Categories
Bad science Medicine Popular culture Quackery Skepticism/critical thinking

60 MINUTES Australia broadcasts an infomercial for Bioss Stem Cells, a quack clinic in Mexico

Last Sunday, 60 MINUTES Australia broadcast a story about a very sympathetic girl with cerebral palsy and her family, who traveled to Bioss Stem Cells, a stem cell clinic in Monterrey, Mexico, for unproven “stem cell” treatments. The story was nearly completely devoid of skepticism and played, in essence, as a 20 minute advertisement for quacks. It is one of the worst examples of boosterism and false balance about unproven treatments I’ve ever seen.

What is it about Monterrey and quackery? When last I discussed a clinic and hospital in Monterrey, Mexico, I was discussing Clínica 0-19, where Drs. Alberto Siller and Alberto Garcia have been subjecting children with the diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), a deadly brain tumor, to repeated cerebral angiography to administer an unknown cocktail of toxic chemotherapy agents into the brainstem combined with an unproven “immunotherapy.” They have never published their results other than as an abstract at a Mexican conference, and there is no way to judge their outcomes. Worse, children have suffered harm. The family of one Australian girl was stranded in Mexico for two months, after she ended up in the intensive care unit at Hospital Angeles, where the family racked up $2,500 a day in medical charges but couldn’t afford to come home because a medical flight back to Australia would have cost a quarter million dollars. This time around, I came across one of the most egregious examples of a story that crosses the line between journalism and advertising, courtesy of 60 MINUTES Australia. It’s a girl being treated at Bioss Stem Cells, a clinic in Monterrey that looks to me to be no different than all the other quack stem cell clinics I’ve written about over the years that charge huge sums for unproven treatments.

One of the problems with quack clinics like Clínica 0-19 is the way the media is so interested in treating stories of desperate families paying huge sums to go to these clinics as human interest stories that they fail to demonstrate even a modicum of skepticism. I don’t know that Australian media is any worse than any other country’s media, the US included, but I documented some pretty egregious stories about Australian families who took their children with DIPG to Clínica 0-19. Sadly, this report on 60 MINUTES Australia that aired Sunday night was at least as bad as the worst of these, possibly even worse still. I had heard about it then, but for some reason couldn’t find the video to evaluate until stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler found the two ten-minute segments on YouTube:

Watch the segments for yourself, if you have time. This story is one of the worst examples of the credulous treatment of an unproven treatment sold by quacks I’ve ever seen and a blight on the 60 MINUTES brand. While it’s true that 60 MINUTES in the US has stumbled occasionally over its five decades of existence, at the very least it’s done at least one excellent takedown of stem cell quackery and the unjustified (and expensive) promises made by the unethical doctors who run them. Heck, the 60 MINUTES Australia even nailed Belle Gibson, the woman who claimed to have kept her brain cancer at bay with a vegan diet and used her story to build a wellness empire in Australia. Spoiler: It turned out that she had never had cancer at all. This story by the Australian version of the show is exactly the opposite; basically, other than the inclusion of token skepticism, it’s in essence an infomercial for Bioss Stem Cells.

Meet the cute, lovable girl and her dedicated, loving parents

The first segment of the story starts out with reporter Liam Bartlett introducing six-year-old Isabella Lombardo, who, we are told, is one of the one in 500 children born in Australia every year with cerebral palsy. Bartlett lays down effusive praise of the girl, who is undeniably cute, intelligent, and impossible not to like unless you’re a heartless bastard. Similarly, her parents are clearly loving and willing to go to incredible lengths to try to help their daughter. It’s impossible not to like them as well and feel empathy for them as they are shown agonizing over their decisions, comforting their daughter as she cries getting blood drawn, and in general being super-dedicated parents. As is always the case with families who are desperate enough to take their children to quacks, as I watched, I wished only the best for this girl and her family, even as I feared what I was about to see.

The story is then framed right from the beginning this way:

When it was diagnosed, her mum and dad vowed to do anything and everything they could to help their precious daughter. For years, Libby and Joseph Lombardo have searched the world and spent all their savings, but eventually found a radical new stem cell treatment in Mexico. The prize it offered was the hope that she might walk for the first time, but then they faced the most difficult decision of all: Should they put their faith—and their daughter’s life—in the hands of unknown doctors and untested science?

See what I mean? The first segment is basically framed as the parents’ quest to heal their daughter, using any means necessary, spending whatever it takes, going wherever they have to go. After being treated to a scene of Bartlett interviewing Isabella, who talks about how she’d just like to be able to walk like the other kids, we see the family at the clinic, their daughter being prepared for the stem cell therapy. I must admit that, seeing this scene, I wondered if the family were at Hospital Angeles, the same hospital where the DIPG quacks Drs. Siller and Gonzalez inject chemotherapy directly into the arteries leading to the brainstem of DIPG patients. It looked as though it could be, but I haven’t seen enough shots of the inside of the hospital to be sure, and hospitals do tend to look a like. In any case, the family is shown in what looks like a hospital and, later, in an operating room. Wherever she received her treatment, she clearly underwent general anesthesia, and Bartlett had been allowed to observe, as he was shown in the same room. Throughout the story, stem cell therapy is described in superlatives, such as “groundbreaking,” thus causing me to grate my teeth.

Part of what irritated me about this segment is the “us against the world” narrative about the parents. Bartlett intones how in Australia, the only treatment offered is Botox to relieve spasticity. We’re then shown how the parents took Isabella to the US to undergo a spinal procedure that Australian doctors didn’t recommend to the point of saying that it wouldn’t work. It’s claimed that she improved, but no objective evidence is presented for that. I was able, however, to find out that the operation was selective dorzal rhizotomy at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. This surgery is somewhat controversial and involves cutting some of the sensory nerve fibers that come from the muscles and enter the spinal cord, although there is some evidence that it can reduce spasticity if applied using strict clinical criteria. One big disadvantage of the surgery is that it is permanent and irreversible. Also, long-term outcomes are not yet clear. I also can’t help but note that the operation, contrary to the 60 MINUTES Australia report, is offered at some large children’s hospitals in Australia, which makes me wonder if Isabella was ever evaluated and deemed not a good candidate for the operation.

Yep:

Isabella did not qualify for the surgery in Australia because her doctors said she was too young, her condition was not serious enough, and the irreversible procedure might have made her worse.

Funny how 60 MINUTES fails to mention this.

Bartlett does “challenge” the parents, pointing out to them that not one doctor in Australia that they had consulted thought that what they were doing, either the surgery or the stem cell treatment, was a good idea. The parents’ decision to ignore medical recommendations and seek out these treatments is not portrayed as a bad thing. Quite the contrary, it’s portrayed as incredibly admirable. Joseph replies to this “challenge” that “you have to put your faith in yourself and not in anyone else,” thus appealing to everyone’s desire to view himself as smarter than those pointy-headed experts. Worse, the questionable success of the surgery is also portrayed as justification for the parents to seek out “even more radical solutions,” meaning, of course, the Bioss Stem Cells treatment.

Of course, the Lombardos’ online research is what led them to Bioss Stem Cells clinic, which is described in the story as a clinic where doctors “seemed to be making progress in cutting edge treatment in stem cell therapy.” Again, it’s pointed out how Australian doctors were very much against this—good for the Australian doctors!—but the parents decided to go anyway. Again, this is portrayed as a good thing.

The dilemma of the token skeptic

At this point, we meet the token skeptic, Professor Ernst Wolvetang, an Australian stem cell expert based at the University of Queensland. It turns out that Prof. Wolvetang was the stem cell expert who took the phone call from Libby Lombardo and advised her not to go to Mexico for stem cell therapy because “more trials are needed to prove that it works.” I also have to hand it to Prof. Wolvetang for having the guts to be the only naysayer featured on the segment, although it’s possible that he didn’t know that he’d be the only skeptic.

Of course, stories like this present a dilemma for scientists, science-based physicians, and skeptics: Do you go on the show even though you know that you’re the token skeptic being used to provide false balance to the story in the hopes that you can get your message through enough to make a difference and that too much of your interview isn’t left on the cutting room floor? Or do you say no? There is no right answer, at least not as far as I’m concerned. Prof. Wolvetang’s segment shows another peril for skeptics in participating in stories like this. For one thing, like any scientist, he said that we don’t know if it works and that it “could work” for some neurologic conditions. Of course, as I’ve said before, stem cells are all too often described in terms better suited to magic than to science-based medical treatments. What, for instance, is the mechanism by which stem cells might affect the disability from cerebral palsy? How are they targeted? So many times, it seems to be assumed that if you just inject these cells into the bloodstream they will “know” where to go and what to do.

In any event, Bartlett, after hearing Prof. Wolvetang’s statement that stem cell treatments like the one Isabella Lombardo underwent are unproven, challenged him by saying, “And yet you have medical clinics in foreign countries offering at great cost stem cell treatment for cerebral palsy sufferers.” Prof. Wolvetang responded about as well as any stem cell scientist could respond, noting that this is “of great concern” to clinicians and governing bodies and that such treatments are potentially dangerous. Unfortunately, he didn’t mention some of the worst potential dangers, such as stem cell tumors like the one Jim Gass suffered from when he sought out stem cell treatments for his stroke.

Unfortunately, Prof. Wolvetang’s words of caution only serve as part of the narrative, leading Bartlett to say, “But nothing deters a desperate parent,” as if that were always good thing. (Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t.) Their decision is presented as a false dichotomy, with Joseph Lombardo stating that it’s a decision between doing what he and his wife were doing versus waiting for these treatments to be validated in Australia, which can be ten or twenty years, “by which time it’s too late.” Note that this line of reasoning assumes that the stem cell treatment works and is not potentially dangerous; it reads more like a justification than a good rationale. The first segment wraps up with the question, “Will Isabella take her first steps?” with a tease that she will.

Off to Bioss Stem Cells in Monterrey!

The second segment opens with shots of Monterrey, with Bartlett voicing how beautiful the city is and lobbing Libby a softball question: “Is it frustrating, though, to have to come all this way.” Gee, did Bartlett think she’d say no? Equally irritating is how Bartlett builds on his prior framing about Australia and notes with wonder that Monterrey is a place where stem cell treatments not allowed in Australia are available. Never, it seems, did it occur to him to ask why these stem cell treatments aren’t allowed in Australia, although he did have enough awareness to note that there’s a fine line between doing what’s best for Isabella and “using her as a guinea pig.” Personally, I’d say the line isn’t that fine at all and that, unfortunately, the parents crossed it.

In many ways, the second segment is even more infuriating, scientifically, than the first. The reason is Bartlett’s interview with Dr. Ana Carolina, the doctor who runs the Bioss Clinic. Bartlett notes that she claims that, over the last seven years, she and her team have achieved amazing results using her stem cell treatments not just for cerebral palsy, but for autism, diabetes, and stroke. In her interview, she claims to have produced amazing improvements in patients with cerebral palsy. I’m guessing that Bartlett thought it was the height of skepticism to challenge her by saying that this “sounds almost too good to be true,” but she got away with agreeing but saying that it is true.

Looking at this entry on the Lombardos’ Facebook page, I’d agree:

I note that the Duke study cited by the Lombardos (assuming I got the right studyu) was disappointing and basically a negative study.

Before I get back to the story, I had to take a look at the Bioss Stem Cells website. I took a look at the conditions treated:

  • Autism
  • Cerebral palsy
  • Stroke
  • Intervertebral discs
  • Muscular dystrophy
  • Diabetic foot
  • Osteoarthrosis
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • Joints
  • Avascular necrosis
  • Quadriplegia
  • Dorsal Spine
  • Anti-aging
  • Erectile Dysfunction

Erectile dysfunction? Stem cells for erectile dysfunction? Really?

So what is the evidence? As you might imagine, there is none. Dr. Carolina has not published any of her results that I can find, and all she can provide are anecdotes—just take her word for it. In this, she and her clinic are basically indistinguishable from the numerous quack stem cell clinics that I’ve written about over the years. I even searched PubMed and was unable to find any publications by this woman related to stem cell treatments. Heck, I wasn’t able to find much of anything about her anywhere on the web, other than on the Bioss Stem Cells website. I did find a bit about her on the Bioss Facebook page:

So her full name is Dr. Ana Carolina Ramírez Cazares, and she’s a pediatrician specializing in clinical hematology, certified by the Mexican Council of hematology and the pediatrics council, an active member of the Mexican group for the study of hematology. Knowing her full name, I was able to find her website, which shows a fairly standard pediatric hematology practice, plus Bioss Stem Cells. The Bioss Facebook page also features posts like this:

Without evidence, Dr. Carolina claims:

That’s right. With no evidence at all, Bioss is offering stem cell therapy for autism. Of course, my experience looking at stem cell quackery for autism leads me to think of Kent Heckenlively and how he borrowed $15,000 from his daughter’s grandparents to travel to Costa Rica to have “stem cells” injected into his daughter’s cerebrospinal fluid by lumbar puncture (i.e., intrathecal injection). Basically, it’s gross quackery.

Then there’s cerebral palsy:

And, of course, there’s anti-aging:

There are even promotions, like this Stem Cell Summer Camp that happened last week:

Yes, what we have here is what appears to me to be a typical quack stem cell clinic. Dr. Carolina harvested Isabella’s bone marrow, after which, according to Bartlett, the cells are “engineered in the laboratory,” whatever that means. It’s not explained, even in lay terms. Then they’re reinfused.

Did the stem cells fix Isabella’s problem?

So, did the stem cell treatment work? Who knows? Dr. Carolina was interviewed after Isabella’s treatment and chirped about how she was “optimistic” that the treatment would work and that in the future Isabella would be able to walk someday. Particularly telling is this:

Dr Carolina can’t fathom why a simple, and in her eyes proven treatment, is currently prohibited in Australia.

“Proven”? Based on what? There are no published clinical trials showing that Dr. Carolina’s treatment works. In her hubris or greed, she thinks it does. I don’t know if she’s deluded or lying, but she actually makes the claim that in Mexico that a treatment has to be shown to work before it can be used. I’ve already shown that this is not at all true and that Mexican law in fact lets doctors do pretty much anything they want to with stem cells when I discussed the Gordie Howe’s trip to Mexico to receive stem cells to treat his stroke. In reality, Mexico’s regulation of stem cell treatments is quite lax, which is the reason there is so much stem cell quackery there.

Particularly deceiving, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is the followup. Isabella is described as showing remarkable improvement, but it’s also revealed that her parents had taken her to Houston to be treated by “world renowned cerebral palsy therapist Mike Poole.” This is portrayed as a necessary followup to the stem cell treatment, but it strikes me as equally likely that it is the intense physiotherapy that accounts for any improvements that Isabella might have experienced. Sure, Prof. Wolvetang pops up again and points out that there are no clinical trials and we don’t know if stem cell treatments are beneficial for cerebral palsy and makes my point that Mexico skipped the clinical trials and just went straight for treatment, but it’s too little, too late. It’s the very epitome of token skepticism thrown in after this emotional story of loving parents trying to overcome all options to give their daughter the best chance of being able to walk someday, no matter how much it costs or what it takes.

I will give Prof. Wolvetang great credit on one answer he gave. When Bartlett asks him if he would go to Monterrey if he had a child with cerebral palsy, he said quite simply that he’d be tempted but that he wouldn’t do it. He would wait. We can all understand why parents like the Lombardos might not be willing to wait, and that’s exactly what quacks like Dr. Carolina count on to make big bucks selling stem cell snake oil.

Cost versus benefit and things left unsaid

There is another huge hole in this report, besides its basically serving as an infomercial for Bioss Stem Cells, and it’s an inexcusable one. There is no reference to how much it cost the Lombardos, other than vague references to a high cost. How much do these therapies cost? I know from previous examinations of quack stem cell clinics that these sorts of treatments tend to cost around $10,000 or more a pop, plus travel, lodging, and hospital expenses, and that multiple treatments are almost always the norm. I know from news reports that the selective dorsal rhizotomy cost the Lombardos $100,000. Who knows how much the stem cell treatment cost? I haven’t been able to find out. At various points, Libby asks if it’s worth it. That’s a very good question, and the answer is almost certainly no. However, the way the story is told, the viewer is left with the impression that the answer is yes.

I can understand why a story like that of the Lombardos is an appealing one to a TV producer. Indeed, the story basically writes itself. You have a cute, articulate six year old with a condition that renders her unable to walk. Her parents are appealing, loving, and highly dedicated to helping her. They’re intelligent, but, as I’ve seen happen with so many quacks, like Stanislaw Burzynski or the doctors at Clínica 0-19, have let their hope and desperation overcome their skepticism (although the story certainly can’t be told that way, as understandable as their reaction might be). Frame the narrative as these fantastic people fighting against all odds (including the objections of the local medical authorities, who must be portrayed as unimaginative and dogmatic) to make their daughter whole. All you have to do is to shoot some scenes with the reporter interviewing the girl and her parents, do a softball interview with stem cell clinic CEO, some shots of the girl undergoing her treatments, and include for “balance” the token skeptic. There’s just one problem. This story downplays the risks of what the parents are doing and very much overplays the potential benefit of the therapy they’ve administered to their children and in doing so plays as a commercial for an unproven therapy that many (myself included) view—and quite rightly so, in my not-so-humble opinion—as quackery. Sure, the uncertainty over the treatment is emphasized over and over again, but always in a hopeful, positive, encouraging way, never in a way that might suggest to other parents of children like Isabella that traveling to Monterrey to go to the Bioss Stem Cells clinic is a bad idea with little chance of helping their children.

This story will be selling quack stem cell therapies a decade from now to sell snake oil to the next generation of parents of children like Isabella Lombardo.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

228 replies on “60 MINUTES Australia broadcasts an infomercial for Bioss Stem Cells, a quack clinic in Mexico”

Orac (and anyone else), what’s your best guess as to the percentage of these “clinics” that are:

a) Overt fraudsters who know they’re scamming people but do it anyway (for the money etc.).

b) True Believers, who persist in believing in what they do, despite it failing repeatedly or causing overt harm.

c) Rogue “scientists” who are using their patients as unwitting guinea pigs for the sake of “proving” something.

d) Other.

What’s it going to take to get some kind of international standards to prevent this sort of thing?

Are there other countries to watch out for, that have lax standards that allow questionable “clinics” to proliferate?

I’d say that they’re pretty much all either a or b. I’ve yet to come across one of them that could be described as c, because there’s pretty much never any real stem cell research going on at any of these for-profit private stem cell clinics.

As for where? It’s the usual suspects: Mexico, Central America, Eastern Europe, China, etc. On the other hand, the US has what we like to think to be pretty strong standards and there are an estimated 700 or so of these clinics all over the US, although the largest concentrations of them are in Florida and California. Search the blog for “stem cells” and “FDA” or “stem cells” and “Florida,” and you’ll see I’ve written about this a few times before.

In Florida, the emphasis is on stem cells for arthritic knees. I receive mailings for free lunch seminars where people can sign up for treatment.

Thanks, Orac! Your country list more or less matches mine. I was wondering about Eastern Europe because two of Putin’s favorite ideologues/”philosophers” (Ivan Ilyin and Aleksandr Dugin) are both anti-science nuts (Dugin wants to shut down physics & chemistry altogether).

Florida’s not surprising but California is, bigtime, because we’re supposed to have decent oversight here. I’m with Kaiser, which is SBM all the way as far as I know, so I’m not likely to fall into a quack hole. But I’ll warn my friends if any of them get interested in that stuff.

Yes I’ve read some of your stuff about quack stem cell clinics (and my memory for names sucks except for a few that are regulars here); I’m usually a few days behind but keep up with your blog regularly because I’m interested in public health news & warnings about scams. BTW you’ve changed my mind about a few things over the years.

Answer = d) Other

The stem cell clinics are looking for surprising and unexpected results from their pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey effort.

US Patents are informative in relation to a medical procedures therapeutic potential. A quick search in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website using the keywords “Stem Cells” (title) and “Cerebral palsy” (Claims) provided only one (1) hit.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22stem+cells%22.TI.&s2=(%22cerebral+palsy%22.CLTX.+or+%22cerebral+palsy%22.DCTX.)&OS=TTL/

Examples 5,6, and 8 describe their stem cell/cerebral palsy results.

My apology for the reference disconnect above, Orac.

Here’s the single (1) stem cell/cerebral palsy patent from Google Patents:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9804151B2/en?oq=9%2c804%2c151

Example #5

Six months after treatment he has clearer speech, no difficulty in swallowing, is able to use the left side of his body and his gait has improved. He is able to shave with his left hand and also use his left hand to pick up cups, etc. His balancing is better and he is able to go on long walks;

Example #6

After a year and a half of treatment she has grown and looks like a 2 year old baby. She has neck control, recognizes her parents, crawls on the bed, eats normal food, smiles on recognition, and sits with support, and has taken a few steps with her mother holding her. Her gait is a scissor gait and she has also started calling out to her parents; and

Example #8

Following treatment, she is not drooling, her attention span has improved and she is looking more alert. She is walking with minimal support.

US Patents are informative in relation to a medical procedures therapeutic potential.

So is looking further than an opportunity to spamvertise your latest fucking vanity-press sidewalk deposit.

@ Gray Squirrel:

speaking about woo in general, I’d guess that most are a), b) or a combination of both. That is, they’re scammers who partially believe in their own spiel. So they exaggerate claims that they already believe and follow on their own- thus, a diet that prevents cancer becomes a cure in their appeals to their audiences. A few probably follow the regimes that they suggest to their followers. I think that it’s a question of degree: Mercola may be more of a scammer than say, Null BUT I think that both believe that they have superior knowledge compared to SBM and themselves follow lots of what they preach: they sure look it. Because they believe that they are so superior, they are vulnerable to DK. Fooling others, fooling themselves.

Any pure scammers? Maybe AJW and autism cure doctors/ practitioners.
Stem cell clinics? How can they be so sure if they have no data from anyone? So I’d guess more prone to scam.

I watched this travesty of journalism when it was broadcast. I was so angry at the nonsense being peddled that I was shouting at the TV, much to the amusement of my kids. I’m afraid I got a little sweary (my kids have heard worse at school amongst their friends as they’ve sometimes let slip) but I think they got the message about the importance of scepticism and evidence.

There’s an amusing story demonstrating my own momentary incompetence. When this broadcast, I kept finding links to the video on Twitter, but when I clicked on them I found the story was geofenced. So I used my trusty VPN and got to the 9Now website but saw that they wanted people to sign up to see the video. So I did using a disposable email address and a Sydney-area postal code (thankfully, they didn’t want a full address). Then, when I tried to watch the video, I found that, whatever 9Now’s video service is, it wasn’t fooled by my VPN (either that, or it had a list of IP addresses associated with the particular VPN I was using). I was annoyed and figured I wouldn’t be able to blog about this. Then I saw Paul’s post and that the segments were on YouTube with no geoblocking. D’oh! Next time I check YouTube.🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️

” Thankfully, they didn’t want a full address”

If they do: simply google/ bing an imaginary business :
such as – hair salon, Adelaide, AUS or Seafood restaurant, Sydney AUS or even Nail Salon, NY
and you’ll get real places with full addresses in the correct format/ code- and then just use the ‘next door’ or nearby street address as your apartment/ office.

Thanks for addressing this. I saw the ad, and suspected it would be exactly as you described. I couldn’t bear to watch it myself, though! I hope there is some suitably skeptical feedback to 60 minutes..

Ugh. What will happen if this child ends up with a novel tumor on her back? If she gets better they’ll credit the quack. If she stays the same, they’ll say she’s getting better–which is likely, any seven year old develops better motor skills as she ages.

If she gets worse–spectacularly worse–what we the next story be? I think it’s going to need a horror story about a cute little girl to make a dent in this nonsense.

I sympathize with Prof. Wolvetang’s situation.

I would never make it past the cutting room floor:

“It could work. Then again – my dancing around in my underwear in the moonlight could work, too.”
and,
“What part of “unevidenced and unproven” did you not understand?”

I wouldn’t hesitate to embarrass the gullible “journalist” stooge.

Dr. Carolina has not published any of her results that I can find

You might want to double-check that statement if you were searching for “A. Carolina”, because you later give her full name, and it is more likely she would be publishing as A. C. Ramírez. I would not be the least bit surprised if Bartlett got that wrong, because gringos who don’t often encounter Spanish names (e.g., almost all Australians) frequently do. “Carolina” is almost certainly a middle name–it’s the Spanish equivalent of Caroline.

I’m not familiar with the PubMed interface, or I’d do the search myself, but this is one detail that you do need to get right.

I recently ran across the story of Eben Byers, which really highlights why testimonials and anecdotes are terrible, terrible “evidence.” Byers was convinced that the medication he was taking, Raidthor, was so helpful, he apparently took to sending it to everyone he knew. Radithor was radium suspended in distilled water. When he died, his bones were disintegrating, and he was buried in a lead-lined coffin.

The inventor of Radithor was apparently a true believer in the health inducing powers of radium. When he was exhumed, 20 years after his death, his bones were still radioactive.

I don’t see any inconsistency. The Australian media is involved in quackery claiming that unproven vaccines are safe. Now Orac has an example of them pushing unproven stem cell procedures. What’s the surprise?

My comments on Cochrane’s quackery-based vaccine aluminum adjuvant safety study protocol:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012805/detailed-comment/en?messageId=149133741

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012805/detailed-comment/en?messageId=149131905

The safety of no vaccine has been proven.

The past participle of ‘prove’ is proved, “ARV.” Julian correctly used a predicate adjective. Moreover, I have a hard time imagining a more poorly written eight-word sentence than this. I recommend seeking professional help, and I ain’t talking about English.

Julian Frost writes,

A few seconds on Google Scholar gives the lie to your comment.

MJD says,

Vinu may be right again, a few moments researching the contraindications on each vaccine provides some truth to his comment.

Note: This is not an ant-vaccine statement, contraindications for each vaccine are public knowledge. Sometimes the packaging is harmful.

If Julian Frost can provide evidence of at least one (1) vaccine that is free of contraindications, Vinu is WRONG.

Contraindications do NOT make a vaccine “not safe” or “unsafe”, MJD. There are fatal aeroplane crashes every year, yet air travel is regarded as safe. By your logic, we could only regard air travel as safe when there are no more fatal aeroplane crashes.

You should have read the researchers reply to you, Vinu.

They point out your circular arguments and lack of understanding of the basics of what a Cochrane Review actually does, or even the basics of epidemiology.

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself in public?

Cochrane reviews suffer from the streetlight effect. They will choose studies, however flawed they may be, based on Cochrane’s broken protocol, while ignoring the real evidence. They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in reviewing data that is convenient for their protocol.That is why it is quackery.The truth does not come packaged in an Amazon box delivered to your door step.

Vinu, having read the lengthy and detailed responses of these researchers at Cochrane to you, there is no question who had more credibility.

Your claiming their protocols are broken does not make it so. You’re just pissed that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, dismisses you as a complete and total nutcase.

Applying oral LOAEL limit for INJECTED aluminum makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE!

Cobra venom is quite safe to eat for most people. Injecting it is a different story.

The FDA makes this same mistake as I point out here:

Safety studies of aluminum in vaccines lack immunotoxicity analysis of this immunological adjuvant: Ignorance or deception?

https://zenodo.org/record/1117242

Q. What do you have when adjuvants (e.g., Aluminum) are not used during allergy immunotherapy.

A. Homeopathy

Sometimes, conventional medicine and alternative medicine exist in mutual tolerance despite different ideologies or interests.

These “stem cell” clinics who claim to be able to treat disorders of the brain like autism and cerebral palsy: do they think they are re-writing the brain? And if so, how much of the brain can you re-write before the person in that brain is gone?

I know these questions are asked in the realms of science fiction, but are there any ethicists working on this for the here and now?

Am I the only one who finds it odd how often he retweets posts from 60 Minutes Australia? Does he work for them or something?

@vinu You did not answer my second point. Some vaccines do contain aluminium adjuvant, some do not. If aluminium adjuvant were immunotoxic, former should be much more dangerous than latter. Actually, this difference would be a good estimate of immunotoxicity of aluminium. Thus, aluminium immunotoxicity is actually continously tested.

Aarno,

“Thus, aluminium immunotoxicity is actually continously tested.”

You left out the most important part! They are continuously tested and the RESULTS ARE CONTINUOUSLY IGNORED!

MMR has no aluminum adjuvant. It causes type 1 diabetes (T1D) because it contains chick proteins such as GAD65 which is a major T1D autoantigen.

Dtap/Tdap contain milk proteins and aluminum adjuvant. They induce milk allergy as the aluminum adjuvant is Th2 (allergy) biased. Autism is just a special case of milk allergy. They also induce T1D because they contain bovine insulin. Clear evidence of aluminum immunotoxicity that is being IGNORED.

In the British Medical Journal:

Milk containing vaccines cause milk allergies, EoE, autism and type 1 diabetes

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2396/rr

MMR, TBE vaccine and type 1 diabetes

https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k1378/rr-2

Your letters are not scientific evidence and no one takes them seriously.

Perhaps you can cite a cohort or case control study that shows a risk of long term harm greater than 1 in a million in an aluminum containing vacvine?

Looks like my previous response was lost …

“cohort or case control study”

You insist on broken epidemiological studies and that is why medical science has made ZERO progress in determining root cause of MOST diseases.

Here is MECHANISTIC evidence:

Epidemiological studies that ignore mechanism of disease causation are flawed and mechanistic evidence demonstrates that vaccines cause autism

https://zenodo.org/record/1117106

Your blog is not scientific evidence either.

Most of your posts can be summarized as:

“Oh look. I found a biochemical process that is related to X.

(X is aluminum or allergy or whatever.)

Therefore vaccines are cause harm in lots of people and are bad.”

But to see how often that harm occurs, you need to carefully study lots of people and see how often they suffer that harm. That is what epidemiological studies do. They have limitations, but they have discovered problems with vaccines like the intusucception problem with a rotavirus vaccine and a few other problems.

Without bottom line evidence like that, your speculations are just speculations.

Epidemiological studies that ignore mechanism of disease causation are flawed and mechanistic evidence demonstrates that vaccines cause autism

“Never mind the actual evidence, let’s pay attention to Vinu’s latest obsession instead”.
I think not.

Panacea,

You are not making any sense. Why would ANYONE need “lengthy and detailed responses” to “dismisses you as a complete and total nutcase”?

I’m not surprised my post didn’t make sense to you. There is clearly something wrong with your thought processes and how they work.

Hence the cherry picked quotes taken completely out of context. I didn’t say anyone needed lengthy and detailed responses to dismiss you [Vinu] as a complete and total nutcase.”

I said the Cochrane researchers gave detailed and lengthy responses to your moronic comments that expose you as a complete and total nutcase [eg they didn’t actually call you one, in fact they were quite polite and professional]. I said that you are pissed because everyone dismisses as a complete and total nutcase.”

I will modify that response somewhat. Everyone HERE at RI dismisses you as such. I don’t know what people elsewhere think of you.

squirrelelite

“But to see how often that harm occurs, you need to carefully study lots of people and see how often they suffer that harm. ”

By that logic:

“But to see how often epidemiological studies are right, you need to carefully study lots of epidemiological studies and see how often they are right. ”

And even then they are useless for causation, only association. Mechanistic evidence is far superior and gets to root cause. Reliance on epidemiological studies is why medical science has gone off into the weeds. Billions and decades later you have answers for NOTHING.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you claim your science is good, where are the ANSWERS? You don’t know the root cause of ANYTHING. Food allergies, asthma, autism, autoimmunity, NOTHING.

Reliance on epidemiological studies is why medical science has gone off into the weeds.

Irony much, fake medical student?

If you want to find out how often people are injured in playground accidents, you need to count the numbers of playground accidents.
Studies of fungus growth in ropes or rust mechanisms in chains can be useful, but still won’t tell you how many playground accidents happen.

I don’t claim to be a medical researcher or even a biochemist, so I try to limit my discussion to matters I can understand.

The root cause of measles is the measles virus. The root cause of many ASD’s is mutations. It there can be other causes like fetal rubella syndrome. One proposed cause which has repeatedly been disproven is vaccines.

If science weren’t good, those routers and switches we both trained on wouldn’t work.

squirrelelite,

And BTW, I have noted that you are UNABLE to challenge anything in my articles SPECIFICALLY. Just hand-waving.

I prefer to discuss what is posted here.

But I did try to read your blog. It has a weird interface. But the one page I could read was mainly non sequiturs and no more compelling than what you have posted in this forum.

Specific: proposed mechanisms that may or may not resemble vaccine or disease action are not scientifically actionable. Before you claim to have scored a run you have to get to first base. This is very, very specific. Your claims are yours alone and therefore not epistemically binding on others. Very specific. Not handwaving, but the very heart of open-mindedness.

You got the burden of proof backwards there guy.

“The root cause of many ASD’s is mutations.”

Sorry, that is wrong. 75% of ASD patients test positive for folate receptor alpha antibodies (FRAA). These FRAA bind stronger to bovine FRA than human FRA, strongly hinting at their origin. No mutations needed. The rest of the 25% have contributions from maternal antibodies attacking the fetal brain. Both FRAA and non FRAA have roles in th maternal case.

Mutations are random. How did “many mutations” happen over just a few decades to specifically cause ASD?

75% of ASD patients test positive for folate receptor alpha antibodies (FRAA).

Citation needed.

Mutations are random. How did “many mutations” happen over just a few decades to specifically cause ASD?

OK, this is something that really gets my goat. Just because autism was only defined in 1944 by Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before then. I’ve seen good evidence that some historical figures were autistic. Heck, I’ve argued that Isaac Newton and William Bligh were both on the spectrum. Autism didn’t just pop into existence 74 years ago, it was just never defined.

I will deal with your linked article first.
From the “Study Limitations” section:

…both clinics included in this report primarily serve children with ASD who have persistent cognitive-behavioral deficits. This suggests that the samples may be subject to referral bias.

And:

This study was not a clinical trial and neither the physicians nor the parents were blinded to treatment. In additional, our controls were not given a placebo; hence, the magnitude of the placebo effect was not taken into account, and we used a subjective parental report rather than objective assessment measures.

Pretty weak tea.
As for:

Why the explosion of “mutations” now?

Where is your evidence that there is an “explosion of mutations”? It has been shown that increased awareness, broadening diagnostic criteria, diagnostic substitution and previous underdiagnosis explain most if not all of the increase in autism diagnoses.

“actual evidence”

Flawed studies don’t produce actual evidence. The only evidence we have is that ~2% of children are developing ASD and the “scientific community” is clueless why.

And the people who found an ASD biomarker and a treatment are being ignored (the mechanistic experts).

“The article on autism spectrum disorders, presented as “State of the art review”, does not address an important and significant area of research that has provided a biomarker and a treatment for ASD. Even though a whole section is devoted to “advances in biomarker research” there is no mention of folate receptor autoantibodies. In this context, the authors as well as reviewers of this article, have failed the readers.” – Prof. EV Quadros

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1674/rr-2

From the letter you linked to above:

Competing interests: Dr. Quadros is an inventor listed in a US patent for the folate receptor autoantibody test issued to the State University of New York.

Dr Quadros is not exactly an impartial commenter.

25 out of 26 HPV studies that Cochrane chose to review were industry funded/conducted. Every news organization carried that fraudulent safety claim.

Here we have a guy who patents an ASD biomarker test and you complain?

@vinu You seem still believe that nanogram is same thing than gram (casein in vaccine shot versus glass of milk). It is not. Nanofarady is not same thing as farady, is it ? Besides of that,
small amounts desensitize, they do not sensitize (to avoid overreaction). There is a paper about intravenous desensitization to beta-lactam antibiotics:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3040836
Amounts used were much bigger than nanograms.
Receptors are rare. There is a paper about purification of folate receptor
https://www.jbc.org/content/256/18/9684.full.pdf
They needed 10 kg of tissue to get measurable amount of receptor.
These amounts definitely desensitize. Basides of that, immune reaction is not normally mounted against self or proteins similar to it.

Julian Frost,

“It has been shown that increased awareness, broadening diagnostic criteria, diagnostic substitution and previous underdiagnosis explain most if not all of the increase in autism diagnoses.”

Back to that silly nonsense? So the explosion in food allergies, asthma and type 1 diabetes is all “previous underdiagnosis” too?

““Part of the change in prevalence over time is clearly associated with changes in diagnostic criteria,” says Michael Rosanoff, Autism Speaks’ director of public health research. “But this explains only part of the increase,” Rosanoff also provided context for the findings in a related article on TIME.com – agreeing with the study authors that more research is urgently needed into the environmental factors that likewise appear to be contributing to the continuing rise in prevalence.”

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/can-rise-autism-be-explained-broadened-diagnosis

The environmental factor that easily explains the rise in prevalence is the use of more and more cow’s milk contaminated aluminum adjuvanted vaccines that have caused the parallel increase in cow’s milk allergies and ASD.

So the explosion in food allergies, asthma and type 1 diabetes is all “previous underdiagnosis” too?

Citation needed that there has been an increase in those conditions. In addition, evidence required that vaccines are causative for those condtions.
As for your link: Autism Speaks? Are you shitting me? Autism Speaks clung to the vaccine causation theory long after it became unviable. When the verdicts for first cases in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings were announced, Alison Tepper Singer, then Chief Science Officer for Autism Speaks, tried to get the Wrights to change their focus from vaccines. They refused, and so Singer quit and set up the Autism Science Foundation.

RJ,

“Your claims are yours”

I am not claiming anything. I am just pointing to scientific evidence in the medical literature that is BEING IGNORED.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality, p. 65 (pdf p. 94):

“Adverse events on our list thought to be due to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions

Antigens in the vaccines that the committee is charged with reviewing do not typically elicit an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (e.g., hepatitis B surface antigen, toxoids, gelatin, ovalbumin, casamino acids). However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.”

In plain English, gelatin, egg, casamino acids (cow’s milk) DO cause the development of gelatin/egg/milk allergies. Why is this being ignored?

Once you stop ignoring this, the root cause of autism becomes obvious.

No, it doesn’t because obvious. That vaccines can cause rare, serious reactions including anaphylaxis has nothing to do with autism.

You are jumping to conclusions, and the evidence does not support your claims.

It’s not being ignored. It simply doesn’t say what you claim it does.

Panacea,

“It simply doesn’t say what you claim it does.”

You are confusing sensitization with anaphylaxis.

Why don’t you explain exactly what the IOM said?

You didn’t cite the IOM. You cited the National Academy of Sciences. While the IOM is part of that, the NAS does publish things through other avenues than the IOM.

And I didn’t confuse anything. You’re the one making the BSC claims. It’s up to you to prove them, not to me to disprove them. All I said is the source YOU linked to doesn’t say what you says it does. If you think rare side effects make the cause of autism obvious, it’s up to you to explain why . . . then explain why all the other research that’s been done on this topic says different.

Good luck with that.

Actually, I’ll walk back what I said about the IOM. Yes, you did cite the IOM.

Not that it matters.

Julian Frost,

“seven years and a day old”

This is medicine, not electronics. Nothing has changed in the MMR vaccine safety in over 50 years. 7 years is nothing.

Things in medicine change all the time.

However, you are correct that nothing has changed in MMR safety: they are safe today, they were safe 7 years ago, and they were safe 50 years ago.

“Citation needed that there has been an increase in those conditions.”

Count the Epipens stocked in schools.

Panacea,

“All I said is the source YOU linked to doesn’t say what you says it does.”

How can you claim that, if you are unable to explain what it does say (according to you)?

It says you’re full of shit, Vinu. The article is simply about known side effects of vaccines and nothing more.

@vinu You did not answer me. A vaccine short contains a nanogram of casein, a glass of milk a gram. Do you claim that billion ampere current is same as ampere current ?
Desensitization therapy shows that small doses desensitize, they do not sensitize.
Receptors are rare, and immune system do not generally mount defense against self and proteins with sequence similar to self.
Read a basic immunology textbook before speaking about vaccines.

Aarno,

“small amounts desensitize”

8-18ng/ml of casein in the Tdap vaccine caused ANAPHYLAXIS, and NOT desensitization.

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext

“https://www.jbc.org/content/256/18/9684.full.pdf”

I am talking about folate receptor (FR) protein in cow’s milk. Your reference is about FR in human placenta. How are they related?

“Basides of that, immune reaction is not normally mounted against self”

Agree.

“or proteins similar to it.”

No. Cancer defense depends on the immune system’s ability to detect minor changes from self.

Animal proteins being similar (and not identical), invoke the cancer response. It is well known that if the cancer response is invoked often, the result can be autoimmunity. Vitiligo (autoimmune disease) can indicate good prognosis in the case of skin cancer. I explain the mechanism in great detail in the article below.

Direct PDF: https://www.zenodo.org/record/1034777

There are numerous (non-self) citations in my article. If you really cared about the science, you would have read it.

Character matters, Vinu.

You spend so much time bloviating and self linking, then when you do actuallly reference actual studies you take them out of context, choose mouse studies, horribly old studies, irrelevant studies, or you simply cherry pick.

You’re a crank. It gets to a point where people have to tell you no Chick Little, the Sky is not falling.

You have no goodwill here because of your behavior. If you told me the sky was blue, I’d open the window to check, because you have ZERO credibility.

The anaphylaxis you refer to happened in kids already known to have had anaphylaxis from cow’s milk. In other words, they were already sensitized, not by the vaccine but by cow’s milk. An anaphylaxis from vaccination is still incredibly rare, and anaphylaxis from cow’s milk is also rare (lactose intolerance is something else).

It still has NOTHING to do with autism. You haven’t even made a correlation to autism, and given that autism rates are rising (through better diagnosis) it is a stretch to say that these problems have anything to do with autism.

Panacea,

First you need to learn enough about allergy to understand the IOM statement. Then you will understand what I am talking about.

persons means mice?

In medicine, 1996 is yesterday. We have been making vaccines in chicken eggs for 80 years and are still sickening children with egg allergy. So what are you complaining about?

The study is a MOUSE study, Vinu. Not a people study. This is what happens when you just read the abstract, or when you read only the introduction and the conclusion.

The researchers think their results from studying MICE have implications for PEOPLE with vitilligo. They’re not claiming what they found in mice actually happens in people. More research is needed.

The article was written over 20 years ago. That’s a long time in medical science. What’s been done since then? Did it pan out? Is there a treatment in the works? Do you even KNOW?

(I do; you don’t know. You just cherry picked something you thought supported your point)

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Panacea,

With your head buried in the sand, you cannot see that the sky is falling.

Exploding food allergies, asthma, autism, autoimmune diseases and clueless doctors spend billions and decades to come up with NOTHING. The SKY IS FALLING.

Exploding food allergies, asthma, autism, autoimmune diseases…

All you have done is blatantly assert that this is the case. But you have failed to provide proof that these are happening. Your “evidence” has been circumstantial, circular or taken out of context. You commit the fallacy of begging the question, and you ignore that research has not only excluded vaccines as a cause of autism, but points increasingly to a genetic origin for the condition.
Like all cranks, you proclaim there is “one true cause of disease”, and you twist the evidence to support it and ignore evidence that refutes it.

All that sand is in your eyes, Vinu. You make grandiose claims, cherry pick from unrelated crap to try and support yourself or you self cite.

It’s dishonest. You have no idea what you are talking about. You fixated on an idea you can’t support. You’re not a scientist yourself. You ignore reams of research that contradict you, and twist everything out of context.

You, sir, are a bald faced liar.

The SKY IS FALLING.

In one of the alternate universe of Vinu…there may be other alternate universes in his mind 🙂

Al

The SKY IS FALLING.

I’m unclear on the distinction in your leaking internal speech between “exploding” and “falling.”

Julian Frost,

Why don’t you prove to us that you know what you are talking about by explaining exactly what the IOM statement means?

All I can access is the Abstract, and I’m not paying $70 to get the full report.
As for:

Once you stop ignoring this, the root cause of autism becomes obvious.

The IOM Report refutes you.

[E]vidence favors rejection of five vaccine-adverse event relationships, including MMR vaccine and autism

The statement means that vaccines do NOT cause autism. You have just blown your own argument out of the water.

Julian Frost,

Attention to detail is not your cup of tea is it?

The full IOM report is available for FREE download.
The report says
“Conclusion 4.8: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship
between MMR vaccine and autism.”

and

“Conclusion 10.6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a
causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or
acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.”

The report did NOT study the relationship between any other vaccine and autism.

I am talking about cow’s milk containing vaccines (Dtap, Prevnar) causing autism. I am not aware of MMR containing cow’s milk.

“The statement means that vaccines do NOT cause autism.”
When the IOM said MMR vaccine is not associated with autism, it means the MMR VACCINE SPECIFICALLY IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AUTISM.
It MOST DEFINITELY does not mean that vaccines in general do not cause autism.

Only science deniers like you, Dr.Offit and Dorit Reiss can make such a claim.
http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=HRSA-2015-0003-0015&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

I am talking about cow’s milk containing vaccines (Dtap, Prevnar) causing autism.

I posted a link below. I post it here for a second time.
Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies
The main conclusion?

The cohort data revealed no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06)

Your “logic” appears to be:
1) There are incidences where children have suffered anaphylactic reactions after vaccination (valid);
2) There is widespread (or more common than believed) contamination of vaccines with milk proteins (dubious);
3) This supposed contamination leads to the development of allergies, asthma, autism, diabetes and autoimmune diseases (exceptionally dubious).
Your hypothesis is not even wrong. You have not given good evidence for either Step 2 or 3, and your conclusion is refuted. As the study I posted above shows, Vaccines are not associated with autism.
You got nothing.

Remember, Vinu is only interested in the baroque Heath-Robinson absurdities he constructs from a mixture of bong-hits and spittle, and calls “mechanistic evidence”, which predict that vaccines are associated with autism. He is emphatically not interested in actual evidence that vaccines aren’t associated with autism (for those are “broken epidemiological studies”).

You can’t argue with someone whose response to facts that contradict his theories, is to say the facts must be wrong. You can only point and laugh.

I am talking about cow’s milk containing vaccines (Dtap, Prevnar) causing autism. I am not aware of MMR containing cow’s milk.

Should I read this as cow’s milk that contains vaccines? So we should stop vaccinating cows?

” increasingly to a genetic origin for the condition.”

Genes make you susceptible. Vaccines cause autism in such susceptible people.

Autism Linked to Increased Oncogene Mutations but Decreased Cancer Rate
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149041

Why does increased oncogene mutations result in decreased cancer rate?
Simple. Vaccine induced folate receptor alpha antibodies (FRAA). FRAA protect against cancer.

Folate Receptor Alpha Peptide Vaccine generates immunity in Breast and Ovarian Cancer Patients
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2018/03/15/1078-0432.CCR-17-2499

Targeting folate receptor alpha for cancer treatment
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5239573/

They created a Folate Receptor Alpha Peptide Vaccine because they failed to understand that one already exists. It is called the DTap vaccine. It protects against some cancers. One little adverse event though – it causes FRAA mediated autism.

Details:
https://www.zenodo.org/record/1038486

Not only are you stating facts not in evidence (thank you Panacea), you are stating something (the “susceptible subgroup”) that has been refuted.
Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies
If your hypothesis was accurate, then there would be an association between vaccination and autism. The meta-analysis I linked shows there isn’t any.

Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children, and five case-control studies involving 9,920 children were included in this analysis.

You got nothing. You are engaging in the fallacy of Begging the Question (assuming the truth of the proposition to be proven) and your proposition is refuted.

Julian Frost,

The US Institute of Medicine (IOM, now NAM) report on Adverse Effects of Vaccines Evidence and Causality reviewed the entire medical literature from 1950 to 2011.

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13164/adverse-effects-of-vaccines-evidence-and-causality

It says
“Conclusion 4.8: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship
between MMR vaccine and autism.”

and

“Conclusion 10.6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a
causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or
acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.”

Taylor et al. meta analysis published in 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559 ) added nothing new to the DTP conclusion above because their studies were from 2007 or earlier.

The involvement of bovine derived folate receptor (FR) antibodies in cerebral folate deficiency and autism was only described after 2008.

A milk-free diet downregulates folate receptor autoimmunity in cerebral folate deficiency syndrome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715943/

Cerebral folate receptor autoantibodies in autism spectrum disorder
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3578948/

So Taylor et al. you quoted is obsolete for DTP/DTap related conclusions.

You claimed:

<

blockquote>Taylor et al. meta analysis…added nothing new to the DTP conclusion above because their studies were from 2007 or earlier.
From the Abstract of Taylor et al:

We performed a meta-analysis to summarise available evidence from case-control and cohort studies on this topic (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar up to April, 2014)

You lied.

Simple.

Yes, yes you are. Write it up and submit it to the PLoS One garbage can. Or a prestigious OMICS electron factory.

@vinu If small amounts sentisitize, why desensitization therapy works ? Why this is a way to treat penicillin allergy ? Intravenous therapy means that there is urgent need, normally desensitization is done orally.
Anaphylaxis was caused by previous hypersensitivity. It was first use of this type of vaccine. Do you think that anybody would vaccinate after anaphylaxis ?
Immune surveillance theory of cancer is by Wirchow. However, nude mice, without immune system, does not have lots of tumors. Problem is that immune system does not recognize minute sequence differences, allowing a neoplasm to develop.
As for food allergies, there is a Finnish dictum “hunger is the best relish”. You do not complain about food, when it is scarce. Indeed, reported food allergies are much more common in developed world.

Aarno,

“If small amounts sentisitize, why desensitization therapy works ?”
I have already explained that to you before:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/05/07/autism-prevalence-increases-antivaxers-blame-vaccines/#comment-395383

“Anaphylaxis was caused by previous hypersensitivity. It was first use of this type of vaccine. Do you think that anybody would vaccinate after anaphylaxis ?”
I assume you are referring to my Kattan et al. reference.
Previous sensitization was caused by the Dtap vaccine series these children received when they were young. Kattan et al. describe these children suffering anaphylaxis when they receive Tdap as older children.

“reported food allergies are much more common in developed world.”

Many reasons:
1. Developed world children receive far more number of aluminum adjuvanted food protein containing vaccines than developing world.
2. Fewer helminth infections here than in the developing world. Predisposing for allergy.
3. C-section births are much more prevalent here. This causes predisposition to allergy due to sub-optimal gut microbiome.
Perfect storm: More susceptibility+more food protein containing vaccines = exploding food allergies.

‘FOLR1 is nor expressed at all in mammary glands, so there would be none in milk.”

If you are looking at the diagram, it is obviously incomplete.

A milk-free diet downregulates folate receptor autoimmunity in cerebral folate deficiency syndrome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715943/

“The cross-reactivity of the blocking autoantibodies with antigen from different sources is consistent with the significant homology in the native structure of these proteins. FR is well conserved across species, with more than 90% amino acid sequence homology between human FRα and bovine FRα”

Fewer helminth infections here than in the developing world. Predisposing for allergy.

Hey, vinucube, have you heard the one about a tapeworm, hard-boiled eggs, and a hammer?

Panacea,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26218/

says: “The induction of concomitant tumor rejection and autoimmunity is relevant to a clinical observation in persons with metastatic melanoma who develop vitiligo; vitiligo is associated with an improved prognosis (50, 51)”

Reference 50:
Prolonged survival in metastatic malignant melanoma associated with vitiligo.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1794178

“A metastatic malignant melanoma presenting with axillary lymphadenopathy and without a detectable primary lesion is described in a 66-year-old woman. Extensive vitiligo developed 6 years after this diagnosis. There has been no recurrence of melanoma for 10 years following surgical resection of the lymph nodes. The significance of vitiligo and an elusive primary lesion to the favourable prognosis in metastatic malignant melanoma is discussed.”

Reference 51:
Vitiligo in patients with metastatic melanoma: a good prognostic sign.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6643767/

“These data suggest that the appearance of vitiligo in patients with metastatic melanoma portends a longer survival than expected.”

Practice what you preach, much?
Attention to detail, much?
I guess if you did, you won’t be here defending the indefensible.

I guess if you did, you won’t be here defending the indefensible.

It’s like Norman Lear gone horribly wrong.

It’s still a fucking MOUSE study, Vinu.

You’re taking that paragraph out of context. The researchers are still saying their research has implications for people, not that the study results in MICE do anything in particular. What they mean is, if their results are replicated in people it has a tie in with something else. The references in the article you are expounding on date back to 1983 and 1991; were those results ever replicated? No?

You haven’t proven a g damned thing.

Julian Frost,

This is what happens when you make ASSUMPTIONS based on the abstract. Searching up to Apr 2014 will not automagically turn up studies from 2014.
The DTP studies they found and included in the study were from 2007 at the latest.
Read the whole article before letting accusations fly.

Says the man who quotes 25 year old mouse studies as definitive proof of harm in humans!

But please cite any cohort or case control studies on DTaP since 2007 that show harm on humans at greater than 1 per million incidence.

squirrelelite,

I am NOT talking about how old the study was. I am saying that the folate receptor alpha antibody connection to autism was not known in 2007 and therefore could not have been covered by those studies.

We went round about this before. There may be some modest benefit for this effect as a treatment in some autistic children, but the measured effect was modest and far from a cure.

And there is practically no difference in the antibody prevalence between autistic children and their unaffected siblings, so this is not a cause of autism either.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29394471

The various studies that went into Taylor’s study were looking at a variety of health effects from vaccines. And they all show that vaccines are quite safe within the limits of each study.

And added together they give enough unvaccinated subjects to estimate the rate of autism in unvaccinated children closely enough to compare with vaccinated children. And those results show that vaccination is not correlated with autism.

No matter what mechanism you pull out of the literature, at some point you need to go out and count and see how many people are really affected and if that mechanism makes a difference.

We have good evidence that genetic mutations cause several different forms of ASD, with different features depending on the mutation. There are probably other causes as well, such as fetal rubella syndrome.

And we have good evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. PERIOD.

We don’t have that evidence for any of your speculated mechanisms.

The folate receptor protein is ~250 residues long. Not everyone will be making antibodies to the exact same epitopes. So folate blocking can be more severe in some than others. When the folate receptor tests become more specific, the harmful epitopes can be determined.

Then there is also age at which FRAA were induced. During the rapid growth of the brain, folate is more important. FRAA induced after brain growth is complete may result in milder symptoms.

“And added together they give enough unvaccinated subjects to estimate the rate of autism in unvaccinated children closely enough to compare with vaccinated children. ”

Maternal FRAA can block folate uptake in the fetal brain and cause autism. Unvaccinated kids can be affected by this mechanism. I am not aware of any study that accounts for this. Maternal FRAA of course can be induced by milk contaminated vaccines the woman received.

Some three years ago, Antaeus Feldspar responded to a comment on this blog. I found a part of his response so apt that I used it before and I use it now in response to you.

Science is about trying to explain the evidence. The hypothesis you raised, and an infinite number of others you can find on antivaxer pages, are about trying to explain away the evidence. True scientists go where the evidence leads. If the evidence showed that vaccinated children get autism at a higher rate, we would be asking why. But looking for a means by which we can still believe “vaccines cause autism” even though the evidence suggests no such thing? That’s not science; that’s True Faith trying to impersonate science, and steal the respect that True Faith covets but unlike science has not earned.

There is no proof that vaccines cause autism. There is no proof of widespread contamination of vaccines by milk protein that results in sensitisation. There is no proof that allergic reactions can induce an insult that culminates in autism. There is no proof that aluminium adjuvants on their own or in conjunction with milk proteins can induce an insult that culminates in autism. There is no proof for the last paragraph of your comment and you have now reached the point of desperate flailing.
You came on to this forum originally espousing a hypothesis that contamination in vaccines led to sensitisation and from there to a harm that culminates in autism. When it was pointed out to you that the evidence does not show vaccines causing autism and that each of the steps in your argument was dubious you doubled down and came up with ever more tenuous arguments. When those were challenged, instead of changing your mind, you doubled down again and each time after that.
I said this before and I say it again now: you got nothing.

When the folate receptor tests become more specific, the harmful epitopes can be determined.

You’re ignoring the small problem that this is all a product of your fevered imagination, leaving the “determining” to nobody who actually exists.

There is always an excuse, a reason to double down with you, even though you can’t begin to explain the why behind anything you propose.

@vinu There is autism stat by country:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/676354/autism-rate-among-children-select-countries-worldwide
Are Japanese such heavy milk drinkers ?
Even if milk drinking do cause autism, there could be other reasons than folate receptor intake, like drinking non pastereurized milk. Immunological crosstalk do cause autoimmune reactions. It may be crosstalk with FOLR1 receptor.
If you do not accept my data abo/ut FOLR1 receptor, cite your own.
And as I have said multiple times, autism more prevalent amongst boys than girls. Are boys more probable to develop autoimmune reaction ?
Cause of autism is well known:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26709141
A paper about spatial autism clusters:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612007939
Better diagnosis, more autism.
Google Scholar will display you any number of studies about vaccines and autism. Guess what the results are ?
A paper about food allergies
https://waojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1939-4551-6-21
Nothing to do with vaccination.
Kattan paper spoke about prevalent milk allergy, not about effects of previous vaccination. So again: if small amount sensitize, why desensitization therapy cures food allergies ?

“Japan”

They may have higher genetic susceptibility.
Their vaccines may have more FR content.

“Are boys more probable to develop autoimmune reaction”

Not to all proteins. But as I have explained before, since FR is a human breast milk protein, there can be a difference in tolerance between boys and girls.

“heritability”

These are the same broken epidemiological studies that IGNORE mechanism of causation.

They don’t account for the fact that some cases can be induced by maternal FRAA. Some cases can be induced by maternal non-FRAA autoantibodies. Yet others can be induced by the child’s FRAA. So they keep barking up the wrong tree.

If it is genetic WHAT IS THE EXACT MECHANISM? Nobody has any answers. Only wishy-washy, sloppy, hand-waving. With FRAA, we know the exact mechanism that cause ASD. We even know how to mitigate it somewhat with leucovorin calcium to supply folate via an alternate path.

https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2016168

“Kattan paper spoke about prevalent milk allergy, not about effects of previous vaccination. So again: if small amount sensitize, why desensitization therapy cures food allergies ?”

Yes, Kattan paper talked about allergic reaction to milk in Tdap. Sensitization occurred due to milk in previous Dtap. This is basic immunology. I have explained exactly how desensitization works, multiple times.

The WAO paper has no information about vaccines and you cannot make any conclusions about vaccines/allergy based on that.

With FRAA, we know the exact mechanism that cause ASD.

“We”? You’re just embarrassing yourself, Cisco Kid.

Return when you have evidence the Japanese have greater genetic susceptibility or their vaccines have greater “FR” content. Return when you can prove folate, or milk, have anything to do with anything. Return when you can prove boys have greater or lesser tolerance than girls.

Still big on claims, lacking in evidence.

Julian Frost,

“Science is about trying to explain the evidence.”

Exactly. And you CANNOT explain a thing!

For you, the answer to “why is there dark matter?” is GENETICS!

You cannot explain why FRAA are prevalent.

You cannot explain why food allergy is prevalent.

You cannot explain why FRAA bind with higher affinity to bovine FRA.

You cannot explain why ASD patients have more oncogenes but lower cancer prevalence.

You cannot explain why milk-free diet improves ASD/CFD symptoms.

Epidemiological studies are a joke. Using their results as “evidence” is why medical science is in the weeds. They have answers for nothing after billions and decades wasted on “research”.

Fundamental mistake that most epidemiological studies make is that all vaccines are created equal. They have failed to learn even after the Pandemrix induced narcolepsy disaster that all vaccines are definitely not created equal. Epidemiological studies are a great example of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). There are so many epidemiological studies because you don’t have to do the hard work of UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING! And then people point to SO MANY studies as “evidence”. ONE mechanistic study can defeat mounds of garbage from massive broken epidemiological studies.

No, no, no! You don’t understand! Epidemiological studies he likes are just hunky-dory. Those he doesn’t like are a joke. How much he likes a study is inversely proportional to his goods it is scientifically.

Chris,

That’s a false choice. You can have safe vaccines that prevent vaccine preventable disease without sickening people with food allergies, asthma, autism and autoimmune disorders.

With affinity chromatography now becoming commercially viable, there are even fewer excuses to peddle these dirty sickening vaccines.
https://divineproject.eu/

It’s obviously the fault of the stupid medical system that wants parents to choose between diphtheria death on the one hand and life-threatening food allergies, life-ruining autism, asthma and autoimmune disorders (like type 1 diabetes), on the other.

“Epidemiological studies he likes are just hunky-dory.”

It is of course possible to perform good epidemiological studies. Those are a rare breed.

Hence, epidemiological studies you like are “good” and all others are “bad”.

Orac hit the nail on the head with that comment.

Orac,

https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality, p. 65 (pdf p. 94):

“Adverse events on our list thought to be due to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions

Antigens in the vaccines that the committee is charged with reviewing do not typically elicit an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (e.g., hepatitis B surface antigen, toxoids, gelatin, ovalbumin, casamino acids). However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.”

Can you explain what that means or are you going to slip away?

did you overlook the part where “evidence favors rejecting a causal relationship between vaccines and autism” ?

I’m pretty sure I already quoted that back to you.

Thank you for proving my points vinu.

“Japan”
They may have higher genetic susceptibility.
Their vaccines may have more FR content.

Or maybe, your hypothesis is wrong.

“Are boys more probable to develop autoimmune reaction”
Not to all proteins. But as I have explained before, since FR is a human breast milk protein, there can be a difference in tolerance between boys and girls.

Or maybe, your hypothesis is wrong.

If it is genetic WHAT IS THE EXACT MECHANISM? Nobody has any answers.

I put the phrase “twin studies autism genetics” into Google Scholar and got back over 40,000 hits. The fact that we haven’t yet worked out the exact mechanism of which genes cause autism and how doesn’t mean that we can’t prove that autism has a genetic component.

You cannot explain why FRAA are prevalent.
You cannot explain why food allergy is prevalent.
You cannot explain why FRAA bind with higher affinity to bovine FRA.
You cannot explain why ASD patients have more oncogenes but lower cancer prevalence.

Citations needed for each of these claims.

You cannot explain why milk-free diet improves ASD/CFD symptoms.

A milk free diet as a treatment/cure for autism was discredited.

To repeat myself: When it was pointed out to you that the evidence does not show vaccines causing autism and that each of the steps in your argument was dubious you doubled down and came up with ever more tenuous arguments. When those were challenged, instead of changing your mind, you doubled down again and each time after that. And in response to my comment you did precisely that again.

squirrelelite,

“did you overlook the part where “evidence favors rejecting a causal relationship between vaccines and autism” ?”

Please provide the exact page number where it says that. I believe you are lying just like Julian Frost, Dr, Offit and Dorit Reiss did before.

Here’s what it DOES say:

“Conclusion 4.8: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship
between MMR vaccine and autism.”

and

“Conclusion 10.6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a
causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, or
acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.”

You all have to lie because you don’t have the evidence.

I’ll take what squirrellite says before anything you say. He misquoted. It’s an error, and fair to call it out, but not fair to call him a liar.

That’s what you do, and I’ve amply shown that in my deconstruction of the most recent mouse study you’ve become infatuated with.

Like MJD: if you told me the sky was blue, I’d open my window to check.

Squirrelite tells me the same thing, and I’ll accept it without question. He has credibility. You don’t.

Blessent mon cœur d’une langueur monotone (“wound my heart with a monotonous languor”)

Oh dear, you caught me in a goof. I was out and about and didn’t want to take the time to fiddle with a touch-screen swipe and copy on my tablet so I typed the phrase from memory. Here is the exact quote FWIW.

Evidence Favors Rejection of a
Causal Relationship
The evidence favors rejection of five vaccine–
adverse event relationships:
• MMR vaccine and autism
• MMR vaccine and type 1 diabetes
• DTaP (tetanus) vaccine and type 1 diabetes
• Inactivated influenza vaccine and Bell’s
palsy (weakness of the facial nerve)
• Inactivated influenza vaccine and exacerbation
of asthma or reactive airway disease
episodes in children and adults

So in 2011 they limited the conclusion to rejecting a connection with the MMR and autism. For other vaccines the connection was neutral, neither accept nor reject.

The Taylor meta-analysis came out in 2014 and concluded

Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.

So neither vaccines, nor their components like thimerosal nor combined multiple vaccines like the MMR are associated with autism or ASD.

BTW, what sort of evidence do you think the IOM used to make their assessments?

“The fact that we haven’t yet worked out the exact mechanism of which genes cause autism and how doesn’t mean that we can’t prove that autism has a genetic component.”

“I put the phrase “twin studies autism genetics” into Google Scholar and got back over 40,000 hits.”

Every human disease has a genetic component. You don’t need billions and decades to figure that out. The fact is there’s genetic susceptibility (as for every disease) and then there are milk containing vaccines that actually cause autism in this susceptible population.

Repeating the same broken genetic studies 40,000 times expecting a non-existent mechanism to fall out of it is defined as insanity. If they stopped barking up that wrong tree, and looked elsewhere, the mechanism would be obvious.

If you inject small quantities of a harmless protein, there is very little immune response.
To make subunit vaccines work, they “trick” the immune system to create immune responses against the viral/bacterial proteins in the vaccines using an aluminum adjuvant.
Upon subsequent exposure to these viral/bacterial proteins, the immune system attacks them, protecting against disease.
When you have milk proteins in the same vaccine, you force the immune system into treating those as dangerous viral/bacterial proteins also.
Upon subsequent exposure to milk, the immune system mounts an attack producing milk allergy.

Anyone who claims vaccines do not cause allergy, is implying that VACCINES DON’T WORK. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Either you get immune responses against all or none of the proteins in the vaccines. There’s no mechanism to pick and choose.

The fact is there’s genetic susceptibility (as for every disease) and then there are milk containing vaccines that actually cause autism in this susceptible population.

You have failed to prove this.

Repeating the same broken genetic studies 40,000 times expecting a non-existent mechanism to fall out of it is defined as insanity.

Where is your evidence that the studies are broken? Oh right. You don’t have any. You just want them to be broken because they destroy your dearly held belief.

Anyone who claims vaccines do not cause allergy, is implying that VACCINES DON’T WORK.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Are you once again claiming that vaccines work by making us allergic to pathogens? An immune response is NOT the same as an allergic reaction.

Repeating the same broken genetic studies 40,000 times expecting a non-existent mechanism to fall out of it is defined as insanity.

You failed to properly misattribute this, but the screaming irony is duly noted.

“A milk free diet as a treatment/cure for autism was discredited.”

Ignoring mechanistic evidence and sticking to broken epidemiological studies, as usual leads you into the weeds.

Orac knocked it out of the park with you.

Epidemiological studies he likes are just hunky-dory. Those he doesn’t like are a joke. How much he likes a study is inversely proportional to his goods it is scientifically.

Again, show proof that the epidmiological studies are broken.

Julian Frost,

“Where is your evidence that the studies are broken?”

The very fact that you are unable explain the mechanism and root cause of food allergy, autism, asthma and autoimmune disorders.

“Are you once again claiming that vaccines work by making us allergic to pathogens? An immune response is NOT the same as an allergic reaction.”

Vaccines create IgE mediated allergy to EVERY protein in the vaccine as the IOM concluded. This is a long term persistent allergy. It has a minor role in disease protection. You also have IgG responses which mainly provide disease protection but are relatively short lived.

When IgG runs out and IgE is still persistent, you have the double whammy. You suffer the infection along with a concurrent allergic reaction.

The result is “cytokine storm” that results in shock in influenza cases. It also explains the Dengvaxia disaster where the vaccine induced IgE against 4 dengue serotypes at once and therefore primed you for severe dengue (infection + allergic reaction) the next time, after IgG based protection runs out. Natural primary dengue infection would only cause IgE against that one serotype.

So, with current broken vaccines, you get protection against disease only by creating allergy ALSO to all pathogens and non-target antigens.

It takes insane humans to inject cow proteins into a horse and make it allergic to cow proteins.

Equine IgE responses to non-viral vaccine components.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23088888

No, no, no. It doesn’t work like that. You don’t get to claim something is broken, and then offer your unsupported claim that NO ONE agrees with as proof.

You have to SHOW the evidence.

Until then you are just another nut job, a loon, a crank.

you are unable explain the mechanism and root cause of food allergy, autism, asthma and autoimmune disorders

This is as stupid as claiming that cancer is a single, monolithic disease. Just get a fucking sandwich board and march up and down the street rather than frothing incoherently here.

So, with current broken vaccines, you get protection against disease only by creating allergy ALSO to all pathogens and non-target antigens.

We’ve (tinw) been through your demonstrably wrong fixation on Richet for years. Seriously, just fuck off until you can get an actual paper published in an actual journal and spare everyone the stercoraceous vomiting.

Julian Frost,

“Again, show proof that the epidmiological studies are broken.”

The lack of answers is the proof. After billions and decades, where are the answers? Why is medical “science” cluelessly groping in the dark?
I don’t care what kind of studies you do if you can find the right answers. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Sorry, neither science or logical reasoning work that way. Absence of evidence is not evidence for the contrary conclusion. It is merely absence of evidence.

“Return when you have evidence the Japanese have greater genetic susceptibility”

You were the people claiming autism is caused by genetics. Then your own explanation for Japan having higher prevalence is greater genetic susceptibility. So what are you complaining about?

You’re being thoroughly disingenuous here, vinu. Your claim was that the genetic element in question was that the Japanese may be more genetically susceptible to FRAA and that this is the mechanism by which they have a higher autism rate, not that there are genes specifically associated with autism.
Your argument now is that:
1) People who are genetically susceptible to FRAA;
2) Get injected with milk protein contaminated vaccines;
3) Which triggers an insult;
4) Which culminates in autism.
You need to prove steps 2-4. You have so far failed to do these.

Then your own explanation for Japan having higher prevalence is greater genetic susceptibility.

No, that’s the explanation of dark matter. Can you no longer even keep track of your own comments?

squirrelelite,

As I already pointed out to Julian, the Taylor et al. Dtap conclusion is outdated. The latest Dtap study in their review was from 2007. The Autism FRAA connection was described in 2008. So they did not account for that mechanism.

The IOM used epidemiological and mechanistic evidence. The IOM therefore also made mistakes of course. Everyone knows you vaccinate a month before travelling because that’s how long it takes for the immunological response. Vaccine makers are careful to wait for a month to check efficacy. But they are careful NEVER to wait a month while SOLICITING adverse events. When you study immunological adverse events (say, development of asthma), you have to wait a month after the vaccine to check. The IOM used epidemiological studies that ignored this basic mechanistic detail about waiting for a month (and who knows if that was intentional or not …). So they wrongly concluded that influenza vaccines are not associated with asthma.

BTW, thanks for accepting that your vaccine/autism quote was a mistake. Julian, Dr.Offit and Dorit Reiss made the exact same claim BUT have refused to correct it.

As I already pointed out to Julian, the Taylor et al. Dtap conclusion is outdated.

Says the guy who thinks references from 1983 and 1991 prove his crazy ideas.

The difference being vinu’s references from 1983 and 1991 have not been replicated, and are not generally accepted as the scientific consensus, and Taylor is.

Julian Frost,

2) IOM/CDC/FDA/vaccine makers and Kattan et al. have documented that Dtap/Prevnar vaccines contain milk proteins. Only science deniers can claim otherwise.
3) I showed before that injecting toxoids produces IgE to toxoids, injecting milk proteins produce IgE to milk proteins, same for egg/ovalbumin, for gelatin, and the same for Hepatitis B surface antigen. Every one of these was listed by the IOM as examples. Only science deniers can claim otherwise.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/05/07/autism-prevalence-increases-antivaxers-blame-vaccines/#comment-394998
4) And as covered above, again with multiple references, once you are making IgE against FRA, continued milk consumption results in IgG4 against FRA. IgG4 against FRA is the major cause of folate blocking in the choroid plexus, resulting in autism. Only science deniers can claim otherwise.

@vinu There is data about expression about different folate receptors:
FOLR1 :
https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000110195-FOLR1/tissue
FOLR2:
https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG000001th65457-FOLR2/tissue
FOLR3:
https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000110203-FOLR3/tissue
You will notice that placental expression of FOLR1 is higher than mammary one. So my argument still stands: You would need 10 kg of breast tissue to get measurable amount of FOLR1, and this amount would not fit in vaccine vial. I leave to you to calculate how much milk you must drink to ingest 10 kg of breast tissue.
And you will notice that FOLR1 is expressed in testis, too. Off went your nice theory about autism prevance …
Issue is not that does vaccines contain milk proteins, is it does nanograms cause immune response.
And autism is genetic condition,as twin studies show. Comparing heterozygous and homozygous twins separates genetic and environmental components. And a cluster studies show that better diagnosis is behind “autism epidemic”.
As i said before, more probable mechanism folate receptor antobodies is immunological cross talking.
Even if science do not explain something, it does not mean your theory is right. You must prove it. And why are epidemiological studies broken ? They do not give a result I want is not acceptable answer.

Aarno,

Why are you bringing up FOLR1 human breast tissue expression when we are talking about cow’s milk containing FR?
Cow’s milk contains FR protein and I have provided references to you before. So I don’t what you mean by this “10kg breast tissue” stuff.
“is it does nanograms cause immune response.” Of course it does. I showed you that 8-18ng/ml of casein in vaccines caused an allergic reaction.
And you need even LESS protein to sensitize than to elicit an allergic reaction.
“As i said before, more probable mechanism folate receptor antobodies is immunological cross talking.”
I don’t know what you mean by “immunological cross talking”. If you mean antibodies directed against cow’s milk proteins cross-reacting to human proteins, then we are in agreement.
Epidemiological studies are broken when they ignore mechanisms of disease causation and therefore FAIL to control for appropriate variables.

I don’t what you mean by this “10kg breast tissue” stuff

That’s because you’re a perseverating imbecile. Go to AoA. Start your own blog. FOADIAF, whatever. You’re only here because you actually get a bit of the attention that you apparently desperately crave.

I hate to imagine what it’s like to actually work with him. I imagine his co-workers have chronic eye strain from all the eye rolling.

“Where have they documented it? … Citations needed.”

How many times do I have to provide you with the same documentation?

IOM listed casamino acids in their list of vaccine antigens. I quoted that statement multiple times.
CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
casein and casamino acids are listed for numerous vaccines. This information is derived from FDA/vaccine maker package inserts.
Kattan et al.: https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext
They found 8-18ng/ml of casein in DTap/Tdap vaccines.

“How common is it?”
Casein, casamino acids are used as growth media for many vaccines. So ALL of those vaccines contain milk proteins.

They found 8-18ng/ml of casein in DTap/Tdap vaccines.

You honestly don’t understand how stupid this is, do you?

We had this discussion years ago. As I pointed out then, if any milk compounds did make it through the process, they would be in such small amounts as to be unable to induce any reaction. The only exceptions involved failures in the manufacturing process, which were infrequent events.
You got nothing.

Julian Frost,

“As I pointed out then, if any milk compounds did make it through the process, they would be in such small amounts as to be unable to induce any reaction. The only exceptions involved failures in the manufacturing process, which were infrequent events.”
Ah, Julian Frost declared it. So it must be true. Where are the citations? Specifications? “small amounts” ? How much is a “small amount”? Where is the spec. for safe amount “as to be unable to induce any reaction.”? This is your “science”? You just make it up as you go?

No, we’re just sick and tired of your bullshit. Every argument you’ve made has been refuted over and over again . . . with citations. Your citations are exposed for quoting out of context or just plain getting it wrong over and over again.

I swear, you’re as bad about these milk proteins as MJD is with his latex fetish.

Panacea,

“scientific consensus”

The laws of physics don’t bend to accommodate the corrupted scientific consensus.
When scientists FAIL miserably to answer basic questions (root cause of food allergy, asthma, autism, autoimmune disorders) etc. they have to throw out the consensus.

You really don’t understand science, do you?

Science is a process of figuring out how everything in the universe works. It is an iterative process. Scientists measure things, then develop a rule that seems to fit those measurements. Then they make further measurements to test that rule. A consensus is only achieved when the scientists doing that process agree there is a good fit between the rule and reality.

Once they achieve that, they won’t discard the consensus unless there is strong evidence that disagrees with it. Failure to explain everything merely shows where they need to do more work. It doesn’t mean they will throw out what they have achieved a consensus on. And it doesn’t mean that your Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of connection speculations about how A. Vaccines might induce B, which might cause C, which could possibly lead to D, which you somehow think will result in E, which you speculate leads to F. Autism are good evidence to throw out that consensus.

And it is a very competitive process with different scientists competing to find answers first and critiquing each other’s research. Which is why even if someone corrupts the process by cherry picking cases and faking data to make it look like there is a connection between a vaccine like the MMR and a disease or condition like autism, subsequent research like the 5 cohort studies and 5 case-control studies that were analyzed by Taylor will eventually disprove that claim if it is incorrect.

And since neither you nor I are actually doing research to test or improve that consensus, the scientists who are doing so doing really care what you or I think about their work.

You really don’t understand science, do you?

Not physics, certainly. That comment was utter gibberish, but he did the dark-matter thing before, so I’m guessing there’s more to come.

Wrong.

Science hasn’t “failed miserably.” You just don’t accept what everyone else knows. It’s a religion for you to dispute science. You are so needy, needing to be right and everyone else wrong, the only way you hope to make a point is to declare yourself right and everyone else wrong.

Science doesn’t work that way. There are rarely final definitive answers because so many things can affect an experiment or research; there is always a nuance to learn.

We know the root causes of most of what you say, with the exception of autism and some (not all) autoimmune disorders. And real researchers who actually know what they are doing, are getting closer to the answers. More and more autism looks to be a genetic disorder. It is not the result of terotogens. You’ve been told this multiple times.

Your problem is you think you are the only one with a clue. In fact, you are clueless, which is why you are roundly mocked when you post your nonsense.

When scientists FAIL miserably to answer basic questions (root cause of food allergy, asthma, autism, autoimmune disorders) etc. they have to throw out the consensus.

Just by the by, pretend medical student, what is “THE ROOT CAUSE” of muscular dystrophy?

squirrelelite,

“someone corrupts ”

What happens when that “someone” is a cartel of pharmaceutical companies, who have corrupted the entire system from medical journals to regulatory authorities? What kind of “science” will that system produce?

For one thing, blogs like this one can still be published.
And the general news media can investigate them.

I could break that down into several distinct claims and ask for citations, but given your record in proving your other claims, I won’t hold my breath.

And BTW, Orac seems to have run into hiding when I asked him to explain the IOM statement. And no one else seems to want to explain what it means either …

And BTW, Orac seems to have run into hiding when I asked him to explain the IOM statement.

You really don’t get how this works. If you want the attention of a professional, you’re barking up the wrong squirrel.

Our local TV and newspapers reported several times during the Clinton administration when inspectors from the Sandia National Laboratories were dispatched to inspect a facility in Iraq. For some reason, the facility always seemed to have been recently cleaned out and moved.

My personal assessment is that Saddam was running a shelll game to convince Oran that he was developing nuclear weapons.

Historians will be arguing the merits of the second Iraq War for the next hundred years.

Be that as it may, I shed no tears for a man who did this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Julian Frost,

“Provide good evidence for your accusation.”

Which planet do you live on?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/business/dealbook/rising-drug-prices-put-big-pharmas-lobbying-to-the-test.html

“Drug makers have been getting their $2.3 billion worth in Washington. That is how much they have spent lobbying Congress over the last decade. ”

You think that $2.3 billion is charity?

https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/03/31/gsk-pfe-bms-nvs-pay-most-in-fines.html

That is only the tip of the iceberg because they don’t usually get caught, thanks to the $2.3 billion above.

We have the best medical science money can buy.

That’s not how it works. I don’t need to prove a negative. You have to prove the “cartel of pharmaceutical companies…have corrupted the entire system from medical journals to regulatory authorities”. You have to prove that science has been corrupted, and no, your current data is not enough.

Example of GSK corrupting science to wriggle out of paying for the narcolepsy disaster

No, vinucube, that is embarrassingly petulant rambling. I can see why it would appeal to you. I believe that I’ve already made clear my opinion of PLoS One.

@vinu FOLR1 are receptors. Receptors are on the surface of cells. Cells on the milk (if the cow is sick) come from her udders. Thus reference to mammary gland expression.
You are still confusing folate carrier protein and folate receptor, I presume. Cite your own number about FOLR1 concentration, if you have a better number. And do not speak about casein. Casein is a major storage protein of milk, receptors are rare.
Nanograms means a hypersensitivity reaction. These occur without any previous gsensitization, as a case Richet mentions in his Nobel lecture you used to cite (read it again carefully). Much higher concetrations do not cause immune reactions.
Do you really do not know what immunological crosstalking is ? It means that immune reaction against bacteria causes an autoimmune reaction. This is one established cause of autoimmune diseases. That you did not know that really tells something.
I see that you going down the conspiracy road. But conspiracy would mean that studies would contain wrong statements. What they are ?

Aarno,

https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/134/1/31/4688247

“In untreated milk, the natural folate, 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-CH3-H4folate), is bound to folate-binding proteins (FBP).”

https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P15328

“Recommended name:
Folate receptor alpha
Short name:
FR-alpha
Alternative name(s):
Adult folate-binding protein
Short name:
FBP”

“immunological crosstalking”

You seem to be talking about molecular mimicry. Your term is not commonly used to describe the concept of molecular mimicry.

“Nanograms means a hypersensitivity reaction.”

Could you please quote the Richet passage? I was unable to find any reference to nanogram in the lecture.

“wrong statements. What they are ?”

Conveniently blaming everything on genetics.

squirrelelite,

It’s not about hushing it up. It’s about manufacturing “scientific consensus” in their favor. Blaming narcolepsy on Nordic genetics, vitamin d and other cock and bull stories. In medical science, it’s not about finding the root cause of anything. It is about getting a “not guilty” verdict for the vaccines, by any means possible.

For you the guilty verdict is delivered automatically, and it’s all a matter of finding the right study done by other people to “prove” your point.

If you want to make a convincing argument, quit your job, get a PhD in biochemistry and actually do your own research.

Until then, no one here is interested in your bullshit.

@vinu
Folate carrier protein is of course a folate binding protein, as is folate receptor. You should cite specific reference to folate receptor, and its concentration (we have been in this before).
For definition of crosstalk, read any immunology textbook. And as I said immulological crosstalk will easily explain folate receptor antibodies.
FOLR theory does not explain fact that autism is more prevalent amongst boys than girls. Genetic theory easily explains it. FOLR theory does not explain why autism incidence is high in Japan, were milk drinking is not high.

Aarno,

There are two transporters:
1. Reduced folate carrier (RFC).
2. Folate receptor alpha or folate binding protein FBP.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22369260

“And as I said immulological crosstalk will easily explain folate receptor antibodies.”
How? Please cite showing which bacteria or virus has molecular mimicry to FRA.

“Genetic theory easily explains it.”
Citations please.

“were milk drinking is not high.”

Milk drinking is enough. We don’t need high consumption.

“FOLR theory does not explain fact that autism is more prevalent amongst boys than girls.”

Already explained it.

“And as I said immulological crosstalk will easily explain folate receptor antibodies.”
How? Please cite showing which bacteria or virus has molecular mimicry to FRA.

I hate to break this to you, fake medical student, but you are the one who declared by fiat that crosstalk is “molecular mimicry.”

“FOLR theory does not explain fact that autism is more prevalent amongst boys than girls.”
Already explained it.

Oh, right:

Aarno wrote:
“Do you really do not know what immunological crosstalking is ? It means that immune reaction against bacteria causes an autoimmune reaction”.
That sounds like molecular mimicry to me.

@vinu
There is a paper about folate binding proteins:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2166548
Milk contains soluble ones. These are different than receptors, because they carry folate around, they do not pump it into the cells. Besides of that you must give concentration of FOLR1 in milk, its existence is not enough. And you yourself proved that vaccine preparation reduces casein from grams to nanograms. This would require FOLR1 concentration at the level of casein, which is patently absurd.
if milk drinking were cause of autism, more milk drinking would cause more autism. This is not the case.
You have not explained autism gender difference. Your last one was that FOLR1 is expressed in breast tissue. It is expressed in testis, too. Besides, small girls does not lactate (As I said before).
Richet described anaphylaxis without sensitization. In addition, he noticed that result is either anaphylaxis or immunization.
I cite study of bactaria FOLR1 crosstalking after you give a citation of FOLR1 concentration in milk. This is, as I said, a known cause of autoimmune dieseases.
As autism as a genetic disease, what about twin studies:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26709141
(I cited this before, why do you not get it)
Hemophilia is a classical example of genetic disease that affect more boys than girls. Y defect would not affect girls at all, in case X girls have two copies and are e. (As I said before). There is an example sex chromosome study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24464091

Re: stem cells and erectile dysfunction.
There has been some speculation about the use of stem cell therapy for ED based on the fact that one common cause of ED is loss of smooth muscle and buildup of extracellular collagen in the corpora, a condition commonly referred to as fibrosis. There have been some preliminary studies in rodent models involving the injection of stem cells. It is obvious that the majority of the researchers doing this kind of study are themselves skeptics (ie: scientists) and that they are careful to present laboratory data such as cavernosometry. Obviously this is a preliminary level of science, with obvious questions remaining such as the following: Does it work at all, ever? Which kind of stem cell — bone marrow, adipose, muscle derived, etc? How many stem cells, what method of administration, and what sort of preparation? Would any beneficial results be only temporary or of longer duration?

The idea of treating for the loss of smooth muscle cell mass is not, in and of itself, preposterous. But it is at the moment just a working hypothesis regarding possible lines of research leading to potential treatments.

Going back over the list with ED on it, I have to wonder how common avascular necrosis is. I thought the main victims were scuba divers.

@vinu You cited a paper about FOLR levels and cancer testing. Subjects of this study were grown up men and women. Autism is usually diagnosed much earlier, you know.
Here is a autism gene database:
https://gene.sfari.org/

Comments are closed.