Does Aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines cause Autism? New article provides solid evidence it does! (Spoiler: No, it doesn’t)
A couple days ago, the following article firmly took roots in both the main and the health trending section of Steemit:
Whenever topics like this come up, the question of being “open minded enough” to accept the information provided always becomes a dividing hurdle that excludes everyone who doesn’t agree with what is being said (resulting on additionally being labeled as a troll or as a brainwashed person, apparently).
However, being open minded doesn’t mean believing in any sort of subversive theories that go against the mainstream paradigm; being open minded means to be able to put your prejudices and assimilated beliefs aside while you look at something, making an effort to analyze it for what it is. Afterwards, you might use your judgement based on the evidence provided to conclude whether the information presented holds truth to it or not. In summary, being close minded just means that you reject ideas a priori, before even making the effort to first listen to it and what it entails.
Ironically, just a quick look at the comment section of the article reveals a lot of blind acceptance: since it already lines up with their beliefs, people are taking for granted that the information provided is accurate and that the claim made is actually valid without bothering to confirm with the source. In fact, I can bet my entire tea collection–which I need for daily survival– that not one of them actually read the article (or fully understood what was being said in it). So much for “always questioning what you are being told and informing yourself before you make potentially life-altering decisions”.
But guess what? I did read it! Want to know what I found?
Within the frame of an open mind, let’s take a look at the article, which is available here. Firstly, let’s look at what the title tells us:
The first part tells us that they injected aluminum under the skin of mice (subcutaneous) in concentrations similar to those found in vaccine adjuvants. The second part of the sentence, says that by doing that, they observed that certain genes or proteins (biomarkers) homologous to those associated with autism were activated. Alright. Let’s look at what homologous means:
Homologous:
1) Showing a degree of similarity (e.g. in position, structure, function or characteristics) that may indicate a common origin.
2) Having similar structure and anatomical position (but not necessarily the same function) in different organisms suggesting a common ancestry or evolutionary origin.
Source: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Homologous
This notion introduces a first word of caution: not all findings in mice directly translate to human physiology. In fact, a very small portion of them actually get successfully translated into efficient treatments for humans [1][2][3]. This is due to the self-evident fact that, as much as we have similarities as mammals, a human is vastly different from a mouse.
Why experiment in mice, then? Because genetic analysis have shown that they do hold a high degree of similarity in their gene code in comparison to ours [3], and because ethical concerns prevents us from directly experimenting on humans. Therefore, mice research is often the best initial approach we have, however the results obtained should be met with the appropriate reservations.
There is a chance, of course, that you are one of those people who don’t believe in evolution, in which case, congratulations! You can immediately discard this article as any proof since making experiments in mice to show an equivalent effect in humans would make absolutely zero sense. Otherwise, let’s continue…
Now, I must admit I found it odd that this work was published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry instead of a Biology/Medicine journal (since the main topic of this study is a biological process related to human disease), but let's put that aside for a moment. Theirs is a provocative title that piqued my scientific curiosity. Maybe they did find something interesting that we should take into consideration. Let’s take a look at the abstract, which summarizes the findings of the work.
Autism is a neurobehavioral disorder characterized by immune dysfunction. It is manifested in early childhood, during a window of early developmental vulnerability where the normal developmental trajectory is most susceptible to xenobiotic insults. Aluminum (Al) vaccine adjuvants are xenobiotics with immunostimulating and neurotoxic properties to which infants worldwide are routinely exposed. To investigate Al′s immune and neurotoxic impact in vivo, we tested the expression of 17 genes which are implicated in both autism and innate immune response in brain samples of Al-injected mice in comparison to control mice. Several key players of innate immunity, such as cytokines CCL2, IFNG and TNFA, were significantly upregulated, while the nuclear factor-kappa beta (NF-κB) inhibitor NFKBIB, and the enzyme controlling the degradation of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACHE), were downregulated in Al-injected male mice. Further, the decrease of the NF-κB inhibitor and the consequent increase in inflammatory signals, led to the activation of the NF-κB signaling pathway resulting in the release of chemokine MIP-1A and cytokines IL-4 and IL-6. It thus appears that Al triggered innate immune system activation and altered cholinergic activity in male mice, observations which are consistent with those in autism. Female mice were less susceptible to Al exposure as only the expression levels of NF-κB inhibitor and TNFA were altered. Regional patterns of gene expression alterations also exhibited gender differences, as frontal cortex was the most affected area in males and cerebellum in females. Thus, Al adjuvant promotes brain inflammation and males appear to be more susceptible to Al′s toxic effects.
Translated into non-scientific jargon, the main message is this:
They observed that in the mice injected with the Aluminum dose, a set of genes signaling for inflammation were activated as well as the NF-kB pathway (more on this later). They said that this resulted in cholinergic activity altered in a similar way to that observed in autism. Oh, and they didn’t observed the same effect in female mice. So far so good…
Now let’s see how they did it:
Looking at the methods section and the figures they provide, they mostly used very basic methods for DNA and protein detection. Some would even claim such methods are a bit outdated, since there are much better methods available using more modern equipment and techniques that have become the standard nowadays due to the high quality data they produce.
We don’t do this because we want to look fancy, but because the new methods are much more accurate, reliable and provide a more detailed output that is closer to what is actually happening in the event observed.
PCR is a method that makes copies of DNA with each cycle; these copies multiply in an exponential manner with each cycle, so you can end up with thousands or even millions of copies from a few initial copies of the gene being amplified. Scientists do this to be able to better observe the genes they are looking for, since in the original sample the genes could be present in a quantity that would be too small to be detected or compared.
However, one should be cautious when performing this experiment, since performing too many cycles can artificially increase the representation of your gene by saturating its production, masking any real biological effects. This is a concern in this study since the methods state that they used 30 cycles of amplification which is longer than standard procedure.
So let’s look at the gels showing the genes of interest. The products obtained by using this PCR copying and amplifying method are then observed by placing them on a gel were they get separated using an electric gradient. DNA has a negative charge so it “travels” towards the positive charge across the gel, and since the gel used restricts the mobility of bigger particles (meaning smaller particles fit easier through the pores in the gel and thus travel faster towards the positive end) it is possible to separate them by sizes. You identify your product (gene) of interest by looking for it at the expected molecular weight of it.
Here I noticed some strange irregularities present in the gels shown. Namely, there seem to be cutouts or bluntly delimited areas with different opacity to the rest of the lane shown, which could be indicative of parts of the picture being obscured or erased to cover up undesired bands:
When too many cycles of DNA copying have been performed, you might end up with unspecific products being also copied, which will show up in the gel as well as your product of interest, making it more difficult to interpret.
However, in this article we are only provided with cutouts of the individual bands for every gene, and we cannot look at the entire gel to see if the experiment was performed accurately or not.
I spent my entire master’s degree and part of my PhD doing this precise kind of experiments so I am familiar with what to look for in them, their interpretation and the myriad of variations one can have in different gels/blots. After looking at this figure, something again looked dodgy. I thought it was odd that the band of detected protein of TNF just suddenly disappeared like that. Upon closer inspection, it looked like there was a faint border delimiting a region with a slightly different opacity than the rest of the blot (just like in the previous figure). Then, I tilted my computer screen and, lo and behold! This is what they did (I played with the contrast a bit to make it more visible, but you can clearly see it in the original article):
So they just basically cut up and pasted a square shaped object to cover up the inconvenient band of protein they didn’t want to show!
Quoting one of my advisor's favorite sayings: That is not how science works! You can’t just (literally) cover up the results that don’t support your hypothesis and then make an analysis out of it. I don’t think I have to specify why fabricating your results by manipulating your evidence is not only ethically wrong but also invalid for the production of reliable, reproducible scientific data.
After looking at this blatant (and sloppy) data manipulation, it is certainly hard to believe that subsequent data analysis was made in a rigorous, honest and accurate way. But still, let's look a bit further into the article:
Does the evidence sustain the claims?
We should answer the question: are the genes selected reliable biomarkers of autism? Are they specific enough so their detection means that we are witnessing the onset of the disease? NF-kB is one of the cardinal pathways regulating survival, inflammation and cell homeostasis:
In vertebrates, NF-κB is activated by over 150 different stimuli, such as stress, cytokines, free radicals, ultraviolet irradiation, oxidized LDL and bacterial or viral antigens. In turn, there is evidence that active NF-κB participates in the control of transcription of more than 400 genes. These genes include cytokines, chemokines and their modulators, immunoreceptors, proteins involved in antigen presentation, cell adhesion molecules, acute phase proteins, stress response proteins, cell-surface receptors, regulators of apoptosis, growth factors, ligands and their modulators, early response proteins, transcription factors and regulators, and enzymes, controlling several phenomena such as inflammation as well as innate and adaptive immune response.
Source: [4]
Now, let’s imagine for a moment that their findings were actually real and not the product of the Photoshop (or rather MS Paint) extravaganza that I showed above. Even then, since the genes selected and the NFk-B pathway are involved in so many things in the cell, it suffices to say that observing a bit over a dozen genes being “activated” after the Aluminum injection is a weak piece of evidence, because it is so general that could mean so many things, and there is not an experiment shown here that convincingly delimits or pinpoints it to a particular event (in this case, the starting phase of autism) while excluding the others. The genes tested are not even directly implicated in autism, but are part of a general cascade of signals within the cell that serves multiple purposes.
To give you an idea, I myself use this genes as markers in my own scientific study, and I am doing nothing related to autism (my work is related to mechanisms for stopping growth in cancer tumors). This selection of genes is related to the general process of inflammation – you can even see it for yourself in the handy table they included in the article about the function of each gene.
I was thinking of writing a breakdown of each individual point, but I think this post would approach “nobody is going to read all this” territory so I will keep it brief (however, feel free to bring any individual point you would like to discuss about the article to the comment section).
In short, my main gripe with this article (besides the fraudulent data) is that they have very thin and unconvincing evidence to support their rather bold claims. Basically, they constantly fall on the trap of assuming that a singular correlation indicates causality. Example: they measure the activity of one enzyme that is related to autism (as well as many other physiological processes!) and claim this is proof that their animal model is consistent with observations of patients affected with autism! A few cherry-picked examples that sort-of fit something that you want to prove is not a solid test that your hypothesis is right.
That’s akin to spending a few days fasting and feeling fatigued, thirsty and having limb numbness and concluding you most likely have diabetes – yes, the symptoms overlap with those of the sickness, but these also are symptoms that are present in many other situations without implying the onset of a degenerative and irreversible ailment. In this example, this symptoms would be related to sugar depletion due to lack of food intake, and reversed as soon as you had your next meal.
In conclusion:
- There is clear evidence of data manipulation/fabrication in this article, which puts in serious question whether any of the presented data is actually valid.
- Even if the data shown was valid, the evidence presented is way too general and could apply to a million other things besides autism and they don’t provide further experiments to narrow it down to it.
- Animal studies can help shed some light on the physiology of humans, but findings are not directly applicable to humans in the majority of cases, so one must be cautious about overstating findings.
- Whenever there is a new study claiming to provide support for a provocative claim against the current paradigm, truly do your research (do not only look at the title of the article and take the author’s word for it!) and look into it to see if the evidence found is solid enough to stand a critical test, especially if this aligns wonderfully with your pre-established beliefs. Think about it this way: if the information provided is not what is purported to be and you realize it, then you would not “contaminate” your frame of knowledge by assimilating erroneous ideas, but if it turns out to be truthful and reproducible then it will give your provocative idea a much more solid ground to stand on.
- In short: The scientific consensus so far about the effect of Aluminum is that it is not harmful in the way it is used currently as a vaccine adjuvant (based on a significant amount of scientific data). This article doesn’t provide neither sufficient nor reliable information to challenge that notion.
Bonus:
If you are in the mood to take a quick look at a variety of scientific evidence supporting the harmlessness of adjuvants like Aluminum in vaccines, in this page you can find a compilation of Scientific articles and the results they reported (summarized in a handy table for your viewing pleasure):
Epilogue:
After all this analysis, I felt curious about these authors and did a quick googling to see what else they have been working on. (Un)surprisingly, turns out they have already been previously flagged for questionable scientific behavior, fraudulent reports and results that are not replicable.
Some other people have also wrote rebuttals of their published articles, exposing manipulation of data, questionable scientific methods and conclusions unsupported by their evidence, as you can see here, here, and here.
I didn’t want to mention this in the beginning of the post, since I wanted the readers to follow up the dissection of the article with a more unbiased mindset. In the light of this info, some things like the outdated equipment/techniques used and the odd choice of journal start to make sense; I doubt any serious institution would support and fund someone with such a reputation of shoddy research and documented scientific misconduct.
This article was written in response to @suesa’s initiative to write about a misconception that we wanted to dispel using the power of science and the evidence available. So, this is my entry, I hope you found it interesting!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] Are animal models predictive for humans? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642860/
[2] Animal experiments scrutinised: systematic reviews demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18288428
[3] Comparing the Mouse and Human Genomes https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/comparing-mouse-human-genomes
[4] Charting the NF-κB Pathway Interactome Map https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293857/
-------------------------------------
Image sources: First one from Pixabay, the rest were taken from the article in question.
I like Steemit a lot but sometimes there are a few too many conspiracy theories. Well actually I'm sure I believe quite a few myself, but the ones I connect with are different from those of someone else, etc. The truth is that a lot of the things in the world have highly complex interactions and can be interpreted from different viewpoints depending on the knowledge, experience, and prejudices brought to the table. There are definitely strong reactions to vaccines that many people have in different ways, but no simple x = y link. Autism itself is complex and varied, and currently it is assessed on many different factors by professionals, but still just has the blanket title autism spectrum disorder, so lay people are left to assume it's just kind of one thing. Good analysis is appreciated as always. Peace
To be completely honest, I don't believe that all vaccines are 100% safe for all individuals in all cases. There are tremendous biological variations among us, so chances are someone could react differently than most to them.
For some individuals with certain predispositions it could be indeed harmful. However, scientific studies seem to point out that this is not the case for the vast majority of cases. Therefore, the cost/benefit balance tilts significantly towards the benefit side (preventing the affliction and wide spread of life-threatening diseases).
It's like spreading a massive campaign against the consumption of eggs just because in some rare cases people have strong allergic reactions to them, and then claim that eggs are evil and no one under any circumstances should eat them.
Still, I would agree that for those that might have been legitimately affected, the fact that this only happens in "1 out of 10,000 cases" (not real statistics, just an example) would be little comfort; in these situations it would be valuable to analyse these individual cases to elucidate what caused the problem.
That's thin language there stating that "seem to point" to uphold a mighty hefty load of "for the vast majority of cases."
At the heart of this However, is that the studies vindicated vaccinations as causing less damage than not vaccination, yet Polio goes on as a Reclassified disease, the vaccinations kill and maim and hurt far more than the disease, be it polio or smallpox and the really hard to swallow truth is vaccinations have little to no basis in science, from the mechanism of function all the way to the suppliers and business side of antibody antigen interactions. The whole mechanism for function has been a fairy tale, the isolation of viruses another fairy tale, the fact that they prevent the disease when shedding and the incidence of vaccine induced illness hardly can factor in as such things never get reported, per mandated CDC and health-care function, who collude to bilk people out of ANY health-care especially with vaccinations, but also radiation, chemotherapy, and untested pills for everything among the ever expanding book of mental disorders and This is purely and entirely the product of greed motivated by profits over everything.
This is not to say that scientific fraud such as above is excusable. It's quite counter productive, because the very first Ding should be where is the evidence that shows Vaccines working, outside the Decrease of Incidence which previous to vaccines it was dropping quite rapidly (smallpox) and when vaccinations were introduced it entered into a LONG slow drop compared to the previous plummeting while in places where mandatory smallpox vaccinations was done, the hospitals were full and it was epidemic status. The other conversation that has been happening for 70+ years is the heavy metals and biology and specifically mercury/thiomersal interactions in biology.
The conversation of vaccinations always pivots on consent, because consent to be lawful it has to be informed and not under deceit, derision, or dishonesty. The reality is that there is no Study to tout that vaccinations "work". Long term studies don't get done. There is no study on morbidity or mortality when it's not reported or under reported, and there is no honesty among vaccinations if Polio conveniently goes away simply by reclassifying the symptoms.
Great comment! I just published a post on here today about how they "eradicated" polio by changing the diagnostic parameters. Vaccination is based on junk science, on many levels.
While I appreciate this author's attempt to clarify the science, I think her efforts would be better spent scrutinizing the large corporations that are committing scientific fraud and harming our children with vaccines that haven't be adequately tested, and pushing a vaccine schedule that has never been tested.
1 in 6 kids today have a developmental disability. And that can't be because of studies like this she's picking apart.
Good one.
Your treatment of the article was excellent, it's a shame your treatment of the whole issue of vaccination is not to the same standard. However, it was just a comment :). Why don't you do a thorough analysis of vaccines and publish a series on steemit?With your scientific knowledge, excellent language skills and demonstrated open mind, it could be very interesting.
Please consider that vaccine damage may be hard to see. For instance, everyone who has a vaccine could be damaged.
Also, do you think appropriate studies on the effects of the ever-changing vaccine schedule have been done? If no, do you agree with experimentation on people?
If there is an acceptance that some people are more susceptible to vaccine damage, don't you think it's wrong for vaccines to be pushed on everyone without any attempt to understand individual susceptibility alongside a thorough cost/benefit analysis for each and every vaccine per individual?
On this topic which is way beyond the limits of "science" which by any account in the world of vaccinations- is completely missing, i.e. MMR- vaccine mixing and combinations..
Because all people and metabolisms are unique (DNA). I can only speak from experience- my 1st child naturally homebirthed and otherwise sound and completely healthy 2 year old almost entered into a wasting type syndrome after a round of 'MMR.'
If they are so safe why is the vaccine industry one of a "select" few with immunity.. no not to disease.. but litigation?
They are absolutely not safe as we all know.....package inserts, scientific papers, ill and dead people, immunity from accountability, socialised compensation programs....but the money interests wants us to believe they are safer than they are, or force us to take them because of some vague an irrational notion of the "greater good." All of these arguments are based on flawed science, flawed reasoning, bias and tyranny.
The only reason we are having this discussion is the horrific, observable consequence....the huge amount of devastating visible damage. What is astonishing is that people have tolerated the completely unnecessary destruction of their children for so long.
Yes we have this problem due to 'science,' and it's institutions- the gatekeepers, money, it's handlers and high priests- being exalted in making 'science' the religion in our society.
I believe it's Japan who separates out the MMR and their rates of autism aren't any different. We've had the combined MMR for decades; if combination was the problem we'd have seen a spike in reactions in the 60s or 70s, whenever it was that it first came out (sorry, I'm bring lazy and not checking exact dates, lol).
I'm not trying to get into the overarching debate, I am an in the middle person in that I think the big important ones that have been around for decades have been proven safe with time but I don't think everyone needs all the vaccines, and some people flat can't have any because of autoimmune disorders and such, which is why herd immunity is important. But the combo-as-problem idea doesn't really have any merit.
Also, you can't prove a negative (you can't definitively prove the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God does not exist; you can't definitely prove vaccines have nothing to do with autism. You can only say "there is this mountain of evidence which suggests this is the answer," which is why scientific data is always couched in that kind of language ("the data suggests x").
Exactly, cue up the identical twins study, where one is vaccinated and the other is not.
Well said!
Yes, true... good luck with your work.
WOW! Just WOW!
Thank you for doing all this effort of reviewing the paper. This is exactly how it should go. You first read the paper, giving us an understanding of what it is about. And then showing this really crappy photoshop, wth? Like why do people do this? I probably would not have noticed it but then again I have never done a PCR myself. But once you look at it, it is immediately obvious.
Exactly this! I have huge respect for you for doing that.
I'll try to push the post a bit, bear with me, this is a gem people should read. tip! 50
@reggaemuffin Thanks a lot for the support! Yes, I didn't write this article with the intention of making people feel dumb or to brag in a "see, I knew I was right all along" kind of way.
My ideal goal with this article is helping to dispel erroneous ideas, especially for those that don't have the expertise to dig deeper in this issue.
really great article, though I think it's tough to stress just how prevalent these practices are, especially given all the monetary incentives involved. I mean, just consider the hundreds of billions of dollars that can be extorted from people over the years to solve an intangible issue when "97% of all scientists agree" (as if 97% of anyone could even agree how to tie a shoe lace the "right" way)! lol
Link: I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How.
I will help too.
We are approaching the trending page :)
If only there were more people who supported legitimate scientific breakdown. As opposed to blindly voting on things that fit their world view (anti-vax supporters).
That is so refreshing, faith in humanity restored (it ebbs and flows)
With aluminum being a known neurotoxin, why put it vaccines in the first place? The same with mercury. Anyone can come up with scientific evidence for whatever it is they are trying to prove or dispute. I’m neither pro or anti vaccines. To me it’s ridiculous to put something that again is a known toxin into our bodies.
This is a valid concern. However, did you know that there is cyanide in apple seeds, as well as in almonds? However I doubt anyone would advise against consuming them or label them as dangerous.
There are tiny amounts of chemicals and elements that sound dangerous occurring naturally in foods or resources we consume. It's all about the dose and the context in which they are assimilated.
As one of my science teacher's put it once: it's not the same to get a droplet of chlorine on your skin, than submerging yourself in a pool filled with 100% chlorine!
In the case of vaccines, adjuvants help boosting the immune response to the vaccine to make it more effective (something like a "Facebook notification" for your immune system saying "hey, I'm here! You need to deal with me"). But the dose in which they are added has been calibrated to ensure they produce this "boost" effect without causing harmful toxic effects in humans.
In principle, yes, but as I had shown in this article, through critical analysis said evidence can be scrutinized and either be accepted or dismissed.
Yes I did know apple seeds contain cyanide. But as the saying goes, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." In this case the fear of fruit seeds and bitter almonds and other nuts is based on incomplete data. The compound containing cyanide is amygdalin. And amygdalin compound has four molecules. Two are glucose and the other two, cyanide and benzaldyhide. Those last two sound scary but they are not. They remain bound in the amygdalin molecule and are safely eliminated by the body. I still have a problem with manmade substances, vaccines, with known neurotoxin being injected into the body at any dose. Doesn’t make sense. In otherwords, it’s not natural to do so.
And to your second point about the scientists evidence and it being accepted or dismissed. That works both ways. You think vaccine companies science is any different? And why do vaccine manufacturers have complete immunity, no pun intended, for any harm that is done by there vaccines? No other industry is allowed such immunity. That’s a red flag right there.
Cyanide in apple and apricot seeds!! Yes also know as laetrile vitamin b17... Only releases cyanide in the presence of certain cancers thereby killing them.
Yes! Glad you countered that comment about cyanide. It's a pep peev of mine when people use those types of arguements. For the life of me I cannot understand how someone can be so educated and still regard eating something from nature as the same as something isolated in a lab and then injected through a needle. These arguments are used all the time. Such as with fluoride.
I find it hard to believe they believe their own statements. To me, it seems more likely they're being paid to make those statements. Aluminum is even more harmful when injected than when eaten. I barely passed high school and know this. What's her excuse?
Agreed. Common sense ain’t so common.
"Those last two sound scary but they are not. They remain bound in the amygdalin molecule and are safely eliminated by the body."
This is what the child wished for the tooth fairy to accomplish. Alas, the tooth fairy could not overcome the laws of chemistry. Instead, she came up with an idea! She remembered she had read in the Magus Magnus book that cyanide is released from amygdalin only when amygdalin enters a cancer cell. So she brought under way this neat study to prove that big pharma was withholding the cure all along!: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7033783
Ohhh, what's going on? Amygdalin does release cyanide to reach toxic blood levels? And even more proof, that amygdalin releases cyanide https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160427 ? How can this be? Ahhhhh.
Sorry, Mister. I forgot you had a PhD in chemistry. Amygdalin of course does not undergo any chemical reaction until its excretion from the human body.
Fun fact: Alcohol is poison :) Garlic is a neurotoxin (and probably many others I am too lazy to remember).
There was once an outcry for having Glyphosat in beer. Like 'oh no, there is a potential poison in our poison, what should we do?'
Like @irime already told you, adding a booster triggers an immune response. Probably similar to many natural remedies that 'strengthen the immune system' or like eating a bit of dirt.
As to the immunity of that industry, do you have any facts? Like actual harm done?
Facts to their immunity? Yes I do. Here you go -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
Actual harm done? Come on. You have brain just like me. There wouldn’t be a Vaccine Injury Trust Fund if there weren’t injuries! That’s an actual government agency for, wait for it, vaccine injuries. So yes there wouldn’t be this agency if there wasn’t actual harm being done. And there’s no science to refute there, the agency really does exist.
It's been proven that the immune system deals with the adjuvants separately from the other ingredients. This example you provide is excellent for demonstrating the flawed logic of how vaccines should work (hint they don't that's why you need booster shots).
Also consider the pathway on how it enters the body, through injection? How does any disease enter the body that way naturally? (so I don't mean during surgery) Aluminum is pretty harmless when eaten but injecting and using an emulsifier like polysorbate 80 to bring it into the brain is just criminal neglect of facts I'd say.
Exactly... I think half of what we understand as "modern Western medicine" is basically businessmen selling products with nothing else but profit in their minds.
Well that is not what doctors believe I hope...
What would Hippocrates say? yeah... I know he lived long ago. But it is a tradition in Western modern medicine to treat the minerals and substances that come naturally in the food we have eaten for hundreds of thousands of years like they were the same as when you produce them in a lab. But are they the same? is the cyanide in apples the same as cyanide you can find in a lab? Is it the same when you take that cyanide in the context of an apple, and without the apple (if it is possible, lets say, to take it out)?
There is no evidence that thimerosal actually resulted in adverse health effects in humans. Nevertheless it is no longer an ingredient in childhood vaccines (though still remains in adult vaccines like a flu shot). You ingest hundreds of toxins on a daily basis, you just don't know it. Toxins are all around us, and they are prevalent in "natural" sources. Biology is complicated, mercury exposure for example is way larger from the consumption of fish then from vaccinations. A fact that people argue is not relevant for children (however is a moot point since child hood vaccines do not contain the compound any longer). So now the only comparison is with adults, who get a larger exposure to mercury from tuna fish...
Do you think people should stop eating fish? Probably not.
“There is no evidence that thimerosal actually resulted in adverse health effects in humans. “
Actually, there’s plenty. Here’s just one.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/06/amp/proof-that-thimerosal-induces-autismlike-neurotoxicity.aspx
But I’m sure we can volley back and forth with articles backing up our differences. And once again on the subject of mercury, it’s a known neurotoxin. Why would you want that injected into you body? But this is all about choice ultimately.
I agree with you about our toxic filled world. And that’s why I limit my toxic exposure to the best of my ability. Your right about fish too. I don’t eat fish and it’s not just because of mercury. But that’s a completely different topic. I limit my mercury exposure as much as I can. Most people have silver fillings. But, unfortunately for them, they’re not silver, but up to 50% mercury. In their mouth people put mercury. That’s crazy. I make the choice not too. I appreciate your points of discussion. It’s up to each of us to educate ourselves. And do what we feel is best for ourselves and our families.
You can eat chlorella with your tuna, it binds to mercury pretty well:
I did know this. Yes. Thank you for sharing. I don’t eat fish for other reasons as well as the mercury
OK, for being a vegetarian or something else?
Well mercury isn’t the only toxin fish are swimming in. Fukushima nuclear disaster is still on going. Radiation is pouring into the Pacific Ocean from this non stop. It’s on going. No end in sight. Basically our oceans are so polluted I don’t eat anything that comes from them. To the best of my ability.
This is a beautiful piece of work you've put together here. I think honestly you broke this article down better than I have for any post I've ever made. You clearly explained the techniques, the logic of their use, and most importantly why this article is a fabrication. One additional piece of information to consider including for future work of this nature (and I hope you keep doing this!!) Is to show the background of the journal in which it was published. Is this a pay for play journal? Is their peer review? Your illustration of blatant photoshopping indicates that there is likely not. I am unfamiliar with this journal so I can't comment with out doing the research my self.
Again, fabulous post. Please please do this exact thing for other articles in the future. This is the sort of digestible science content I would LOVE to see more of on steemit.
Edit: I have looked up the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, it is an older journal been around since 1971, IS peer reviewed and has an impact factor of 3.3 which isn't huge but its also not insignificant. Honestly I don't understand how this article was accepted for publication considering the points described in this post. Most NOTABLY the doctoring of the western blot gel image.
She just raised the bar.
I fully agree with everything you say. This post is definitely one of the best steemit post I have every read in #science!
I agree that the breakdown is amazing however I don't agree with the 'pro'-vaccine bias esp. the title, which is misleading.
It's not misleading. Antivaccination stances are moronic and unsupported by scientific evidence.
You mean the fake science you are reffering too? Have you ever really delved into it like me for the past 3-4 years? I could say you're the one acting moronic by your statements.
Well you could say what ever you'd like. You would be wrong, just as you are about vaccines. Now run along and go play with your tin foil.
Prove me wrong then. I have lots of evidence on my blog.
The title is not misleading: There was a new article doing the rounds being regarded as an important piece of evidence supporting the claim that Aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines causes Autism.
I showed in my breakdown why this was not the case.
Yes it is because you could interpret it so that aluminum does not cause autism.
Don’t forget to flag people who are profiting from spreading fake news/conclusions.
Having explored this subject for a few years, not as an academic, medical researcher - but as a problem solver and general investigator with an interest in health and integrity - I can say that I have regularly been pointed to and found studies on 'both sides' of this controversy which have been found to be seriously lacking or blatantly fraudulent. What I have learned is that the general standard of science across the board of the vast number of papers that are regularly published can often be too low to give those papers any standing. There are some peer review board members who openly state that they themselves no longer value the peer review system as it is so corrupted with people being bought off and other issues.
All that said, I find it curious that a group would falsify results that are 'anti-vaccine' (in some senses), since there typically isn't much money to be made in doing so.. Unless the idea here is that the fruit and veg growers of the world have bought off some scientists to deceive us into dangerously empowering our own immune system with higher levels of nutritional intake. There are a few other possibilities that come to mind too.
The square block of grey on the image that is alleged to have been tampered with does look like a deliberate insertion - however, JPEG artifacts can be odd at times and I found that when I analysed the image by adjusting light/dark levels - the block was not a pure block of the same tone of grey - rather it actually does have artifacts in it too. These could have been the result of JPEG compression being applied when the image was uploaded to the web though. We would need to access the original image to find that out.
Given that this post represents an accusation of scientific misconduct and possibly fraud - what steps are being taken to expose this to those who may take action?
I would also like to know.
Falsifying results to confirm your a priori assumptions in a published paper is a good method (if it fails to be recognized by the referees) to get grab of further grants to sustain your position.
Seems unlikely that it is a JPEG compression artifact since it appears at EXACTLY the right spot for them to make their conclusions.
As this Ex VP of Pfizer (giant pharma corporation) makes clear - it is almost exclusively the case that such manipulation of science is the result of bribes from pharma corporations. There would need to be an investigation of who was offering grants for continuation of the work of the researchers.
I don't know how it works in Canada, but in Germany most academic researchers get their grants from governmental and privately funded (donation-based) charity organizations.
The level of subterfuge involved means that it is not always obvious on the surface where money is coming from - 'charities' are notoriously corrupt and a favourite vehicle for a variety of frauds. That said, I don't know anything about funding of research in Germany.
I don't know either way - I would accept that it was deliberate fraud, but I always remain open in the face of the unknown. We could flip the logic around and say 'it's likely to be a JPEG compression artefact, since the square appears at EXACTLY the right spot for it appear to be fraud science' - without a full investigation I think there is an element of this that is effected by pre-existing bias.
This is by far not the only flaw of the study, @irime only touched the tip of the iceberg. You could write two equally long articles about the other issues. I am surprised how this paper went through peer-review as this. Likely, the selected referees (probably only two) were not fit enough to judge it as the methods of the study are not much related to inorganic biochemistry.
The authors wrote a whole review supporting their view and their view only while the data they actually present is rather scarce and weak even if assumed they didn't fake any results.
Fair enough - if that is the case then it should be taken as a general warning about blindly trusting the accuracy of published scientific studies, in general - as much as with this specific study and topic. I have seen many cases where studies were exposed to be nonsense and they were often the ones being used to promote the mainstream medical positions - including the pro-vaccine ones.
Yes, each time a dubious study like this is published, the reputation of scientifically obtained results and the trust into the self-regulatory apparatus of the scientific community is undermined further.
I agree and after many years of investigating all manner of frauds and criminal behaviour that weakens humanity, I can say that the old Roman Court method of asking 'Who benefits?' is valid.
Who really benefits from filling the human mind space with false information?
The benefit for researchers looking for grants is relatively small in comparison to the benefits they would gain from doing real research that benefits humanity - so if this really is a case of researcher greed/fraud just for grants, then these 'researchers' must be among the most limited of thinkers around.. Given that the risks are high for them, I question that this was the real motive.
I would very much like to see a real, independent investigation into this that is thorough and transparent - but I won't hold my breath. Like it or not, the vested interests and massive money involved in the 'scientific research' arena means that completely pure actions that are untainted by anyone within the system appear to be quite rare.
I'm a computer engineer and I have studied, among other things, digital image and video processing and I can assure without any doubt that no JPEG or other image compression technique can present that kind of compression artifact.
If you are really trying to say that, not only you are wrong, but you are delusional.
I am also a computer engineer and I have also studied these topics - as I said, I can completely accept that this is a case of fraud science and I am not judging that this definitely is a compression artefact. I am though, aware that compression artefacts do not always conform to expectation and since you can clearly see some artefacts within the image after level adjustment, in the interests of a thorough investigation - the original image should be sought.
How would you prove that no compression algorithm can or would produce such an outcome?
Have a look at the algorithms then. It is not possible for artifact to produce such big artifacts. What they can do (and in fact you can see them in the images above) is to introduce noise around the edges or small blocks near areas of the image with many different colors due to the quantization step that tries to reduce to much the number of colors to compress the image more.
Artifact should be consistent on the same image. Look at the image. There are lot of artifacts because it has probably been zoomed and compressed quite badly. How can it be that a perfect rectangle appears exactly where it is needed (how convenient) and it has no artifact around its borders?
I don't understand if you are kidding and just like to start useless and meaningless discussion, or if you are serious.
Provide me with an image of your choose and settings for the JPEG compression (or other standards if you prefer) that produce similar results as the ones in the article, and I will believe that you may be right.
It is true that I have not looked at the actual compression algorithms, but it is also true that it is typical for proprietary algorithms to be used by software that is not in the public domain, so I have no way of knowing if the algorithms that I look at are the same as might be used by someone else.
I have no intention to start meaningless discussion - I have simply been involved in some forensic examination of images previously where artefacts were shown to have been created which did not conform in any way to expectations of the investigators - yet they were there.
I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that for my own preference, if I were examining this, in the interests of being thorough and not jumping to conclusions (since jumping to conclusions is the single most common cause of human dysfunction that I am aware of) - I would be looking for the original image before personally saying that I was sure either way. I have no problem with you being sure without such investigation - we all have our own parameters for the levels of investigation we will accept of such things before we will consider something to be proven.
Wauw, I also thought JPEG artifacts but not that obvious, well done. I must say after reading all through the article and comments there's good work being done but that bias is prevalent.
@ura-soul and @kafkaanarchy84:
As I wrote at the bottom of my article, I am not the first person to write a rebuttal of this article, and these researchers have been previously flagged for engaging in scientific misconduct and reporting fraudulent results.
Therefore, a quick search for the articles of these authors by those who could be considering using it as a reference would reveal that this information is not trustworthy. Furthermore, in the case of someone with some training in experimental Molecular Biology, like myself, it is very obvious that the methods used are substandard and the experiments are poorly designed, to begin with.
What I don't get is if they were deliberately trying to doctor their Western blot because of the results, why did they not just run another blot and forget to put their primers in to get zero signal rather then do a hack job of cutting and pasting digitally. I personally don't know what to make of the square as it looks unique with fairly smooth edges however it is not uniform itself either.
Who's to say that its the authors who tampered with the image? How many other people did the image go through in order to get published? But that is just the irrational conspiracy theorist in me possibly looking to get a reaction.
Something that we haven't really talked about, assuming that the data is real, is the fact that there was some neuroinflammation in the brain as a result of stimulating the immune system distally. While it doesn't prove a link to autism, it also commonly has neuroinflammation in the brain.
Also @irime I didn't see any studies in the "bonus link" which even mention aluminum so i don't see how you can say it is evidence for aluminum being safe.
Great work! This is how information should be verified. However, just a few quick notes. One, I don't know you or your credentials. Based on your writing you are highly educated. Definitely more than I. But how do we verify you? Social media just isn't the platform for critical information. Could your critical analysis of this article be published by a credible journal? Two, assuming that you are credible which I do believe, you are really only showing how inconclusive and poorly executed this research is. The headline kinda baits people in to forming an opinion one way or another that vaccines with aluminum are either safe or unsafe vs Autism. You only disprove their research. Some people might believe that this means Aluminum is safe in vaccines. I think it means we should do more research. The statistical correlation between Autism and vaccines is too high to ignore. Something is happening and someone needs to figure it out.
Excellent points here.
Thanks
@dinodog1, thanks for commenting and stating your concerns, I addressed some of them in my response to @kafkanarchy84 right above yours ^
Quoting Stephen Jay Gould, the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning. The problem with said correlations when it comes to autism (the significance of which could also be argued) is that 1) the increase in cases reported could be also attributed simply to the improved detection and diagnosed of the condition, as well as the inclusion of other neurological disorders within the same term (since autism, like cancer, is not a single disease, but a term used to group a spectrum of disorders that share some common symptoms) and 2) There are many other variables involved that would be difficult to separate and discard in order to convincingly narrow down the cause to the vaccination. Maybe I should discuss this further in another post since I think is an important and interesting thing that can help us all to understand scientific studies and research in general.
I am sorry I don't mean to offend you but what you just wrote is complete non-sense to me. Stephen Jay Gould probably could have improved his work had he lived long enough to see what theoretical physicists have been working on today.
The thought that "correlation implies cause" is an invalid assumption? Yes correlation absolutely and positively must imply cause and simply that. Without correlation we have no real reason to invest into discovery. Are you going to waste valuable time researching a topic that is not based upon some correlation? Without patterns there are no real problems just unaccounted for randomness.
Early on in the debate, I would have agreed with your statement that improved diagnosis and detection have adversely affected the statistical analysis. However, based on just common sense alone, we are clearly far past that point now. There are simply too many cases of parents experiencing the same issues with their children and vaccination. It is important to note here that the majority of vaccination is safe. Statistics can prove that as well. Here in the USA we should be questioning the number a vaccines required, the age when they are administered, their effective timeline, and one vaccine in particular the MMR.
I would love to hear your comments on "many other variables". I see this as a weak argument. It is the job of the scientific community to set up parameters during research which account for such variables. Research must be conducted properly no matter how difficult. You must keep pushing forward until you discover a way to conduct it properly.
One more thing to note, you choose to analyze just one research paper. There are many more out there with similar findings. Just because you found one with bogus research doesn't mean that the problem doesn't really exist. You kinda cherry picked it. I would like to see you find another paper on the same topic that you cannot dispel the research. One that in your own opinion shows that they did the research properly.
"Anti-vaxxer" here. Upvoted to prove this is not about "us vs. them." It's not very scientific to begin with a clickbait title that misrepresents the study's conclusions, is it?
As per your comment on my article:
I saw this and am concerned as well. If those truly are "photoshopped" I am just wondering if this was a comparison portion of the study. I don't understand the purpose/intent of that section of the study. I would like to know your credentials for making said analysis, as such an obvious grey block and clearly duplicated images would be pretty hard to enter into a professional medical journal if they were fraudulent attempts. Maybe you don't understand the intent?
If it truly is fallacious I am glad to denounce it and still maintain that more research is warranted regarding vaccine safety based on hundreds of studies, reports, and documented side effects. This isn't about "anti-vax" vs. "vax" but about being scientific. I find the laughing face with the tears emoji to be indicative of this type of puerile attitude, and sadly that is what the "conversation" has become in so many ways.
You may want to reconsider mocking people who have had their children damaged by adverse reactions to vaccines which have been directly admitted by organizations such as the CDC (they are in the midst of yet another scandal now) to be results of mitochondrial dysfunction and reaction. The head of the CDC said on national television that vaccines can and do trigger symptoms that resemble those of Autism. Just youTube "Julie Gerberding CNN."
Currently top CDC scientist William Thompson is saying that significant data linking the MMR vaccine to Autism in African American boys was simply thrown in the garbage can.
We all care about our kids. Let's work together on finding out what is.
@kafkanarchy84:
Thanks, as I said to @reggaemuffin above, I didn't write this article with the intention of making people feel dumb or to brag about being right, but did so in an attempt to dispel some misinformation that could have been spread as a result of this article making the rounds.
The title, while provocative, is not misrepresenting the studies conclusions; the study was being regarded as an important piece of evidence supporting the claim that Aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines causes Autism.
I showed in my breakdown why this was not the case.
While I have no intentions of making scans of my master's and bachelor's titles and submit my publications and manuscripts just to gain some credibility from strangers on the internet, I can say that, as I mentioned in my article, I have 5-7 years of experience designing, conducting and analyzing the same kind of experiments that were used in this article (PCR, Western blotting). I could have included many other reasons why the methods they chose were not adequate in the first place, why the way they made the graphs and analysed the data was flawed, etc. but I figured it would bee too comprehensive and technical for the non-scientific reader and honestly, the MS Paint cut and paste job was outrageous enough to get the point across.
Their intention in that experiment was to show that after adding aluminum the protein of interest (which is part of the inflammation response) became more abundant than in conditions without the aluminium dose. Apparently, since such difference was not reflected by their results, they decided to just cover up the inconvenient band of protein (in the sample without the aluminium treatment) and then make the statistical analysis based on that. You cannot work like this, just discarding the results that you don't like!
What laughing face in the verge of tears? I didn't use such a thing anywhere in my article.
I agree with you in this point, and I certainly wish that more people had such an open and reasonable attitude as you have shown here towards discussing this issue. I think both sides have attitudes that are not helpful for the debate: the antivaxxers seem to have a recalcitrant attitude against scientific evidence as they seem to be convinced that everyone is out to get them mobilized by harmful intent, and the pro-vaccine people tend to fall into easy sarcastic comments and cynicism that only make the other side feel more resentful and unwilling to listen–as it's obvious that you won't convince anyone if you open your discussion by stating that everyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically an idiot.
Again, where did I do such a thing? In any case, you can read my stance about people who might have actually gotten some life-altering condition as a result of a vaccine in my reply to @clumsysilverdad at the very top of the comment section. I am not denying this could actually happen, I am saying that simply this is not the case for the big majority of people that gets vaccinated. However, it is very important that these exceptional cases in which a person developed a life-altering condition as a result of vaccination should be thoroughly documented and researched in order to get some insight as to what went wrong; the negative consequences of vaccination in these cases are so severe that it is crucial to find a way to stop it.
Thanks for this in-depth reply. I was not doubting your credentials, per se, or asking for scans of your degrees ;)
I appreciate it more than you know. The references you were confused about (regarding the mockery, etc) were directed at another commenter here, and not you.
I still have my doubts as to how--if what you assume the researchers did is really true--the study could have ever been published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry in the first place. I mean, to just chop/copy/paste in such an obvious fashion and then submit one's study to a reputable (as far as I know) journal... Something doesn't add up there, to me.
I really appreciate your open stance. Many "anti-vaxxers" are extremely recalcitrant, I agree. Most, however, care about children and the health of their fellow humans as much as anyone else. Indeed, that is why so they are so vocal.
I have seen too much to blindly trust laughably unscientific organizations like the CDC, etc, and have done my best to make an informed decision regarding vaccination. What I really want in the medical industry and published science is transparency. Sadly, even according to former and current editors of such prestigious medical journals as the NEJM and The Lancet, that is simply not what we are getting.
I look forward to following you on here, and hope maybe we can dialogue on this further, at some point. Recalcitrance is not a goal state of being of mine, and I am always willing to change in light of new information and evidence.
Cheers.
Graham
Well said! The problem is that some have already decided that the High Priests of Scientism would not lie to us. It is the responsibility of every consumer, parent, doctor, to be willing to question and examine the true science behind vaccine safety. I believe the case is still open even though so many people will insist that the case is closed. If the referenced article in this post is forging data, it is not a compelling case against vaccines.
People will not begin to take this issue seriously until someone they know develops symptoms of autism spectrum after being 'immunized'. The medical system will never suggest any connection to vaccines. It doesn't take a genius to begin to wonder: could the foreign substance that was injected into that person's bloodstream have something to do with it? @ironshield
"In fact, I can bet my entire tea collection–which I need for daily survival– that not one of them actually read the article (or fully understood what was being said in it)"
I read this, did I win? lmao
edit: Alright I finished the article, and its probably the best one I've read on this website
Without a doubt one of the best posts I've read on steemit.
Doubt there is much more to say other than well done @irime ! I'm very happy that you're here and to be connected to you on steemit and I look forward to all that is to come from you!
Let's make the world sane again! ^^
@fredrikaa, Thanks a lot for such a motivating comment! Hopefully we can help to demystify Science and promote an interest for looking further into these issues. Greetings from Berlin!