circumstances isn’t very good evidence for making it legal. Drug abuse is a thorny problem with no easy solutions, and the rise in the popularity of legal highs about the effects of which we have less information than traditional drugs of abuse is another problem made worse by prohibition. I really don’t see that adding a host of poorly researched chemicals to the possible range of things that people poison themselves with is very helpful.
@ Doktor Bimler: I do care about credentials…when it comes to people such as Ron Risk Manager posting his inanities about vaccines and vaccine adjuvants…while shilling for *party pills* that contain methamphetamine and Ecstasy.
Does anyone here get the impression that he or she is addressing a brick wall, a boulder or a large chest of drawers?
I asked Ron a question about conspiracies 3 days ago: the same question I asked Jake Crosby.
Perhaps I missed his response.
@ herr doktor bimler:
I know what you mean: I am emphatically *not* from Hobart.
-btw- I hope that that poor woman isn’t getting hate mail on her facebook/ work related pages because of my sceptical activities. Or that busineswoman in Germany. Or the national Trade Commisioner… etc.
lilady: by ‘foreign’ letters you mean these: MBS, BMin, DMLS, MRSNZ, NMNZSRM?
MBS = Master of Business Studies
BMin is a theology degree, Bachelor of Ministries
DMLS is not one you see a lot but is (I believe) a Diploma in Medical Laboratory Science
MRSNZ = Member of the Royal Society of New Zealand
MNZSRM is Member of the New Zealand Society for Risk Management
For the last 2, these are professional organisations with an annual joining fee.
but also, what hdb said in his last post. On the internet, most cats are grey 🙂
Krebiozen,
Thanks – that was my impression too.
lilady,
One take on Ron’s career(s) is here in this article Rage against the vaccine
“Were you aware that Ron Risk Analyst was engaging in that same behavior here?” – Seen that one before; thanks, though.
“You should have wielded the ban hammer…months ago” – a small nitpicky correction: as my About page describes in the scheme I set up I only place short temporary suspensions – extensions of these are in the hands of the transgressors.
Excuse my earlier loose recollections on Ron’s previous role(s) in the supplement industry; my real point was not the details of how that career progressed but that he has an element of a conflict of interest with regards to his stance on BZP
On the subject of credentials – I’d distinguish the paper certificates, etc., once gained and current knowledge or use of skills or background. In the latter people stand and fall by their arguments in most respects. You can have paper credentials and no longer have the skills they might imply through lack of practice, etc.
I suppose that’s one way to pimp out one’s name. Isn’t it tacky to use those titles?
Science Mom: yes, & no. Someone who is active in our (ie NZ) science communication community probably belongs to SCANZ (the Science Communicators Association of NZ) & could well use the initials in their professional life, for example.
Denice,
Yes,. I have repeatedly made essentially the same point, phrasing it in different ways (which is sometimes effective) without any substantial response, just nitpicking at irrelevant details. I get the feeling that Ron has trouble seeing the wood for the trees (or perhaps he is distracted by a squirrel).
I would like to know if he thinks that all the thousands of negative tests for polio in stool samples from AFP patients in India are false negatives due to incompetence or are deliberately faked.
I don’t think so.
Grant:
That was an interesting article. Especially this paragraph:
So how come we had to tell him multiple times that just because the genetic tests showed that young Ms. Renata did not have several known genetic sequences that cause a particular cardiac disorder, that does not exclude the possibility that she many have had an unknown genetic sequence that causes electrical issues in the heart.
It is a pity that the Renata family is not being screened. Electrocardiograms are not that expensive.
@ Krebiozen:
I would guess that he’d say- “deliberately faked”.
Alt med folk need conspiracies in order to explain ( to their audiences) precisely *why* their ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting, mind-shatteringly brilliant hypothesis has not been widely accepted. It is rejected because it threatens the powers-that-be or corporate profits- not because it’s stupid.
I do believe you have the polio-denialist argument wrong and understandably since we can’t lodge our heads up our arses. You see polio has been misdiagnosed all along because labs weren’t always performed pre-vaccine. Now that virological confirmation is more widely utilised for AFP cases, we get to declare polio eliminated in most countries. You’re just so close-minded Krebs.
@ Science Mom
Well, it is quite a bit more than tacky to tack on FRCS as Wakefield did in his recent suit against Deer, Godlee, et al, (http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-motion.pdf), since Wakefield reportedly has not paid his dues to the society since 1996 and so is clearly NOT a fellow and thus not able to claim that distinction.
You can check if Wakefield is actually a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (“Is your surgeon or specialist a current member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England?”) here:
http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/patients/find-your-surgeon
Tacky, indeed–and dishonest.
Re: the NZ Herald article
Is it me or does Ron sound like the Meryl Dorey of NZ?
I made some statements, denialists have said I made it up and want verification, I’m offering a means to verify what I said.
“Denalists” here meaning “people who are unconvinced that the aluminium in vaccinations is a health hazard”. Seems to me that the use of the term is an unambiguous assertion that there is something to deny, i.e. that RonL is indeed asserting that aluminium and vaccines are hazardous — even if he elsewhere denies ever making such an assertion.
By way of analogy, if you call someone a “holocaust denialist”, you are asserting that the Holocaust *did happen*.
If Ron Risk Analyst has a degree in medical lab science…why doesn’t he know about the differential diagnosis of AFP? Why did he lie about the prevalence of invasive meningoccal disease?
The *preacher man* is an opportunist and is as anti-vaccine as they come.
@ Brian: Wakefield is still revered in some quarters as the brave maverick doctor…not the carney barker he has become.
denialists have said I made it up and want verification, I’m offering a means to verify what I said.
By way of analogy: RonL informs us that the leprechauns living within his trousers have vouchsafed dispositive evidence to him. He offers me verification of the leprechauns’ testimony… not, however, in the form of a tape-recording, for that would apparently violate some as-yet-unspecified statute of NZ law. But he will display the bulges in his trousers to my chosen proxy (no photographs, though).
This is my turn to shift the goalposts, for I assert that this is not verification.
Alison, lilady, Science Mom, etc.
Regards Ron’s citing his membership of – “MNZSRM is Member of the New Zealand Society for Risk Management”
Ron is not listed as a member on this organisation’s website and I have confirmed with the admin officer of that society that they have nobody of the name of ‘Ron Law’ as a current member; apparently he was a member at one point and has since resigned his membership.
I’m not able to relocate Ron’s LinkedIn account to confirm what he currently lists as his credentials. He may have closed his LinkedIn account; yasni has an old link to it, but it’s “not found” on following it.
Regards the BZP advocacy thing Ron is raising – I’ve just learnt that Ron is a partner in ‘Stargate International’. It took me a moment to recall who Matt Bowden, described as one of the co-founder, is: he’s infamous in NZ for selling “legal highs”. Check Matt Bowden’s wikipedia entry; more favourable to Matt at this point in time than some (many, most?) NZers would see it I suspect. Whatever your views on him, Matt is a colourful figure.
http://www.stargateinternational.org/pages/whois.htm
See in particular the who is and political advocacy (esp. BZP section) pages of Stargate International. Juderon Associates is Ron Law’s business. (Or was, whatever the status of it is now.)
herr doktor bimler – good catch. (As ever.)
Good sleuthing Grant. So here we have him, Ron,” I am not a regular user of herbs and the like… and I don’t advocate their use…” Law, busted. Thanks for posting the Herald link too. I’d forgotten how on-the-button it was!
Grant, he really is a sicko…now with utterly bogus “credentials” in a risk management society. Would he know truth from fiction if it came up and hit him upside the head? I despise b.s. artists.
now with utterly bogus “credentials” in a risk management society
To be fair, the cited list was from 2-3 years ago. People do change their affiliations.
Those with an interest in, um, information leavened by an interesting sense of humour… …may enjoy this offering: http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/omg-element-of-surprise.html
Just spreading the word. For a friend.
LOL… lilady
August 22, 5:38 pm
“@ Ron Risk Analyst: I’m calling bullshit on your work colleague whom you state was in status epilepticus….you saw someone with a grand mal seizure…not in status epilepticus.”
Take a look at what I wrote… then take a deep breath and chill… where did I say I saw someone in SE? I said, “I used to work with someone who had regular seizures… he’d fit once a week or so, despite the best of medication…
As I’ve said, people need to observe and critically evaluate… not jump to wrong conclusions…
For those throwing bricks 😉
You might note my comments was polite and factual. I’m not really focused on the “bashing” aspect it might seem. I am concerned about the apparent conflicts of interest and, if I might be frank, what I see as, to be polite, stupidity.
I have no idea of the details behind why Ron resigned from NZSRM or closed his LinkedIn page (if that is the case). One possibility is closing the business or retirement (hence the “or was” in my comment), but in that case why the continuing work elsewhere? (e.g. recent work presenting an ‘analysis’ of natural products vs. conventional medicine.)
I am rather surprised at his link with Matt Bowden, even if it makes sense in some ways (with respect to his previous positions).
Alison advertises: Those with an interest in, um, information leavened by an interesting sense of humour… …may enjoy this offering: http://eusa-riddled.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/omg-element-of-surprise.html
The ‘Aluminati’. *OFGS* 🙂
(Aside with regard to the Riddled post: I had meant to segue off from ‘bog people’ [that Ron mistyped on Alison’s blog] to zombies eating bars of aluminium by way of silly humour, but never got around to it.)
Grant, why am I not surprised at your extensive vitriolic attack on me… most of it is fiction… which of course is typical of a denialist who claims to be an objective sci-blogger. I could refute most of what you’ve said, but I have not need or desire to.
For the record, I prepared numerous documents for the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand. The document Dr Gee refers to in his NZMJ article can be found here… it provides parliaments health select committee with a brief overview of some unique circumstances in Christchurch. I’m open to feedback… keep in mind this was 2004/5.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20050401000000*/http://www.stanz.org.nz/SOP%20Submission%20for%20STANZ%20%20-%20Jan%2020052.pdf
This was the code of practice for STANZ which was applied in Auckland but a gang group in Christchurch ignored it and marketed very large (over 1gm) doses in plastic bags. 90% of product outside of Christchurch was made under GMP manufacturing standards.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071018053218/http://stanz.org.nz/code%20of%20practice_001.pdf
Grant, you claim “Regards the BZP advocacy thing Ron is raising – I’ve just learnt that Ron is a partner in ‘Stargate International’.” is a blatant lie… it is made up, and totally false. I defy you to provide any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your shameless slander. Of all the fabricated statements you’ve made about me, that is the most fabricated. You clearly have no shame and your dishonesty defies logic.
For the record…
From: “NZSRM Executive Officer”
Date: 13 August 2009 1:16:22 PM NZST
To: “Juderon”
Subject: Re: NZSRM Outstanding Subscription
Thanks Ron, we’ll look forward to your rejoining some time in the future.
Regards
Allan Price
Executive Officer
NZ Society for Risk Management
P O Box 31 071
Lower Hutt, NZ 5040
Phone: 64 4 5677512
Fax: 64 4 5677513
—– Original Message —–
From: Juderon
To: NZSRM Executive Officer
Sent: Thursday, 13 August, 2009 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: NZSRM Outstanding Subscription
Hi Allan
Due to the need to review costs I have decided that membership of the NZSRM is not a priority so have decided not to renew my subscription at this stage. I’ll review that decision in the future, but at the moment I can’t justify the expense.
Thanks for all of your efforts.
Regards
Ron Law
Ron,
Try follow the link rather than insinuate, please. On the page it has:
Partners
[…]
Risk Analysis / Policy Development
Juderon Associates
[email protected]
I’ve just learnt that Ron is a partner in ‘Stargate International’.” is a blatant lie
or a reflection of the unusual use of ‘partners’ on the website?
http://www.stargateinternational.org/pages/whois.htm
Krebiozen asked, “I would like to know if he thinks that all the thousands of negative tests for polio in stool samples from AFP patients in India are false negatives due to incompetence or are deliberately faked.”
My point is that before the polio vaccine campaigns were introduced, most AFP cases were diagnosed as polio; there was no routine polio testing done. Once polio programmes are introduced the testing is routinely done and cases of AFP negative to polio virus are classified as NPAFP.
This is exactly what happened in India, and was the point I made. The graph was created from official WHO data… it speaks for itself.
the thousands of negative tests for polio in stool samples from AFP patients in India are not false negatives due to incompetence nor are they deliberately faked…. it’s just that before the vaccine was introduced they were classified as polio.
Ron,
Regards your accusations at me: please note carefully that my comment was observations, not accusations. Please also note my follow-up comment clarifying that stance. If you want to correct or elaborate on the observations, by all means do—politely—but don’t make unwarranted accusations, thank you.
They’ve said partners, that’s what is there. If you don’t like that, talk to them about it.
This is the WHO data in graph form. WHO link is on graphic.
http://eso-cdn.www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/response_attachments/2012/03/AFP-Polio%20%201996-2011.jpg
Grant, you continue to lie! You said, “Regards the BZP advocacy thing Ron is raising – I’ve just learnt that Ron is a partner in ‘Stargate International’.”
I am not a “Partner in Stargate International” and never have been… your statement is false; at least Alison acknowledges that, thanks Alison.
I have also NEVER EVER advocated the use of BZP. I have never used drugs. Our three children were brought up in a total drug-free home, including no alcohol.
Matt approached me unsolicited (I did not know who he was) in early 2004 when he saw a regulatory model I had developed for Natural Health Products… he asked if it would work for party pills… I said, absolutely… if party pills were unacceptably hazardous they would be banned… otherwise they would have restrictions put in place proportionate to any risks.
He asked if I would assess the risks… I said yes, on two conditions… firstly, that the outcomes were not predetermined, and secondly that he had no veto rights over the outcome. (plus, of course, he had to pay me… risk and policy advice is my business… still is.
I had privileged access to individual company sales records which I verified as best I could. I was able to determine approximate sales $, pills and ‘doses.’ I approached all EDs in the country and every database/source/expert I could to identify problems regarding the use of mainly BZP…
The outcome was the outcome… and my work provided the basis for the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005.
From there I developed a code of practice for the industry. STANZ code of practice was publicly notified in June 2004 for a round of public consultation.
Nearly 400 submissions were received, including submissions from a wide spectrum of organisations and individuals such as the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring (CARM), the Pharmaceutical Society, District Health Boards, individual pharmacists, community organisations, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers and Medsafe.
Apart from 2 or 3 extreme submissions opposing any controls, over 99% of government/quasi government, industry and consumer submissions endorsed the
proposed code of practice in principle.
Subsequently BZP became demonised, mainly driven by MP Jacqui Dean from Dunedin after 5 youths walked into the ED… that’s right they walked in. They were reassured and sent home… it became headlines…
Well I’d have a word to Matt Bowden about his website Ron, because he clearly referrs to you as a partner. You might suggest he amends that to ‘consultant’ and since you’re ‘not anti-vaccine’ you might also be concerned about your starring role in this particular tissue of lies and inaccuracies. It brings to mind the old adage about being judged by the company you keep! http://www.naturalmedicine.net.nz/vaccination/do-the-nz-ministry-of-health-and-imac-%E2%80%9Cimmunisation-advisory-centre%E2%80%9D-provide-accurate-information-about-the-risks-of-vaccines/
I am not a “Partner in Stargate International” and never have been… your statement is false; at least Alison acknowledges that, thanks Alison.
I didn’t acknowledge the statement to be false, Ron: I was pointing out that it was a possible interpretation of a statement on Stargate’s webpage.
nz sceptic… LOL… on that basis, you are keeping company with very dodgy people… Enjoy it while it lasts… :-))
.
Alison, even you could see that ““Partner in Stargate International” was a disingenuous rewording of the truth… please don’t stoop to the depths Grant has… you are way better than that.
As nz sceptic says, in that case you had better get Stargate to reword their website so as to avoid unfortunate misinterpretations.
Ron,
So you make a great big fuss about: ‘advocacy’. Fine, put that one word aside if it makes you happy. It is fairly obviously I writing loosely, so there wasn’t a need to dramatise that. You do this thing of picking on little bits rather than the actual message, the larger picture, all the time. Krebiozen noted similar earlier and, frankly, it’s tedious.
Moving on from ‘advocacy’.
As I was saying, ‘Partners’ is on their website – if you have a problem with that, talk to them about it. I didn’t write that website.
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ias.htm
nz sceptic: “You might suggest he amends that to ‘consultant’ ”
It’s curious still, as they write “contract the services of”, which is more usually to outsource part of the company’s work rather than the independent assessment that Ron described. But, “whatever”.
Ron: “Alison, even you could see that ““Partner in Stargate International” was a disingenuous rewording of the truth…” – I notice you’re inserting inappropriate accusations in again. Disingenuous implies deliberate, which is clearly false, so food for thought – given that I could then offer your same word back at you 😉
“nz sceptic… LOL… on that basis, you are keeping company with very dodgy people… Enjoy it while it lasts… )”
LOL at yourself Ron. You’re a graduate of the Winston Peters’ School of Grandstanding aren’t you? I remember you promising the great MeNZB denouement many years ago – but we’re still waiting!
I guess Jasmine Renata will be much of the same.
@ Ron Law, more deflection? You are listed as a partner on the Bowden website; you’re issue is with them, not with those who read and post information from that website. Additionally, if you are no longer a member of an organisation, it is tacky and dishonest to continue to list your affiliation.
I’m also still waiting for your explanation as to how a risk policy advisor can conflate clinical trial surveillance with recreational drug use reports. Also, how the deaths during the Gardasil trial warrant blaming the vaccine.
Ron,
I have had to go through this several times as I found it hard to believe you have this so badly and embarrassingly wrong.
But that’s simply not true. Only AFP cases that were diagnosed as polio were reported before 1997, as the ian National Polio Surveillance Project makes clear. You claimed on the BMJ site that:
So are you claiming that India is not polio free or not? A fall from 4,322 confirmed cases in 1998 to only 1 last year looks like excellent progress to me. You’re not making the mistake of thinking that the increased number of reported AFP cases is due to increased incidence instead of improved surveillance, are you? After all someone pointed that out to you on the BMJ website that AFP is a set of symptoms, with many causes other than polio, and that before 1997 AFP was reported by passive surveillance, which is why the number of reported cases has increased greatly since then, due to the 8,371 AFP surveillance reporting units now actively looking for AFP cases. You also wrote:
Except those cases didn’t “[mostly] used to be called polio”, as the WHO figures and NPSP make clear. The 1,005 cases reported as AFP in 1996 were all confirmed as polio, and the (presumably) several thousand other cases of AFP that were not reported were not diagnosed as polio. Active surveillance, not surprisingly, finds many more cases.
That should read “Indian National Polio Surveillance Project”, but the link works OK.
INEFFICACY OF THE VACCINE AGAINST THE HPV SEEN BY DOCTOR OF
PERU DEPHT
From its inception until the appearance of tha uterine carcinoma of the cervix (UCC) take in average 25 to 30 years; the investigation on the vaccine against the human papilloma virus has begun the 2000; the scientific efficacy of this vaccine has just determined in the years 2025-2030
HPV not causes definitely the (UCC); in the onset of this disease are involve multiple risk factors, including suspected HPV, but there are security for epidemiology and statistics that sex generates the disease. Mix in 130.000 nuns not found not any UCC.
To accept that a virus or bacteria cause a disease must indefectible fulfill the 5 Koch postulates:
http://www.xatakaciencia.com/salud/los-postulados-de-koch
1. The agent must be present in each case of the disease and absent in healthy subjects.
2. The agent should not appear in other diseses,
3. The agent must be isolated in pure culture from the lesions of the diseases,
4. The agent has to cause the disease in an animal capable of being incoculated,
5. The agent must be newly in the lesions of animal in experimentation
http://es.scribd.com/doc/44558220/MICROBIOLOGIA-1
Consequently HPV do not fulfill not any of Koch’s postulate; fulfill this postulate is accepted as dogma in medicine, scientifically we can sure that the HPV is not the
causative agent of the UCC
Until June 2012 solely in USA was 263, 328 advers efffects, disabling irreversible 8,860, death 1160, abnormal PAP 4900, dysplasia cervical 1950, cervical cancer 560.
http://du104w.dub104.mail.live.com/default.aspx#!/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=1668544653!n=1997022391&fid=e71773d143454209a436ace1ced14dca&mid=3cd42a8d-d11d-11e1-af47-00237de3f55e&fv=1 .
To accord of Vaccine advers effects reaction (VAERS) information that is denounced
solely between 1% to 10%
http://www.noticiero.enkoria.com/2011/diez-menores-que-sufrieron-reaccion-adversa-a-la-vacuna-vph-d
Dr. Harper, who helped develop the vaccine for Merck reports that the vaccine was not investigated in children under 15 years and the vaccine given to children under 11 years is a big public experiment.
http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html
The vaccine was approved to give girls not contaminated with HPV; Dr.Howenstinc say if women are vaccinated contaminated with HPV are able to acquire a 44.6% CCU http://www.newswithviews.com / Howenstine/james170.htm.
This vaccine is transgenic; the Sane vax has discover that Gardasil is contaminated with DNA recombinant (DNArPVH) and has raised its concern to the president of the FDA Margaret Hamburg; the FDA replied that its presence does not cause any harm.
A vaccinated girl became ill with rheumatoid arthritis, which is an autoimmune disease. 24 hours after vaccination and found that the DNArPVH adhered to aluminum, two years after vaccination.
http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php?topic=9331.0
To introduce the vaccine are using the marketing of fear:
http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna-del-marketing-del-miedo-67210961.ht http://mujeresenaccion.over- blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna-del-marketing-del-miedo-67210961.ht
HPV is ubiquitous and lives in wild and domestic animals, we pollute from birth, is on the doorknobs, on towels, on the nails, on fomites, in gloves and specula of gynecologists; sexual intercourse is not the solely means of contamination.
http://spa.myhealthygood.com/cancer-cervical-vacuna-contra-el-vph/investigadores-descubren-el-v
HPV also lives in the 400 nm outermost of our skin and mucous membranes. ,
If live on our skin, our immune system produces cellular and humoral immunity; our body is naturally being vaccinated for HPV to live on our skin and mucous ..
http://www.conganat.org/seap/bibliografia/HPVToday/HPVToday007SEAP.pdf
The cervical carcinoma, neither the HPV are infections, contagious, epidemical, nor infectd only by the coitus
Gardasil is genetically modified;; known vaccines are made from killed or attenuated original bacterial or virus; it is UNKNOWN damage that produce in the future and is prepared to prevent infection only of HPVs 16 and 18; it is know that exist 200 species of HPV.
http://quimicaclinicauv.blogspot.com/2006/08/virus-del-papiloma-humano.html http://www-lab.biomedicas.unam.mx/smpv/queeshpv.htm
The HPVs are not distributed uniformly over the world. It was found that in Canada the HPV 18 solely less than 3%, more prevalent is HPV 31, in my country Peru there are no studies that established the predominant types of HPV, gardasiul contains 225 mcg and cervarix 500 mcg aluminum that produce Alzheimer’s, it is a mayor neurotoxine, disrupter of neurological funtion and immunoexcitotoxicity and polisorbato 80 which is a potent contraceptive that in the experimental animals produces sterility, atrophy of the testicles and funtional and morphological disturbance of the reproductive organs; are carcinogenic and mutagenic; also contains sodium borate considered poison, not used in medicinal preparations. http://www.telefonica.net/web2/paramahamsa/vacunaninosalerta.html http://detenganlavacuna.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/gardasil-cervarix/
Until now it is know 200 types og PVHs
http://quimicaclinicauv.blogspot.com/2006/08/virus-del-papiloma-humano.html http://www-lab.biomedicas.unam.mx/smpv/queeshpv.htm
December 2012 FDA approved the gradasil to boys since 9 to 26 years to prevent the anal cancer and wart. It is a excess.
http://www.saludpanama.com/la-fda-aprueba-gardasil-para-su-uso-en-ninos-y-hombres-jovenes
http://salud.aollatino.com/2011/02/02/aprueba-fda-nueva-indicacion-vacuna-tetravalente-vph-eeuu/
For the reasons from Peru, depth, Huancayo, I believe that this vaccine is a Fraud?, Robbery?, Swindle?, Rough Joke?; it is not scientifically proven at this time, its effectiveness will be verified just the years of 2025-2030.
Dr. Godfrey Arauzo
E mail: [email protected]
Tel.: 05164252052
Ron, do you know how to post the real email, or do you just think typing some words into a comment box is evidence enough that you couldn’t afford to pay your membership dues anymore?
I suspect that even if Ron does have evidence tucked in his sleeves somewhere, he wouldn’t know what to do with it.
He certainly doesn’t recognise evidence when it’s shown to him. The rest of it just seems one large argument from authority.
…Disengage people, disengage. He sidesteps the goals like an Olympic medal equestrian.
So, what, it was just a moment of free association? Try again, assmonkey.
Herr Doktor B. the LAST thing I’m interested in seeing is a photograph of the bulges in Ron’s trousers, leprecahauns be damned.
@ Ron Risk Analyst: About our *debate* regarding status epilepticus…I first referred you to this Wikipedia article for the “harmless effects” of your *party pill*:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzylpiperazine
“Christchurch study
The majority of the toxic effects information came from a study conducted between 1 April 2005 to 1 September 2005. The study recorded all presentations associated with party pill use at the Emergency Department of Christchurch Hospital, New Zealand by recording them on a prospective data collection form. The aim was to study the patterns of human toxicity related to the use of benzylpiperazine-based ‘party pills’. 61 patients presented on 80 occasions. Patients with mild to moderate toxicity experienced symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, palpitations, dystonia, and urinary retention. Significantly, fourteen toxic seizures were recorded with two patients suffering life-threatening toxicity with status epilepticus and severe respiratory and metabolic acidosis. It was concluded that BZP appears to induce toxic seizures in neurologically normal subjects.[25] The results of this study and others like it[22][26] showed that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals, but the data and dosage collection were reliant on self reporting by drug users, which may result in under-reporting, and there were complicating factors like the frequent presence of alcohol and other drugs.[26]”
You then stated you have seen a colleague have weekly epileptic attacks, which according to your description are clonic-tonic/grand mal epilepsy attacks and, according to your description are definitely NOT status epilepticus.
Let me get this straight Ron Risk Analyst. You and your business associate are substituting *party pills* and other drugs to market to drug and alcohol addicts. Your *party pills* have already caused deaths. What’s in the pipeline for alcoholics? You do know, don’t you, about Antabuse which isn’t addictive, which does not leave a person impaired and which, when prescribed to a motivated alcohol-addicted individual, is quite effective to end an alcohol addiction…
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/meds/a/antabuse.htm
Poor old Koch must be turning in his grave at the abuse his postulates receive these days.
Ron, you do have a tendency to describe comments you disagree with as ‘vitriolic’. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Godofredo, that’s quite a long comment. I notice that it contains absolutely no published scientific evidence.
Take your NVIC copypasta somewhere else.
Godofredo,
I assume English is not your first language and in places I am not sure I properly understand you, but I will do my best to respond nevertheless.
Apologies for mangled blockquotes: annoyed and in a rush.
I got my teenaged sons vaccinated so I clearly don’t think it’s an excess. If it prevents genital warts in them and cervical cancer in their future partners, it’s a good thing.
Krebiozen, can you explain the logic as to how 100% of 1005 AFP cases were there diagnosed as polio in 1996 but 100% of 60,000 AFP cases were there diagnosed as non-polio in 2011?
AFP is AFP… the clinical symptoms are identical whether polio or not. So what’s caused this terrible epidemic of 60,000 cases of AFP in 2011 in india. Why would anyone be celebrating when the problem in the streets is (according to official figures) 60 times worse????
http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/diseases/poliomyelitis/afpextract.cfm
Could someone get Th1Th2 on the blower to liven this dismal spectacle up?
No kidding.
He did, back at time stamp 8:29 AM today. Oh I see the problem; he DID use logic. You claim 35 years of “studying medical literature” and “lecturing on study methods” but you don’t understand what passive and active surveillance can do to disease prevalence estimates? You still can’t explain the difference in clinical trial surveillance and passive recreational drug adverse event collection? Do yourself a favour Ron and don’t try to inflate your experience, you’re embarrassing yourself in stunning fashion.
Science Mom, he did not even understand that a genetic test cannot check for sequences that cause cardiac disorders that have not yet been discovered.
We’ve had Ron’s peculiar ideas foisted on us in NZ for many years – often via press releases authored by himself – and quoting himself. I’d forgotten this one wherein the Auckland District Health Board was apparently ‘condemning patients to death’ if it didn’t supply high-dose vitamin C treatments, despite any meaningful evidence of efficacy! As we wait for yet another promised ‘big reveal’ – in this case, pertaining to Jasmine Renata, it strikes me that Ron promises these dramatic denouments regularly but has never, to my knowledge, delivered!
Ah, the link would be helpful! http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1009/S00096/adhb-favours-death-to-alternatives.htm
Science Mom,… I didn’t notice the logic… I noticed the reporting process…
So go to another page on his ref…
In May 1988, the World Health Assembly committed the member nations of the World Health Organization (WHO) to achieving the goal of global eradication of poliomyelitis. This goal is defined as:
· no cases of clinical poliomyelitis associated with wild poliovirus, and
· no wild poliovirus found worldwide despite intensive efforts to do so.
http://www.npspindia.org/Eradication%20Strategy.asp
So the celebration of the eradication of polio is based on the fact that there are now 60,000 reported cases of clinical poliomyelitis not caused by the polio virus.
Now that is a cause for celebration. 60,000 families of victims of clinical poliomyelitis are comforted by the fact that the paralysis/death was caused by something else… phew, what a relief…!!!
Prior to 1997 all polio cases were simply those notified by a doctor with no standard definition… so there was no way of knowing how many were actually caused by a wild polio virus.
In 1998 there were 9467 cases of AFP reported…4316 of these were confirmed positive for polio… 1932 of these being wild polio, so one assumes the balance were caused by the vaccine.
I fully understand the logic of Krebiozen’s response… comparing pre and post polio case numbers is like comparing apples and oranges…
But try telling the families of the 60,000 paralysed/killed with non-polio AFP that they should be grateful that the polio vaccine was so successful that they should join in the polio eradication celebrations as their loved ones weren’t paralysed/killed by polio…!
Whew… what a relief!
So, the original comment stands the test of science… even rabid self-proclaimed sci-bloggers…
Aluminium’s bioavailability is poor… about 0.1-0.3 percent of what is ingested. An adult absorbs, on average, about 7ug per day. A baby, about 1ug per day, a bit more with formula and soy fed babies…
A 6 week old baby in New Zealand at least, even premature babies weight 1-2 kg, gets injected with 1,320ug of aluminium… repeated at 3 months and 5 months… a total of 3,960 ug… over 108 days… that’s an average of 36 times the expected amount absorbed via food, in bolus doses.
It is not scientifically defensible to claim that the amount of aluminium injected into babies is the same as consumed via food… as a tiny fraction of what’s in the food gets absorbed.
Ron,
You are assuming that all those AFP cases are clinically identical to polio, which is not true as AFP is only one symptom of paralytic polio. This paperexplains the differential diagnosis of different cause of AFP.
There are many other possible causes of AFP including injuries such as car accidents and snakebites (there are plenty of both in India). The point of active surveillance is to take very close look at every possible case of paralytic polio, by checking each and every case of AFP, no matter how unlike paralytic polio it is. As the paper I cited above puts it, “To ensure the success of the poliomyelitis eradication initiative, it has become critical that surveillance be intensified so that the absence of wild poliovirus circulation can be verified with confidence in countries not reporting confirmed cases of poliomyelitis.”
If you look at the WHO data again you will notice a column titled “Non-polio AFP rate” which has climbed from zero in 1996 to 16.1 in 2011. This is the number of cases of AFP found per 100,000 of the population screened, and is essentially the false positive rate. As that paper puts it, “The currently used case definition increases sensitivity in detecting the existence of AFP but tends to decrease specificity in detecting paralytic poliomyelitis.” The fact that the false positive rate has climbed so dramatically shows that an increase in sensitivity has also resulted in a decrease in specificity.
To quote that same paper again, “For the eradication of poliomyelitis, a highly sensitive but relatively nonspecific case definition was selected by the World Health Organization. Officials in national poliomyelitis eradication programs first introduced highly sensitive case definitions to avoid missing true cases of the disease, though false-positive diagnostic errors could still occur because of low specificity. No single practical clinical case definition combining both high sensitivity and high specificity has become available; however, virologic isolation of poliovirus from stools of patients with AFP provides the necessary specificity for confirming poliomyelitis.”
You appear to be attributing the increase in the false positive rate to an increased incidence, and complaining that the polio vaccine does not prevent AFP with causes other than polio which is, to put it as politely as I can, not justified.
Ron,
Good grief, do you still not get it? Regular ingestion of food containing a large amount of aluminum results in a small but constant absorption of aluminum into the bloodstream. Intramuscular injection of insoluble aluminum salts results in slow dissolution and a small but constant absorption of aluminum into the bloodstream. The end result is almost exactly the same.
I applaud your efforts Krebiozen but it appears as though Ron has gone into bot mode and no amount of explanation will penetrate. Ron is an example of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
@Science Mom
“A little knowledge”
I don’t think you should credit him with that much, to be honest.
Science Mom,
I know, I have this vain hope that if I could frame it in the right way he would understand. I remember coming across the claim that polio had been dishonestly reclassified some years ago, but that was as aseptic meningitis not AFP, in IIRC Janine Roberts’ ‘Fear of the Invisible’ (don’t read that if you are a skeptic with high BP). I wondered if it could possibly be true, so I did a lot of digging and found that it isn’t. That was what sparked my interest in polio and AFP. The illusory increase in AFP is similar to the illusory increase in autism, both caused by increased surveillance and changed criteria.
AFP had previously meant alpha-fetoprotein to me, as I was once responsible for developing a prenatal maternal screening program for Down Syndrome and neural tube defects. That’s another kind of screening where sensitivity and specificity have to be balanced by adjusting false positive rates to decide who gets the diagnostic test (in that case amniocentesis).
@ nz sceptic: Great link to another of Ron Risk Analyst’s pronouncements. Why do you think I asked him here to tell us why Grant shut down the comments on his Sciblog? I just *knew* Ron Risk Analyst would, given enough rope, hang himself. He’s so busted now, that he will never recover.
I still find it hard to believe that Ron Risk Analyst ever attained an undergrad degree in any type of lab science. He is totally clueless what constitutes a “differential diagnosis”
Lilady, it was a diploma, not a degree. Big difference!
@ Krebiozen:
Janine Roberts!
It appears that we both have been slumming around the same tawdry backstreets: at the intersection of bad science and worse writing.
lilady,
Working in medical laboratory sciences gives you a lot of learning opportunities. If things are similar in NZ to the UK (and I suspect so as I have worked with some excellent lab workers who trained in NZ) you are required to pass exams in a wide variety of subjects, such as cell biology, physiology, genetics, immunology and others as well as lab work, which are equivalent to an undergraduate degree. For example I can strip down and repair a blood gas analyzer, but I also have to know what a set of blood gas results mean, as results that don’t fit with the diagnosis are a good reason to doubt the integrity of the machine. If you work in a hospital you usually have access to a medical library, journals, lectures and case presentations and even the chance to attend ward rounds and sometimes watch autopsies and surgery.
There is little obligation to avail yourself of these opportunities, though you are supposed to maintain your professional development, and I have known several medical laboratory scientists who have specialized in technical aspects of the job, and have had little interest in the clinical side. It really depends on how curious you are and where your interests lie.
Krebiozen, I’m fully aware of the broader description of AFP, but, with respect, AFP as a result of a car accident or some other known cause is not the same as AFP used in polio surveillance.
Case Definition:
In the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (PEI), acute flaccid paralysis is defined as:
Any case of AFP in a child aged <15 years, or any case of paralytic illness in a person of any age when polio is suspected.
Acute: rapid progression of paralysis from onset to maximum paralysis
Flaccid: loss of muscle tone, “floppy” – as opposed to spastic or rigid
Paralysis: weakness, loss of voluntary movement
Any case meeting this definition undergoes a thorough investigation to determine if the paralysis is caused by polio.
http://www.npspindia.org/Surveillance%20Strategy.asp
Before the active screening was used in India, the definition for polio was whatever the doctor decided.
As for your comment denying the change in definition of polio in the 60's, have you read "The Present Status of Polio Vaccines" in the 1960
"Prior to 1954 any physician who reported
paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a
service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization
and was being community-minded in
reporting a communicaable disease. 'The criterion
or diagnosis at that time in most health departments·
followed the World Health Organization
definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis:
Signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis
with the addition of partial or complete
paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected
on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.""
Note thatt "two examinations at least 24 hours apart
was all that was required. Laboratory
confirmalion and presence of residual paralysis
was not required. In 1955 the criteria were
changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset. The influence of the field trials is still evident in most health departments; unless there is residual involvement at least 60 days after onset, a case of poliomyelitis is not considered paralytic.
Have a read… it's a two part article… essentially a transcript with tables etc of a discussion on the politics and science surrounding the introduction, 'successes' and 'failures' of the initial polio campaigns. I'd be interested in your thoughts once you've read it.
Have you ever gone back through official stats and looked at the rise and fall of 'polio' and related/similar illnesses?
Krebiozen, if you were trying to reassure mums and dads that Aluminium injected via vaccine would you tell them that the amount of aluminium in a dose of an aluminium containing vaccine injected into a baby is the same as what the baby would;
1, normally consume in a day?
or
2, normally absorb in a day?
@Ron – so, in your humble opinion, where did smallpox go?
Krebiozen… for the record, your description of medical laboratory science training is very good.
I sat and passed 21 papers over 5 years, without failing any. Disciplines covered included Microbiology, Clinical Biochemistry, Haematology, Blood Transfusion, Immunology, Virology, Histology, Nuclear Medicine… I specialised in clinical biochemistry in my final two years (which included aspects of other disciplines such as immunology and nuclear medicine) and was top student in New Zealand for both years. I lectured in clinical biochemistry for 10 years and had the privilege of spending about a day a week immersed in medical literature in the medical library. I was one of the pioneers in using the library based academic ‘internet’ in the 1980’s and have been an avid reader of medical science for over 40 years.
Lawrence, I don’t have an opinion on smallpox as it is not something that I’ve invested time looking at.
One thing for sure, it went somewhere.
Yes, and clearly some diseases were in the past misdiagnosed as polio. That doesn’t make the success of the polio surveillance and vaccination programs any less admirable. Once polio has been eradicated I’m sure other enteroviruses will become a target for eradication, and I know that there are people currently working on Guillain Barre which is another common cause of AFP. In the case of other diseases I have wasted a lot of time looking at the figures antivaccine advocates present as evidence that vaccines are ineffective, and I have found that the facts have been twisted, misrepresented and in many cases have seen serious misunderstandings or deliberate deceit. Your apparent claims that attempts to eradicate polio have resulted in a huge increase in cases of AFP are a good example, or is that not what you are claiming? If not, perhaps you could make your position clearer.
Why would I tell them either of those things when a) neither of them is true and b) that isn’t what is important? I would tell them that the amount of aluminum that their child is injected with in all their childhood vaccines weighs less than one thousandth of a teaspoonful of water, that their child would absorb a similar amount of aluminum every day from the milk or food they eat and from the vaccines they are injected with, and I would also explain that their child’s body is capable of easily excreting hundreds of times more aluminum without causing any problems at all.
Lemme guess, it’s now called monkey pox and chicken pox. (sorry Lawrence, I’m a glutton for punishment).
One thing for sure, it went somewhere.
That would be the “conservation of disease” theory?
Wait, is Ron admitting that the issue isn’t vaccines are dangerous, the issue is that he would be more willing to recommend vaccines if the terminology doctors used was different? No, just a really obvious attempt at a “gotcha”.
Ah, the king of ambiguity strikes again…
This guy reminds me of Pegamily.
Snark aside, thanks to the regulars: I learn so much in these comment threads.
Krebiozen, you ask, “Your apparent claims that attempts to eradicate polio have resulted in a huge increase in cases of AFP are a good example, or is that not what you are claiming? If not, perhaps you could make your position clearer.”
I haven’t said that… that would imply causality. What I have said is that much of what was claimed to be polio still exists… before polio vaccine use was ramped up in India it was estimated by the WHO that there were 30,000 polio cases per year… only a few percent were reported. Now that they have a vigorous polio screening system in place the numbers have risen to 60,000 cases of polio-like AFP…
My point is that the problem has not gone away, yet they celebrate as if it has. Polio itself may have, but what used to be diagnosed as polio isn’t now… why? Because they test everyone suspected of having polio.
Krebiozen, can you explain how this is true? “I would tell them that the amount of aluminum that their child is injected with in all their childhood vaccines weighs less than one thousandth of a teaspoonful of water, that their child would absorb a similar amount of aluminum every day from the milk or food they eat and from the vaccines they are injected with, ”
A baby absorbs about 1ug of aluminium a day… in NZ at least they are injected with 1,320ug of aluminum at 6 weeks and twice more by 6 months… just in 4,000ug…
For the record, NZ parents are told this by the main govt funded vaccination promotion organisation.
“However with newer techniques miniscule concentrations can now be measured. Preliminary experiments have shown that aluminium adjuvants are dissolved by citrate that is present in the space between cells and then rapidly eliminated from the body. This rapid elimination may be responsible for the excellent safety record of these adjuvants. There appears to be little potential for toxicity with vaccine level exposures to aluminium.”
and
Adjuvants
Most of the NZ schedule vaccines use aluminium-based adjuvants and until recently they were the only vaccine adjuvants licensed for human use. They induce a range of inflammatory factors to the injection site which helps the immune response. They have an impressive safety record with over 70 years of use. Some points about aluminium:
Eighth most abundant element on earth, most common metallic element
Found in the blood of all animals, including humans, constantly exposed
Average daily intake 10-15 mg
We get rid of aluminium from our bodies in our urine via kidneys
As an example, hepatitis B vaccine has 0.235 mg of aluminium, water has about 0.2 mg of aluminium per litre
One dose of hepatitis B vaccine contains less aluminium than one days worth of baby formula (infant formula has increased aluminium).
It’s sad when science is unable to self-correct when it is found to be so blatantly misleading
Ron,
I don’t want to be rude, but it seems to me you are either really dumb or you are playing silly games for some reason. When we didn’t look very hard and relied on passive surveillance we found 1,005 confirmed cases of polio, and after 15 years of strenuous efforts to eradicate polio we looked really, really hard and found only 1 confirmed case. This is somehow a failure?
There were far more than 60,000 polio cases per year in India before 1980 when the OPV was introduced, and by 1985 there were still an estimated 50,000-150,000 cases of polio, not AFP, every year. For instance a survey in Lucknow in 1978 (I visited Lucknow 10 years later, incidentally, and saw many polio victims) found a prevalence of polio-like paralysis in urban areas of 8.2 per 1000, or 820 per 100,000 and “In the preschool age group almost 1 out of every 100 children was affected”. Compare that to the 2011 non-polio AFP of 16.1 per 100,000 (actually since there was only 1 polio case that is the total polio and non-polio AFP rate). Bear in mind also that the population of India has almost doubled since then and the proportion of younger people vulnerable to polio and other causes of AFP has greatly increased.
As for the criteria used to diagnose polio, again from the Lucknow study, “Weinstein’s (1970) clinical criteria were used to diagnose paralytic poliomyelitis which included acute onset of disease with a spell of fever; asymmetric distribution of paralysis; lower motor neurone type of lesions with muscle wasting; and pure motor involvement with absolute sparing of the sensory system.” In other words more than just AFP was required for a polio diagnosis. Many cases of AFP picked up by active surveillance show no residual paralysis after 60 days (43% in 1998) and would not have been diagnosed as polio by any criteria.
Moving on to aluminum.
Have you not read what I have written here and at Alison’s blog?
A teaspoon of water weighs 5 grams, 5000 milligrams, or 5000,000,000 µg. The entire vaccination schedule contains 4 mg of aluminum (correct me if I’m wrong, I haven’t added it up I’m going by a factsheet from a hospital), or less than the weight of 1000th of a teaspoon of water.
I have posted links to studies that estimate the amount of aluminum absorbed from an i.m. injection of insoluble aluminum salts is less than 0.1 µg per day. I think we agreed that the amount of aluminum absorbed from breast milk and food by a child is in the order of 1-2 µg per day. Whether aluminum is passing unabsorbed through a child’s GI tract, or sitting unabsorbed in a muscle, it is not bioavailable.
So claiming that comparing ingested aluminum to i.m. injected aluminum when they have similar bioavailability is misleading, but comparing i.m. injected aluminum to that actually absorbed from food and drink is not? That’s both dishonest and nonsensical.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X97000418
ChrisP,
Hem 2001 is another useful source of information.
I have a comment in moderation replying to Ron, though no doubt I’m wasting my time.
Krebiozen, unless polio rates were known when the mass polio vaccines were started then you are comparing apples with oranges. It is well established that polio cases and deaths were in free-fall before polio vaccine was introduced, and that teh definition was changed dramatically when the vaccine was introduced which in itself reduced the number of cases.
As for the clearance of aluminum, reading all of the references put forward, it seems fairly obvious that no one knows where it goes once injected… it certainly isn’t excreted.
Recent studies have even shown that immune response continues even if the injection site is excised… raising questions over what it’s role post injection actually is…
No doubt that will start another round of, ‘idiot’ etc… that seems to be a standard response from defenders of the indefensible…
flip, I’ve never been anti vaccination… never… I am pro truth, pro evidence-based medicine.
When parents are reassured by authorities that aluminum is nothing to worry about because a baby is exposed to no more via injections than via food then they are being reassured based on lies… scientific fraud in fact.
Really Ron? I don’t remember seeing you imploring anti-vax groups to desist from making you their poster boy when you and your friend were busy trying to derail the MenZB vaccine campaign in the mid-2000s. You simply had a vendetta against our Ministry of Health and I don’t think you were bothered who ‘used’ you.
nz sceptic, nobody used me… what I did emerged from my involvement with the MOH expert working group that advised the DG of Health on the reporting and management of medical injuries in the health system. I had undertaken a risk assessment to establish relative risks related to various hazards in our lives… meningococcal disease never registered on any info I had, so I dug deeper… what I did was never about anti-vaccination… I never once talked about ‘vaccination’ … I talked about the policy and scientific deficiencies re MeNZB.
When I spoke in [mostly] packed halls around the country I never once advised or even addressed vaccination per se. If I was asked about other vaccines, my comment was always the same… I am not anti-vaccine, never have been, but my issue was with the policy and science being used to push MeNZB.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested in seeing it.
R
@Ron,
Would we like evidence with that? Yes, we would. (Invisible super-secret documents not included)
OK Ron, so you were just joking when you said that you were ‘proud to have dissuaded “10 to 15 per cent” of parents from having their children vaccinated’ with the MeNZB?Please show us where (apart from some vague weasel words muttered lamely about not being anti-vaccine) you actually asked anti-vax organisations not to misrepresent you and your views as part of their mission to demonise all vaccines.
Ron says, “A baby absorbs about 1ug of aluminium a day… in NZ at least they are injected with 1,320ug of aluminum at 6 weeks and twice more by 6 months… just in 4,000ug”
I think your numbers are off there a bit, Ron.
The 6 week schedule in NZ calls for 2 injections:
Infarix-hexa
Synflorix
Infarix-hexa contains 700 micrograms of aluminum
Synflorix contains 500 micrograms of aluminum
http://www.gsk.ca/english/docs-pdf/Infanrix-hexa_PM_20080718_EN.pdf
http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/22743/SPC/Synflorix+suspension+for+injection+in+pre-filled+syringe/
So… where’s the other 120 micrograms you’re claiming coming from?
Ron,
We may not we know exactly what the incidence of polio in India was before mass polio vaccination but we can make a good estimate. If you look on PubMed you will find many studies in the 50s-80s where exactly that was done, with several discussions about the best way to monitor the incidence of polio and the impact of vaccination. Even if we assume that all the polio case that were diagnosed before active surveillance was introduced would now be called AFP, there were still clearly many more cases before the eradication initiative was introduced. The 1978 study in Lucknow found incidence of polio in urban preschool children approaching 1 in 100. Since the population of India is now 1.24 billion and the birth rate is 22.22 births/1,000 population there must be at least 135 million children aged 5 and under. If 1 in 100 of those had polio or AFP there would be over 1 million of them, Instead, active surveillance last year found 60,000 cases of AFP and no cases of polio.
In India? Citation needed, especially since you claim we don’t know how many cases there were before the vaccine was introduced. We know enough to know that incidence was falling before vaccination, but we don’t know enough to say with any confidence that vaccination has had a massive impact? Nonsense.
Again, citation needed. Even if we compare the lowest estimates of polio before vaccination, which you claim would now be called AFP, with the highest estimates of AFP now, there is an enormous fall in numbers.
If you have read the same references I have it is very clear indeed that the vast majority of aluminum absorbed from any source is excreted in the urine. A small amount is retained in the body, mostly in bone, with a vanishingly tiny amount accumulating in the brain. One of those references estimates that at the normal rate of accumulation from food, water and vaccines, it would take 100-150 years to accumulate enough aluminum to cause neurological problems.
Citation?
If you put forward a rational argument supported by evidence, and addressed the points people make, instead of evading them and picking on irrelevancies, perhaps people wouldn’t accuse you of being an idiot.
Heh.
Of course Ron is quite right, if there is more than one cause of acute flaccid paralysis, any attempts to combat it are a complete waste of time. Even if polio and other enteroviruses are eradicated, there is still Guillain Barre, car accidents and snakebites. In fact there’s no point in any sort of medicine really, because people will still get ill. We might as well just abandon all hope now. [/sarcasm]
Ron Law:
Then why did you say this:
Do then, tell us whre that free fall is before the vaccine was introduced in 1955?
Disease: Polio in the USA, from CDC Pink Book Appendix G
Year__Cases____Deaths
1950__33,300___1,904
1951__28,386___1,551
1952__57,879___3,145
1953__35,592___1,450
1953__35,592___1,450
1954__38,476___1,368
1955__28,985___1,043
1956__15,140_____566
1957___5,485_____221
1958___5,787_____255
1959___8,425_____454
1960___3,190_____230
1961___1,312______90
1962_____910______60
1963_____449______41
1964_____122______17
1965______72______16
1966_____113_______9
1967______41______16
1968______53______24
1969______20______13
1970______33_______7
An oscillation reflecting the cyclical behavior of disease epidemics doesn’t count. The only “free fall” I see is after 1955. How can you be “pro-truth” when you say things that aren’t really true?
Ooops, typo… 1953 is repeated.
Just to add to what Chris wrote. From 1992 – 1998 the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis was “1.4 per 100,000 children/year (95% confidence interval = 1.2-1.6); predicting approximately 844 children/year in the United States” and declined 28% during the study period.
The point of my last comment, should it not be clear, is that if there were 30-60 thousand cases of AFP (wrongly diagnosed as polio) in the USA in the 1950s, there certainly aren’t that many any more. The dramatic increase in American hygiene since the 50s must be responsible, because it could not possibly be vaccination (I am in a sarcastic mood today I’m afraid).
Ron Law:
The definition change happens when there are better tools to diagnose the pathogen. Especially when they can even figure out which polio strain, and even a particular strain, including how long ago the infection occurred (due to evolutionary shifts). See this discussion of a case report: Poliomyelitis after a twelve year incubation period.
That blog is written by a virologist who spent most of his career studying polio. That is one of several articles on polio there. Even though much of it goes over my head, I have learned lots from that blog and listening to all of Dr. Racaniello podcasts.
Get over it nz sceptic… Speaking out about crock policy and research, and pr related to one product does not make one anti-vaccination… as for being responsible for what others say, well, that nothing I can control… besides, you wouldn’t have a clue about anything i said/didn’t say to people.
You’re dredging… a typical skeptic source of evidence, me thinks.
Chris, that paper is a classic case report on a fatal medical injury… three issues involves… it was vaccine derived polio, neither she, nor family should have been given a live vaccine, and the immunoglobulins didn’t do their job.
So by any definition, this is a death caused by a vaccine… and was fully preventable
Chris, before I get back re numbers, would you mind posting the hepatitis numbers for those years?
Ron
That’s a good example of your usual obfuscation Ron; when Chris gives a good example of how polio infections can be identified and classified, you ignore her point and pick on an irrelevancy. No one is denying that live vaccines can cause problems in immunodeficient people. That’s one reason the live vaccine isn’t used in the developed world any more.
Let me guess the underlying colossal failure here.
@Ron
The problem is, you’ve provided no evidence to show that it *is* a crock.
Ron Law:
What does that have to do with your major failure at truth when you claimed that polio and deaths from polio were in free fall before the vaccine? Are you trying to deflect from being wrong by changing the subject?
Krebiozen:
And that article noted that since she had the immune deficiency, the OPV should not have been given to her children.
So Ron Law is creating another major fail by totally missing the point that technology moves forward.
Narad (4.30pm): Medical Hypotheses does get such bad press, doesn’t it? http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/medical-hypotheses-fails-the-aids-test/
@ Narad & Alison: Here’s an expanded article, courtesy of rense.com about the Heptavax B vaccine and the *transmission* of SV-40, AIDS, and Kaposi Sarcoma. The *weird* thing is, none of the people who received the serum-derived Heptavax B vaccine, (my son included, 1985), never were diagnosed with any of these maladies. Odder still, is that once the Heptavax B vaccine was discontinued in favor of the rDNA vaccines, people who never received Heptavax B vaccine, contracted AIDS and other opportunistic diseases such K.S. Enjoy…
http://rense.com/general68/gayex.htm
The old Medical Hypotheses editor used to write the same Evo-psych editorial every two or three issues about the inherited nature of intelligence, raging about Fashionable Political Soundness within the psychology world that made it impossible to discuss group differences.
It hasn’t been so funny since the publishers replaced him..
nz sceptic,
There was a thread on sciblogs where a commenter persistently asked Ron to name one vaccine he supports. (Don’t ask me which thread! 🙂 )
I think it my be time to read this classic e-mail exchange between Peter Bowditch and a certain Risk & Policy Advisor …
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ias.htm
So much for not being anti-vaccine.
nz skeptic… “OK Ron, so you were just joking when you said that you were ‘proud to have dissuaded”
There you go again, assuming that the media report accurately… Firstly, I never said that and it is not a quote. There were many errors of fact in that article… another one posted on here said I had more than one bachelor’s degree…
As a self-professed skeptic you sure have shallow critical thinking skills.
@ Ron Risk Analyst: We know you don’t support the meningitis vaccine, the polio vaccine and the HPV vaccines. So, which vaccines do you support?
Grant posted…
nz sceptic,
There was a thread on sciblogs where a commenter persistently asked Ron to name one vaccine he supports. (Don’t ask me which thread! 🙂 )
Grant, I’m surprised you haven’t just linked to your threads… You don’t get it, do you… I have never bagged vaccines per se… I have bagged bad/dubious policy/science/uncritical thinking…
As I’ve said many times, I’m fully vaccinated, my kids are fully vaccinated, their kids are fully vaccinated… what don’t you get?
I don’t like yoghurt… I’m not anti yoghurt… and I don’t have to do around and say I like custard or rice pudding to prove I’m not.
It’s not about vaccination… never has been.
Ron: “So by any definition, this is a death caused by a vaccine”
To elaborate on Krebiozen’s reply:
I agree with Krebiozen, you regularly ignore the message to nitpick some irrelevancy. I presume it’s your way of not facing the message using a form of goalpost shifting.
Leaving aside that Ron named only one factor (the vaccine) and left out others that were also relevant, it occurs to be me that his response also is an example of a fallacy that seems common among anti-vaccine advocates and some of those who pit ‘natural remedies’ in opposition to ‘conventional’ medicine – ‘demanding’ that the medical treatment be ‘perfect’, that if on rare occasions doesn’t work as we’d all hope, it’s a ‘failure’.
What is sought is for the treatment (vaccination in this case) to be better than the alternatives, including no treatment.
I mean to add ages that my my 6:25am comment crossed-over earlier comments. (I was writing these in between other work, so I don’t see new comments coming in; it’s possible that I may have missed one or two entirely, it happens.)
Lilady, I’m not aware of any meningitis vaccine, where have I expressed opposition to either the polio vaccine or the Gardasil vaccine??????
As a so-called sci-blog adherent, please check your facts before engaging in comment.
Where in these comments have I ever expressed the view that I don’t support vaccination…
What I don’t support is parents being reassured with false information.
What I don’t support is dubious data in part the result of changing definitions and effort to find/differentiate diseases being used as proof of effectiveness…
Ron Law:
The same could be said for you. You are regurgitating several anti-vax myths like polio cases/deaths were in a free fall prior vaccination. You would have saved yourself embarrassment if you had bothered to look it up in reputable sources before making a comment.
By the way, hepatitis b only became reportable in 1970. So, no there is no data from the mid-1950s. Though if you look at the CDC Pink Book Appendix G, you will see it start to decline slowly in the 1990s. Hepatitis a became reportable in 1966. It has also been declining since the introduction of its vaccine. Neither have anything to do with polio.
There you go again, assuming that the media report accurately… Firstly, I never said that and it is not a quote.
OK Ron, then what did you say that might have given the reporter this impression. If you were misrepresented, did you follow up with the reporter concerned and ask them to publish a correction?
Lilady, I’m not aware of any meningitis vaccine. No? http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00064.htm Or is this simply an example of you playing with words? If lilady had used the word ‘meningococcal’, would you have given the same response?
Ron Law:
Oh, really? So there is another Ron Law in New Zealand the subject of this article: Ron Law at his anti-vaccination wingnuttery again?
Now from the CDC Pink Book chapter on meningococcal disease:
Seriously, Mr. Law, are you still saying: I am pro truth, pro evidence-based medicine.?
ChrisP, can you point out where I have expressed anti-vaccination statements on rsole’s link?
In case you missed it the discussion was about the relationship between paracetamol use and meningococcal disease.
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ias.htm
As a matter of interest, the NZ government has recently committed $3 million or so to studying one way or another these widely held concerns…
2009 Career Development Awards – Clinical Research Training Fellow
Sally Eyers
University of Otago
Effect of regular paracetamol on asthma control in mild to moderate asthma
$255,930
36 months
2010 Funding Round
Professor Richard Beasley
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand
A randomised placebo-controlled trial of paracetamol use in influenza
$747,053
18 months
2010 Funding Round
Professor Richard Beasley
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand
RCT of regular paracetamol in mild to moderate asthma
$342,220
24 months
2011 Funding Round
Professor Richard Beasley
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington
Randomised Placebo-controlled Trial of Paracetamol in Febrile Septic Patients
$1,197,966
36 months
2012 Funding Round
Professor Richard Beasley
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand
RCT of Asthma Risk with Paracetamol Use in Infancy – A Feasibility Study
$149,000
12 months
http://www.hrc.govt.nz/funding-opportunities/recipients
http://jech.highwire.org/content/58/10/852.full
“Lilady, I’m not aware of any meningitis vaccine. No?”
Alison…I was just about to link to Ron Risk Analyst’s “Meningococcal Gold Rush-Parts I, II and III”. Here’s my other link that attests to the success of the meningococcal vaccine in spite of RRA’s *activities*:
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1291/3504/content.pdf
ChrisP, all yo have demonstrated is an ability to use Google to dredge for mud… who is JM O’Donnell? A student at the time… and are his statements as fact factual… ?
mmm… so let’s see, sci-bloggers and their minnows have confirmed that evidence trawled from the bowels of the internet is proven factual because it was discovered while trawling the bowels of the internet… Nice one… but think about it… that invalidates the scientific process… it means that you accept anything you read…
Now that is a model of the scientific method… Not!
Alison, ” If you were misrepresented, did you follow up with the reporter concerned and ask them to publish a correction? ”
I did, and they wouldn’t.
“Lilady, I’m not aware of any meningitis vaccine, where have I expressed opposition to either the polio vaccine or the Gardasil vaccine??????”
Really RRA????? Are you just JAQing off here on Respectful Insolence????? How about your questions about polio on other blogs, such as the BMJ?????
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1075?tab=responses
Re: Assaulting alternative medicine: worthwhile or witch hunt?
13 March 2012
“I note Debajyoti Datta is a Medical Student.
JAMA had an article in 1951 that described AFP thus, “Most patients with acute paralysis suffer from one of three conditions: poliomyelitis, hysteria or the infectious polyneuritis of Guillain-Barré…” [1]
A 1959 paper stated, “The accurate appraisal of the preventive value of such a vaccine will depend on our ability to diagnose poliomyelitis accurately. It had long been believed that the clinical features of acute paralytic poliomyelitis were sufficiently characteristic for a confident diagnosis to be made on clinical grounds alone.
This confidence has recently been shaken by
the finding that the virus of louping-ill (Russian spring–summer encephalomyelitis) may produce a similar clinical picture, even in the United Kingdom1. There is also suggestive but incomplete evidence that Coxsackie B, Echo2 and other viruses3 may occasionally cause acute flaccid paralysis.
The position of a “non-paralytic” poliomyelitis is even less secure4 and the diagnosis can no longer be established on clinical grounds alone.” [2]
I recommend the reading of the Illinois Medical Journal editions for August and September 1960, a two-part transcript titled, the present status of polio vaccines. This transcript documents the history and politics of the early polio vaccination programme including detailed descriptions of the changing of the diagnosis of polio after the Salk vaccine was introduced to exclude polio-like illness which is now called acute flaccid paralysis.
A 2005 edition of the BMJ includes a detailed table of many illnesses that mascerade as polio-like illness and in pre polio-surveillance era were often diagnosed as polio. [3]
Pre vaccine polio numbers were ramped up through the use of lameness surveys and ‘estimates’ of polio cases not reported and included non-polio AFP cases. Post surveillance polio case number exclude polio-like paralysis due to AFP.
Whilst we celebrate the eradication of confirmed polio paralysis in India, over 60,000 children are now diagnosed as “paralysed by polio-like illness” aka AFP, each year with no apparent concern.
I wonder if the parents of those 60,000 children paralysed each year by what [mostly] used to be called polio, are celebrating that their children didn’t have polio… whew, what a relief!
As a student of medicine, please look at the history of medicine; learn to critically analyse what your professors tell you… look at the evidence for yourself so that you can become a medical doctor with a compassionate heart.
[1] E. M. Hammes Jr., M.D. PERIODIC PARALYSIS: A REPORT OF THREE CASES
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/146/15/1401.short
[2] ED Acheson (1959) Am J Med, http://findacureclub.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/5/1/5251327/acheson_amjmed.pdf
[3] Poliomyelitis and the postpolio syndrome
Robin S Howard, BMJ. 2005 June 4; 330(7503): 1314–1318. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7503.1314
PMC558211 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558211/pdf/bmj33001314.pdf
Competing interests: None declared
Ron Law, Risk & Policy Adviser
Juderon Associates, 25 Mudgeways Road, Auckland, New Zealand”
Chris, so you know how to google-a-quote… good for you. The problem is it doesn’t help you as there is no meningitis vaccine as claimed…
there might be several meningooccal vaccines… and I went public on one of those… an experimental one at that… one that the NZ Ministry of Health refused to give a permanent license to because even they concluded that there was no evidence it was effective for any length of time.
For the record, the mention of the word meningitis sends shivers down parents spines… but meningitis is not the main problem with meningococcal disease… septicaemia is…
Ron, it was your own e-mails that point out your anti-vaccine stance. When you claim you have never been anti-vaccine, we only have to find one example to prove your claim false. We have found more than one, but every time you claim that you were ‘misreported’. That is why I went for your very own typed words that showed you for what you are.
Who the hell is JM O’Donnell? And what have they got to do with your e-mails? Are you suggesting you didn’t write those e-mails?
Lilady, glad you linked to the NZMJ article. You might like to post the links to the Meningococcal Gold Rush series too…
Here one td-bit… “At the end of the mass campaign in June 2006 over 90% of those aged under 20 years in the highest risk area (Counties Manukau) had received three doses with highest coverage achieved in Pacific children, the group who suffered disproportionately more from the disease. Nationally, 80% had received three doses, including 86% of
those aged 5–17 years.””
That’s all true… in fact, the campaign was so successful that over 100 percent of pacific Island children were vaccinated in Sth Auckland.
ChrisP, humblest apologies… I got my Chris’s Crossed… comment re Jim O’D should have been referred to Chris…
ChrisP… the emails were about paracetamol use… they were not about vaccination effectiveness.
Grant said, “Leaving aside that Ron named only one factor (the vaccine) and left out others that were also relevant, it occurs to be me that his response also is an example of a fallacy that seems common among anti-vaccine advocates and some of those who pit ‘natural remedies’ in opposition to ‘conventional’ medicine – ‘demanding’ that the medical treatment be ‘perfect’, that if on rare occasions doesn’t work as we’d all hope, it’s a ‘failure’.”
Grant, I’m really, really, really surprised that you have re-entered this discussion with false-implied or otherwise and/or fabricated innuendo…
Your ability to create false statements and yet claim to be an objective sci-blogger beggars belief….
Stick around RRA…I have a comment stuck in moderation.
In the meantime, take a look at this communication (rant) by RRA, directed at a science blogger. Same Ron Law, same recurrent them (I’m not anti-vaccine)…and same lack of science:
http://immunoblogging.blogspot.com/2006/01/email-from-ron-law.html
Ron, you are clearly trying to weasel your way out of this one as well. The e-mails were about paracetamol because of your claim that meningococcal disease was linked to paracetamol use and hence vaccination was pointless.
The statement about paracetamol was obviously and breath-takingly wrong, its sole use was to be part of an anti-vaccine gambit.
Says he of the Weak Greenberg Gambit.
Ron,
“Grant, I’m surprised you haven’t just linked to your threads”
As I said I don’t know what one it was. I wasn’t implying “my blog” (as you did); it’ll likely be either Michael’s or Alison’s.
“It’s not about vaccination… never has been.”
As I have tried to point out to you, it’s about not your claiming “I’m not anti-vaccine” or not; but your actions. I ‘get’ that you want to say that—in fact, can’t remember when I didn’t—but that doesn’t make you be doing that. A problem with many of your “scientific” arguments is that you proceed by trying to “show” that something is true by fitting data/arguments to it, then on managing to “fit” data to it declaring it “right”.
“Grant, I’m really, really, really surprised that you have re-entered this discussion with false-implied or otherwise and/or fabricated innuendo…”
And you resort to making empty tit-for-tat accusations/baiting, i.e. trolling.
(The point you refer to wasn’t about you in particular but stepping back to look at a wider general problem. You’ve left out the key point out by not quoting the following paragraph; the two go together.)
Ron Law:
Actually I just linked to something that was posted here on August 22, 12:37 am. You might actually try reading the replies here a bit closer, along with the links to real sources. The meningococcal vaccine prevents the meningitis caused by that particular bacteria, that just happens to cause a large percentage (75% !!) of … wait for it… meningitis. Perhaps that is why the bacteria is called: Neisseria meningitidis.
So, again, you are not really bringing on the “truth” when you say “The problem is it doesn’t help you as there is no meningitis vaccine as claimed.” Because, well, that is known as a falsehood, or more to the point: a lie.
Are you having trouble understanding that a vaccine that prevents the most common cause of meningitis is being called a “meningitis” vaccine because English might not be your native language?
Is this why when I showed your comment about polio cases/deaths were not free falling before vaccination, you decided to ask about hepatitis (and not specifying either a or b)?
Re: Ron Law
August 26, 8:04 pm
“Alison, ” If you were misrepresented, did you follow up with the reporter concerned and ask them to publish a correction? ”
I did, and they wouldn’t.”
OK, Ron, can you just confirm that you weren’t pleased and proud at having dissuaded many thousands of parents from having their child vaccinated against MeNZB, and that you were upset at having your own personal campaign against the ministry being used by anti-vax zealots to further their agenda?
Just a simple answer will suffice……
@ Ron
Followed by a list of studies whose titles seem to me to imply that they are looking at paracetamol as a treatment for a variety of ills.
Widely held concerns, eh? Their concerns don’t look like your concerns.
It’s quite funny. On another thread, a reader is berating us for not looking at studies on chemotherapy’s effects. You berate us for doing studies on paracetamol’s effects (although I’m not sure that this is your point). Make up your mind, please.
To go back on these studies you quoted, I failed to see any mention of streptococci. Or vaccines.
I believe we scientists call the technique you are using as pissing on our shoes while trying to convince us it’s raining.
Sorry, I meant meningococci, not streptococci.
I blame the late hour, time for bed.
@Ron
Ok, this pisses me off:
The other commenters are far better at combatting the scientific stuff because, well, they’re smarter than me.
But I have worked with a number of people in journalism, and they take quite seriously the accuracy of what they report in regards to interviews. Even if they’re crappy reporters, once reported to the paper, they’d have a legal obligation to change the article or to write an apology/notification that they were incorrect. Furthermore, you’d have quite a good legal standing to challenge them in a civil lawsuit – I’m guessing in your line of work you might actually care about being accurately represented?
If more than one reporter is misrepresenting you in all these pieces, then none of their recording devices work (oh yes, who writes shorthand anymore?) or none of them keep emails (again, unlikely); or *cough* Bullshit *cough*.
If people are so busy misunderstanding you, did you ever think that *you’re* the one with the communication problem? It’s not up to us to correctly interpret your vague mumblings.
I still note that these invisible documents haven’t appeared. What a pity.
@Narad
Please enlighten me…
flip,
I’m not Narad, obviously, but I believe this is what he is referring to.
If declines in diseases happen naturally, I’m wondering when we in the UK are going to see the same 95% reduction in the incidence of chicken pox that the USA has seen since 1996 when the vaccine was (coincidentally of course) introduced. In the UK 90% of people still get chicken pox, though that has nothing to do with the fact that children are not routinely vaccinated against it here. Of course (still sarcastic today it seems).
To avoid misunderstandings I should point out that the two thoughts expressed in my previous comment are not directly connected. The Greenberg Gambit is the claim that diseases have not disappeared, they have just been relabeled as something else. The Natural Decline Gambit is a different entity, though often resorted to when the former fails and vice versa.
@Thanks Krebiozen. I think this is the first time I’ve ever bothered to read something on whale.to 😉
Chris said, ” The meningococcal vaccine prevents the meningitis caused by that particular bacteria, that just happens to cause a large percentage (75% !!) of … wait for it… meningitis. Perhaps that is why the bacteria is called: Neisseria meningitidis.”
Most cases on meningitis are caused by viral infections and resolve without much treatment. There are many causes of bacterial meningitis, of which meningococcal infections is but one… and the of course there are asceptic meningitis cases which often got diagnosed as polio back in the day…
se,… the scary part of meningococcal disease is the systemic infection that causes loss of limbs.
Heliantus, where did I ” berate us for doing studies on paracetamol’s effects (although I’m not sure that this is your point).”
Who is US???
Personally, I have never berated anyone for doing studies on paracetamol… they should have been done yonks ago…
Heliantus, the fact is that Michael Baker’s study into housing conditions in NZ found poor housing/overcrowding to be factors behind the meningcoccal disease in NZ a decade ago. His paper did highlight a relationship between meningococcal disease and paracetamol use and the abstract made different comments to those in the main part of the paper.
It is well established that the body raises the temperature as part of the immune response. quashing that process is well known reduce the bodies immune response… and prolong disease.
Krebiozen said, “The Greenberg Gambit is the claim that diseases have not disappeared, they have just been relabeled as something else.”
In the case of polio, that is a irrefutable fact… the definition was changed.
Have any of you actually read the 1960 transcript in the illinois medical journal… I have, a number of times… Greenberg explains in simple terms how definitions were changed… he even says with regards to polio that effectively since 1955 they were dealing with a different disease because of these changed definition.
I have the paper if anyone wants to read it… it is very informative and bypasses all the secondary/tertiary clap trap as provided in the link… why don’t people use first principles these days and verify the facts for themselves?
By the way, Lilady, your post highlights exactly what I’ve been saying… “Really RRA????? Are you just JAQing off here on Respectful Insolence????? How about your questions about polio on other blogs, such as the BMJ?????
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1075?tab=responses”
It’s not anti-vaccine at all… pointing out that amplifying, obfuscating and even re-writing science is commonly used to make grandoise statements as fact… going back to source documents often highlight that what is stated as fact in fact isn’t… Polio stats are one such example… changing definitions of polio itself, and even redefining what constitutes an epidemic makes it easy to justify a point.
The facts are that the Salk polio vaccine was made to look good by redefining the disease and manipulating the facts.
RRA: Still trying to score points, eh?
There comes a time when I no longer communicate with ignorant crank anti-vaccine posters. You are still busted RRA.
flip, I deal with journalists a lot and fully echo your comments. The overwhelming majority of journalists are keen for accuracy in their stories and if they trip up, a stern e-mail to the editor pointing out the error will lead to a printed apology.
The only time this won’t happen is when the journalist has evidence (tapes for example) that you really did say what was written and confirmed it when asked.
So yes. Ron is talking bullshit.
On a further topic of bullshit, the paper Ron is refering to made it quite clear that the analgesics use was actually about recent illness. What Ron is doing is a practice all of us in the scientific community would recognise as cherry-picking. It is a form of lying.
Ililady… Not scoring points… just mentioning your link highlights the manipulation of evidence to support the cause… I get motivated by responses such as your last… when people attack to person rather than critique the evidence it suggests I’m on strong grounds… besides, point to a single “anti-vaccine” post of mine… no one has yet because I’m not ant-vaccine… just anti-abuse-of-science and the rewriting of history.
Ciao-4-Niao
Ron, pleased you admit you are “not scoring points”. At least we can’t list lack of insight as one of your failings.
dingo199: Now that Ron has left the arena, after being tossed about as our chew toy…Orac has give us Suzanne Humphries to have fun with.
Here’s a *great* article written by Humphries about pertussis…just chock full of inaccuracies for us to have fun with:
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/08/03/why-is-nobody-studying-vitamin-c-in-whooping-cough-by-suzanne-humphries-md/
Lilady, I’m still here… I must admit I was trying to work out what all that dribble was… now I know… saliva from toothless patbulls…
Back to the beginning… I came into this comments/discussion to challenge the lack of objectivity regarding comments made about Jasmine Renata’s inquest.
the overwhelming conclusion drawn is that so-called objective scibloggers are no better in the main than those they write about… All of the evidence I’ve seen is hear say, inaccurate reports, or fragments. When quotes fro transcripts or evidence in briefs are given they are rubbished simply because they don’t fit the hypothesis-de-jour. When given the opportunity to look at documents given in confidence they run a mile claiming the documents are fake without verifying the facts.
Here what I predict.
the coroner will reach an open verdict. Jasmine will officially died from Sudden Unexplained Death… he may refer to possible genetic heart disease even if all the evidence (to date) says otherwise. I doubt he’ll implicate Gardasil for two reason… no-one has provided evidence of causality…
oh, and the second reason is that he wouldn’t want to be labelled as a heretic.
“Back to the beginning… I came into this comments/discussion to challenge the lack of objectivity regarding comments made about Jasmine Renata’s inquest.”
Actually your first comments here were about aluminium uptake, etc., in infants, which I repeated pointed out elsewhere has nothing to do with the Jasmine Renata inquest (she was a teenager). You were pushing your own ideas about aluminium in vaccines, not querying statements about the inquest.
When given the opportunity to look at documents given in confidence they run a mile claiming the documents are fake without verifying the facts.
well, actually, Ron – people asked for clarity on exactly what you were offering, & didn’t receive any (for example, what ‘a look’ actually means in practice).
Ron,
Here’s a simple question. Let’s assume that all the approximately 30,000 – 50,000 polio cases per year reported in the US during the 1950s would now be diagnosed as AFP. Since the population has more or less doubled since then, wouldn’t we expect to see somewhere around 60,000 – 100,000 cases of AFP every year in the US? How is that only about 1,000 cases of AFP were seen from 1992 – 1998? Where did all the AFP go?
That’s an estimated 1,000 cases of AFP, to be clear.
“cuddling our ‘rescue’ dog”
Readers wanting a break from this could read Alison’s post on the wee guy: http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2012/08/27/fostering-is-the-cause/
the second reason is that he wouldn’t want to be labelled as a heretic.
Isn’t it a little bit early to be impugning the coroner’s integrity?
herr doktor bimler,
My thoughts too. Ditto for “even if all the evidence (to date) says otherwise”.
Oh, and Ron, a couple of questions:
1. If you aren’t “antivaccine”, I assume you’d have no problems ensuring your kid (if you have one) gets the full schedule of recommended vaccines. I’d apreciate your confirmation of this, or qualification about which vaccines you would give/not give.
2. Perhaps you could comment (using your renowned expertise as a risk analyst) on what the decision of a mother should be when deciding whether to vaccinate her child during an outbreak/epidemic of a nasty and often fatal disease, when the scientific evidence shows unvaccinated kids are 4 times liklier to get the disease than vaccinated kids?
@ChrisP
One of the reasons I mentioned recording devices: it’s so much easier to accurately quote someone when you can transcribe the recording. If you watch any press conference these days (ie. Mars landing recently) you’ll find the majority of people holding some sort of recording device – whether it’s a dictator, or an mp3 recorder, or a computer… They probably do some shorthand to accompany it, but a majority don’t seem to do it at all.
Hence me also calling bullshit, because the only reason they’d refuse to publish a correction is if they had accurately reported what Ron Risk Analyst said. Otherwise, all of the media is conspiring against him to promote Big Vaccines.
Granted recording devices aren’t perfect and they can fail: which is why you test them before using them and make sure they are fully charged beforehand. Again, it comes back to a ) most reporters are lying, b ) most reporters aren’t getting their devices/whatever working, c ) RRA is lying.
Occam’s razor does the rest.
@ dingo199. RRA claims to have vaccinated his kids and his grandkids are also “fully vaccinated”….according to him.
How about the fact that kids not immunized against pertussis are twenty-six times more likely to contract pertussis, compared to fully vaccinated kids?
Alison and Grant. Don’t you just *love* the treasure trove of pseudoscience that RRA has left here for future science bloggers?
Ron Law:
Those viral infections were mostly mumps and measles, and with vaccinations they do not occur very often.
I offered you some real references, perhaps you should actually become familiar with the CDC Pink Book. If you had checked that you would not have embarrassed yourself by claiming cases of polio were declining before the vaccine (which came before 1960).
Now try actually read this chapter of the CDC Pink Book where it says (and this is the second time I am posting this, you do seem to be a slow learner):
I am beginning to wonder if it isn’t so much that you are not being truthful, but that you just can’t understand what you read.
If anyone would prefer to avoid the step in which Ron rummages around in his underwear drawer for The Documents, there’s a readable scan (in reverse page order) here.
@lilady
I used the 4x risk example because this is the precise relative risk for invasive meningitis in those who do not get the meningococcal vaccine (the MenNZB one which made Ron spit his dummy out). I am wondering how a risk analyst can justify refusing something that works, and lessened the risks of getting severe invasive meningococcal disease/meningitis fourfold.
I know the risks for other diseases like pertussis is even greater for the unvaxed.
Thanks Narad. I have combined those images into a PDF with (mostly) copyable text here.
Those with an interest in previously-expressed opinions might follow the comments thread on this post: http://sciblogs.co.nz/skepticon/2011/10/14/ias-complaint-part-4-anti-vaccine-impact-in-new-zealand/comment-page-1/#comments
I think what Ron is trying to say is that we are barking up the wrong squirrel.
Thank you for being a breath of fresh air. As a single mother of 2 children with autism it is difficult to even mention vaccines. I am also a 3rd year Biochemistry PhD student (I am in the middle of written qualifying exam and decided to procrastinate in order to read your blog…bc that’s better than pancreatic cancer ;)) Anyhow, I am appalled at the lack of vaccination. My children are fully vaccinated and will continue to get the rest of their shots (my daughter is 11 and son 9)…………we need more people out there taking down these snakeoil salesman!!!!!
alison, thanks for the headsup to that helping of previous Ron malignant stupidity.
What dumbfounds me is how someone who declares himself as being “not antivaccine” can argue so implacably and intrasigently against just about every vaccine.
I suspect he might be off now offering risk management advice to his MeNZB co-conspiracist, who’s found herself in a spot of Facebook bother!
….is that about the Gates poster?
@ Alison and dingo199:
You both and Grant have been quite relentless in categorizing Ron for the anti-vaccine denying fool he is:
Here in the link that Alison provided, Ron is arguing about the 90% of kids who should be immunized against MMR to maintain “herd immunity”…with this inane post:
“Ron Law 314 days ago
Grant, that is a statement of opinion… it is not referenced.
I am aware of vaccination rates well over 90 percent with epidemics/outbreaks of measles so such a rate in a very small percentage of the herd provides zero certainty.
I would have thought that a person critiquing someone with an opposing view… especially if they were purporting to represent the good guys (science) would use referenced primary sources of evidence, not unreferenced opinion some 12 years old.
“NZ’s coverage for MMR is measured at 24 months, not 15 months… the vaccine hasn’t even been scheduled to be given till 15 months so its totally impossible to have 90 percent coverage at 15 months.”
What he doesn’t understand is that an audit of the current New Zealand Childhood Schedule compared against actual rates of immunization against MMR of 24 month old children, looks at AGE APPROPRIATE immunizing of kids with the FIRST of two MMR vaccines. If the records of children who are 2 years of age reveal that 90 % of them have had their FIRST MMR vaccine between between 15-24 months of age, then those kids are AGE APPROPRIATELY immunized against measles, mumps and rubella. (The recommended timing for the SECOND MMR vaccine is four-years-of-age).
http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/immunisation/new-zealand-immunisation-schedule
4 years
Diphtheria/Tetanus/Whooping cough/Polio
1 injection (INFANRIX™-IPV)
Measles/Mumps/Rubella
1 injection (M-M-R® ll)
And, Ron still claims he is not anti-vaccine….
Here’s another article about New Zealand’s Immunizations Rates:
http://www.bpac.org.nz/magazine/2010/july/immunisation.asp
“Targets for immunisation in children aged two years and under
The PHO Performance Programme (PPP) was established to improve the health outcomes of people enrolled in general practice and to reduce inequalities, especially in high needs populations (Māori, Pacific peoples and those living in lower socioeconomic areas).
An important focus of the PPP for younger patients is to ensure that they are receiving their necessary immunisations, by the recommended age milestones.
It is imperative that the majority of children are immunised against selected serious diseases in order to ensure that re-emergence of these diseases does not occur. As well as achieving immunisation coverage, it is equally important that children are vaccinated on time. Delay in receiving the first infant vaccinations (at age six weeks) is associated with subsequent non-completion of the immunisation schedule.1 Delays also increase the risk of contracting disease, e.g. one study found that children who had their pertussis vaccination delayed were four to six times more likely to be hospitalised for pertussis than those who received the vaccination on time.2
The PPP goal is for 85% or more of a PHOs enrolled population to have received their complete set of age appropriate vaccinations by their 2nd birthday.
The overall national immunisation goal set by the Ministry of Health is for 95% of children in New Zealand to be fully immunised by age two years.
Immunisation rates reach 85% in 2010
Immunisation rates among children in New Zealand have been increasing over recent years. Latest data from the Ministry of Health shows that 85% of children in New Zealand that turned two between January and March 2010, had completed their age appropriate immunisations. Rates varied by DHB region, from 72% in Northland to 94% in Otago.”
@ Antaeus Feldspar:
” Lilady, I’m still here… I must admit I was trying to work out what all that dribble was… now I know… saliva from toothless patbulls…”
“I think what Ron is trying to say is that we are barking up the wrong squirrel.”
Thanks for the opportunity Antaeus, to address Ron’s “barking up the wrong squirrel”
Ron: Woof, woof, grrrrr…
Clearly it makes sense to aim for 100% vaccine coverage. Certain “third world” countries, or places like Mexico achieve not far short of that for measles.
The higher, the better.
With measles, because it is so infectious (with one index case infecting around 15 others in a non-immune population, ie a reproductive number (Ro) of 15), one needs 14 out of every 15 of the population to be immune before transmission is interrupted (around 93%).
When you add the non-responders to the unvaccinated, then you see you need very high vaccination rates for measles to achieve this. NZ runs at a vaccination uptake of around 85% (which probably means 81-82% “herd” immune status when the non-responders are added in).
I blame people like Ron and his fellow sheep-shaggers.
Here is a great presentation on herd immunity:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/documents/WHE_Smith_presentation.pdf
Lilady, I got the vaccinationrates from the MOH National Immunisation Register…
http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/immunisation/immunisation-coverage/national-and-dhb-immunisation-data
As I’ve said many times, objective minded folk should argue their case based on facts.
Look through the spreadsheets… you’ll soon discover the stats I was quoting are official data from the MOH database, not some hypothetical figures plucked out of cyberspace.
lilady
August 29, 3:11 pm
Here’s another article about New Zealand’s Immunizations Rates:
http://www.bpac.org.nz/magazine/2010/july/immunisation.asp
“Targets for immunisation in children aged two years and under…
Again, you should not be using 2.1 year old articles (as noted on the webpage) of opinion/opine to argue a case when primary and up-to-date data is available… those of us who know this topic know where to go to get real data.
dingo199, again, why use some tertiary evidence source??? Having said that, it is entertaining to say the least… esp given the author is a so-called expert.
Quote: “For many infections, the level of herd immunity may have an effect on the transmission of the infection within the population and, in particular, may affect the risk of an uninfected becoming infected.”
What he means is “may affect the risk of a non-immune individual becoming infected.”
Quote: “• For such infections, increasing the level of herd immunity will decrease the risk of an uninfected person becoming infected.”
The first mistake is repeated… he menas, non-immune, not uninfected… the hope is everyone will be uninfected, whether vaccinated or not.
Ron, I have forgotten which bit of anti-vaccine nonsense you are arguing at the moment. So what is it?
Are you arguing that your claim made a year ago of well over 90% vaccination is supported by data for the period up to June 2012? Are you a clairvoyant as well as a Risk Analyst?
Ron, the quote from the presentation that dingo linked to makes perfect sense in what it said. The risk of an uninfected person becoming infected is reduced with high levels of herd immunity.
As a risk analyst, I would have though this would have been bread and butter to you. So how do you go about your risk analysis?
ChrisP… he gets back on trak in the next slide…
“Infections for which herd immunity may be important in reducing the risk of infection in non-immunes in the population are those :”
He correctly talks in terms of the whole herd… not just ‘the calves.’
Ron, has it never occurred to you that people might loose their immunity to infections over time?
So what about your clairvoyance?
One thing that puzzles me is that pre vaccine days we are told that 95% of people got infected… so if herd immunity was real then the disease would have burnt itself out, wouldn’t it?
ChrisP, has it ever occurred to you that if the virus is still circulating then the immune system of ‘the immune’ should be continually primed as people keep coming into contact with the virus?
ChrisP… do you believe in clairvoyancey? It surprises me that a self-proclaimed objective kinda-person would hold such beliefs… If you spent half a minute looking at the NIR website you’d see actual (not surveyed) historic coverage.
Ron, back in the old days, lots of people would get the diseases, but not all at once. New children who were susceptible were always being born. There were always more potential victims out there. Epidemics occurred. One of the noticeable things about measles incidence prior to the introduction of vaccines was the biennial periodicity.
The clairvoyancy is all on your part Ron. You are the one who has used 2012 data to support a claim you made in 2011. How did you know the data were going to turn out that way?
A look at the year to July 2011 shows 89% coverage at 24 months. Somewhat short of your claim of well over 90%. The only way you can get over 90% is to shift the goal posts to 2012 into a future that had not happened when you made your claim.
What a rookie mistake. Basic epidemiology Ron; new susceptibles enter the herd via birth and/or waned immunity. I would imagine that such an enlightened risk analyst such as yourself with so many years of “studying the medical literature” would have devoted at least a modicum of time to understanding some statistics and epidemiology. The numbers of VPD pre and post vaccine are rather self-explanatory.
ChrisP,
Coming in late!
The writing could be better, but that happens. As I think you’ve gotten, the author is likely not referring to the immunity status of the uninfected (as Ron refers to) but to the spread or dispersal of infection from infected people. The immune status of uninfected people isn’t the question there; what is, is if immunisation prevented currently infected people from passing the infection on.
The herd effect looked at per individual in the herd isn’t that individuals show immunity or no or limited illness — that’s the protection effect to an individual — it’s that they didn’t pass on the infection – that’s the protection effect to the population.
Ron Law:
Do you live where no babies are born and children do not exist?
Ron,
You said “if herd immunity was real”: are you disputing the mathematics or the mechanism?
Ron,
And a follow-up: are you assuming that all infectious diseases that infect humans are able to infect ONLY humans?
ChrisP… where did I say that NZ vaccination rates in July 2011 were well over 90%?
Why don’t you requote what I actually said…
Niche geek… Herd immunity is a theory… predicated on most people in the herd having been infected naturally…
And, Niche geek, of course all infectious diseases aren’t able to infect only humans. Some, such as tetanus, are not even infectious… so any herd effect would be irrelevant anyway.
Ron Law wrote
Sure Ron.
Ron Law wrote in October 2011:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/skepticon/2011/10/14/ias-complaint-part-4-anti-vaccine-impact-in-new-zealand/comment-page-1/#comments
The latest data at that point for NZ was 89% coverage at 24 months. A bit short of the Ron Law claim. When Ron Law gets called on the claim, he cites data from June 2012 – some 8 months after he made the claim.
Ron Law must be a clairvoyant … or a bullshitartist. Take your pick. I know which one I am going for.
And while I am at it perhaps it is wise to put this claim of Ron Law’s to the test too.
Ron Law wrote:
It seems not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
I think you missed a word: “only”. That is, after all, how most ignorant-about-science-terms people say it.
Sigh… that’s like not even high school science that you’re misunderstanding there Ron.
Which is applied to vaccinated as well because of immunity not infection. Do you dispute herd immunity too?
Ron,
That’s not actually true. The theory was formulated to explain observations made of the natural cycle of contagious diseases and natural immunity, but is not predicated upon that. In non-vaccinated populations an epidemic occurs when each person infected infects more than one other person, causing an exponential growth in the number of infected people, and continues until there are not enough non-immune people left to continue that rate of infection. The disease then becomes endemic, where each infected person only infects (on average) one other person.
As more and more children are born, the proportion of non-immune people rises until there are enough to sustain an epidemic and sooner or later this occurs and the cycle repeats. The periodicity of an epidemic cycle is largely related to how contagious the disease is – the more contagious the disease, the higher R0 is, the higher the herd immunity threshold and the shorter the period of the cycle.
So herd immunity is really a mathematical model that successfully explains those observations, and observations of vaccinated populations, and allows us to make accurate predictions about the effects of various public health policies. Of course in the real world and on an individual level things are more complicated, as a lot of the assumptions made are not true in every case (random distribution of immune people in the population, the number of people a contagious person comes into contact with etc.). As has been discussed here before, it doesn’t actually matter how immunity is achieved, whether naturally, by vaccinations or by a large enough proportion of the population wearing biohazard suits (not practical, obviously, but it suffices to make the point). The only important factor is that they cannot become vectors for spread of the infection; the rest of the model emerges from that.
Humph. Anyone know how subscript tags work here? Testing R0
Krebiozen,
“That’s not actually true. The theory was formulated to explain observations made of the natural cycle of contagious diseases and natural immunity, but is not predicated upon that.”
You bet me to it; nice description. (My earlier point was in the context of vaccination, following Ron and ChrisP’s lead; Krebiozen has gone back to where the herd immunity concept comes from.)
Subscript tags are usually sub. Guess they work at sciblogs, but not here: let me try: H2O.
OK, no subscripts here. Oh, well.
Krebiozen,
Thank you. I was hoping you’d post that. If Ron is a risk consultant then I assumed he would be comfortable with probability math but from his answers he clearly isn’t.
“Herd immunity is a theory… predicated on most people in the herd having been infected naturally…”
Hmmm, is that why smallpox has been eradicated from the face of the earth?
Is that why no polio cases have been acquired in the United States since 1971 and no polio cases have been acquired in the western hemisphere since 1997?
There are probably goofy-looking ones: H₂O.
So does R&sub0; work, I wonder?
Evidently not.
Thanks Krebiozen for that great description of herd immunity. Bookmarked for future reference.
Krebiozen, it is actually true… the vaccination aspect was a simple top-up… to fill the gap… but it was predicated on the masses being naturally immune.
Herd effect/immunity has been/is being continually redefined… goal posts keep shifting… eg; http://www.springerlink.com/content/g65222662v6w5h34/
Krebiozen me thinks you’ve conflated the terms herd immunity and herd effect… they are quite different terms…
I am aware of the difference. They are both terms deriving from the same mathematical model, and there is still some disagreement about how the terms should be used. This does not affect the utility of the model itself.
Ron,
You are picking on irrelevant details yet again.
Perhaps you don’t understand the word “predicate” to mean the same thing I do. If x is predicated upon y it means that x is necessary for y to occur. The herd effect does not depend on natural immunity, it depends on immunity of whatever origin.
Sorry, other way around, y is necessary for x to occur.
Checking to make sure my understanding of herd immunity, herd effect and herd protection are correct (they are), I came across this useful pictorial explanation.
Hey Krebiozen, may I republish your comment of Sept. 1 at 9:39 am on my blog? My contact details = my name, no space, at gmail. Let me know.
You have to use the prebuilt entities: R₀
^ Or, rather, the numerical values when there’s no entity name, sorry; haven’t had any coffee yet.
[offtopic]
Darwy wrote (on August 18, 4:54 am)
Speaking for myself, Darwy, I was pretty fit before and during my pregnancy, and resumed vigorous exercise as soon as possible following delivery, not to “lose the baby weight” or from “pressure” but to feel like myself again.
[/offtopic]
Krebiozen, Dingo posted a link to that paper back on ~28 Aug…
It is deficient in several ways.
Firstly, it talks in terms of uninfected being at risk… it should refer to ‘susceptibles’ or ‘non-immune’… if 100 percent of people are uninfected but 95% are immune then only the 5% non-immune are at risk or susceptible…
Secondly, it shows bias and lack of understanding of immunity by only referring to vaccinated people as being protected… people who have been previously infected (either clinically or sub-clinically) will also be immune and therefore not susceptible… immunity can wane… a small number of susceptible individuals also helps maintain immunity of the herd by exposing those who are immune to the antigen thereby boosting their immunity.
Thirdly, the Herd Effect threshold is not defined, and the levels he provides would mean that at today’s rates of immunity (whether through natural infection of vaccination) then the herd should be protected and therefore the disease should disappear.
Of course, many bacteria especially are not controlled by any vaccine… only systemic infection… The MENZB vaccine never worked on a herd effect basis as it never affeted carriage of the bacteria… but that never stopped vaccine mongers who knew from telling the public that they were putting others at risk if teh vaccination rate didn’t get up over 90 percent… but that’s another story.
If Smith’s presentation is ‘enlightening’ then it suggests a very limited understanding of the concept of the herd effect.
Here’s an example of the unintended consequences of immune mothers not having exposure to wild virus… of course, in another light, it could also be used to push policy for vaccination of pregnant women.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00365549950161826
Here’s a good diagram describing herd immunity from a vaccinologist’s perspective.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/pages/communityimmunity.aspx
The fallacy is that in the top diagram, the red people [that survive] become immune and so they should become yellow as they are then immunised… the arguments made in the bottom diagram then apply.
When the concept of herd immunity was first applied to vaccination, the premise was that all vaccination had to do was mop up those who were susceptible (not immune) and ‘voila’ herd immunity…
Liz,
Feel free to use any of my comments on your blog.
Ron,
Either you have completely missed the point of vaccination, which is to achieve immunity with a much lower risk of death, morbidity and serious permanent sequelae than infection confers, or I have misunderstood where you are coming from. Immunity from vaccination is very much safer than immunity from the disease, whatever way you look at it. I just don’t see what you are arguing about.
You also seem to assume that vaccination confers a shorter-lasting immunity than vaccination, which is not necessarily true. It is looking more and more likely that immunity from many vaccines lasts at least as long as natural immunity does. This was discussed on this blog at length not long ago, with evidence for this presented. Antigen-provoked antibody titers support the idea that most vaccines confer immunity that lasts for a lifetime.
Even if it doesn’t last longer, surely it is better to get regular boosters of a vaccine with a serious adverse event risk of less than one in a million, than risking a disease that carries a risk of serious sequelae of somewhere between 1 in 100 and 1 in 20,000?
I knew I had seen it before somewhere. It’s a simplified explanation, which I vainly hoped you might grasp, and your criticisms are mere nitpicking that do not affect the central concept in the slightest. Who called it ‘enlightening’, by the way?
Ron Law with more anti-vaccine rubbish.
Ron Law said:
Ron is, as usual, wrong. What happens is that a whole lot of new blue people are in the population, so it turns into a case analogous to the middle section.
Usually the whole population (or even more than 90%) does not get infected all at once. With vaccination immunity can be provided before the disease strikes creating the bottom scenario.
OK next argument Ron.
The point of vaccination is to go from being blue (at risk of disease) to yellow (immune from disease) without going through the intervening stage of red (sick, which is bad enough on its own and risks permanent sequelae such as death). It seems to me that arguing that we don’t need to be vaccinated because we can achieve the required level of herd immunity naturally by getting sick is about as dumb as it gets. It’s like arguing you can avoid your home burning down in a forest fire by dousing it in gas and throwing in a match, because ashes don’t burn.
Krbiozen said… “The point of vaccination is to go from being blue (at risk of disease) to yellow (immune from disease) without going through the intervening stage of red (sick, which is bad enough on its own and risks permanent sequelae such as death).”
Agree.
Krebiozen said, “It seems to me that arguing that we don’t need to be vaccinated because we can achieve the required level of herd immunity naturally by getting sick is about as dumb as it gets.”
Agree.
My point was that the diagrams make no provision for natural immunity… they assume everyone is susceptible unless vaccinated.
My point is that vaccination should have been a simple top-up of natural immunity…
My point is that if herd protection actually occurred then most diseases targeted by vaccination would have disappear yonks ago… unvaccinated folk would have been immunised via natural infection… immune folks immunity would have been topped up by bugs spread by the infected…
The bottom line is for most this has not happened.
ChrisP, I should have said,
The fallacy in the top diagram is tha the red people [that survive] become immune and so they should become yellow as they are then immunised… the arguments made in the bottom diagram then apply.
Mr. Law, you never answered my question posted at August 31, 6:58 pm… Do you live where there babies are never born and there are no children?
Think very carefully about that question and why it applies to your conception of herd immunity.
You’re pitching a fit over the wording of the labels not suiting your taste?
Can I suggest folk take some time out to read the 1960 record of events regarding the massaging of polio data.
Go here and read by clicking previous slides…
http://tinyurl.com/cy47clw
It’s a very enlightening read… I’d be interested in comments by folk who’ve bovered to read it.
Can I suggest you take some time out and read the goddamned thread you’re commenting on, in which your own source was supplied for you a week ago?
Perhaps, Mr. Law, could think about the question I asked him about the the lack of children where he lives. It is, in this part of reality, why epidemics have a cyclic nature.
So, Mr. Law, do you live where there are neither pregnant women giving birth and no children?
@Ron – your comments have just gotten inane – seriously, you don’t know that new people are coming into the population all the time (i.e. the Blue people being born, etc)? That was the failing of natural herd immunity – sure, you would get a given population to the level of general immunity through sickness (or mass one-time vaccination), but when additional people come in – the bulk of whom are children with no immunity whatsoever, you are creating a whole new population that can be easily re-infected……moron.
Babies are being born – and we do have children, where Ron lives, which is why we could all do without his ‘I’m not anti-vaccine,’ anti-vaccine nonsense!
Ron seems to regard vaccination as having some sort of role as a “top up” of natural immunity.
When a new vaccine for a disease is first introduced, then this situation will apply, and herd immunity levels can be hopefully be boosted above the critical level.
Of course, the demographics of the population at risk are then altered. We expect and hope to see the new (uninfected, non-immune and susceptible/vulnerable) children receiving protective vaccine rather than catching the natural disease.
Ultimately, a disease for which there is a good vaccine and which has no animal reservoir or symptomless human carriers has the potential for total eradication (as happened with smallpox, and which could happen with measles, if enough people would just get on and damn well vaccinate!)
Once measles is eradicated, then no-one need have the measles vaccine, and we can all go home to bed, (antivaxxers claiming measles vaccine causes autism etc included).
I’m been quietly sitting on the sidelines, but excuse a brief comment –
RRA wrote: “My point is that if herd protection actually occurred then most diseases targeted by vaccination would have disappear yonks ago…”
No, it would depend on what species are primary hosts to the disease organism.
If the only primary host to the disease organism are humans this might happen – it’s the case for smallpox, for example. Smallpox (variola) has no known non-human host.
If other species are the primary host, the disease organism will still persist in the other species and be ‘out there’ to re-establish infection in any people who have weakened immune systems, have yet to be immunised (by whatever means), whose immunity has waned, etc., are vulnerable. With a good vaccination program in place while there will still be a few (i.e. rare) disease cases, herd immunity will prevent the spread from those cases. In the absence of a vaccination programme a cycle of epidemics will establish as immunity wanes and then becomes re-established as happened in pre-immunisation times (and to a lesser extent during less effective vaccination programmes).
Opps, my comment crossed dingo199’s.
Ron Law wrote:
ChrisP had previously written:
Your clarification Ron didn’t make you any less wrong.
Risk analyst Ron, you never did answer how you would justify not vaccinating against a serious disease when remaining unvaccinated confers a measurably larger risk of catching it (eg 4 fold with Meningococcal disease/MeNZB vaccine; or 23-fold with pertussis/DTaP).
For someone like me who is clearly far more inexperienced in the arcane methods of risk analysis, can you demonstrate the exact workings of your analysis, and explain what you would advise a parent to do about vaccinating for these diseases and why?
I read it and what I took away from it is that the original Salk killed polio vaccine was probably over-hyped, which is understandable, that some of its efficacy may have been due to some live viruses surviving in it, that live OPV is more effective than inactivated polio vaccine, and that booster vaccines are required to ensure a good level of immunity. As polio was eradicated it became clear that there were other diseases that caused similar symptoms, other enteroviruses and Guillain Barre for example, and some of these were previously diagnosed as polio. For some reason Greenberg sees what looks to me like a downturn in the normal cyclical nature of polio outbreaks as a natural decline, and compares it to a downturn in the natural cycle of infectious hepatitis outbreaks (presumably what we now call hepatitis A) which he also misinterprets as a natural decline with the same causes as the decline in polio. I think he was wrong in that interpretation, and had vaccination not been introduced the incidence of polio would have increased again in its usual cycle, <a href=
"http://www.who.int/csr/disease/hepatitis/whocdscsredc2007/en/index4.html".as hepatitis A did, (“In the United States, nationwide outbreak cycles appear every decade, as observed in 1961, 1971 and 1989”), but polio did not. In 1960 there was still a lot of debate about polio vaccines as it was a relatively rare disease in the USA. It is much better understood now, over half a century later, which is why live OPV is used in developing countries where polio is more common, and the IPV in developed countries where it has been eradicated. Have I missed anything important?
Dammit, typing and posting too fast and screwed up the link.
nz skeptic:
So, Ron just does not understand that babies are not automatically immune? He does not understand that each group of children needs to get immunity, hopefully with vaccination and not illness? Wow, that is dense.
What we need is Th1Th2 troll thingy back to tell us about the differing Th responses involved in wP and aP vaccines.
sorrry that was meant for the pertussis thread
If anyone wants to see drivel regarding herd immunity one need go no further than this report…
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/protection-against-meningococcal-disease-battle-5066127
There is no meningococcal vaccine in routine use in NZ, and the mass vaccine used previously, and one assumes given to the girl who died, was known and shown not to convey herd immunity anyway as it made no difference to carriage of the bug.
Narad, I know you posted the 1960 paper… I was just suggesting people read it… so they can make informed comment.
From that article:
So put it on the schedule for all children of a certain age (10-12) to get it with boosters (at 16).
Niche Geek asked, “You said “if herd immunity was real”: are you disputing the mathematics or the mechanism?”
It’s a model… the reality is quite different. Also, as pointed out, most models were developed around a base of natural immunity topped up with vaccination based immunity… but supporters usually ignore natural infection acquired immunity, and ignore the enhanced immunity developed as a result of natural spread of infection.
Grant, given your expertise in this field, perhaps you could enlighten us as to which of the diseases included in today’s vaccine schedules infect and are spread by other species?
Krebiozen, what about changing definitions pre/post introduction of vaccination… occurred twice with polio… 1x diagnosis criteria, 1x definition of an epidemic.
Speaking of scare-mongering rubbish from anti-vax proponents close to the original topic, try this piece of ridiculous nonsense from Leslie Carol Botha: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=12749
Of interest to those here is the section towards the end titled “HPV rDNA Particles found in Postmortem Inquest of New Zealand Girl”.
Almost every single paragraph of her writing (and some of what she quotes) in her article either contains grossly inaccurate statements or is irrelevant. After all these years I still sometimes wonder how people write things like this.
Ron,
What about them? Science progresses, definitions change. Diagnostic criteria change as we learn more about a disease, the definition of an epidemic is used to decide when certain public health measures become necessary, and is changed from time to time. As I wrote above, the Salk vaccine was probably overhyped, and wasn’t as effective as original clinical trials suggested, which is not unusual. I don’t think it reflects some dastardly conspiracy, I think it reflects improvements in our understanding. I don’t have time to dig it out right now, but one of the doctors involved in the Salk trials said that up to 50% of the cases diagnosed as polio back then were probably caused by something else. The history of medicine is full of false hopes, false starts, mistakes and misunderstandings, it’s not perfect, but generally we move in the direction of progress. Vaccines in particular often have unintended consequences, and schedules are changed, boosters introduced etc.. That 1960 meeting gives us an insight into what problems people faced with polio and vaccination back then, and what misunderstandings and misconceptions were circulating, it’s interesting from a historical point of view, but I don’t really see what relevance it has today.
From another thread, web page of interactive calculation of a herd effect model – click on ‘Documentation’ for details of the modelling: http://op12no2.me/toys/sir.php
Krebiozen, the definitions were changed IMMEDIATELY after introduction… it was nothing to do with modern/better understanding…
I love the rationalisation… a classic ‘skeptics’ response.
R
Grant… it’s a hypothetical model… unfortunately life’s not like that.
Grant, Leslie Botha’s piece even managed to include citations that were inaccurate, wrong or irrelevant.
Really risk analysist Ron? Is that why the CDC and other public health organisations consider persons born before a certain date to be immune to measles, mumps and rubella? And why proof of natural infection to chicken pox is accepted? http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html
Given your “understanding” of epidemiology, it’s safe to say you are again wrong. I guess the addition of post-polio syndrome in the 1980s is also a conspiracy: http://www.acnr.co.uk/pdfs/volume5issue1/v5i1reviewFarbu.pdf
Ron,
What rationalization? Ron, what is your point? Please explain what you are hinting at clearly and concisely, without all this dancing around seemingly unwilling to state your position.
Ron,
Why do you think the definitions were changed? Was it part of the New World Order’s sinister plans for world domination?
I also meant to mention that if many of the cases that were diagnosed as polio in the 50s were actually caused by other pathogens, that might go some way to explaining why the Salk vaccine didn’t work quite as well as hoped, though it was a great deal better than no vaccine at all. Polio vaccine only prevents polio, not other enteroviruses.
Ron Law does a good impersonation of jelly being nailed to a wall. As soon as you demonstrate one of his statements is fatally flawed, he drops it and moves on to the next one. And so it goes around and around in circles.
Should anyone else follow Grant’s link above this link by Dr. David Gorski (whoever he is) should bring you up to speed. I was entertained by following up a reference to The Center for the Biology of Chronic Disease having published this drivel. The CBCD is a not for profit organization whose sole purpose appears to me to be to promote “the natural antiviral supplement Gene-Eden”. Is that even legal?
I think that’s what the anti-vaxxers like to refer to as “open-minded”. But yea, that’s exactly what Ron is doing because you have to go ’round in circles when you lie and can’t understand the evidence and need to desperately cling to false beliefs.
Kriebozen – thanks
krebiozen said, “I also meant to mention that if many of the cases that were diagnosed as polio in the 50s were actually caused by other pathogens, that might go some way to explaining why the Salk vaccine didn’t work quite as well as hoped, though it was a great deal better than no vaccine at all. Polio vaccine only prevents polio, not other enteroviruses.”
EXACTLY…!!!!!!!!!
After 740 comments it seems this disagreement was all a silly misunderstanding. I did point out somewhere above that other enteroviruses are next on the agenda for eradication. Science moves on.
Science Mom demonstrates an ability to google references… “Given your “understanding” of epidemiology, it’s safe to say you are again wrong. I guess the addition of post-polio syndrome in the 1980s is also a conspiracy: http://www.acnr.co.uk/pdfs/volume5issue1/v5i1reviewFarbu.pdf”
Read the ref… makes false claim in its opening gambit… Halstead did NOT introduce the term post-polio syndrome
in 1986… it had been used some time before that… the Post Polio conference in 1983 even referred to a preference to use another term…
It wasn’t an addition or redefining as occurred with the definition of polio… the post-polio atrophy and related issues were well known…
It’s hardly a secret. Hence my sardonic comment.
Ah, sardonsim… Doesn’t a sardonic comment express a feeling or attitude in a sour or bleakly world-weary way? … missed that!
Perhaps ‘sardonic’ isn’t quite the right word. Almost everyone knows who Orac is, but it’s a sort of running joke here to pretend to maintain the fiction that he is anonymous. I shouldn’t have assumed you knew that, but I couldn’t find a sardonic emoticon.
Repsted in the vain hope Risky Ron will actually answer a question concisely and directly, rather than indulge in handwaving and evasion:
Risk analyst Ron, you never did answer how you would justify not vaccinating against a serious disease when remaining unvaccinated confers a measurably larger risk of catching it (eg 4 fold with Meningococcal disease/MeNZB vaccine; or 23-fold with pertussis/DTaP).
For someone like me who is clearly far more inexperienced in the arcane methods of risk analysis, can you demonstrate the exact workings of your analysis, and explain what you would advise a parent to do about vaccinating for these diseases and why?
Dingo199 asked, “Risk analyst Ron, you never did answer how you would justify not vaccinating against a serious disease when remaining unvaccinated confers a measurably larger risk of catching it (eg 4 fold with Meningococcal disease/MeNZB vaccine;…”
Alas, your “4 fold with Meningococcal disease/MeNZB vaccine is very illinformed… whilst there have been reports of such benefits they have not being based on sound science. Even the Ministry of Health rejected such claims (which were made in part by another wing of the MOH.)
You can see how ‘protective’ the vaccine was here…
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0505/64dfd522489e6ded3bcc.jpeg
or here
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/3194f611326777c15253.jpeg
or here
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/1e9afd438e1c8d7bdf21.jpeg
or here
or here
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0505/b3b6760c96f21e8e0982.jpeg
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/fb229edee4aa4fa641e2.jpeg
Or how effective the Cuban equivalent was
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0505/94b86ea400b963e52bd9.jpeg
I get it Ron, …..I ask for a risk analysis and you post graphs, by way of evasion.
I guess you think they prove something? I got news for you – they show nothing relating to either vaccine efficacy or effectiveness, or anything that can appropriately inform parental choice.
I asked how you might advise a parent about the risks entailed when one sees a serious disease for which going unvaccinated greatly increases the risks of acquiring the disease. We know this risk for MeNZB was 4 fold, but that is one disease only. At the other end of the spectrum is pertussis, where going unvaccinated is linked with a 23-fold risk of infection.
I would imagine you could paint a very nice picture for a parent by using an analogy like a car crash.
“Mrs Jones, reliable information tells us that if your child is strapped into a booster safety seat, she is 23 times less likely to suffer significant damage in a car crash than if you leave her unstrapped. The potential consequences are so serious that I recommend you use one, even though there are very rare reports of children being injured by the restraints on their booster seats.”
I wouldn’t say “See here”, and leave her to look at several charts that plot child injuries in accidents against the number of cars on the road, or some similar vaguely associated but actually quite irrelevant information that doesn’t put the situation into a meaningful individual context for the mother seeking the risk information to make an informed decision.
We have established you are a pretty lousy risk analyst if you ask me, but I do have just one question only:
Would you recommend parents vaccinate their kids against pertussis? Yes or no?
dingo199 says, “We know this risk for MeNZB was 4 fold, but that is one disease only. At the other end of the spectrum is pertussis, where going unvaccinated is linked with a 23-fold risk of infection.”
Dingo, we don’t know “the risk for MenZB was 4 fold” at all…
And where do you get a 23-fold risk for pertussis from? That would mean the vaccine was, what? 95 percent effective or there abouts? Pertussis vaccine? What a hoot…!
I’m guessing your reference relates back to a case controlled study out of Colorado… where 89 percent of the cases were in vaccinated children and supposedly 99.5 percent of under 18 year olds were vaccinated… so where was the so-called herd protection? Besides, if that’s the study you are referring to, a comparative group with just 3 cases is hardly hi-stats…
Can you provide references to the x4 and x23 studies you use as evidence… then I’ll comment.
By the way, can you see any impact due to the MeNZB vaccine in the graphs of MOH data I posted? A x4 effectiveness would have sent the graphs south… it made no difference… the disease was in natural decline before the vax was rolled out and stalled once rolled out… by the way, of the first 13 deaths after MeNZB was introduced none (NONE) occurred in children whose parents declined MeNZB. (that’s according to figures released by the Minister of Health.)
The percentage attributable risk in the vaccine refuser population was 99.5% (95% CI: 98.1%-99.9%), and the total population attributable risk was 11.0% (95% CI: 5.8%-16.0%). These estimates suggest that all 18 of the unvaccinated pertussis cases were attributed to vaccine refusal, and 11% of the pertussis cases in the total population were associated with vaccine refusal.(my emphasis)
and Despite high pertussis immunization rates in Colorado, herd immunity did not prevent a high relative-risk for pertussis in vaccine refusers. This is likely because of a combination of waning immunity to pertussis in adolescents and adults, ongoing endemic circulation, the highly contagious nature of the bacterium, and frequent asymptomatic infections. Of note, herd immunity to pertussis may increase over time because of the impact of the newly recommended adolescent and adult pertussis booster vaccine
from Jason M. Glanz, PhD, David L. McClure, PhD, David J. Magid, MD, MPH, Matthew F. Daley, MD, Eric K. France, MD, MSPH, Daniel A. Salmon, PhD, MPH, & Simon J. Hambidge, MD, PhD (2009). Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children Pediatrics, 123 (6), 1446-1451
Case–control, Ron. This means you have cases and controls.
That’s an outcome. What exactly do you imagine this complaint to mean?
Alison: I’ve got the abstract and the full PDF article you reference here:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.full.pdf
And, how about more recent reports of pertussis outbreaks in Colorado?
http://news.yahoo.com/health-official-says-colorado-pertussis-cases-epidemic-205700263.html
“…. According to state information, from Jan. 1 to Aug. 11, 715 cases of pertussis were reported in Colorado. The average from 2007-2011 of the same calendar period was 158 cases.
* The highest rates of pertussis this year are among infants under 6 months old, followed by infants 6 to 11 months old, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reported.
* Chief medical officer Dr. Chris Urbina stated that infants are particularly susceptible to pertussis and tend to have higher rates of hospitalization and deaths from the disease.
* Young infants with pertussis often do not present with a cough, but rather with apnea or gasping, the CDPHE stated.
* No deaths have been reported due to pertussis in 2012, the CDPHE reported, but it is recommended that those who care for infants and spend time around infants get vaccinated as infants are too young to have received all the doses of the vaccination.
* According to the state’s fact sheet on the disease, the vaccine for pertussis is given in combination with vaccines for diphtheria and tetanus. The recommendation for the vaccination is that a total of five doses be given at two, four, six, 15 to 18 months, and between four to six years. Single doses are recommended for children 11 to 12 years of age or for those who have never received the vaccination.
* The majority of the Colorado pertussis cases this year have been reported in Adams, Denver and Jefferson counties, according to the CDPHE, though — as of Aug. 20 — the disease has been reported in 26 counties in all.
* The most active week of the disease this year was the week of Aug. 11, in which nearly 60 cases were reported. The number of cases has been increasing each week since July.
* According to the CDPHE’s study of vaccine preventable diseases in Colorado from 2002-2012, most complete years don’t see as many reports of pertussis as there have been just through August of this year. 2004 and 2005 appeared to be particularly hard-hit with 1,185 and 1,383 cases, respectively.”
So Ron, now you have had a chance to digest the case-control study on pertussis, and realise that it is not about herd immunity at all but individual protection, and that it indeed shows unvaccinated kids are at much greater risk of this serious disease, what does your inner risk-analysis guru conclude?
Do you recommend parents vaccinate against pertussis?
Yes or no?
At what point does repeated denial of facts and evidence start to grate internally, Ron? How dissonant does your cognition have to get before your neurons combust?
At what point does a “risk analyst” come to appreciate that solely using extrapolations on disease incidence is an imperfect way to predict behavior of an epidemic or infection, and when does he start thinking about all the evidence of lowered individual risk of disease following vaccination?
lilady, that may all be true, and I’m not disputing it, but the whooping cough increases across many US states and countries around the world is due in part to increased testing in part due to use of PCR tests and in part due to short-term effectiveness of the acellular vaccine.
The Colorado study was in a community supposedly with a vaccination rate of 99.5%… implausible… the results of the study were predicated on one group having only three infected subjects.
The CDC Investigation of the Washington epidemic demonstrates multiple B. pertussis strains causing infection, primarily in vaccinated persons. Given the high transmissibility of B. pertussis, a proportion of vaccinated persons remains susceptible and can become infected during a pertussis outbreak…
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm
It’s interesting that in NZ thirteen MeNZB vaccinated children died vs zero unvaccinated [MeNZB] children … and the MOH wouldn’t analyse the statistical significance because they said their weren’t enough cases… that’s over 1 million children…
I suspect significance depends on whether one gets the results one wants.
dingo199, who used extrapolations? The MeNZB data was actual data… 13 deaths in vaccinated… zero deaths in unvaccinated in districts where the MeNZB vaccine was offered…
In the effectiveness study, they made up the number unvaccinated… In the official vaccination records some areas had 110% vaccination rates… why? Because they compared real versus made-up data…
For the record, Colorado has a somewhat less than US national average vaccination rates nowhere near the 99.5% claimed in the above practice.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/stats-surv/nis/data/tables_2011.htm
Here’s a story that an analyst would see as a red flag to bright shiny science-looking studies…
Here’s a state with apparently the second lowest vaccination rate in the country… and apparently falling… and yet the spokesperson quotes his own institutions ’23 times’ quote… based on 99.5% vaccination rate in a state with an acknowledged low rate…
Makes one think, doesn’t it.
An analyst doesn’t take things at face value… rather an analyst needs to be skeptical and run studies such as this past BS detectors and ask, do these results make sense???
In the case of pertussis with low vax rates, and poor efficacy, vax rates of 99.5% and effectiveness over 95% do not make sense… no matter how much they the data is massaged.
Oops… the story…
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19429560
No, you dingbat, the fact that there were only three vaccine refusers in the control group, which didn’t have pertussis, is the result, not a “predicate.”
And…
Given that you keep repeating this, I’m curious how you arrive at the assertion. I can guess, but let’s have it from the horse’s mouth.
Funny how in that flurry of comments, Ron Law failed at answering Dingo199’s question:
@Ron Law
Citation for this?
Not only will he not answer any questions, he responds by dumping non-sequiturs, red herrings and a liberal scattering of straw men. Methinks he is undone, and can’t admit it without losing face.
Come on Ron, answer my question please.
What would a dinkum risk analyst advise a mum to do about vaccinating her child against pertussis – yes or no?
Another post on its way – held up by spam filter because of links, i guess
The Colorado study was in a community supposedly with a vaccination rate of 99.5%
Nope, sorry, try again.
the 99.5% claimed in the above practice
Getting closer, but still wrong.
It was not 99.5% in a community. It was not 99.5% in a practice. It was 99.5% of those enrolled in a health plan that provides vaccine coverage AND who did not get sick.
One reason for lower vaccine rates is lack of health care coverage. That factor is not present in this study. Which means this is actually a very good study for examining the effect of refusal, since it doesn’t have lack of access as a confounder.
BTW, If the 99.5% rate in this study is wrong, that means someone was conducting health insurance fraud. I’m sure Kaiser Permanente would appreciate you providing evidence, so that they could track down and prosecute those pediatricians committing fraud.
Todd W asked for referenece; ” It’s interesting that in NZ thirteen MeNZB vaccinated children died vs zero unvaccinated [MeNZB] children
Citation for this?”
Minister of Health. Information obtained under Official Information Act. Figures are for 2006, 2007, 2008.
And several answers to parliamentary questions…
6432 (2008). Sue Kedgley to the Associate Minister of Health (08 Jul 2008): Further to the answer to question for written answer 05977 (2008) have any statistical significance analyses been undertaken to establish the significance of the fact that all seven children who died from meningococcal disease in 2006 and 2007 had received the MeNZB vaccine and that no unvaccinated children died from any form of meningococcal disease; if not, why not; if so, what is the statistical significance?
Hon Steve Chadwick (Associate Minister of Health) replied: No statistical analyses have been carried out comparing the death rate from meningococcal disease in vaccinated and unvaccinated children because the number of deaths is too small to give a reliable estimate.
6583 (2008). Sue Kedgley to the Associate Minister of Health (11 Jul 2008): Further to the answer to question for written answer 05977 (2008) How many children under the age of twenty have died from meningococcal disease so far in 2008 broken down into bacterial type, age group, number of doses of the MeNZB vaccine, and District Health Board?
Hon Steve Chadwick (Associate Minister of Health) replied: I am advised that five people under the age of 20 years have died from meningococcal disease in 2008 to date. A further breakdown, as requested, is provided in the attachment.
None of the 12 had been vaccinated with MeNZB. Another vaccinated child died later in 2008 bring the total to 13… vs zero deaths in children not given MeNZB…
You can see the natural decline of total cases and deaths and MenB deaths that occurred before the vaccine was rolled out… and the lack of impact of the MeNZB vaccine on the downward trend.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0604/Meningococcal_Decline_to_March_2006.pdf
Indeed, the rates increased in infants, and the MOH initial work found that MeNZB given to infants INCREASED the risk of disease, but they refused to study this in detail.
Hahaha Ron keeps following the script letter for letter.
How about answering Dingo’s question?
So, We see Ron favours rumour and politicians (who of course are experts in the field of infection epidemiology).
Ron says this:
Ron can’t even keep his own propaganda straight. I make that 12 deaths in unvaccinated kids, and one death in a vaccinated kid.
And then we have some real data, as opposed to hearsay:
Between July 2004 and December 2008 an estimated 210 epidemic strain cases (95% CI 100-380), six deaths and 15-30 cases of severe sequelae were avoided in New Zealand due to the introduction of the MeNZB vaccine.
From here – no link posted as none of mine are making it through.
Vaccine. 2011 Sep 16;29(40):7100-6. Epub 2011 Jul 29.
Effectiveness of a vaccination programme for an epidemic of meningococcal B in New Zealand.
Arnold R, Galloway Y, McNicholas A, O’Hallahan J
PS Ron.
1. How many of the deaths from meningococcal disease were due to Gp B?
2. And what do you advise that Mum again about pertussis vaccination for her kids?
I see Ron subscribes to the notion that AGW is caused by there being too few pirates.
Mmmm, Ron’s offering a fine dish of copypasta there. For example, the link in his 4:11 comment is no longer valid. Fortunately, the wonders of Google cache (probably could have also used Internet Archive) allowed me to see the graph. However made the graph ought to be fired. It is a 12-month rolling average that ends (Mar06) only a few months after significant vaccine uptake (Nov05) [minimum 3 shots for full coverage, 4 recommended]. As such, most of the post-vaccination data is obscured by pre- and partial-vaccination data. However, it does look like vaccination was having an effect, but data collection is cut off before this can be confirmed.
“We conducted a case-control study of children enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente of Colorado health plan between 1996 and 2007.”
So they maintained a 99.5 percent vaccination rate over 10 years? For all ages? I don’t think so… even their target is only ‘over’ 90 percent…
“Ron can’t even keep his own propaganda straight. I make that 12 deaths in unvaccinated kids, and one death in a vaccinated kid.”
Should have have been one unvaccinated child in late 2008…
Dingo199, the Arnold paper is based on modeling, supposition and assumptions… they did not know how many unvaccinated children existed… they made that number up… they used the case fatality rate for all meningococcal deaths, and when their outputs are applied to real data their conclusions are not supported. The reason Arnold got the contract to do the study was because Professor Diana Lennon (who was the MeNZB lead researcher until she complained to the Ethics Committee that Chiron were withholding data from her so she was being forced to sign studies off without being able to verify the data, and they even bypassed her in submitting data for licensure without her knowledge) had publicly stated that the fact that the disease had waned naturally and that coincided with/preceded the introduction of the vaccine meant that it wouldn’t be possible to undertake her planned controlled study… So the MOH dumped her and used a mathemagician instead… go figure…
For the record, Arnold’s analysis showed greater risk for infants given the MeNZB.
Kevin, the link worked at 4:11 and it worked 10 seconds ago…
So, once more, how many deaths in vaccinated kids, Ron?
Can we see a citation to a reputable source of information, and not have to just take your [unreliable] word for it?
Linky to proper source pretty please?
Anyhow, here is a source that states unequivocally that meningococcus infection occurred in 34 vaccinated individuals during the period of the vaccination campaign. Data on 31 who were admitted reveals the average hospital length of stay was 4 days. Twelve cases were admitted to intensive care, and there were no deaths.
That seems to directly contradict the hearsay evidence given by Ron that there were 13 deaths in vaccinated children.
I know which source I’d rely on.
Surveillance of vaccine breakthrough cases following MeNZB vaccination. New Zealand Medical Journal 18-April-2008, Vol 121 No 1272
(Sorry I cannot post links – I get trapped in the filter for some reason)
These 34 cases represent infections with meningococcus that occurred despite vaccination (ie vaccine failures) during the course of the epidemic.
Of course, this has to be balanced by the calculations that the vaccine also prevented 210 epidemic strain cases of meningococcal disease (95% CI 100-380), six deaths and 15-30 cases of severe clinical sequelae.
@ dingo199: My link made it through for you 🙂
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21803101
How many times does this need to be explained to you?
I have about 3 posts held up – each with links and explaining to Ron how he can fart and chew gum at the same time.
dingo199: Here’s the link to the abstract and the full article from the New Zealand Medical Journal 🙂
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/121-1272/3008/content.pdf
Ron is not a multi-tasker. When he’s lying and farting he cannot chew gum.
Ron, so you don’t like the Arnold paper (I wonder why … not because it blows you out the water, surely not god forbid?)
Indulge in some ad hominem as well about it if you must, that’s about the only logical fallacy you haven’t deployed recently in your attempts to mislead everyone and evade simple questions.
Your link still does not work Ron (but at least you can post them!)
AHH! I finally get it! Ron wants us to believe the Arnold study where it suits his purposes, but ignores the fact that for everyone except infants the study showed far LOWER risk if they were vaccinated.
And that lower risk wasstatistically significant, unlike the fractionally higher risk in the infants that Ron wants us to all crack a fat over.
Thanks Lilady
You’re a beaut!
dingo199: I know absolutely nothing, nada, zilch about computer programs. I found that two links in one post get through…usually. Three links usually gets me stuck in the moderation hopper.
So just to keep you on message here Ron, we need the following from you:
1. A reliable, valid citation/source for the claims there were 13 meningococcal deaths in vaccinated kids and no deaths in unvaccinated kids. Provide a link to the original source evidence please.
2. An answer as to whether you would advise a mother to vaccinate her kids against pertussis, speaking from your professional perspective as an expert in risk analysis of course. And while you are at it, you could also tell us which other vaccines you would tell her to have or avoid, please.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/2/413.long
Hah!
That link is to a study which showed that the under 5’s had a five-fold less risk of getting infected with this awful disease.
Ron would have you believe that infants are more at risk if they are vaccinated. Not so. The difference in relative risk is tiny, and numbers in this group were too small to even make a valid statistical comparison, and likely to be spurious as the authors explain in one of their other studies.
And don’t forget this was a 3 dose vaccine schedule given over 2 years, so infants are likeliest to be unprotected, having only very partial protection from one dose.
The 2008 number that he keeps bumbling is the attachment here. Add in the seven claimed for 2006 and 2007, and muse on whether coverage might have something to do with this.
I mean one or two doses. The vaccine is meant started at 6 months, and since it was a catchup, many infants (defined by Ron as those under 1 year) started their vaccine course when they were older than this.
Thanks Narad.
At least there is a source for the information – strange Ron couldn’t link to it as asked.
Any chance of seeing the answer to 05977? Tried a search – couldn’t find it.
I see that of the 5 deaths quoted as occurring in Men GpB vaccinated children in 2008, only 3 were confirmed as GpB, and 3 cases were in those who were partially vaccinated.
The closest I’m getting is this.
Ron asserts seven for 2006 and 2007, so it would seem that he’s counting non-epidemic-strain mortality.
@Ron Law
Your link in your response to me doesn’t work, as others have pointed out. Now, assuming that this:
is a copy/paste from your link, then I have a couple comments. First off, it says, “none of the 12 had been vaccinated with MeNZB”. It seems like you left out some text before that, but it suggests to me that 12 deaths were in unvaccinated individuals. Continuing on, 1 death was in a vaccinated individual, bringing the total death count to 13 (12 unvaccinated, 1 vaccinated). Your ellipsis has me wondering what was left out, but I’ll let that go for now. The last bit, “vs. zero deaths in children not given MeNZB” suggests that the deaths occurred in teens or adults.
Now, back to that ellipsis. Given its position, we can’t tell what came before the “vs.”. Bottom line, without access to the original document, you have failed to support your assertion. Now, please support your assertion that “thirteen MeNZB vaccinated children died vs zero unvaccinated [MeNZB] children”.
Given the other documents linked by dingo199, Narad and lilady, your case isn’t looking to good.
Narad/dingo199/etc
I haven’t time to sidetrack onto this, but I guess you’re already aware there’s an update to the stats in the Arnold paper available on the MOH website – ?
http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/poisson-regression-modelling-effectiveness-meningococcal-b-vaccine-menzb
(Have to admit I was taken aback a bit by RRA objecting that Arnold’s work was mathematical and made assumptions as risk analysis is mathematical and makes assumptions too!)
I’m pretty sure that he’s asserting that all deaths from 2006 to 2008 were in vaccinated individuals but can’t make the words come out right.
I did point that out to him, and gave him the opportunity to correct his error, and he then changed the sentence, but only garbled it more by replying to my comment (“Ron can’t even keep his own propaganda straight. I make that 12 deaths in unvaccinated kids, and one death in a vaccinated kid.”) like this:
“Should have have been one unvaccinated child in late 2008.”
Is it me or is it strange that Ron links to stuff on Scoop.nz – you’d think as a risk analyst he’d link to actual studies… or post those supersecret documents he has access to.
flip –
Scoop is a press release website. More-or-less anyone can post material there, in fact our blogs (sciblogs.co.nz) used to be directed there.
Ron has a long history of writing press releases, often quoting himself in the third person, then pointing to them as if they’re some kind of evidence for his claims!
Funny how so-called skeptics ignore official information no matter how or who presents it.
Info re 12 of the deaths among the MeNZB vaccinated and zero deaths in [MeNZB] unvaccinated were provided by the Ministry of Health through the Minister of Health in response to a parliamentary question. And that’s labelled as unofficial? The 13 death was provided in an OIA request.
The number of unvaccinated was unknown… so much so that 110 percent of some demographics were vaccinated in Counties Manukau… an area renown for having low vaccination rates.
Grant, Arnold’s paper is seriously flawed on several points. One of which is that it uses CFRs averaged over all types instead of using CFRs for the MenB type which is much lower than average… Even Medsafe doubted the integrity of the paper!
Who labeled anything “as unofficial,” you jabbering robot? The issue was that you misstated your assertion and then further misstated the “clarification.” In other words, your reading comprehension is well paired to your writing skills.
Ron, for the 7th time of asking, could you please tell us how you would advise a mother asking about whether she should vaccinate her child against pertussis, speaking from your professional perspective as an expert in risk analysis of course.
And while you are at it, you could also tell us which other vaccines you would tell her to have or to avoid, please.
Narad, this is not a peer reviewed journal… if it was, people like you would say, “Hey, Mr Author, there appears to be doscrepancy, or error, or whatever…” that happens every day in the scientific publication world… here, it seems whenever some makes a mistake in a 10-second sound bite they get ridiculed and vilified….
Well, I’ve aways been one to admit mistakes and publicly correct them when necessary… When I lectured I challenged every student to critique everything they were told/given… and to challenge me, in class if they wanted, if they though I made a mistake… it lead to many healthy discussions and I don’t ever recall a student accusing me of being ‘jabbering robot…’
That said, in my previous post I made an error… I said, “Grant, Arnold’s paper is seriously flawed on several points. One of which is that it uses CFRs averaged over all types instead of using CFRs for the MenB type which is much lower than average…”
I’ve been back and reread the five iterations of Arnold’s papers I have and in an early unpublished draft they did that… in their other papers they averaged the CFR for the epidemic strain from 1999 in early versions and 2001 in the latest… they use an average CFR in their last paper (the one Grant posted a link to above) of 3.9 and calculate lives saved based on the [ongoing mainly natural] decline in cases.
They say, “Crude case fatality rates due to epidemic strain meningococcal B disease for the years 2001-
2008 are displayed in Tables 9 and 10. There was no evidence of a change in case fatality
rates over the years 2001-2008”
Go look at table 9. It shows the CFR had been dropping before the introduction of the MeNZB and then rose sharply. The above statement is patently false.
In 2006 I prepared a rolling 12 month CFR from Dec 1997… the trend down and then the upward shift is plain to see.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/7e8b4d00c61154bd7067.jpeg
In their paper they calculated the number of lives saved on the average CFR… they ignored the actual number of deaths. Given that none of the deaths in 2006, 2007, 2008 were in unvaccinated children it is odd that they didn’t highlight the apparent increased risk of death in vacinated children. There are very good reasons for that… one was complacency. There were several deaths documented as occurring because the medical staff assumed the child was protected and therefore they failed to diagnose meningococcal disease.
Ron, I suggest people do contrast your own “data” as “published” on scoop with the detailed 90 page statistical modelling analysis by Arnold.
They may wonder why you have drawn a graph of case fatality rates, and taken a pen, closed your eyes, and drawn a “line of best fit” that is clearly not a line of best fit, but tweaked to exaggerate the fall and rise of CFR you try and demonstrate. Have you heard about correlation, and how to calculate the line of best fit? Clearly not.
That point aside, your own chart seems to show that CFR increased following the immunisation campaign. Even were this true, what does it mean? That the vaccine did not prevent cases of meningococcaemia? No. Just that relatively more of those with the disease died within one time frame than in another. And whether someone with the disease dies or not has nothing to do with any vaccine, but is a measure of how well the disease was clinically recognised, managed and treated. The CFR will obviously rise if you prevent cases of the disease, because the denominator drops dramatically. Like all antivaxers, you dwell on mortality as though this is a measure of vaccine efficacy – it is not. Yet another straw man, I am afraid.
The bottom line was that although this vaccination campaign was expensive, botched and delayed, it did prevent cases of meningococcal disease (and therefore also averted some additional deathg).
All the data demonstrate that the relative risk of acquiring disease was less in the vaccinated population. I hope you, an an expert in risk analysis understand what a relative “risk” is? (hint – you derive a ratio of the incidence rate in the unvaxed population to the rate in the vaxed population. Vaccine effectiveness can then be calculated from the RR).
Perhaps you can provide a coherent explanation for the finding that the incidence rate of epidemic GpB meningococcus within the vaccinated population was around half the rate seen in the unvaccinated population? There was even some cross protection provided to no-epidemic B strains and non B strains.
You seem to have read the Arnold paper, but are meticulously cherry-picking bits of data and presenting these out of context with your own narrative and distorted interpretation superimposed in a futile attempt to imply the vaccine did not work.
http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/poisson-regression-modelling-effectiveness-meningococcal-b-vaccine-menzb
Oh, and Ron, for the 8th time of asking, could you please tell us how you would advise a mother asking about whether she should vaccinate her child against pertussis, speaking from your professional perspective as an expert in risk analysis of course.
And while you are at it, you could also tell us which other vaccines you would tell her to have or to avoid, please.
This is what you said, Ron:
However, this is what the paper actually says:
You have heard of statistics, I take it Ron? Or do we have to explain to you what a p value is, and what it means?
When they say there was no difference between the fatality rates they mean there was not statistically significant difference, using the accepted Poisson method for events that are very few in number (like deaths in this case).
You are nothing but a devious antivax troll. A sophisticated one, but a troll all the same.
PS this might help:
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/statistics/lessons/poisson/index.html
Ron NEVER, EVER, concerned himself with meningoccal B victims who were handicapped but didn’t die. As far as he and Barb were concerned, they didn’t exist!
Looking at Ron’s graph, apart from the amateurish charting and trend lines filled in “by eye” (and a wall eye at that), I wonder how he derived the data points, considering that for some years there were as few as 3 deaths.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/7e8b4d00c61154bd7067.jpeg
Ron, if you are still here, and better disposed to answer questions than you have been up to this point, can we see the source data for your case fatality rate chart (or a link to the original Ministry of Health data you claim your chart comes from), because without that I trust your graph about as far as I can chunder.
Leet’s see. The age ranges with the highest CFR were also the age ranges with the lowest vaccine coverage. We would expect CFR to rise if the vaccine is working!
Also, note that there were 15 total deaths from 2004-2005. Yet Ron’s crappy graph claims that in the period Apr04-Oct06, there were 13 excess deaths. That means he was expecting there to be less than two deaths in a 31-month period.
It sure sounds like Ron is saying “If I cited from peer-reviewed research, then people might point out where the research or [more likely] my interpretations of it are wrong. Therefore, the solution is clearly to cite press releases instead.” Actually, the real solution is stop saying s*** that’s wrong.
It seems like the approach to take with Ron now may be ultimatum questions. A single ultimatum question at a time gets asked and the person is warned that if they do not give an answer themselves within their next three comments on any thread, that will be interpreted as them having given an affirmative answer (probably one they won’t like.) It’s an effective way of dealing with people who like to change the subject rather than answering a question they find inconvenient.
Dingoxxx asks, “Perhaps you can provide a coherent explanation for the finding that the incidence rate of epidemic GpB meningococcus within the vaccinated population was around half the rate seen in the unvaccinated population?”
Dingo, perhaps you can provide a coherent explanation fro the finding that the rate of pneumococcal disease within the MeNZB vaccinated population was around half the rate seen in the unvaccinated (MeNZB) population?
W. Kevin Vicklund said, “Leet’s see. The age ranges with the highest CFR were also the age ranges with the lowest vaccine coverage. We would expect CFR to rise if the vaccine is working!”
The big, big problem you have here Kevin is that for the three years from 2006 to 2008 there were no deaths in children unvaccinated with MeNZB… only thirteen deaths in MeNZB vaccinated children. Arnold et al conveniently never looked at vaccinated vs unvaccinated death rates…
What is this – answer a question with a question day?
Sure I can Ron, but please – after you….
(I did ask first.)
Again:
Perhaps you can provide a coherent explanation for the finding that the incidence rate of epidemic GpB meningococcus within the vaccinated population was around half the rate seen in the unvaccinated population?”
Yes they did.
But the crucial parameter when looking to see if a vaccine is protective against infection is …… wait for it…… seeing if it is protective against infection. Which it is.
Ron, for the 9th time of asking…..
Would you recommend mothers vaccinate their infants against pertussis?
Yes or no?
I now decree this is an “ultimatum question, and if Ron refuses to answer it means his answer is “No”.
In other words, he is an antivaccine zealot, and happy to be recognised as one.
And another unanswered question/request I have to repeat:
Ron, can we see the source data for your case fatality rate chart (or a link to the original Ministry of Health data you claim your chart comes from)?
Common courtesy dictates you should be able to point to the source of claims you make. If you cannot do so, then we must assume the claim itself is entirely bogus.
One thing I always find pathetic are classic dumbass antivaxxer comments like “the vaccination aspect was a simple top-up… to fill the gap… but it was predicated on the masses being naturally immune”, asserting that herd immunity has nothing to do with vaccination. Wrong. The first print use of the term “herd immunity” was in the 1923 paper by Topley and Wilson “THE SPREAD OF BACTERIAL INFECTION. THE PROBLEM OF HERD-IMMUNITY.” The concept of immune individuals changing the likelihood of infection spreading to non-immune individuals was acknowledged and anecdotal until this time. The paper clearly studies mice, not “herd animals”, uses GI bacterial infections spread by an oral-fecal route, and specifically uses vaccination to investigate the changes to infectivity with a defined input of bacteria in the food pellets when the proportions of immune vs. non-immune individuals are changed.
Ron, vaccination was not a “top-up” it was the origin of the term.
Oh cripes, stick a fork in Ron Risk Analyst…he’s *overdone*.
Gee RRA, I love how you nibbled at my bait to stay posting on Respectful Insolence…after Grant banned you from his SciBlog.
You’ve now provided Grant and all of us with the ammunition to use against you from now on…to eternity. Thanks chump.
dingo199 asked, “And another unanswered question/request I have to repeat:
Ron, can we see the source data for your case fatality rate chart (or a link to the original Ministry of Health data you claim your chart comes from)?”
.
I have provided this… it was provided by the MOH through the Minister of Health in answer to a parliamentary question.
dingo199 then spits the dummy from his/her cot… “Ron, for the 9th time of asking…..
Would you recommend mothers vaccinate their infants against pertussis?
Yes or no?
I now decree this is an “ultimatum question, and if Ron refuses to answer it means his answer is “No”.
In other words, he is an antivaccine zealot, and happy to be recognised as one.”
Dingo, making a decree proves absolutely nothing other than you making stuff up. I haven’t answered your question because it is a purely hypothetical question on two counts… firstly, it assumes there is a ‘pertussis’ vaccine… as far as I know there isn’t one… there are combo ones, but not a pertussis one per se. Secondly, I don’t recommend anything to anyone… I point people to evidence and let them make up their own mind.
You can protest as much as you like, but the simple fact is I’ve never advised anyone against giving their kids routine vaccines. I was fully vaccinated (I take no credit for that)… our three kids were fully vaccinated, our two grand children are fully vaccinated… you can spit your dummy as far as you like, and make decrees till the cows come home, and then claim you are an objective minded skeptic… that’s your choice.
Oh, and I see that NZ’s MOH’s chief medicine’s regulator has complained to the coroner that his evidence was quoted verbatim on here… what a hoot!!!
Oh, and have you seen the recent Kaiser analysis of their patients and whooping cough… they’ve concluded that the vaccine is not the sharpest knife in the draw when it comes to protecting kids from whooping cough… despite very high vaccination rates… and >80% of kids thought to have whooping cough infection had negative PCR tests. they even acknowledged they didn’t know what the effectiveness of the vaccine was… despite some on here who claim it is >95 percent!!! It adds weight to my comments that their earlier paper out of colorado was junk-science.
dingo199 you say Arnold et al looked at vaccinated vs unvaccinated death rates…
Where, in their paper, do they do that? It’s not there… if it was it would prove that no lives were saved… in fact it could be argued that MeNZB increased the risk of death (which it did).
No, making a decree via ultimatum fights the slimeball tactic known as the ‘Gish gallop.’ Gish gallopers bombard their opponents with a huge volume of false and misleading claims, many of which they already know to be false; instead of winning because their logic and facts stand up to examination, they try to win by simply applying shameless dishonesty at a faster rate than their opponents can counter with painstaking truthfulness.
It’s different when the gallopers realize that they may actually – gasp! – be expected to back up what they say, and face consequences if they can’t back it up. “What? You mean I can’t just change the subject when someone’s pointing out my lies? But that always worked before!”
Your response is pretty poor. Dingo199’s question did not presume the existence of a single-purpose pertussis vaccine, any more than “Do you think a municipality should maintain a unit that responds to fire emergencies?” presumes a fire department that responds only to fires and not to medical emergencies, the way real-life fire departments do. And your claim that you don’t “recommend” anything to anyone is nothing but a technicality. No one bombards a comment section as relentlessly as you do without believing that there is some conclusion that everyone should be drawing and must be pushed into drawing. Refusing to come out and say what that conclusion is only makes you look evasive.
(Frankly, it reminds me of John Stewart’s masterful takedown of Glenn Beck over Beck’s relentlessly stoking H1N1 vaccine paranoia and then refusing to say whether he’d gotten the vaccine himself. “what?? You’re okay with talking about your anal fissure on national TV, but now all of a sudden you’re delicate and coy?”)
Wrong again Ron; Halstead did in fact coin the term based upon the fact that a delayed re-emergence of polio symptoms had been previously observed. You missed the point entirely unsurprisingly and that is that a diagnosis of post polio syndrome did not exist prior to the acceptance of the term and suddenly, there were many who had a new diagnosis. No conspiracy, just medical science doing it’s job.
Way to spam comments, Ron. Given that you would not provide a straight yes or no answer to dingo199, we must therefore conclude that you do not recommend that mothers vaccinate their children against pertussis.
Also, you did not provide source data. You only provided links to documents that you put up. These are not the original documents. Given your dishonest behavior in the comments here, we cannot trust that the jpeg links you provided have not been altered or doctored in some way. This is why we ask for the original source materials – no one can make claims of lying or distortion.
[John Stewart NY mob voice]Y’know. This here pertussis vaccine’s crap. I mean, it could kill ya and won’t protect ya anyway. But, you do what you wanna do. I’m just statin’ my opinion regardless of what science says. You choose for yourself; I don’t make recommendations, know what I’m sayin’?[/John Stewart NY mob voice]
As I said, the death rate is highest in those age ranges where vaccine coverage is lowest. Partial vaccination is included in low coverage. Here’s an example.
In the 6-11 month age range ( the highest CFR at over 8%!), the ratio of un-:patially: fully vaccinated is roughly 5:80:15. The protection for each category is 0%/25%/80%. Factoring in the protection, the ratio of unprotected children in that age range is 5:60:3. That gives us about a 7.4% chance that any given death in that age group will not be vaccinated. Or about 1 in every 13.6 deaths, which means we would expect less than one death in the unvaccinated group if all deaths occurred in that age group (they didn’t, of course).
This is just illustrative, not intended to be a full statistical analysis.
Ron,
I am delighted you fully vaccinated your family, and that you merely provide the true facts and let people make up their minds about vaccines. That being the case, they will rationally choose vaccinating over not vaccinating (since the risks of catching pertussis are 23 times higher if their child is unvaccinated than if they were vaccinated).
From this we can conclude you are “Pro-vaccine”, and have left the dark side. Well done and welcome.
Second, regarding your evasion – see comments above. You still act like a slimy weasel, pro-vaccine or not.
Third, the data have not been made available for your ridiculous graph posted here:
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0611/7e8b4d00c61154bd7067.jpeg
This chart you drew gives data points varying for each month from 1997 to 2006. Please can we see the data sources for these points. The MoH merely referred to some data on number of deaths, not fatality rates. As any idiot can see, your graph is of case fatality rates, which requires a denominator as well as a numerator to calculate it.
What were they and where did you derive the figures from?
In addition, can you explain why, if you had the data, you chose to draw by eye a “line of best fit” that was obviously done by hand and quite innacurate, and not a calculated line derived from linear regression?
Ron, you said:
Can we see a p value for that?
Dude, Ron doesn’t appear to even know what a Poisson distribution is. How do you expect him to be able to understand, let alone calculate a p value?
Any competent risk analyst should know this…
Yes, and it’s nothing like what you describe.
No, they concluded that another booster was required, and that while it started out very effective (over 98%), the protection degraded over time, much like natural immunity to pertussis degrades. This led to a call for a better vaccine.
Hey, you got something right! I guess my characterization of your description was somewhat in error.
Where did it say that? “Children tested for” is a very different metric from “children thought to have”. For example, many women are screened for breast cancer by mammography. That does not mean that all of these women are thought to have breast cancer! These days, children with persistent cough get screened for pertussis because they *might* have it, not because they are *thought* to have it.
Really? Where? They certainly seemed to give lots of hard numbers on the efficacy. Broken down by time since vaccination, even.
I decided to search for the Parliamentary questions and answers on meningococcal disease in NZ that Ron referred to on 09/11 above. It’s odd that Ron didn’t appear to include the following:
So, “the analysis estimated meningococcal disease rates to be 2.8 times higher in the unvaccinated group than the vaccinated group ” and they estimated “vaccine effectiveness of 64 percent”. That seems pretty good to me.
When vaccination rates are high, of course there will be more cases in vaccinated individuals than those unvaccinated, especially when partial vaccination is not very effective and full vaccination is only 64% effective. Is this the Nirvana fallacy yet again?
BTW, if death rates in vaccinated children are higher than those in unvaccinated children, isn’t that likely to be due to poor immune function leading to a poor response to the vaccine and greater mortality? Also, what is it with assuming that a downward trend in an epidemic disease would continue without vaccination?
To clarify, I meant that death rates in vaccinated children who get meningococcal disease my be higher than in unvaccinated children who get meningococcal disease because they are more likely to have immune dysfunction that prevented them developing robust immunity from vaccination. I wouldn’t want Ron to misunderstand me.
That’s odd, I could have sworn I closed those bold tags in the right place. Oh well.
ToddW, being a self-claimed skeptic, I’m not surprised that you would make up your own beliefs… you can think what you like… that doesn’t make it true…
Dingo199 says, “they will rationally choose vaccinating over not vaccinating (since the risks of catching pertussis are 23 times higher if their child is unvaccinated than if they were vaccinated).”
Except, dingo, Kaiser’s latest paper in the NEJM makes a lie of that… it is impossible for a 95% effectiveness over all those years given their latest finding that the vaccine’s efficacy deminished 45% per year after the 5th dose… and they don’t know what the original effectiveness was… It’s easy to pluck a paper and claim it as the golden standard… of all the vaccines given to children, the pertussis component is the blunt knife…
So even at 64% effectiveness, what are the chances of 13 vaccinated children dying and zero unvaccinated children dying???????
No, the paper isn’t a lie; it was a retrospective cohort study. It found that the risk of catching pertussis was higher in unvaccinated children.
It wasn’t evaluating the efficacy of the pertussis vaccine.
I come back after—what is it, a week?—and Ron is still evading and trying to have the last word! Ha. Excuse my replying to several people in one comment, not the done thing, etc.
dingo199,
“I am delighted you fully vaccinated your family,”
Given Ron’s age, the real question is not if he vaccinated his family, but if he would now and more to the point to answer your question, “Would you recommend mothers vaccinate their infants against pertussis?”, which he didn’t in fact answer.
He referred to himself (irrelevant, that was his parents’ actions), his children (but how many years ago and what is his view today?) and his grandchildren (besides the point as what’s done to them is not his decision).
You’ll note he did his usual word games to avoid saying ‘pertussis vaccine’ – silly really as he refers to vaccines targeted to pertussis throughout.
Ron,
“Oh, and I see that NZ’s MOH’s chief medicine’s regulator has complained to the coroner that his evidence was quoted verbatim on here… what a hoot!!!”
Care to supply a source? (as a link) What matters is specifically what was objected to.
If it were not supposed to be disclosed, then fair enough – and you’d think it would be the discloser that is at fault.
It’d be interesting to know what the genetics lab think of you quoting them too.
Krebiozen,
“That’s odd, I could have sworn I closed those bold tags in the right place. Oh well.”
Join the club. I get that with a tags (links)!
Grant, I really surprised you’ve resurfaced. ” I was fully vaccinated (I take no credit for that)…” What does that mean… mmmm, let me think!
I said that I don’t give advice to people about vaccinations… I wonder what that means…???
You are quite clearly out of the loop re the coronial inquest, and yet you pretend to be the expert… for what it’s worth, the MOH medicines regulator in chief included your sciblog in his complaint, which is interesting given you obviously haven’t read/heard any of his evidence. He complained about Orac too…!
I see IMAC have released some science fiction… no doubt to try and influence the coroner… they can’t even get the amount of aluminium in gardasil correct… or what Drs Shaw & Lee actually said in their contributions… no doubt it will all come out in the wash.
As a matter of interest, believe it or not, when we critiqued the MeNZB campaign people within the system, including the MOH, would send/point me to information/documents etc unsolicited… the system still leaks like a sieve…
Ron,
To answer that question we need to know how many were fully vaccinated, how many partially, how many unvaccinated, and what proportion of the population were fully vaccinated, partially or unvaccinated. We also need to know the efficacy of partial vaccination as compared to full vaccination.
What if 100% of these children had been vaccinated? Would zero deaths in the (non-existent) non-vaccinated group still mean the vaccine didn’t work?
In the 6-11 month age range ( the highest CFR at over 8%!), the ratio of un-:patially: fully vaccinated is roughly 5:80:15.
Boy, are you ever incompetent, Ron. From the Arnold paper, we found that the effectiveness was 25% for partially vaccinated, and 80% for fully vaccinated. I even gave you the odds of any given death coming from the unvaccinated population.
That means that there is a 92.6% chance of any given death being vaccinated. Using the Binomial distribution (look it up, you should know it, but you’ve already shown yourself to be incompetent at statistics), that gives a .926^13=37% chance that all 13 deaths were vaccinated.
Now it’s not clear whether the 64% effectiveness applies to just fully vaccinated or all vaccinated, though it does say partial vaccination offers little to no protection. So let’s redo the above analysis twice, with a 0%/5%/64% effectiveness and a 0%/64%/64% effectiveness.
Full vaccinated only
Factoring in the protection, the ratio of unprotected children in that age range is 5:76:9.6. That gives us about a 5.5% chance that any given death in that age group will not be vaccinated. Or about 1 in every 18 deaths, which means we would expect less than one death in the unvaccinated group if all deaths occurred in that age group (they didn’t, of course).
That means that there is a 94.5% chance of any given death being vaccinated. Using the Binomial distribution (look it up, you should know it, but you’ve already shown yourself to be incompetent at statistics), that gives a .945^13=48% chance that all 13 deaths were vaccinated.
All Vaccinated
Factoring in the protection, the ratio of unprotected children in that age range is 5:28.8:9.6. That gives us about a 11.5% chance that any given death in that age group will not be vaccinated. Or about 1 in every 8.7 deaths, which means we would expect more than one death in the unvaccinated group if all deaths occurred in that age group (they didn’t, of course).
That means that there is a 88.5% chance of any given death being vaccinated. Using the Binomial distribution (look it up, you should know it, but you’ve already shown yourself to be incompetent at statistics), that gives a .885^13=20% chance that all 13 deaths were vaccinated.
Whether its a 1 in 2, a 1 in 3, or a 1 in 5 chance of getting these results, it is clear that zero deaths in 13 being unvaccinated is not statistically significant. Although, I again note that this isn’t a true, in-depth statistical analysis, but rather simplified in that it assumes all deaths to come from the 6-11 month age bracket, which is not true.
Thanks Kevin. I was about to do something similar when I felt myself losing the will to live, so I resorted to a reduction ad absurdum to attempt to make my point instead.
Or even a reductio ad absurdum.
Ron, so we see you can’t work out a p value, or estimate relative risks.
Yet you claim to be a risk analyst?
Can I sue you under the Trades Descriptions Act?
Dingo, it depends on if he is fraudulent or merely incompetent (services require mens rea -guilty intent- under the Act). You’d also have to hire him first, as I understand it.
Yep, I’m incompetent! Folk are saying that MeNZB was 80% effective… yet Arnold et al said in their vaccine paper analysis estimates MeNZB vaccine effectiveness to be 77%, and then we have Krebiozen quoting saying the analysis estimated meningococcal disease rates to be 2.8 times higher in the unvaccinated group than the vaccinated group (95 percent confidence interval: 1.9-3.9), with a vaccine effectiveness of 64%. which Krebiozen said was pretty good. When one looks at Arnold’s vaiicine paper he’s saying that is for ALL strains of meningococcal disease… in other words, according to Krebiozen, this is a ‘pretty good’ vaccine for ALL strains of meningococcal disease which of course is a total nonsense… this becomes patently obvious when one realises that their analysis also revealed that MeNZB was 56.3 percent. What a load of pseudo-science… if MeNZB was this good and this universal it would have been introduced as the first universal vaccine ever.
Does anyone on the blog actually believe that a strain specific vaccine for meningococcal disease protected against all other strains as well as totally unrelated bacterial infections?
If you do then you believe in woo-science as well as pseudoscience.
And on that note, I’ll leave you to it… in the knowledge that so-called evidence-based skeptics are just as biased as woo-believers… in fact, if you believe the above then you are, by definition, woo-believers.
Ciao-4-niao
Oops, my incompetence showed again… missed out the key evidence of wooness.
Should have read…
this becomes patently obvious when one realises that their analysis also revealed that MeNZB was 56.3 percent AGAINST PNEUMOCOCCAL DISEASE!!!!! What a load of pseudo-science… if MeNZB was this good and this universal it would have been introduced as the first universal vaccine ever.
Does anyone on the blog actually believe that a strain specific vaccine for meningococcal disease protected against all other strains as well as totally unrelated bacterial infections?
If you do then you believe in woo-science as well as pseudoscience.
And on that note, I’ll leave you to it… in the knowledge that so-called evidence-based skeptics are just as biased as woo-believers… in fact, if you believe the above then you are, by definition, woo-believers.
Ciao-4-niao
Incompetent… quite obviously.
And now we have the pleasure of watching Ron Risk Analyst displaying innumeracy as well as illiteracy.
Firstly he seems to think that a vaccine that is 56% effective demonstrates marvelous preventative superpowers, whereas a vaccine that is 77% effective is useless.
Then he demonstrates he is unable to read the detailed discussion in the Arnold paper (pages 60-64) which precisely explains why the pneumococcal notification rates were lower in the MeNZB vaccinated groups.
@dingo199
Let’ see how long ron sticks the flounce.
Anyone who knows ron knows he doesn’t flounce, and he deliberately doesn’t talk scholar speak. I’ve asked him why on several occasions. his answer was simple. most people don’t understand it , even many so called scholars. I’ve read Arnold’s papers and no amount of rationalisation can validate the meningococcal vaccine used in new zealand being 57 percent effective for pneumococcal disease.
It’s a shame Ron has gone, I was going to ask him what alternative he would suggest for dealing with a meningococcal disease epidemic. Ride it out until “natural decline” takes care of it? I suppose Arnold was mistaken in his estimate that:
Well, well, well. “DavidG” shows up less than 12 hours after Ron flounces, telling us that Ron’s right even when “the scholars” can’t follow his genius. I wonder what a sockpuppet check between Ron and DavidG would find…
The quote in my last comment was from Arnold 2011, just to be clear.
Antaeus Feldspar,
If true, it wouldn’t be new for him – he tries to sockpuppet on my blog every now and then. (His earlier comment to me is clutching at straws, trying to insinuate fault in others whilst avoiding mentioning himself. That’s not new for him either. *Sigh.*)
If anyone here looked at what happened in India with Gardasil – the death from “presumed snake bite” but with no evidence of a bite, the problems with not obtaining consents from the girls and or their parents. The “placebo” used etc etc they might not be so keen automatically absolve Merck, and more keen to actually start creating a proper vaccine reaction register – so that noise (people randomly getting sick) can be teased out of the figures because the rates of post vaccination problems can then be compared to “expected” levels. At the moment with such a poor reporting system in place and doctors and nurses not willing to register possible reactions. Believe me – they often don’t even when the parent asks them to. The other thing I notice is MeNZB is being mentioned. While I’m sure many New Zealanders are proud that our kids were all fantastic test subjects for the latest Meningitis vaccine, I’m sure many of us would prefer that we as a country hadn’t paid millions of dollars to be part of a drug trial – one that we weren’t even allowed to independently verify. But it was a disaster – Meningitis deaths actually increased – although they were given to different strains to make it seem better. Far better we had paid money to improve the poor living conditions that spread the virus in the small part of Auckland where it was based. Yes there were cases in other parts of the country – but if you read the fine print almost all of them had come back from holidays with relatives in the affected region. Drug companies are powerful and have a lot of money to buy hearts and minds – but facts are what are needed to have the safest most effective vaccines and at the moment we are relying on the people who have the most to lose to provide us with those facts. It’s not good enough and it’s too naive to expect that they will be paragons of the truth when billions are at stake – even if they thoroughly believe in what they are doing – as our politicians did for MeNZB. So please cynic the heck up on both sides of this debate. Prevention of disease and sickness surely has to be the goal, but it can’t be without a little scientific scepticism – and strong oversight of what are in fact money-making organisations. I think probably the worst one at the moment is chicken pox – because it’s known to increase rates of shingles – an extremely dangerous complication – and one my relatives were not aware of because it is why they gave their kids the vacc – because shingles runs in the family. Better testing please. Better accountability please. And both sides should leave off parading the victims, because this debate needs to be decided on empirical evidence not horror stories. After all there is no such thing as a hundred percent safe, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply kidding themselves.
Shorter AJ:
Until all vaccines are declared 100% safe, which of course they can never be, and until all fears that Big Pharma has faked important data relating to vaccines have been laid to rest, which of course by the nature of conspiracy thinking they will never be, we should err on the side of fearing vaccines and believing the worst rumors we hear about them. People on both sides need to think more critically, by which I mean people on the side of vaccines need to give more credence to the vague allegations that make me worried.
AJ,
You should take your own advice, since almost everything you wrote is not true.
Gardasil in India? The problem there is not a dangerous vaccine, as Gardasil is about as safe as any vaccine could possibly be, but poorly carried-out trials leading to <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110622/full/474427a.html"unfounded fears about a lifesaving vaccine". In the developed world there are very robust vaccine safety trials and safety monitoring mechanisms in place, and in the last couple of decades far more problems have been caused by vaccines being withdrawn from use due to unfounded fears than from vaccines themselves.
No they didn’t. According to Hon Steve Chadwick (NZ Associate Minister of Health), during the 12 months preceding the MeNZB rollout, “15 people died from meningococcal disease in New Zealand.” and during the 12 months following the completion of the mass MeNZb vaccination programme in mid-2006, “nine people died from meningococcal disease in New Zealand”. Since the nature of epidemics is to wax and wane, it is difficult to say how many people would have died if the vaccine had not been used, it might well have been considerably more than 15, but as I quoted Arnold (2011) above, “Between July 2004 and December 2008 an estimated 210 epidemic strain cases (95% CI 100-380), six deaths and 15-30 cases of severe sequelae were avoided in New Zealand due to the introduction of the MeNZB vaccine”.
If the vaccine had not been introduced and scores of children had died of meningitis, no doubt the same people now complaining about the vaccine would be howling for the blood of public health officials for not protecting them.
You have that completely wrong. Someone who has chicken pox is far more likely to get shingles than someone who has avoided chicken pox by getting the varicella vaccine. Your relatives have protected their children from getting shingles by vaccinating them. It is possible (but not yet certain) that in varicella-vaccinated populations older people may get shingles more than they used to as their natural immunity is no longer being boosted periodically by contact with children with chicken pox, but they can protect themselves from shingles by getting the zoster vaccine. Perhaps this is where you got your mistaken idea from?
There is a risk associated with almost everything we do, and most of us simply minimize the risks we can control, and ignore the rest. We wear a seat belt when we drive, though we know there is a small chance of being injured or trapped in a burning vehicle by it in the event of an accident, because we know that the chances of serious injury or death are greatly reduced. Since whatever way you look at it vaccination greatly decreases our risk of illness or death, I truly don’t understand what your point is. Have you looked at the safety and efficacy studies that have been carried out on vaccines? Perhaps you should take a look at some on PubMed. You seem to have come across some misinformation and accepted it uncritically, which is ironic as that is precisely what you are accusing others of doing.
That link should be this link.
AJ, others have addressed points in your post, but I’d like to ask you why you have resurrected the Indian Gardasil deaths issue.
The idea that gardasil caused deaths has been debunked. There were deaths following vaccination (in the same way that there are deaths after reading the Morning Herald), but they appear not to be due to gardasil (or the Morning Herald)
http://www.path.org/news/an100422-hpv-india.php
http://www.dancewithshadows.com/pillscribe/gardasil-study-death-of-6-girls-not-due-to-vaccine-failure-says-indian-minister/
Now what sources or evidence do you have to suggest that the girl who allegedly died of snakebite “had no evidence of snakebite”? I agree that these reports are slightly vague, coming indirectly from the Research Council Director General, and might just possibly be wrong, but you seem to have decided they definitely are wrong.
I’d just like to know why you think that. Without knowledge as to what evidence has informed your opinion, we have to conclude you are suffering some form of cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias.
Thank you Ron Law- wish there were more like you!
Diane Harper appears to be the most qualified to speak about Gardasil- I don’t bother to read any more comments by
Orac’s fanatical followers.
Latest earning figures for GSK as of 10/1/12-“Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK)’s Cervarix are the only two U.S.-approved vaccines to combat HPV. Merck’s Gardasil generated $1.2 billion in revenue last year, while Cervarix brought in $812 million for London-based Glaxo.”
Connect the dots……
@ken
And why would that be relevant to the discussion, necromancer?
“ Since her daughter’s death, Ms. Renata has steadfastly refused to have herself, her husband, or any of her family tested for gene mutations associated with sudden cardiac or tested for idiopathic heart disease because she knows of no history of heart disease in her family if you don’t count the death of her daughter.”
I am saddened by the death of this woman’s daughter. But, that said, I’m really not convinced
that she is in any way seriously sold on the idea that Gardasil killed her daughter. If she were
that convinced, she could have the tests done and use that as fairly convincing proof for her
case if the tests for anything hereditary came back negative. She cannot help but know this,
since it would no doubt have been pointed out to her.
I wonder if the anti-vax lot got to her first……
David,
You wrote: “But, that said, I’m really not convinced that she is in any way seriously sold on the idea that Gardasil killed her daughter.” – At the risk of opening this up again, there are two different ‘sides’ involved here. It’s reasonable to suggest that the mother isn’t (completely) sold on the idea that Gardasil killed her daughter. There is also SANE Vax and their views as to if they can use the inquest to their advantage. (As you’ll from Orac’s article, they were very quick to write about it after the hearing.)
Regards: “She cannot help but know this, since it would no doubt have been pointed out to her.” – It was pointed out to her.
ken,
Do you mean Diane Harper who was involved in clinical trials of Gardasil and Cervarix, a href=”http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/”>who says, “I fully support the HPV vaccines, […] I believe that in general they are safe in most women”.
Going to a blog and posting a comment saying, in essence, “Lalalalala, I can’t hear you,” seems more than a little childish to me. Perhaps you would be more comfortable better off sticking to the antivaxx echo chambers where your blinkered and rigid beliefs won’t be challenged. Unless you have a little nagging doubt that they are feeding you lies, that is.
What is that gremlin doing with all those quotation marks and greater than signs?
Let’s try that again.
gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-10-25/gardasil-is-probable-cause-of-girls-deaths-brain-histology-study/
casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract
ken…do you think you could link to those reports of serious side effect/deaths from Gardisil vaccine?
As long as you vote for Obama I luv y’all.
Wow ken, gaia health and an abstract that you didn’t even read the full text for. Stellar.
I have been looking at that Tomljenovic and Shaw article. There seems to be a curious lack of any controls in the study, so we have no way of knowing if the HPV antigens they claim to have found in the brains of these two unfortunate girls, using antibody-based staining techniques, are artefacts or not. If they are correct that “cross reactivity between vaccine antigens and host vascular structures” occurs, this seems not unlikely. If they are not correct a major supporting leg of their convoluted theories collapses. It doesn’t seem clear to me why they think there is a similarity between HPV proteins and cerebral blood vessels.
Their theory is that the HPV antigens in the vaccine were taken up by white blood cells and that the immune response to the vaccine caused the blood brain barrier to break down, allowing these white blood cells to enter the brain where they deposited these HPV proteins, which initiated an immune reaction which turned into a massive autoimmune reaction because of the similarity between these HPV proteins and the cerebral vasculature. The resulting cerebral vasculitis then killed the girls.
In Case 1 this occurred 6 months after her last Gardasil shot, and in Case 2, a 14-year-old with history of oral contraception and migraines, 14 days after her last Gardasil shot.
In Case 1, the autopsy found: “Histological analysis of the brain hippocampus, cerebellum and watershed cortex allegedly revealed no evidence of neuronal loss or neuroinflammatory changes”. I just love the “allegedly” which apparently means that this cannot be true as it doesn’t fit with their theories.
In Case 2, the autopsy, “revealed cerebral edema and cerebellar herniation […] no evidence of inflammatory processes or microglial reactions in the patient’s brain […] these changes were consistent with terminal ischemic-hypoxic encephalopathy”, which you would expect after a cardiac arrest. It is worth noting that stroke and heart disease are surprisingly common in females of this age, especially if they have been using the OCP.
We are expected to believe these girls died of massive autoimmune cerebral vasculitis, despite there being no signs of this at all on autopsy. We are also expected to believe that the immune response to the vaccine results in a breakdown of the blood brain barrier sufficient to allow white blood cells to carry an aluminum adjuvant and HPV antigen complex into the brain.
If this was the case, wouldn’t the vaccine allow all sorts of pathogens into the brain? Wouldn’t we see a large number of people given the vaccine suffering from serious brain infections? This theory seems extremely speculative and far-fetched to me, not least because large studies (of more than 40,000 subjects) find no increased risk of adverse events of the sort described here at all.
As for the BMJ case history, I think the phrase, “the cause is unknown in 90% of cases” can be translated as “post hoc fallacy”.
Thanks Krebiozen, S & T’s one trick pony show has become so predictable and them so blatantly dishonest that I can dismiss what they write out of hand. Also given the
vanity pressjournal they had to publish in to avoid any actual peer review, it’s getting obvious where this dynamic duo is headed.In Case 1, the autopsy found: “Histological analysis of the brain hippocampus, cerebellum and watershed cortex allegedly revealed no evidence of neuronal loss or neuroinflammatory changes”. I just love the “allegedly”
The ‘allegedly’ is there (I imagine) because they are examining tissue slides from the brain of Ms Renata, and not having access to comprehensive samples, they are quoting the autopsy report from the NZ pathologist. So nothing sinister.
hkb,
I still haven’t found time to read T&S’s paper – still tied up with reading for my own work… Do T&S indicate the location of their cases? (I noted SANE Vax reporting something to the effect “opposite sides on earth”, which struck me.)