r/conspiracy: Connection found in Aluminum & Alzheimer's

Connection found in Aluminum & Alzheimer's

23 2015-08-20 by HarvardGrad007

A team from Créteil and the INSERM Institute in France also presented data from animal experiments at the Japanese symposium, which show that if you inject the aluminum adjuvant, a portion of the aluminum is engulfed by macrophages. Some of these macrophages eventually find their way into the mouse brain.

The transport in the brain is dependent on the same chemokine, MCP-1, macrophage chemoattractant protein that Shaw and Tomljenovic found increased in their aluminum-exposed animals. Part of the problem is that the aluminum accumulates, and it stays in the brains of mice up to one year after injection because there’s no recirculation to take it out.

“This is a common problem with aluminum, because it’s got a strong positive charge, 3+,” Dr. Tomljenovic says. “What other research has found is that in Alzheimer’s patients, the chromatin fractions in the nucleus of the cell, where your genetic material is stored, accumulate aluminum. Because the DNA has a negative charge on the outside, it binds the positive aluminum.

Thus aluminum disrupts the chromatin structure and in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients it was found that aluminum binds to selective promoter areas of genes that encode proteins that are essential for neural function. In this way aluminum inhibits the expression of these genes.

Again, the problem is that once the aluminum gets into the nucleus of the cell, there is no way of getting it out. It just stays there. The finding by the French team is that even the aluminum you inject in the periphery can get into the brain, which is a concern...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/29/vaccine-adjuvants-brain-effects.aspx http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0008382

45 comments

6 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Just an fyi, there are many studies on aluminum and and Alzheimer's and the link has been disproven.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10937400701597766

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394097009403

This guy is a scientist that researches the disease and explains it.

https://theconversation.com/does-aluminium-cause-alzheimers-and-breast-cancer-8799

1 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

I find it amusing that when a study is done that shows a link between something negative and vaccines another study comes out so quickly to refute it, and then the second study is always gospel.

Here is one example from the link: "...people on dialysis who are exposed to much higher concentrations of aluminium than most people for long periods of time don’t have a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease than people not on dialysis.

So, aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease, no"

What we have done here is take one data point and make an over-arching judgement about aluminum absorption, something that is intellectually dishonest and simply wrong.

The science is clear that inter-muscularly injected aluminum adjuvant can cause brain damage:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23932735

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557144

Now that entire premise of exposure was based on elimination, which is also false.

The Movsas study (published in 2013) used human infants and obtained similar results. Movsas looked for aluminum in urine and blood before and after routine vaccination with 1200mcg aluminum at the 2-month date. No change in urine or blood levels was observed. Movsas states:

“No significant change in levels of urinary or serum aluminum were seen after vaccination.“

Of course, these results contradict the claims by vaccine advocates that aluminum adjuvant dissolves and is removed by the kidneys. Movsas full paper: Effect of Routine Vaccination on Aluminum and Essential Element Levels in Preterm Infants.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23856981

http://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-nanoparticles-can-travel-brain/

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

If you're claiming this can cause alzheimer's disease you should go collect your nobel prize.

I know multiple people that research the disease for a living and they say this in no way true and complete bullshit.

http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp

And these people are saying the same thing.

So who to believe here.

Hundreds of people that research the disease for a living.

Or a known anti-vaxxer quack?

"Myth 6: Flu shots increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease Reality: A theory linking flu shots to a greatly increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease has been proposed by a U.S. doctor whose license was suspended by the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners. Several mainstream studies link flu shots and other vaccinations to a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease and overall better health.

A Nov. 27, 2001, Canadian Medical Journal report suggests older adults who were vaccinated against diphtheria or tetanus, polio, and influenza seemed to have a lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease than those not receiving these vaccinations. The full text of this report is posted on the journal’s Web site. "

And I think this seals the deal.

I mean I don't care if you want to question people, but when the things anti-vaxxers claim get debunked time and time and time again and they keep coming back with something new it gets annoying.

It's just ridiculous man, and beyond infuriating to people that actually work in these fields and are not quacks.

Let's go down a list of things that vaccines cause (so the anti-vaxxers claim)

Autism.

Alzheimer’s

Cancer.

Brain damage.

Vaccines overload the immune system.

SIDS.

I could probably keep going but I'm sure you get the point.

0 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

You did not refute any of the studies I referenced, you simple copied something from somewhere without even citing it.

Appeals to authority are weak. If you have something to refute then do it. Otherwise call one of your many friends that do this for a living and ask them to come here and refute the above studies.

Nanoparticulate aluminum is used as an adjuvant in many vaccines. It is now known that aluminum adjuvants are not safely eliminated from the body, as assumed by vaccine advocates. Rather, they are taken up by white blood cells (macrophages) and transported into the brain. Aluminum adjuvants can cause brain damage and autoimmune diseases.

http://vaccinepapers.org/danger-aluminum-vaccines/

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

I didn't refute them because they're complete bullshit and have been refuted MANY times already.

But if you really want to go down that road let's do it.

But first let me just point out why these studies can not be trusted period.

The study on mice was funded by The Dwoskin Family Foundation and the Katlyn Fox Foundation.

Claire Dwoskin is a board member of the anti-vaccine group National Vaccination Information Center.

Shocker, and it turns out every other study by these quacks is also funded by the same rabid anti-vaxxer group.

Now let's talk about the study its self.

The study that formed the basis for these quack studies was already discussed in great detail and has been debunked a lot so we'll start there.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/ the study got destroyed here.

So not only was the study full of errors, it was funded by an anti-vaccine group.

As for the study you linked in the OP let's see what WHO had to say about it.

"However, there are additional concerns with those studies [next to ecological studies being used to draw causal connections] that limit any potential value for hypothesis generation. These include: incorrect assumptions about known associations of aluminium with neurological disease, uncertainty of the accuracy of the autism spectrum disorder prevalence rates in different countries, and accuracy of vaccination schedules and resulting calculations of aluminium doses in different countries."

This is what the world health organization said after reviewing the study.

Slow CCL2-dependent translocation of biopersistent particles from muscle to brain.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/09/antivaccinationists-against-the-hpv-vaccine-round-5000/ Cancer researcher talks about why this is bullshit.

I find it very hard to believe you didn't know how often these studies have been talked about/debunked.

Which leads me to believe you're suffering from some serious confirmation bias.

Now if you want to throw the 20 other studies about aluminum at me knock yourself out, but every single one of them has been refuted or found to be bullshit basically.

http://vec.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/aluminum.pdf

I'll also just throw this out there.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/reports/Jun_2012/en/

And this.

Also I don't click on vaccinepapers.org, it's probably the least credible website on the internet and if it's saying vaccines contain too much aluminium I'm not even going to bother refuting that because it's a straight up lie.

2 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

Every study that has shown a negative reaction to aluminum has been 'debunked' and I suffer from confirmation bias? Good one.

When we are talking about being aluminum harmful, even one study that proves it makes it so. And the evidence is overwhelming...

----"The study on mice was funded by The Dwoskin Family Foundation and the Katlyn Fox Foundation.

Claire Dwoskin is a board member of the anti-vaccine group National Vaccination Information Center." -----

You just knew that off the top of your head? Of course you did.

In the meantime your diverting of attention does nothing to disprove the studies. All were published, all were peer reviewed and none have been retracted.

You are right about one thing, there are dozens of studies that prove the link. Dozens. Here is one of my favorites.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013409001809

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

I mean i'll link this again.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/reports/Jun_2012/en/

"The GACVS reviewed 2 published papers alleging that aluminium in vaccines is associated with autism spectrum disorders3, 4 and the evidence generated from quantitative risk assessment by a US FDA pharmacokinetic model of aluminium-containing vaccines.

GACVS considers that these 2 studies3, 4 are seriously flawed. The core argument made in these studies is based on ecological comparisons of aluminium content in vaccines and rates of autism spectrum disorders in several countries. In general, ecological studies cannot be used to assert a causal association because they do not link exposure to outcome in individuals, and only make correlations of exposure and outcomes on population averages. Therefore their value is primarily for hypothesis generation. However, there are additional concerns with those studies that limit any potential value for hypothesis generation. These include: incorrect assumptions about known associations of aluminium with neurological disease, uncertainty of the accuracy of the autism spectrum disorder prevalence rates in different countries, and accuracy of vaccination schedules and resulting calculations of aluminium doses in different countries"

And if by peer reviewed you mean published in 0 impact factor off field inorganic chemistry journals than sure.

There's a reason the WHO threw them out and decided they were bullshit, and it isn't because they were credible studies.

I also can't click on that link, if you'd kindly link me the actual study I'll invest the 5mins it takes to refute it because like every other anti-vax paper it's probably full of errors.

When I get home of course.

0 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

While you are busy disagreeing with peer reviewed studies that have not been refuted or retracted here are some of the CDC's Top Minds on it.

Documents released through the Freedom of Information Act detail the transcript of a meeting held in June of 2000 between members of the CDC, the FDA, and representatives from the vaccine industry.

This top secret meeting was held to discuss a study done by Dr. Thomas Verstraeten and his co-workers using Vaccine Safety Datalink data as a project collaboration between the CDC's National Immunization Program (NIP) and four HMOs. The study examined the records of 110,000 children.

The transcript is titled “Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information,” June 7-8, 2000, Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, but it was also the first official meeting of the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices which sets CDC policy) work group on thimerosal and immunization. In attendance were Walter Orenstein, Director of the National Immunization Program (NIP) at the CDC; John Modlin, Chair of the ACIP and on the faculty at Dartmouth Medical School; and 50 other distinguished members of the government (11 consultants from the CDC), academia and the pharmaceutical industry. Vaccine industry representatives were: Harry Guess, M.D., Merck, Chief of Epidemiology; Jo White, M.D., North American Vaccine, Clinical Dev. & Research; Barbara Howe, M.D., Smith, Kline-Beecham, Clinical Research Group; Mike Blum, M.D., Wyeth, Safety and Surveillance for Vaccine Development.

Dr. Weil, pg. 24 “I think it’s clear to me anyway that we are talking about a problem that is probably more related to bolus acute exposures, and we also need to know that the migration problems and some of the other developmental problems in the central nervous system go on for quite a period after birth. But from all of the other studies of toxic substances, the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these effects, so that moving from one month or one day of birth to six months of birth changes enormously the potential for toxicity."

"There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem.”

“The second point I could make is that in relationship to aluminum, being a nephrologist for a long time, the potential for aluminum and central nervous system toxicity was established by dialysis data. To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.”

3 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Did you not read what I just said to you? at this point I have a feeling you know that you're wrong and are just going into fingers in ear mode.

I think you're also really confused as to what peer reviewed means as well, because these "studies" are all in questionable journals and have all been debunked by multiple organizations now.

On top of this did you not read the rest of this CDC shit? or did you think copy pasting 1 section of it meant you were right?

First of all the main reason for this talk was thimerosal which is why it was removed from the few vaccines it was in (because they decided to study it more) and that research found thimerosal wasn't the issue.

As for the stuff about aluminum they're doing what any good scientists would do, and they were concerned which is why more research was done.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp

This was also something blown way up by anti-vaxxers because they never bother applying any critical thinking to this.

On top of this, is this DR fucking andrew weil saying this? this guy is a massive quack in the "natural medicine" world.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/23/dr-andrew-weil-versus-evidence-based-med/

Now let me tell you right now, I'm willing to argue the aluminum thing with you but if this is going off in the autism direction I'm straight up not engaging you.

Because the amount of delusion it requires to still think vaccines are causing autism is off the charts.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/

"Between 1999 and 2001, thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for some flu vaccines. This was done as part of a broader national effort to reduce all types of mercury exposure in children before studies were conducted that determined that thimerosal was not harmful. It was done as a precaution. Currently, the only childhood vaccines that contain thimerosal are flu vaccines packaged in multidose vials. Thimerosal-free alternatives are also available for flu vaccine"

But judging by the way you copy pasted this out of context and ignored the other 280 pages I'm guessing you don't really care much about facts.

http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/06/skeptico-reads-simpsonwood-transcript.html

You really embarrassed yourself here.

Now if you want to link me these peer reviewed studies on aluminum please do, I'll gladly read them and gladly refute them. But if you throw that bullshit mouse study at me I'm done. It has been beyond debunked.

-2 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

"I will gladly read them and gladly refute them"

Science is about collecting information through experiments and analyzing the results. It is not about determining an outcome before the information is presented. That is prejudging and certainly not science.

In this conversation you have refuted nothing, you have only engaged in ad hominem attacks on:

The Journals The Outcomes The Scientists

If you would like to go through all the studies I have posted one by one and show how they are flawed, how non-pharmaceutical sources (and I will check) have determined such then there is a conversation to be had.

Until you do that or magically make the Dr's at the CDC's leaked meeting not say what they are said, you are simply engaging in trolling tactics.

3 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

I just linked you something on the CDC bullshit. The guy literally cut out over 250 pages of it and only provided the ones that made it look bad.

When the entire thing is read it puts it into context.

Also, I actually did refute the studies you link on top of the fact WHO refuted them as well.

So I'll ask you again. Can you please provide these peer reviewed studies, in credible medical journals saying aluminum causes alzheimer's and autism.

I'll gladly read them.

I also attacked weil because he's a natural medicine quack that is directly profiting from trying to sell bullshit.

It's like saying dr oz is a credible source.

And I want you to read this very slowly.

I want a credible study, in a credible MEDICAL journal that is PEER reviewed by scientists in the same field.

Not something in a bullshit off field for profit journal that doesn't have a real review process.

-1 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

The quote stands alone just fine and does not need the 280 pages. To infer such shows a poor understanding of academic citing.

The studies were here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23932735 Published in The Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Inorganic_Biochemistry

"The Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research on the inorganic aspects of biochemistry, such as metalloenzymes and metallobiomolecules. The journal was established in 1971 as Bioinorganic Chemistry, obtaining its current name in 1979. Since 1996, the editor-in-chief has been John H. Dawson (University of South Carolina)."

"According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2014 impact factor of 3.444, ranking it 7th out of 44 journals in the category "Chemistry, Inorganic and Nuclear"

and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557144

Published in the BMC Medicine--

"BMC Medicine is a peer-reviewed electronic-only medical journal published since 2003 by BioMed Central, addressing topics in "all areas of medical science and clinical practice". It is described as "the flagship medical journal of the BMC series, publishing original research, commentaries and reviews that are either of significant interest to all areas of medicine and clinical practice, or provide key translational or clinical advances in a specific field"

Now for a quick review--- What is the "scientific method''?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method is an ongoing process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What it does not say is decide what you believe in the face of all data.

You have wasted enough of my time. I will not be responding to you again, and I should not have engaged you the first time. I have no desire to convince anyone, least of all someone who refuses to consider evidence that does not agree with them. That is the realm of fundamentalists.

3 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Alright considering I've already refuted these i'll go at it yet again because it's clear you're not very good at reading.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/

And yet again.

These studies were thrown out by the WHO and found to have many errors. but because you don't want to listen to reason and your anti-vax delusion is this bad let's do it again.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/09/antivaccinationists-against-the-hpv-vaccine-round-5000/

And for the ending.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/en/

I don't care if you don't reply, you're not intelligent enough to realize why the studies you're linking are complete and utter bullshit to the point the entire scientific community laughed at them . You've taken things out of context, and linked me a paper in a fucking inorganic chemistry journal when what we're talking about is vaccination epidemiology.

If the best you can do is 2 seriously flawed seriously bullshit papers in off field journals you have lost.

I honestly don't care what you want to believe, but you have no business discussing vaccines because you make your entire movement look even more retarded than they already are.

Most of the intelligent ones jumped off the autism train years ago because it was refuted so many times.

The alzheimer's one is even fucking worse.

-1 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

I am breaking my own rule, but for you why not...

You posted a rebuttle from a blog. A blog.

Now would be a good time to admit that the studies came from peer reviewed published sources and this is from a blog, reviewed by no one, but.... well let's take a look.

Alright considering I've already refuted these i'll go at it yet again because it's clear you're not very good at reading. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/

David Gorski is the author of said blog.

Sanofi-Aventis – the world’s largest vaccine maker - is involved in several partnerships under which the company may be required to pay a total of €31 million ($39 million USD) from 2008 to 2013. Gorski’s employer, Wayne State University, is one of the partners, and he is conducting a clinical trial of one of the company’s drugs. Therefore, like Gorski has a reasonable expectation to receive money from a vaccine maker, even if it is through a third party. A look at the summary description of the Gorski Lab reveals that his research focus is drug discovery and development. However, he is not developing a new drug, but rather, developing new uses for an existing one. Such a process is far more profitable to the drug manufacturer as it eliminates the costs of developing a new substance from scratch, thereby maximizing profits for the company.

The potentially profitable drug Gorski is in the process of conducting a clinical trial for is the ALS drug Riluzole, made by Sanofi-Aventis and marketed as Rilutek. Amplifying the conflict further is that the same drug is also being studied for the treatment of autism. At Autism One, the National Institute of Mental Health was handing out recruitment pamphlets for children ages 7-17 to take part as subjects in a clinical trial of Riluzole for its effectiveness in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders, and repetitive and stereotypical behaviors in particular. Apparently, David Gorski has had his eye on that drug for a long time, but as a possible treatment for breast cancer. As suggested by a 2008-2009 webpage of a breast cancer website:

“Three years ago in another cancer (melanoma), Dr. Gorski's collaborators found that glutamate might have a role in promoting the transformation of the pigmented cells in the skin (melanocytes) into the deadly skin cancer melanoma. More importantly for therapy, it was found that this protein can be blocked with drugs, and, specifically, in melanoma cell lines and tumor models of melanoma using a drug originally designed to treat ALS and already FDA-approved for that indication (Riluzole) can inhibit the growth of melanoma.” http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/binaries/20F_2008_tcm28-24281.pdf

Subtract three years from 2008-2009 and you get 2005-2006 – when David Gorski started blogging heavily about vaccines. Currently, the Barbara Anne Karmanos Cancer Institute of Wayne State University is sponsoring the trial for Riluzole, and Wayne State is the only university listed in the Yahoo! Finance stock summary of Sanofi-Aventis as being in a financial partnership with the company. Sanofi-Aventis owns Sanofi-Pasteur, the second largest manufacturer of vaccines in the world, including both thimerosal-preserved vaccines, and MMR vaccines. (Its first MMR vaccine, Immravax, was banned for causing viral meningitis in children.) David Gorski, while up front about the direct funding he received from drug companies 14 years ago for a patent as well as the funding he has received from the various institutions with which he has been affiliated, has not been up front about funding from drug companies received through his institution. According to the drug company’s website in 2008, “Sanofi-Aventis has entered into various other collaboration agreements with partners including Immunogen, Coley, Wayne State University, Innogenetics and Inserm, under which Sanofi-Aventis may be required to make total contingent payments of approximately €31 million over the next five years.” This is the same year it was announced that David Gorski would carry out a series of clinical trials for the company and its drug, Riluzole.

In fact, one of the two primary interests of the Gorski lab is this Sanofi-Aventis drug. In the Wayne state description, the lab’s two interests are described, “First, we are interested in the transcriptional regulation of vascular endothelial cell phenotype.” Worth noting is that a patent relating to this was issued listing David Gorski as an inventor. In his blog bio, Gorski admits receiving money for the patent in 1994 from a drug company, but that was only during the provisional filing before the patent was issued. Whatever the compensation was, its timing does not suggest any licensing of the intellectual property rights.

Also, according to the Gorski lab, “Our second area of interest is the role of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) in breast cancer,” which relates directly to the therapy linking the use of Riluzole to breast cancer treatment. However, the description concludes, “In addition, we have noted that mGluR1 is expressed on vascular endothelial cells and have preliminary evidence that its inhibition is also antiangiogenic, thus linking our laboratory’s two interests and suggesting a broader application for metabotropic glutamate receptor targeting in cancer therapy.” In other words, David Gorski’s entire research focus, including a patent still listed in his name for which he admits receiving drug company money, ties into finding new uses for a drug made by Sanofi-Aventis, while the university housing his lab is in partnership with the company.

So you refuted a peer reviewed study, in a respectable journal, with a blog from someone with obvious conflicts of interest. With a fianancal gain from the outcome they promote.

This is what happens when fundamentalists attempt to engage in debate. Their mind is made up and they spend their entire time bending the data to meet with their preconcieved notions.

They embarass themselves.

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

so wait. Let's get this straight. What he says isn't credible because of a conflict of interest.

But your 2 bullshit studies funded by an anti-vacc group are? I see.

Second, you failed to refute a single thing he said in the blog, refute a single thing he said in this post.

Because he refuted every single piece of bullshit from your study.

On top of that, I just linked you the run down on why the studies were bullshit.

If you want credible peer reviewed studies on this so be it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22350041

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16555271

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22479671

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342825

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1755823/pdf/v087p00493.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18252754

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21592401

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116011/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15259839

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172158/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11231748

http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=799645

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1313956/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142951

I can keep going with this, but I'm sure you know that. Guess this is what happens when people have severe confirmation bias and think 2 bullshit studies make them right.

Alzheimer's? alright let's see what the people researching and fighting the god damn disease think.

http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/controversial-claims-risk-factors

Oh and by the way your "big pharma shill retort" isn't even credible in any way. I love how anytime actual doctors refute this bullshit they're "shills" or have ties to pharma companies, even when they don't really. straight up delusion.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-price-of-skepticism/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/

I guess this is what happens when idiots that lack a basic understanding of chemistry try to debate vaccines.

You should read age of autism less.

-1 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

I find your little fit quite funny.

So you seem to think that there are no studies to prove the dangers of vaccines. I want to stress that if ONE study is correct we have a serious problem. In addtion to posting a blog, a blog, after the other little fit you had about the author of the study (pot, kettle, black) here are 52 studies that show adverse effects of vaccines.

I know, I know, they do not agree with your narritiave, and instead of changing your view based on new evidence you will no doubt have another little fit for my enjoyment...

Vaccine Failures:

Hardy, GE, Jr, et al, "The Failure of a School Immunization Campaign to Terminate an Urban Epidemic of Measles," Amer J Epidem, Mar 1970; 91:286-293.

Cherry, JD, et al, "A Clinical and Serologic Study of 103 Children With Measles Vaccine Failure", J Pediatr, May 1973; 82:801-808.

Jilg, W, et al, "Inoculation Failure Following Hepatitis B Vaccination", Dtsch Med wochenschr, 1990 Oct 12; 115(41):1514-1548.

Plotkin, SA, "Failures of Protection by Measles Vaccine," J Pediatr, May 1973; 82:798-801.

Bolotovskii, V, et al, "Measles Incidence Among Children Properly Vaccinated Against This Infection", ZH Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol, 1974; 00(5):32-35.

Landrigan, PJ, et al, "Measles in Previously Vaccinated Children in Illinois", Ill Med J, Apr 1974; 141:367-372.

Strebel, P et al, "An Outbreak of Whooping Cough in a Highly Vaccinated Urban Community", J Trop Pediatr, Mar 1991, 37(2): 71-76.

Forrest, JM, et al, "Failure of Rubella Vaccination to Prevent Congenital Rubella,"Med J Aust, 1977 Jan 15; 1(3): 77. Jilg, W, "Unsuccessful Vaccination against Hepatitis B", Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Nov 16, 1990, 115(46):1773.

Coles, FB, et al, "An Outbreak of Influenza A (H3N2) in a Well-Immunized Nursing home Population," J Am ger Sociologist, Jun 1992, 40(6):589-592.

Jilg, W, et al, "Inoculation Failure following Hepatitis B Vaccination," Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Oct 12, 1990, 115(41):1545-1548.

Hartmann, G et al, "Unsuccessful Inoculation against Hepatitis B," Dtsch Med Wochenschr, May 17, 1991, 116(20): 797.

Buddle, BM et al, "Contagious Ecthyma Virus-Vaccination Failures", Am J Vet Research, Feb 1984, 45(2):263-266.

Mathias, R G, "Whooping Cough In Spite of Immunization", Can J Pub Health, 1978 Mar/Apr; 69(2):130-132.

Osterholm, MT, et al, "Lack of Efficacy of Haemophilus b Polysacharide Vaccine in Minnesota", JAMA, 1988 Sept 9; 260(10:1423-1428.

Johnson, RH, et al, "Nosocomial Vaccinia Infection", West J Med, Oct 1976, 125(4):266-270.

Vaccines Causing Another Vaccinal Disease:

Basa, SN, "Paralytic Poliomyelitis Following Inoculation With Combined DTP Prophylactic. A review of Sixteen cases with Special Reference to Immunization Schedules in Infancy", J Indian Med Assoc, Feb 1, 1973, 60:97-99.

Pathel, JC, et al, "Tetanus Following Vaccination Against Small-pox", J Pediatr, Jul 1960; 27:251-263.

Favez, G, "Tuberculous Superinfection Following a Smallpox Re-Vaccination", Praxis, July 21, 1960; 49:698-699.

Quast, Ute, and Hennessen, "Vaccine-Induced Mumps-like Diseases", Intern Symp on Immunizations , Development Bio Stand, Vol 43, p 269-272.

Forrest, J M, et al, "Clinical Rubella Eleven months after Vaccination," Lancet, Aug 26, 1972, 2:399-400.

Dittman, S, "Atypical Measles after Vaccination", Beitr Hyg Epidemiol, 19891, 25:1-274 (939 ref)

Sen S, et al, "Poliomyelitis in Vaccinated Children", Indian Pediatr, May 1989, 26(5): 423-429.

Arya, SC, "Putative Failure of Recombinant DNA Hepatitis B Vaccines", Vaccine, Apr 1989, 7(2): 164-165.

Lawrence, R et al, "The Risk of Zoster after Varicella Vaccination in Children with Leukemia", NEJM, Mar 3, 1988, 318(9): 543-548.

Vaccines and Death:

Na, "DPT Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death - Tennessee, US Dept HEW, MMWR Report, Mar 23, 1979, vol 28(11): 132.

Arevalo, "Vaccinia Necrosum. Report on a Fatal Case", Bol Ofoc Sanit Panamer, Aug 1967, 63:106-110.

Connolly, J H, Dick, G W, Field, CM, "A Case of Fatal Progressive Vaccinia", Brit Med Jour, 12 May 1962; 5288:1315-1317.

Aragona, F, "Fatal Acute Adrenal Insufficiency Caused by Bilateral Apoplexy of the Adrenal Glands (WFS) following Anti-poliomyelitis Vaccination", Minerva Medicolegale, Aug 1960; 80:167-173.

Moblus, G et al, "Pathological-Anatomical Findings in Cases of Death Following Poliomyelitis and DPT Vaccination", Dtsch Gesundheitsw, Jul 20, 1972, 27:1382-1386.

NA, "Immunizations and Cot Deaths", Lancet, Sept 25, 1982, np. Goetzeler, A, "Fatal Encephalitis after Poliomyelitis Vaccination", 22 Jun 1961, Muenchen Med Wschr, 102:1419-1422.

Fulginiti, V, "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Diphtheria-Tetanus Toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Visits to the Doctor: Chance Association or Cause and Effect?", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 7-11.

Baraff, LJ, et al, "Possible Temporal Association Between Diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 5-6. Reynolds, E, "Fatal Outcome of a Case of Eczema Vaccinatum", Lancet, 24 Sept 1960, 2:684-686.

Apostolov. et al, "Death of an Infant in Hyperthermia After Vaccination", J Clin Path, Mar 1961, 14:196-197.

Bouvier-Colle, MH, "Sex-Specific Differences in Mortality After High-Titre Measles Vaccination", Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique, 1995; 43(1): 97.

Stewart GT, "Deaths of infants after triple vaccine.", Lancet 1979 Aug 18;2(8138):354-355.

Flahault A, "Sudden infant death syndrome and diphtheria/tetanus toxoid/pertussis/poliomyelitis immunisation.", Lancet 1988 Mar 12;1(8585):582-583.

Larbre, F et al, "Fatal Acute Myocarditis After Smallpox Vaccination", Pediatrie, Apr-May 1966, 21:345-350.

Mortimer EA Jr, "DTP and SIDS: when data differ", Am J Public Health 1987 Aug; 77(8):925-926.

Vaccines and Metabolism:

Deutsch J, " [Temperature changes after triple-immunization in infant age]," Padiatr Grenzgeb 1976;15(1):3-6. [Article in German] NA, "[Temperature changes after triple immunization in childhood]," Padiatr Grenzgeb 1976;15(1):7-10. [Article in German] [Considering that the thyroid controls our Basal Metabolism, it would appear that vaccines altered (depressed) thryoid activity.] Vaccines Altering Resistance to Disease:

Burmistrova AL, "[Change in the non-specific resistance of the body to influenza and acute respiratory diseases following immunization diphtheria-tetanus vaccine]," Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol 1976; (3):89-91. [Article in Russian]

Vaccines and Kidney Disorders:

Jacquot, C et al, "Renal Risk in Vaccination", Nouv Presse Med, Nov 6, 1982, 11(44):3237-3238.

Giudicelli, et al, "Renal Risk in Vaccination", Presse Med, Jun 11, 1982, 12(25):1587-1590.

Tan, SY, et al, "Vaccine Related Glomerulonephritis", BMJ, Jan 23, 1993, 306(6872):248.

Pillai, JJ, et al, "Renal Involvement in Association with Post-vaccination Varicella", Clin Infect Disorder, Dec 1993, 17(6): 1079-1080.

Eisinger, AJ et al, "Acute Renal Failure after TAB and Cholera Vaccination", B Med J, Feb 10, 1979, 1(6160):381-382.

Silina, ZM, et al, "Causes of Postvaccinal Complications in the Kidneys in Young Infants", Pediatria, Dec 1978, (12):59-61.

Na, "Albuminurias", Concours Med, Mar 1964, 85:5095-5098. [vaccination adverse reactions] Oyrl, A, et al, "Can Vaccinations Harm the Kidney?", Clin Nephrol, 1975, 3(5):204-205.

Mel'man Nia, "[Renal lesions after use of vaccines and sera]." Vrach Delo 1978 Oct;(10):67-9, [Article in Russian]

Silina ZM, Galaktionova TIa, Shabunina NR, "[Causes of postvaccinal complications in the kidneys in young infants]." Pediatriia1978 Dec;(12):59-61, [Article in Russian]

Silina EM, et al, "[Some diseases of the kidneys in children during the 1st year of life, following primary smallpox vaccination and administration of pertusis-diphtheria-tetanus vaccine]." Vopr Okhr Materin Det 1968 Mar; 13(3):79-80, [Article in Russian]

Vaccines and Skin Disorders:

Illingsworth R, "Skin rashes after triple vaccine," Arch Dis Child 1987 Sep; 62(9):979.

Lupton GP, "Discoid lupus erythematosus occurring in a smallpox vaccination scar," J Am Acad Dermatol, 1987 Oct; 17(4):688-690. Kompier, A J, "Some Skin Diseases caused by Vaccinia Virus [Smallpox]," Ned Milt Geneesk T, 15:149-157, May 1962.

Weber, G et al, "Skin Lesions Following Vaccinations," Deutsch Med Wschr, 88:1878-1886, S7 Sept 1963.

Copeman, P W, "Skin Complications of Smallpox Vaccination," Practitioner, 197:793-800, Dec 1966.

Denning, DW, et al, "Skin Rashes After Triple Vaccine," Arch Disorder Child, May 1987, 62(5): 510-511.

Vaccines and Abcesses:

Sterler, HC, et al, "Outbreaks of Group A Steptococcal Abcesses Following DTP Vaccination", Pediatrics, Feb 1985, 75(2):299-303.

DiPiramo, D, et al, "Abcess Formation at the Site of Inoculation of Calmette-Guerin Bacillus (BCG)," Riv Med Aeronaut Spaz, Jul-Dec 1981, 46(3-4):190-199.

Vaccines and Shock:

Caileba, A et al, "Shock associated with Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Syndrome following Injection of DT.TAB Vaccine, Prese Med, Sept 15, 1984, 13(3):1900.

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Your phama shill gambit failed, so now you've just copy pasted the names of a bunch of random studies.

Here's the thing though. I can promise the list I just gave you was all from credible peer reviewed journals.

You might want to check the names you just gave me. the large majority of them are pointing out that vaccines can "GASP" sometimes fucking fail. Did you seriously think anything you just linked backed up anything you've tried to say?

You're just a big natural shill bro

0 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

Pharma shil gambit, lol.

You literally belittled the study in a peer reviewed journal, then rebutted it with a blog, by someone who gets paid from the very people he is defending. Hypocrite much...

If that was a true rebuttle it would have been published and a challenge would have been issued. No, it was simply written on a blog.

We can ignore your little "these publications are not real" when it was proved they were.

I am enjoying your mental gymnastics.

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Let me say this again.

Refute a single thing he said in either of those posts.

On top of this, I actually thought you were somewhat good at this until you shifted over to autism.

Even the most retarded anti-vaxxers jumped ship on the autism thing because it got destroyed many times.

What you did was attempt to call him a pharma shill (you read that on age of autism, we both know it) but what you didn't realize is that was basically a bunch of bullshit age of autism fabricated because he challenged their pseudoscience.

On top of this I mean I've linked you the websites of organizations fighting/researching and they seem pretty convinced aluminum has nothing to do with alzheimer's.

Is is all a big pharma trick or what?

I also linked you to the WHO saying the studies you tried to link were both bullshit.

Guess that's a big pharma trick right too?

When 99% of the scientific community is telling you that you're wrong it means you're probably wrong.

You also keep refusing to accept the fact the study you linked in a peer reviewed journal was a fucking inorganic chemistry journal and was based on a flawed study.

0 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

Now that we have reviewed the scientific method, and how we cannot prejudge data with a preferred outcome, we have to touch on a few more things.

Science is not done through consensus.
I did get off track. This is simple, aluminum collects in the body as a heavy metal and does damage.

Before I explain for the last time, did you read that blog? It is a total mess. It does not show a claim and then explain through emperical evidence why it is incorrect it simply nitpicks in a way that could be done to ANY study, any time. If that study was flawed why did Mr Gorski not issue a challenge and get it refuted? No, he just rants on his blog and deletes comments that do not agree with him (sound familiar?).

Anyway, the focus here is aluminum staying in the body and causing long term problems. Remember if only one of these is accurate we have to rethink everything...

Rethink... that is what we do when we are presented with new evidence. What we do not do is twist the data to fit with our narrative ("show me and I will gladly refute it").

Here are a few more, but I want to stress the first 2 have not even been remotely questioned.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17114826

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15546155

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25699008

-1 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Except they were questioned, and I'll link this yet again.

"GACVS considers that these 2 studies3, 4 are seriously flawed. The core argument made in these studies is based on ecological comparisons of aluminium content in vaccines and rates of autism spectrum disorders in several countries. In general, ecological studies cannot be used to assert a causal association because they do not link exposure to outcome in individuals, and only make correlations of exposure and outcomes on population averages. Therefore their value is primarily for hypothesis generation. However, there are additional concerns with those studies that limit any potential value for hypothesis generation. These include: incorrect assumptions about known associations of aluminium with neurological disease, uncertainty of the accuracy of the autism spectrum disorder prevalence rates in different countries, and accuracy of vaccination schedules and resulting calculations of aluminium doses in different countries"

I'm actually fairly shocked you linked the gulf war one. First of all it was a study on the anthrax vaccine.

On top of this it also got the amount of aluminum in the vaccine wrong.

This paper is claiming the vaccine contains 2.4 mg of aluminum hydroxide. It actually contains 1.2 and a single dose of biothrax contains 0.5ml. In case you were wondering, the study claimed the vaccines had 4 times the amount they actually contain.

Now I'm sure we can both agree this compromises the study, but I'll keep going on this one.

On top of this they used mouse models rather than the data in http://www.va.gov/gulfwaradvisorycommittee/docs/GWIandHealthofGWVeterans_RAC-GWVIReport_2008.pdf

Sound fishy yet? that's because it is. and because I know you won't read what I just linked I'll just copy paste the relevant part.

"Other wartime exposures are not likely to have caused Gulf War illness for the majority of ill veterans. For remaining exposures, there is little evidence supporting an association with Gulf War illness or a major role is unlikely based on what is known about exposure patterns during the Gulf War and more recent deployments. These include depleted uranium, anthrax vaccine, fuels, solvents, sand and particulates, infectious diseases, and chemical agent resistant coating (CARC)"

The second study you linked (and please correct me if this was a mistake) has nothing to do with vaccines.

Would you like to know what the authors of this study said?'

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-23/health/chi-autism-science-nov23_1_defeat-autism-autism-recovery-movement-autism-treatment

So when Pardo and his colleagues published their paper in the Annals of Neurology in 2005, they added an online primer that clearly explained their findings in layman's terms and sternly warned doctors not to use them to develop treatments.

"We were concerned that the study would raise a lot of controversy and be misused," Pardo said. "We were right."

So I actually have no idea why you linked this, but it literally has nothing to do with vaccines.

So not only did anti-vaxxers hijack this study, they claimed it said something it didn't and used that to "invent a treatment" they straight up lied about what the paper said. let me be clear that the researchers on this paper have said multiple times they did not link autism to anything.

"Rossignol did not mention that Pardo’s team had written in its online primer, using capital letters for emphasis, that intravenous immunoglobulin “WOULD NOT HAVE a significant effect” on what they saw in the brains of people with autism.

“THERE IS NO indication for using anti-inflammatory medications in patients with autism,” the team wrote"

I'm guessing you thought this was a paper about vaccines, but it isn't.

Alright time for #3

Well at least this one actually seems to be about vaccines.

Guess who funds the people that shit this one out?

Dwoskin Family Foundation and the Katlyn Fox Foundation wow, can't say I'm shocked.

I also want to state that the journal this was published in is well known for quackery, at one point they published a paper claiming HIV didn't exist. on top of this the journal accepts 90% of the papers that are submitted, and is "peer reviewed" by a bunch of loons. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/02/scientific-publishing

On top of that this paper is assuming ASIA exists. That'd be fine if any other group outside of the vaccine quackery trio had ever seen it.

They are the only people to ever observe it, no one else has been able to.

So i'll just sum up this 3rd study.

Paid for by anti-vaccine organizations, published by 3 well known quacks in a journal that accepts 90% of papers submitted, and also published a paper claiming HIV didn't exist.

And on top of all of that, it's a paper assuming a made up syndrome exists, one nobody else other than the quack squad has been able to repeat in any setting.

2 nicholsml 2015-08-20

Love it... you completely wrecked HarvardGrad... hilarious. Too bad this is in R/Conspiracy and the conspiratards are downvoting you :(

0 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

I began my journey some time ago much like you, a fundamentalist. My mind was made up before I had ever considered another option....

But some part of my over-education stuck with me and said, you must consider the other side with an open mind to be able to refute it.

What I found was a world where the vast majority of studies are directly or indirectly funded by the same companies that make billions a year off their often mandated products, and anything that does not agree with them coming from "shills" or "quacks." This taught me one very important lesson:

There is no changing the mind of a fundamentalist.

Good luck to you on your journey.

0 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

I'm seeing a lot of you replying and a lot of you not countering a single thing I said.

I am a skeptic, I'm not on anyones side.

I'm on the side of evidence. And guess which side has it.

The fact I'm a "fundamentalist" for basing my argument on actual facts is really cute. Good debate bud.

2 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

Let's go back to the beginning, to original post to show why this entire premise is not only wrong, but based in bad evidence.

Here is what you linked:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10937400701597766 ---That link is broken.

Here is the second one http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394097009403 -This was published in 1998. The studies referenced were done in 2009. file:///D:/Downloads/Couette+09+alum+adj+cog+disorders.pdf

Obviously these scientists forgot to reference their time machine as the 1998 study was a "follow up" to the 2009 study. .
A real follow up study was done in 2015, and found a similar causal link to aluminum exposure and raises similar concerns. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318414/

Now this really is my last post to you, so I am going to mention a few thing:

*You have made accusations:

-That the journals that these studies were published in were not peer reviewed (Blatantly False)

-That they were pay for publish journals (Blatantly False)

-That no information provided by "anti-vaxers" (whatever that label means) can be trusted, but we have also learned that information provided by people directly funded by Pharmaceutical Companies should be disproven and stand on its own.

-Now with just a little investigation we found that "follow up studies" have been done 11 years before the study they followed up.

All this by a poster who said he would "Gladly read it and gladly refute it".

Save the "I am on the side of evidence" diatribe. Your mind was made up before you posted and have served to post not to have an intellectual discussion, but to prove that you are right. Next time check the links you copy and paste from to see if they are actually current, and check the dates on the follow up studies so you do not look like... well like you looked.

I did get a chuckle out of your little fits though.

1 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Let me tell you this again, for the 4th time. The study you linked in this OP was based on a flawed study that was already rejected.

I have no idea how many times I can possibly say this to you.

First of all, I didn't say they were all "pay to publish" and if you're going to make shit up I'll glady stay here and keep trashing you.

I said the one you linked from http://www.frontiersin.org/ (this is the publisher) is a quackery publisher that accepts 90% of papers and has published a paper claiming HIV didn't exist.

I then took apart 2 of your other studies you linked with facts, the gulf war syndrome one and the one about autistic brains (which btw, has nothing to do with vaccines as already pointed out)

Now if you want to go back to your 2 original studies, they were in fact peer reviewed studies.

Except for the fact one was in an organic chemistry journal and heavily based on a flawed study they put out a few years ago.

So I'll link this again to make this very clear.

Aluminium adjuvants The GACVS reviewed 2 published papers alleging that aluminium in vaccines is associated with autism spectrum disorders3, 4 and the evidence generated from quantitative risk assessment by a US FDA pharmacokinetic model of aluminium-containing vaccines.

Every study you have linked me is paid for by a rabid anti-vaxxer group and they're all authored by the quack trio, the same trio that claims ASIA exists when NOBODY ELSE HAS EVER SEEN IT. Only them.

I know you spend a lot of time on here debating idiots that have no understanding of the vaccine world but you're out of your league this time.

I'll tell you what, present a factual argument with absolute proof aluminum causes Alzheimer's published in a credible MEDICAL journal that isn't funded by a bat-shit crazy anti-vax group.

-1 [deleted] 2015-08-20

Obviously these scientists forgot to reference their time machine as the 1998 study was a "follow up" to the 2009 study. .

A real follow up study was done in 2015, and found a similar causal link to aluminum exposure and raises similar concerns. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318414/

This paper was funded in part by the Dwoskin Foundation, a group that is rabidly against vaccines.

It's pretty funny to watch take this "paper" seriously and lament that the pro-vaccine papers are paid for by "big pharma." Isn't this called hypocrisy or speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

Do you have an papers that support your claim that were funded by the NIH, WHO, or a reputable university?

Frontiers in Neurology is not a very reputable journal and has an impact factor of 0.00, according to researchgate.. Now, contrast this to the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, which has an impact factor of 54.42 and you kind of get the feeling that Frontiers in Neurology is not really taken seriously by those who are in the field of Neurology, no?
Now, please explain why you expect doctors and individuals educated in medicine and science to accept such a biased piece of rubbish?

That no information provided by "anti-vaxers" (whatever that label means) can be trusted, but we have also learned that information provided by people directly funded by Pharmaceutical Companies should be disproven and stand on its own

Actually, a lot of them are funded by the NIH, WHO, or other such agency. Some are also independently funded by universities. You'll note, for example, that the paper that came out in JAMA in April was funded by the NIH yet this sub went absolutely berzerk with making up lies that it was funded by "big pharma" because if flew in the face of rabid vaccine deniers such as yourself. Note, you may need a subscription to JAMA to view this now. Again, do you have an explanation for your hypocrisy and inability to provide studies and papers that are not of sophomoric quality and/or funded by absolutely biased sources? Or are you going to shift the goal posts, as usual? Hmmmm?

1 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

The frontiers publisher literally published an HIV denial paper and accepts over 90% of submitted papers.

And the reviewers are known quacks.

I have no idea how anyone can't see this shit. Every single one of these papers was funded by the Dwoskin foundation. It's just beyond nuts.

On top of this they all involve the quack trio Shaw/Gherdi/Tomljenovic

-1 [deleted] 2015-08-20

The problem with him is his ego. He chides those posting pro-vaccine studies as being biased yet can't see his own hypocrisy with the questionable material he posts. The studies he papaya also have relatively low populations and questionable methodologies. But he never lets that get in the way of trying to use them. In actuality, most of those studies showing vaccines work and that they are safe have very high study populations and are funded by the NIH, WHO, or other such agency.

1 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

The really weird thing is he can't actually be this stupid. He can clearly read these studies and see the obvious bullshit.

Yet for some reason he keeps linking them over and over again even after they've been refuted.

I think mental health might be an issue here.

-1 [deleted] 2015-08-20

But some part of my over-education

LOL, is that what you call what you have? You know people who boast about being "over educated" or who need to use their alma mater in their username are pretty much written off as dishonest by most people. A post should stand by the merit of what the author says rather than trying to use some sort of argument from authority. It just makes you look like you can't make arguments based on knowledge and critical thinking and rather you try to sway people with your credentials.

There is no changing the mind of a fundamentalist.

Exactly, which is why I don't set out to change the minds of vaccine deniers like you. Rather, I point out the flaws and hypocrisy in what is posted (see the hilarious argument you made re: mercury and trying to make it seem like the paper said something that it didn't say and that it studied something that it didn't say - so much for "over-education," I guess). It's a great tool to educate people who are on the fence about vaccines and to point out the numerous flaws and lack of understanding/scientific literacy of the vaccine denialist movement. So, thank you for being an vaccine denying fundamentalist.

You're issue isn't being "over educated," it's ego. Whether or not you actually have an "over education" doesn't really matter as you think that "over education" entitles you to some sort of authoritarian argument. I'm sorry, but most of what you post is completely wrong and the sources you use are exceptionally ill-informed, terribly manipulated, funded by vaccine denialist organizations. It's funny that you would use such sources while simultaneously complaining that the research that shows vaccines to be safe and efficacious are funded by "big pharma," when in reality many of them are funded by the NIH, WHO, or other governmental and/or institutional organizations. This is, by definition, hypocrisy on your part yet your ego is too big to realize it. Don't worry, I'm not out to argue with you -you seem like one of those people that needs to have the last word all the time - which is fine but it doesn't make you right.

0 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

OK I cant read anymore, for real you are one condensending prick.

Btw, you got your ass handed to you here.

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Yeah, maybe in bizzaro land. I destroyed this guy in every way possible.

Sorry your anti-vax feelings are hurt, maybe find someone actually capable of formulating an argument next time.

Let me educate you a bit. When someone fails to refute a single argument you make and throws out "Pharma shill" they lost.

0 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

boys will be boys, they always think they win.

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

I don't have to think anything, this argument goes on for a few more pages and the guy failed to refute a single thing I said.

While I picked apart every single argument he made.

Sorry your /r/conspiracy anti-vax hero is really bad at what he does, find someone new.

Then again it's not like I'd expect a homeopathic quack to have any critical thinking ability or even the intelligence required to read something like this.

0 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

Then again it's not like I'd expect a homeopathic quack to have any critical thinking ability or even the intelligence required to read something like this.

That was bitter. Don't talk to girls much?

I am going to drag my homeopathic quack self over there and give it a read big man...

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

First of all, please point out where anything I said was in any way related to your gender.

1 bss03 2015-08-20

When we are talking about being aluminum harmful, even one study that proves it makes it so.

Not so much.

-1 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

I was going to read this last night then I remembered it was Saturday and I have a life.

Learn to Reddit dude. You want to link one thing to another you copy that shit. You just ramble about whatever coves to mind, hardly ever link and expect everyone to follow your ADD. It's like a puppy on a sugar high.

Honest question, Is English your First Language? If not that would clear some things up.

OP means original post. If you go to the first post, the ORIGINAL POST, not the first comment you dumbass, the title of this thread is and follow the links it brings you to a study from '09. You then debunked it with a study from '98. You never talk about the point of the post which is Aluminum and Alzheimer's, you want to make this about some vaccine foundation.

What is your fucking point? that there is no connection to aluminum and Alzheimers? Aluminum is good for you? Anything bad about an industry that makes billions and billions a year comes from some mom and pop foundation with a few hundred grand?

Go suck a corporate dick somewhere else.

Dude schooled you time and time again and you didn't even read it.

Nobody is going to read all this because it's boring AF, but if they do they will see you are a dumbfuck.

5 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Well this comment you just made confirms what I had suspected, and that is that you're illiterate.

I'd say that's fairly evident by the fact you failed to comprehend a single aspect of this argument and then failed to follow the multiple debunkings of literally everything he linked.

I find it pretty funny your anti-vax delusion led you to believe this comment you just made didn't make you sound like a complete and utter moron.

But I'll break this down for you so it's easy for you to grasp.

The study he links in the OP is one of a series of studies which were highly flawed. The aluminum Alzheimer's connection has been debunked beyond belief at this point.

After the OP realized that, he tried to shift over to autism and linked multiple studies about autism and alunium. I then refuted these studies.

At this point in the argument he accused me/the person I linked of being a big pharma shill (this is standard for people like you, it's mainly because you're flat out retarded) so I refuted with the fact every single study he linked was funded by a rabid anti-vax group.

So while I find your attempt to defend this mongoloid I trashed 15 different times in this thread cute, sadly it comes up short.

Much like your mental ability.

And because you were so desperate to defend your fellow anti-vax tard, I'll just link these again.

http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/27/bill-maher-antivaccination-wingnut/

In case you were not aware, vaccines causing Alzheimer's is quackery that has been around for many years. And it's been refuted by science over and over and over again.

If I were you I'd hope nobody reads this because you just made yourself look like an absolute fucking moron.

Stick to what you know best. And trust me it isn't wit.

-2 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

You got schooled.

Small Dick Syndrome?

2 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

You saying "You got schooled" when by every fact of a debate I won doesn't even slightly anger me.

Also some slightly disabled homeopathic conspiratard on reddit saying "Small dick syndrome" also has no impact.

I'm sure in your white trash community these insults might be somewhat effective but in the adult world they just make you look stupid.

I'd seriously suggest you avoid debating anything related to medical science because you straight up have no idea what you're talking about.

but if you'd like to have a debate or a discussion of some sort, I'll gladly have that.

But I'd suggest you actually formulate a real argument and leave the white trash mannerisms at home.

-2 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

Guys who display false arrogance are usually compensating for small packages.

Teeny, tiny alert...

3 asiltopbr 2015-08-20

Guess who resorts to ad hominem attacks.

People that can't formulate actual arguments.

I'll take this as you admitting the fact you have no argument and this will be my last reply.

I'm sure you have some white trash things to do anyway.

-2 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

Really, really small.....

1 betaplay 2015-08-20

Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? I'm just reading this whole thing for the first time and you... need help.

You lose an argument then start ranting about penis size? I don't even know what that says about you but it's not good.

1 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

This guy obviously hates pretty girls and acts like an idiot around them.

1 betaplay 2015-08-20

Oh, did I forget to mention that? I hate pretty girls and I act like an idiot around them. Is that better? Thanks for pointing out my error.

Oh wait a minute, you just assumed I'm a guy didn't you? Am I? You know, telling a woman she has a tiny penis could actually be taken as a compliment!!! Thanks for being so supportive, Sally!

1 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

Looks like the insecure little man made an alt.

1 betaplay 2015-08-20

Stop it. This is annoying. Just a few clicks and you could have looked at account histories to see that would be extremely unlikely.

1 TaylortheHottie 2015-08-20

Yea, just a random guy creepin on a conversation that is months old... Surrrre

0 patrioticamerican1 2015-08-20

Good find.

0 HarvardGrad007 2015-08-20

While you are busy disagreeing with peer reviewed studies that have not been refuted or retracted here are some of the CDC's Top Minds on it.

Documents released through the Freedom of Information Act detail the transcript of a meeting held in June of 2000 between members of the CDC, the FDA, and representatives from the vaccine industry.

"There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem.”