A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research.
Thorsen was a leading member of a Danish research group that wrote several key studies supporting CDC's claims that the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines were safe for children. Thorsen's 2003 Danish study reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned mercury based preservatives in its vaccines. His study concluded that mercury could therefore not be the culprit behind the autism epidemic.
His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines. Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children. Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe to inject young children with mercury -- a potent neurotoxin -- at concentrations hundreds of times over the U.S. safety limits.
Thorsen, who was a psychiatrist and not a research scientist or toxicologist, parlayed that study into a long-term relationship with CDC. He built a research empire called the North Atlantic Epidemiology Alliances (NANEA) that advertised its close association with the CDC autism team, a relationship that had the agency paying Thorsen and his research staff millions of dollars to churn out research papers, many of them assuring the public on the issue of vaccine safety.
The discovery of Thorsen's fraud came as the result of an investigation by Aarhus University and CDC which discovered that Thorsen had falsified documents and, in violation of university rules, was accepting salaries from both the Danish university and Emory University in Atlanta -- near CDC headquarters -- where he led research efforts to defend the role of vaccines in causing autism and other brain disorders. Thorsen's center has received $14.6 million from CDC since 2002.
Thorsen's partner Kreesten Madsen recently came under fierce criticism after damning e-mails surfaced showing Madsen in cahoots with CDC officials intent on fraudulently cherry picking facts to prove vaccine safety.
Leading independent scientists have accused CDC of concealing the clear link between the dramatic increases in mercury-laced child vaccinations beginning in 1989 and the epidemic of autism, neurological disorders and other illnesses affecting every generation of American children since. Questions about Thorsens's scientific integrity may finally force CDC to rethink the vaccine protocols since most of the other key pro vaccine studies cited by CDC rely on the findings of Thorsen's research group. These include oft referenced research articles published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and others. The validity of all these studies is now in question.
Citations
1. http://www.cphpost.dk/news/international/89-international/48229-researcher-accused-of-cheating-uni-out-of-millions.html
2. http://www.safeminds.org/news/pressroom/press_releases/20040518_AutismAuthorsNetwork.pdf
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/opinion/06sat3.html
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html
5. http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/poul-thorsens-mutating-resume.html
6. http://www.rescuepost.com/files/thorsen-aarhus.pdf
7. http://www.cphpost.dk/news/international/89-international/48229-researcher-accused-of-cheating-uni-out-of-millions.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289562
Thank goodness for honest & influentual people who actually care about the well being of this nation like RFK Jr.
And Sean. You have my deepest sympathy. I hope you get well soon.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/18/2155
A greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively.
For those of you who have access to the full text article, I recommend reading it in its entirety.
It would also save $10 billion in direct costs and $33 billion in indirect costs (productivity, disability).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16330737
VACCINATIONS IN CHILDREN FORCES NEW BACTERIA TO RISE. I'm not sure at what point we decided, as a public health service, that we can eradicate all communicable diseases from society. Guess what? Mother Nature ALWAYS wins. I consider it a giant "wac-a-mole" game. Smash down an infectious agent and another one, sometimes more dangerous, pops up. In this particular case, the vaccine for pneumonia (Prevnar) only protects against some of the strains that can cause invasive pneumonia in children. And, for a few years, we saw a drop in cases. But, as Mother Nature moves to establish her dominance, we've seen an increase in another subtype of the bacteria. And guess what? 30% of these new cases were multidrug resistant. The sad thing is that it is rare for pediatricians to discuss ways to raise healthy children and keep a strong immune system (environmental toxin avoidance, high phytonutrient diet, Vit D, no junk foods, etc...) but will jump on vaccination instead. It is truly up to parents to be proactive in raising healthy children. You can NOT rely on your doctor anymore.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/3/429
Part 1 of 2
------------------------
You can rely on your doctor if the doctor reads that journal. You cannot rely on vaccination opponents who either don't know how to research or don't accurately report what they find.
In 2000, the 7 strain Pneumococcal Conjugate vaccine (PCV7) was introduced. Has the percentage of various strains of virus infecting children changed since the introduction of PCV7? Yes. There has been an increase in strain 19A cases.
What did this vaccination opponent leave out?. "CONCLUSIONS: Since 2005, the number of invasive pneumococcal infections in children has increased at 8 children's hospitals, primarily as a result of serotype 19A isolates, one third of which were resistant to multiple antibiotics in 2007 and 2008. Continued surveillance is necessary to detect emerging serotypes after the planned introduction of 13-valent or other pneumococcal vaccines.' http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/3/429
Part 2 of 2
-------------------
With an intended audience of pediatricians, the abstract assume the reader knows that : "In a large clinical trial, PCV7 was shown to be 97% effective in preventing invasive disease caused by the pneumococci contained in the vaccine and 89% effective against all types of S. pneumoniae, including those not found in the vaccine." http://www.vaccineinformation.org/pneumchild/qandavax.asp
Next step, check if strain 19A is included in the 13-valent vaccine. Research starting point: Wikipedia, which states 19A should be iincluded in Prevnar 13. Jjust to be sure, check the authoritative US site, the FDA, with this google site search site:fda.gov prevnar13 OR "prevnar 13" Which leads to http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm201667.htm
I'm Canadian, so check for Canadian status. Canada approved Prevnar 13 a few weeks earlier: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-smd/phase1-decision/drug-med/nd_ad_2010_prevnar_13_122881-eng.php
This comment illustrates that: Vaccination opponents don't properly research properly what they report OR don't accurately report what they do research. If you are not part of the intended audience of what you read, it is easy to come to the wrong conclusions. Researching vaccine and virus questions is not as simple as scanning abstracts or looking up the toxicity of ingredients in vaccines. Somehow or another, you need to pick up the necessary background. A good starting point is Wikipedia.
It took a lot of time before I realized the simple truth: Wakefield's, Dan Olmsted's [AofA's editor and Crosby's 'boss'] and others carving clinicially indicated practice out of medical research was wrong. So wrong, that Olmsted and others, who knew this, were dishonest when they kept proclaiming the falsehood.
I explained to him, more than once, that it was the doctor's intent, at that time, that mattered
I pointed him to my blog
http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/2010/03/olmsteads-dishonest-essay-wakefield.html
http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/2010/02/game-over-for-wakefield-at-start-of-gmc.html and elsewhere, including the regulatory definition of the US Office of Human Research Protection site.
He quoted me: "It was still medical research, because of the intent of the doctors to publicize, publish, to generalize new knowledge." And then toss off, "-Making stuff up, I see."
These are two factual questions which I have answered with excellent references. 1. Is medical research identified by the intent of the researcher to generalize knowledge? 2. Can clinically indicated tests and procedures be medical research, requiring 3rd party approval?
It is now your turn: Please supply specific quotes and references dating from 1990 or later that contradicts what I have written. Do not use any information from the GMC hearing or otherwise related to Wakefield.
'Reporting' from the GMC hearings, Martin Walker writes "On this matter, Pegg was hardly helpful to anyone. If the doctor concerned knew from the beginning of a case that he was going to write it up, then he needed ethical approval. If he did not initially intend writing up the case but did anyway, then he didn’t. This was a ridiculous explanation and one suspects it was made up on the hoof. What he probably meant to say, was that if individual children were examined for the sake of a scientific study then the doctor concerned needed ethical committee approval. If, however, all the children were seen on the basis of clinical need and at some point a number of the cases were written up, no ethical committee approval was needed." For the source of this quote please read the Wakefield category at my blog. http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/search/label/Wakefield
There we have it. Dr. Pegg identifying research using the standard 'intent' definition, Martin Walker thinking it must be a mistake and John Crosby (apparently) still refusing to believe it.
Mr. Crosby, once again, please do the impossible, provide authoritative evidence that is not connected to Wakefield, that I am wrong..
My comment above asked Mr. Crosby to "please supply specific quotes and references dating from 1990 or later that contradicts what I have written. Do not use any information from the GMC hearing or otherwise related to Wakefield."
Instead, Mr. Crosby makes a feeble response elsewhere. The relevant part of his comment is "..Dr. Pegg said that only research that is of risk to the child. If they conducted non-clinically indicated and risky procedures without ethical approval, then it would be a violation. You are ignoring the real facts of this case and replacing it with false stories that suit your opinion.."
Wrong.
-----------
From CNN Health: "Federal health authorities recommended Monday that doctors suspend using Rotarix, one of two vaccines licensed in the United States against rotavirus, saying the vaccine is contaminated with material from a pig virus."
A few comments.
1. "The FDA learned about the contamination after an academic research team using a novel technique to look for viruses in a range of vaccines found the material in GlaxoSmithKline's product and told the company...The FDA then confirmed the drug maker's findings."
Trashes the conspiracy view. Somewhere, somebody invents something and tests lots and lots of vaccines. They tell GSK. GSK confirms and tells the FDA, who confirms the result.
2. "Hamburg stressed that the suspension applies only to the United States." European and other countries, with the same facts, continue to use the vaccine. Different countries make different decisions. How did Big Vaccine let this happen?
3. Is it a health problem? Just on the facts, it is very unlikely because it is not a pig virus, only DNA information from a pig virus. Over time, if it were a problem with humans, we would know because people would have inevitably eaten pork with the 'live' virus. This is an oral vaccine so whatever gets into the body, does so the same way as the pig virus would.
4. Anti-vaxers will work diligently and will put forward contradictory positions, much of it based on false information.
"This really shows what a sham the "scientific consensus" is on autism causation. Of course, there is no scientific consensus on this issue regardless since exoneration of thimerosal and MMR would require agreement from the consumers, which it utterly lacks.
1. You have yet to show any evidence that there was a problem with the research that was done. Compare that to Wakefield, whom you defend, where there was a money problem, deliberate unethical research on children and a paper (plus replies to the paper) that he knew would have an effect on public health and yet was found, beyond a reasonable doubt to be dishonest, misleading and contrary to his obligation to be accurate.
2. The thimerosal test cases show, that even if you accept the numbers from the plaintiffs's expert, there is just way, way, way too little to cause autism or other neurological damage. And of course, the processes that later show as autism are completed before birth.
3. I had a ex-politician teach a poli-sci course I took. He took votes from the class on issues. I thought that was bizarre. Almost as bizarre as your seeming to require consumers to somehow 'vote' or participate in developing the scientific consensus on anything.
2. Sure, amounts of ethyl mercury that exceed 99x the EPA limit for methyl mercury when ethyl mercury is shown to be more likely to cause chronic poisoning.
3. I agree, let's just let corporations run amuck and whoever is the highest bidder can determine the scientific consensus!
The National Vaccine and Information Center (NVIC.org) is laying the groundwork for a retrospective study of the medical histories of vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated kids. They have spent a year preparing, procedure-wise, in order to assure valid results. The data is out there; there are many completely unvaccinated kids, and they do have medical histories. Valid testing procedure exists, and I urge you to provide input to those folks, and/or ask questions of them, in an attempt to satisfy yourselves that such procedure is followed. For the sake of the potential import of the results of such a study, whatever those results may be, please do not assume that because they have a viewpoint they lack integrity.
I strongly advocate informed consent and the sanctity of parental authority. The study above speaks to the information.
If this is true, then the study is almost certainly already a waste of time and money if it is to have any merit beyond the stalwart vaccine causes autism crowd. The study has to be done as independently of NVIC as possible. NVIC also has to register their proposed study.
She has several times been asked for a reference for this claim, and none has been provided. So I am trying again:
Tara, can you provide a reference (remember as agreed, only citations to scientific publications or research, not opinions from blogs) for your claim that vaccines are given intravenously or directly into the bloodstream?
What other explanation could there be for her continued silence on these highly pertinent questions about the veracity of her wild claims?
It couldn't possibly be that she is hoping they will somehow be forgotten if she ignores them, could it?
Both Sheldon and Dyson may be interested in this
We are Vaccine Safety Advocates
---------------------------
Yeah, right!
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4259
We on the side of truth and justice, love to call anti-vaxers, anti-vaxers. Many anti-vaxers hate to be called anti- vaxer or anti-vaccination or vaccination-opponent or anti-vaccine.
They prefer to parade under the false colors of vaccine safety advocate or green vaccine advocates or similar.
We thank you for being honest and forthright, unlike so many others.
1879 First vaccine for cholera - "A vaccine for cholera is available in some countries, but prophylactic usage is not currently recommended for routine use by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." "Although cholera may be life-threatening, prevention of the disease is normally straightforward if proper sanitation practices are followed."
1896 First vaccine for typhoid fever - "There are two vaccines currently recommended by the World Health Organization for the prevention of typhoid" "Sanitation and hygiene are the critical measures that can be taken to prevent typhoid."
1927 First vaccine for tuberculosis - "However, BCG is less effective in areas where mycobacteria are less prevalent; therefore BCG is not given to the entire population in these countries. In the USA, for example, BCG vaccine is not recommended except for people who meet specific criteria"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_vaccines
So - vaccines are developed, we are forced to use them and then they are abandoned - without mass casualties?!? We learn - over time - that "sanitation" prevents many infectious diseases and eliminates the need for certain mass vaccinations. Or, we realize that the virus/bacteria aren't prevalent enough to justify certain mass vaccinations. Convince me - what bad things will happen, to our society, if we stop aggressively vaccinating our children?
Your argument is therefore a strawman (you catching this Schwartzz?)
Some diseases can be tackled in a combination of ways. Cervical cancer for example. Vaccination is one approach which should help reduce incidence. Obviously, considering thousands of women still die from this disease every year, barrier methods like condoms and pap smear campaigns are inadequate.
Now there are other common infectious diseases which will not just disappear because we have tap water. These are diseases spread through close contact and the airborne route. They are all the diseases you or your parents had as a kid like measles, mumps, pertussis, and so on. Vaccination reduces the incidence and therefore the overall morbidity associated with these infections. There are few instances of these infections today, because so many of us are protected, either havin had the disease or through vaccination.
Without vaccination, everyone will get them and then you risk returning to the 1960s rates of morbidity and mortality.
Who "else" are you Dyson?!? Perhaps - Josephius?!?
Also didn't you tell me earlier that morbidity statistics were invalid and only the amount of cases mattered?
In terms of the diseases you claim cannot be improved with sanitation (you're actually quite wrong about that, BUT), that's where hygiene and nutrition come into play to eliminate disease.
Incidence of the diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella were not different then to the rates 30 years before. If you recall, the antivax call is that EVERYONE gets these diseases.
I am pointing out that without vaccines, everyone would get them again, and with that would come a level of morbidity (illness) that we would find unacceptable by today's medical standards.
More recently, there have been very effective vaccines used for HiB nad meningococcus. These vaccines prevent meningitis. Go check the figures and you will see the impact they have had - it is nothing to do with "sanitation".
You would have us return to the days in the 1980s/1990s when hundreds of kids died from these preventable diseases.
Frankly, I find that attitude repulsive.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/3/405
Telling me you don't "believe" in regressive autism registers with me just as if you had told me you don't believe grass grows.
The paper you point to is was published in 1999, over a decade ago. A lot of work has been done on the causes of autism since that time. I don't know what the consensus was in 1999 regarding the existence of regressive autism, all I can report is a much more recent consensus as put forward at the trials..
I suggest the following. Look to recent secondary sources (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source). Using google or PubMed, search for articles that are recent and have 'review' in the title. See what wikipedia has to say, looking for links to articles with 'Review' in them. Read what is available in a public or medical school library.
The decisions in the autism cases are also reviews of what the experts have to say. http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Hastings.King%20Decision.pdf and use the table of contents at the end. Look at a very well done excerpting of Special Master Vowell's decision in Dwyer http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/201/. The transcripts and expert reports at the trial are also secondary sources, which have the advantage of being put into less scientific language as it has to be understood by judges. Go here for an index to them. http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/189
It's pretty easy to differentiate her from the children who never talked.
-------------------
SandyGottstein posts 11 comments in a row to show that it isn't conclusive that SV-40 does not cause cancer. That is an abuse of the comments. That point could be made in one or two comments, preferably with a reference to a review article that support the view of the commenter. Which will make more sense to the reader than just piling on abstract after abstract.
My point was not whether vaccines in the past that were contaminated with SV-40, IN THE PAST NOT NOW, actually caused cancer or not. My point is that believing that product inserts represent the be all and the end all of all that is known about a drug or vaccine or anything else is wrong.
Because if this argument is true then it applies equally to vitamins and supplements and off-label use of drugs such as Lupron (the chemical castrating drug given to ASD kids).
Remember what is on the label for many of those vitamins and supplements: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease" See:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/ConsumerInformation/ucm110417.htm
So take your pick. Rely only on what has been tested properly or recognize that we can look beyond what is on the label or product insert. Guess which approach Big Alternative and Big Placebo prefer and practice.
First of all, you're the one who made the incorrect, global statement that "Over time, studies were done that concluded that SV-40 did not cause cancer in humans. "
Second of all, you have demonstrated that your idea of reading something is counting comments, since there were actually 7 references that required 11 "comments".
Third, you have demonstrated that you didn't read them because most of them made the point in different ways, as well as making different points.
When you make a statement, dismissing something someone else has stated, as if it is a fact when it is not, who are you to decide what is etiquette? Acting as if you are the authority and treating people like they are your inferiors is not "etiquette". At least not in my book.
Some people appreciate the links. Others do not. You don't have to read them. And it appears you did not.
F Edward Yazbak writes in Red Flags in 2005:
http://www.taap.info/DanishStudy2005.pdf
All the best,
Sandy
http://www.vaccinationnews.com
I am amazed---Plaintiff's experts at Thimerosal trial largely agreed with defendants on causes of Autism
-------------------
I have left out some of the qualifications but that is due to space limitations. I urge everyone to go read at least this part of the decision.
Quote: "Three basic points concerning the causation of autism, which are well-accepted AND NOT DISPUTED [emphasis added] by the petitioners in this case, are relevant here."
..."The first basic point is that there is a very strong genetic component to the causation of autism...[long snip]...The second basic point is that some specific non-genetic factors have been identified and accepted as factors in causing autism, but those consist of exposures during the early prenatal period....[long snip] ...The third basic point is that autopsy studies, comparing brains of autistic children to those of non-autistic children, indicate that the autistic brains show a number of different abnormal features that of necessity would have occurred during specific parts of the prenatal period, as the unborn child developed...
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Hastings.King%20Decision.pdf starting at page 38.
Here is the first sentence again, "Three basic points concerning the causation of autism, which are well-accepted AND NOT DISPUTED by the petitioners in this case, are relevant here."
I was surprised, to say the least. I haven't been following the causes of autism carefully. I knew it was strongly genetic but this surprised me.
I am amazed---Plaintiff's experts at Thimerosal trial largely agreed with defendants on causes of Autism
-------------------
And on page 40.
"In their post-hearing briefs, the petitioners have pointed to a few items of medical literature suggesting that postnatal factors, in general, can contribute to the causation of autism I note also that two of petitioners’ experts, Drs. Kinsbourne and Aposhian, briefly discussed the fact that the condition known as “herpes encephalitis” has been proposed as a possible postnatal cause of autism. A brief analysis of this area of possible causation by postnatal factors, therefore, is appropriate here...[snip].... Rather, respondent’s experts opine only that there is currently no persuasive evidence that ANY (emphasis added) postnatal factors play a role , and that the above-described autopsy studies, showing brain anomalies in autistics that would necessarily have arisen prenatally, makes it seem unlikely that postnatal factors play any significant causal role in autism."
Many, many parents are hoping to get compensation through the vaccine court based on the claim that the thimerosal in vaccines given to their children caused ASD.
THE EXPERTS TESTIFYING ON THE PARENTS BEHALF, LIMITED THEIR CLAIM TO REGRESSIVE AUTISM, whatever that means.
THE EXPERTS TESTIFYING ON PARENTS BEHALF, LARGELY AGREED WITH THE DEFENDANTS EXPERTS THAT AUTISM IS PRE-NATAL. They struggled to find ANY evidence that it was post-natal at all.
I suspect this comes as a shock to many. I certainly was surprised. Go read the King decision.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Hastings.King%20Decision.pdf
Science and medicine have moved beyond what many vaccines cause autism believers realize.
SHELDON: "No vaccine has ever been tested for it's carcinogenic or mutagenic capacity prior to licensing."
The SV-40 example of testing for carcinogenic capacity is the only one that exists (following cancer incidence caused by SV-40 in polio vaccines not prior to it) and a slim one at that! Not only did they not test all the batches, they basically only looked at some of the tumors caused around that time period in SOME medical journal studies. The contaminated batches of those vaccines still went out to the general public and to this day they still deny it despite all of the evidence!
Perhaps if there actually WAS carcinogenic and mutagenic testing prior to licensing for every vaccine all of those people would not have gotten cancer from the Polio vaccine.
He's too busy defending pharma.
If you believe that, you would also have to believe the FDA warning on supplements and not look any farther to see what they can do.
And you certainly could not approve off-label use of a drug, especially Lupron, the chemical castrating drug given to some ASD kids.