Syrian Measles Vaccine Deaths

It looks like the 15 kids in Syria that died after getting vaccinated for measles died because the vaccine was mixed with a neuro-muscular blocker by mistake.

Here’s the thing, The Institute for Safe Medical Practices published a report in 2005 pointing out that this mixup is fairly common. They’d received 50 reports of it happening in the US in the past year.

So here’s my question: if you get a measles vaccine, are you more likely to be injected with Atracurium than you would be to get measles if you don’t get the measles vaccine?

There are something like 600 US measles cases in the last year, but they are probably way better reported than the mix-ups, and the mix-ups may have affected many people each.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/09/18/syrian-infant-deaths-vaccine-mixups-with-atracurium-not-uncommon/

Cargo Cult Science

Definition: A discipline is a cargo cult science if authors often ignore rather than rebut results or possibilities contradictory to their theory.

Source (more or less): Richard P Feynman, Cargo Cult Science http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

According to Feynman, it is incumbent on a scientist to emphasize everything that could be wrong with his theory, not sweep it under the rug. When this is widely disregarded, cargo cult science results.

In post 1 and other posts above, I have demonstrated by explicit lists of citations that there is a sizeable scientific literature indicating dangers and problems with vaccines.
I have demonstrated by explicit search of safety surveys etc. that the vaccine promoters at the CDC and the Institute of Medicine and Pediatric organizations do not cite, discuss, or rebut this literature.

Vaccinism is a Cargo Cult Science.
QED

More Confirmation Bias

I’ve been looking around for studies that injected children with placebo or vaccine randomly, and study their health (not just whether they got some specific disease supposed to be prevented). The one I discussed in the last post on confirmation bias is actually the only one I have found that tracked kids for more than 4 months. I haven’t looked incredibly hard, but if anybody knows of others please let me know. Right now the only placebo study of a vaccine of which I am cognizant that injected kids and tracked them for more than 4 months reported the vaccine was hugely damaging to their immune systems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139

As an aside: its more common to see studies that use another vaccine instead of a placebo!
As another aside: the only study I know that fed animals GMO’s and tracked them for more than 3 months found lots of cancer.

In the search, I came upon another (non-placebo) study that claimed that injecting pregnant women with flu vaccine made their infants when born less likely to be hospitalized for flu. They studied this by looking at why hospitalized infants were hospitalized and finding a smaller fraction of the time it was for flu if the mother was vaccinated than otherwise. Unfortunately, they didn’t comment on the fact that their data were at least equally explainable by assuming the children of the vaccinated mothers got sick more rather than got the flu less. Pure confirmation bias to assume one and ignore the other. I’d bet on the damage rather than the protection.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058908

Correction: I previously critiqued another study on TDaP but think I misunderstood how it was done.
Looking at it again it seems all right.

Vaccines and Autism

UPI Reporter Dan Olmsted went looking for the autistic Amish. In a community where he should have found 50 profound autistics, he found 3. The first was an adopted Chinese girl who’d had vaccinations rushed before she was shipped from China and more here on the way to the adoptive parents. The second had been normal until developing classic autism symptoms within hours of being vaccinated. The third there was no information about.

He published his findings in 2005. And I’ve just heard about it. That’s another way you get crowd think: the rational information can’t propagate fast enough.

http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/e.4.pdf

A new paper appeared in the Journal Of Public Health and Epidemiology. The authors report finding residual human DNA as a contaminant in vaccines, vastly more than the FDA limits. They find extensive correlations between getting vaccines with human DNA and becoming autistic.

Leaving aside the statistical case, we have now been told that vaccines are currently contaminated with human DNA as well as mycoplasmas, and have in the past been contaminated with various living viruses such as HIV and SV-40.

So far as I can tell, the media, the CDC, and big pharma have so far completely ignored the latest contaminant.
Which come to think of it, is par for the course. No wonder there are contaminants.

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0018qJxNgDGtrzdR0wBSxkEXHTc4alQ6yjU0nlEC8pVdXQV0KNiXkiN3M3zhaeB5C8N5WPIkivjtyqITcdqyAaSaJ7VafibbV3oIL3Nt113t4n-iwPEfQ4y5b30840f_UJ0bfrwbR4jxHrbmd0EsQUXncIzKXzhY_vadQtujUJ3H44XowtAffPDj2PQ3cTa6faMTsL9_Pw2kX6DF0A3w4zWF_RuVGurhmWm&c=NDm6aYzxK_m32GoGx89Qw8nnhw0uIcJS-qfxLW953yxF4MCCVrqgrQ==&ch=kOQlKNF97ZhIBXf8LBin_tb_Ly683terEF6tPORekJOWD96Lzp8l6g==

Confirmation Bias

I came across an excellent example of the confirmation bias that is enforced by and contributes to crowd-think in fields like Global Warmism and Vaccinism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139

Increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine.

ABSTRACT: We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had an increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses.

Nice abstract, short and to the point. Only, when they say in the last sentence of the abstract “temporary”, that’s a euphimism for “a defect in their immune system that persisted as long as we studied them, and we hope it eventually goes away”, and when they say “Being protected against Influenza”, they are saying something their study did not in fact provide statistically significant evidence for. What it did find was they got 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses.

If vaccines are punching gaps in immune systems, how long till viruses evolve to exploit the weaknesses?

The Vaccine Design Procedure

Here’s my take on the current vaccine design procedure. As always, I’d love to be corrected on any point.

(1) They start with something that is undeniably toxic to inject– a deadly virus.
(2) They tinker with this until they can inject it without its causing an unacceptable number of side effects within 48 hours of the shot while still raising titer levels for a year or two. (This is basically the definition of passing clinical trials.)
NB: From the package inserts you can see that having a sizeable minority or for some vaccines even a majority of the kids report side effects such as redness, swelling, tenderness, drowsiness, irritability, vomiting etc is apparently acceptable, with the frequency and severity of the symptoms increasing as the vaccine is repeated multiple times, and being worse still in some testing on kids also getting other vaccines at the same time. Also, some serious fraction like 1/1000 of the kids in the clinical trials *die* during the trial, but if it doesn’t happen within 72 hours they put that down to background because kids are dying all the time. Of course, they never compare the background death rate in unvaccinated kids, of which they have no idea. And when it does happen multiple times within 72 hours in the clinical trials, they sometimes chalk it up to some other cause. CF the Tripedia package insert.[1]
(3) The tinkering inherently involves adding dangerous substances like mercury and aluminum, some of which are added because they are toxic (so can even kill viruses or bacteria) and some of which are added because they provoke the immune system out of its normal operating range. The added substances are specifically selected for this, the salts of aluminum they use for example are particularly ones that the kidneys can’t readily eliminate. Of course, the normal operating range of the immune system has been highly tuned by evolution, so going out of it may be expected to cause some problem. Many if not all of these substances are bio-accumulative and known neuro-toxins. (Incidentally, although the CDC claims they have removed mercury as a precaution from children’s vaccines other than flu, the Tripedia package insert above explicitly says its in Tripedia as a residue of manufacturing process.)
(4) The injection process inherently bypasses the digestive system, thus injecting intact antigens and poisons directly into the blood in a way that never happened in nature. For example, 99.75% of dietary aluminum is pooped out without ever reaching the blood, but virtually 100% of aluminum in the vaccines will eventually make it into the blood and thence much of it will pass into organs.(Indeed, they are bypassing four (4) separate filters that had evolved apparently for the purpose of keeping neuro-toxins like aluminum out of the baby’s immune system and brain:(1) the mother’s digestion kept most aluminum from reaching her blood, (2) the placenta filtered out the aluminum and toxins, constructing the fetus in a clean room, (3) the breast milk has very low aluminum, and (4) the infant’s digestive system filtered 99.75% of that. )
(5) They do not check the vaccines for mycoplasma contamination, which they have long known was likely, which is said to be happening, and which is suggested by scientific literature to cause serious problems in the long term.[2],
(6) They do not in the assessment of whether the tinkered product is still toxic attempt any assay whatsoever of long term effects, even though there are solid physical and empirical arguments such long term effects are precisely what you should expect for a variety of reasons:
(a) most of the aluminum in a shot stays localized for weeks in the muscle where it was injected, slowly leaking into the blood, from where it is likely in a form the kidneys can’t readily eliminate,
(b) There is the possibility of interfering with development in children. The animal studies of both antigen injection and aluminum show problems in the adult animal following vaccination of infant animals, not immediately after the vaccination.
The package inserts routinely say things like:”Tripedia vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.” They do not perform placebo studies, where vaccine getters are compared to unvaccinated people. At best they compare people who got some vaccines to people who got other vaccines.
(7) They virtually ignore the interaction of vaccines, or the possibilities (strongly suggested by the animal literature) that too many vaccines could overload the immune system and cause auto-immune disease, or that vaccines given at critical times in development could cause problems. The safety studies invariably compare individuals getting one vaccine plus others to individuals getting others, and there is no cogent paper sensitive to early and often or to total aluminum load that I’ve been able to find, that doesn’t suggest these things are dangerous.
(8) Not infrequently it becomes very likely that some vaccine has indeed caused a large number of immediate deaths[3] or immediate miscarriages[4] or infertilities or put a bunch of kids in a coma [5] or injected a large number of people with other contaminating live viruses suspected of causing cancer and possibly originating AIDS[6]. In the numerous events where a serious problem is discovered plainly and/or becomes public knowledge, they do their best to keep it quiet, although they may withdraw or fix the vaccine. Or they may not. Even when a co-author comes forward to claim fraud and misconduct (not only Thompson, but also the insiders suing Merck over alleged fraud in the Mumps trials[7]) they don’t withdraw the papers or the vaccines. Moreover its become clear that virtually the entire commercial media with the exception of some foreign or alternative web-sites is in lockstep compliance with suppressing questions about vaccines. How many problems have they hidden we don’t even know about?
(9) The vaccine manufacturers are completely indemnified from any damages by an act of Congress.
(10) CDC and FDA honchos routinely go on to and/or come from lucrative positions at big Pharma.

What could go wrong?

Citations for assertions I haven’t bothered to cite can mostly be found at

http://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/03/08/example-1-pediatrician-belief-is-opposite-the-published-scientific-evidence-on-early-vaccine-safety/

[1] http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fdownloads%2Fbiologicsbloodvaccines%2Fvaccines%2Fapprovedproducts%2Fucm101580.pdf&ei=mqgEVOihHY78yQS3hILwDg&usg=AFQjCNF0WAJF5QHgpChNs4Ej0BTpH7rhTQ&sig2=4mwVJ5Ir0ZFQ7OFTv6XsRA&bvm=bv.74115972%2Cd.aWw
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk-RMI4qNvA
[3] http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/05/swine-flu-shot-side-effects-beginning-to-take-their-toll.aspx
[4] http://vactruth.com/2012/11/23/flu-shot-spikes-fetal-death/
[5] http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/216/216ra176.abstract
[6] http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=13EAAF22CDA367BB3C2F94D2CD90EF7B
[7] http://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mumps_vaccine_False_Claims_Act.html

CDC whistleblower and their current position on autism

Last week, a CDC whistleblower, senior scientist at the CDC for more than a decade, said that he and coauthors had committed misconduct in changing the critieria for their study after the first criteria showed that blacks getting MMR before 36 months had 3 times as much autism as those who got it after. This was a study the CDC had very prominently cited as showing safety, the cover up of the unwanted data is apparently documented to have gone all the way to the head of CDC, who has since left to take a presumably lucrative position at Merck. The most interesting thing about this affair to me, was the fact that the entire media except for a few alternative websites completely ignored it, except for one or two belated and slanted mentions. So you out there reading this, you should wonder what else they have suppressed from your knowledge.
The passages below (and the citation numbers) are mostly excerpted from post1 on this blog.

Of course this kind of age dependent effect in a genetically distinct subgroup is exactly what you might expect from the animal results.
Injections into infant animals of simple antigens, never mind antigen-aluminum combos, caused long-term brain damage when the injections occurred during critical periods in development, even when such injections would have been harmless at other times [2,sec 4.4; 5; 6].

Meanwhile, the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/antigens.html is currently touting another study by the same lead author as its flagship argument that vaccines don’t cause autism. In so doing, even assuming this study is honest and correct, they are still and in broad daylight committing the same kind of misconduct of finding a way to slice the data that allows them to make the claims they want. The paper they cite by DeStefano et al [20] has been cited as reporting: “The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by ‘Too Many Vaccines Too Soon’”[21]. Unfortunately this paper, as indicated in its title, “Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism”, compares patients who received more antigens rather than patients who receive more aluminum adjuvants or more or earlier vaccines. This compares one group of vaccinated patients to another, and there is no reason to believe either group had more aluminum, nor more or earlier vaccines, nor does the paper make such a claim. So they wouldn’t find a connection even if adjuvant aluminum or many early vaccines were the sole cause of autism.

According to table 1 in DeStefano, DTP has 3004 antigens, while no other vaccine except typhoid, which hardly appears in the data set, has a large number. So what their study effectively compares are high-antigen patients, those who got DTP, who score over 3004 antigens, and low antigen patients, who got other vaccines such as DTaP but did not get DTP, who score several dozen antigens if they got everything else but typhoid. Their claimed results indicate that DTP isn’t dramatically more likely to produce autism than DTaP, in patients who also got other vaccines. What’s particularly frustrating about this is it looks to me like (assuming they were honest about other things and their statistics is ok in other ways I haven’t checked), if they just reanalyzed their data to weight by adjuvant content rather than antigens, replace table 1 with aluminum table and process, they would have a more pertinent result. Also if they replaced table 1 with the constant 1 per vaccine, they would have a more interesting result.

[20] “Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism” by Frank DeStefano, Cristofer S. Price, and Eric S. Weintraub, Journal of Pediatrics (www.jpeds.com), DOI 10.1016 2013.02.001

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2813%2900144-3/abstract

[21] http://www.jpeds.com/content/JPEDSDeStefano

Journal of Pediatrics editorial, March 29, 2013, “The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by ‘Too Many Vaccines Too Soon’”

[2] Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? J Inorg Biochem. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99 http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf

[5] M.A. Galic, K. Riazi, J.G. Heida, A. Mouihate, N.M. Fournier, S.J. Spencer, L.E. Kalynchuk, G.C. Teskey, Q.J. Pittman, The Journal of Neuroscience 28 (2008) Postnatal Inflammation Increases Seizure Susceptibility in Adult Rats

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/28/27/6904.full

[6] Metabolic Brain Disease, Volume 26, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 237-240, Peripheral immune challenge with viral mimic during early postnatal period robustly enhances anxiety-like behavior in young adult rats Konat, G. W., Lally, B. E. , Toth, A. A.,Salm, A. K. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21643765

Journal of Pediatrics Refused to Get Vaccine Paper Reviewed

I sent them a paper that directly contradicts and cogently critiques their editorial and cites (and links, see for yourself) dozens of main stream peer reviewed papers not considered in previous safety surveys. The papers suggest huge problems, for example, that early vaccines are killing 4 US babies in 1000, and some of the biggest culprits, btw, are likely vaccines like Hep B for which there is no reasonable argument to give them so early. Their response is to refuse to consider the paper, or even send it to referees. Also, all my new citations are within the last 10 years, many within the last few years. The easiest way to see Le Bon Crowd think in the sciences: they have closed their minds (and the minds of any Pediatricians who might read my paper). When everybody assumes they are right and refuses to look at new evidence, you have crowd think for obvious reasons.

Ref.:  Ms. No. 2014624
The Published Data Indicates Early Adjuvanted Vaccines Are Dangerous
The Journal of Pediatrics

Dear Dr. [Philosopher],

Your manuscript has been evaluated by the Editors.  We are sorry to inform you that we will not be able to publish your manuscript in The Journal of Pediatrics.

Because of limited space, we are able to accept <20% of submitted manuscripts.  In reaching an editorial decision, the Editors considered the priority for publication, the quality of the manuscript, the novelty of the observation, and appropriateness for our readership.  

If a manuscript does not fulfill the requirements of The Journal of Pediatrics, we do not send it out for peer review.  This allows the authors to obtain a prompt decision, and to prepare their manuscript for resubmission elsewhere without delay.

We are sorry that we cannot allow resubmission.  Thank you for sending this paper for our consideration.  

Sincerely,

Sarah S. Long, M.D.
Associate Editor

William F. Balistreri, M.D.
Editor

/rlh

Crowd think in Economics

I’m just starting to read Debunking Economics by Steve Keen

He describes Neoclassic economics (which has marginalized all other flavors from Academia) as a classic crowd in the passage below:

A major reason for Bernanke’s inability to accept that the core of neoclassical economics is `irrelevant or at least significantly flawed’ …[is] faith [that] emanates from the seductive nature of the neoclassical vision. It portrays capitalism as the perfect system, in which the market ensures that everything is just right…
This faith is maintained by a paradoxical, transcendental truth: *neoclassical economists don’t understand neoclassical economics*. Their belief that it is a coherent, comprehensive theory of how a market economy operates is based on a profound ignorance of the actual foundations of the theory.
In one sense, their ignorance is utterly justified, because they are behaving in the same way that professionals do in genuine sciences like physics. Most physicists don’t check what Einstein actually wrote on the Theory of Relativity, because they are confident that Einstein got it right, and that their textbooks accurately communicate Einstein’s core ideas. Similarly most “economists don’t check to see whether core concepts like `supply and demand microeconomics’ or `representative agent macroeconomics are properly derived from well-grounded foundations, because they simply assume that if they’re taught by the textbooks, then there must be original research that confirms their validity.
     In fact, the exact opposite is the case: *the original research confirms that these concepts are false*. Virtually every concept that is taught as gospel in the textbooks has been proved to be unsound in the original literature.
     If they actually appreciated what the foundations were — and how utterly flawed they really are — then neoclassical economists would run a mile from their beliefs, and feel compelled to look for alternatives. But they have no knowledge of the actual state of neoclassical economics because their education shields them from it, right from their very first exposure to economic theory.”

Debunking Economics p17-18 Steve Keen

I have to take issue with his analogy to physicists. It doesn’t really matter whether you read Einstein’s exact words, but I certainly understood the derivation from first principles for everything I knew, and where there were potential conceptual problems (such as rigorous mathematics not being fully worked out by rigorous mathematicians) I was aware of that too. I have the impression that’s true of all competent physicists for all core physics. That’s why studying physics requires 7 years of dedication. I have observed very strong physicists swept up in Global Warmism without actually thinking it through to the scientific basis, and seen them shy away from looking at it when I asked, but for core physics I believe we all verify logically. That’s probably a huge part of the difference between physics and economics, or any other mushy field.

By the way, after several days delay, the journal assigned an MS number to my paper on vaccine safety, and I think they are reviewing it. Stay tuned.

Le Bon Crowd Think In Global Warmism

Its been suggested to me that I should provide as well a debunking of Global Warmism. The problem with writing one, is, I’m bored with the subject. I’ve been debunking GW for literally decades. And, of course, its a thankless task because Le Bon tells us, you will never disabuse a crowd of its illusions using logic. So I’m not going to write one, but I’ll provide a few things.

First, I’ll provide a link to a discussion of the group think and sociology and punishment of dissent involved in Global Warmism: Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? by Richard S. Lindzen.

Second, since Le Bon tells us, crowds reason by jumping from image to image without logical justification, and crowds are led by providing images, I’ll provide a link to debunk perhaps the most important image in the history of global warmism, Al Gore’s Ice Core chart. Recall how important this was in forming the myth? Note that, it turned out the rise in CO2 followed the rise in temperature by hundreds of years, and likely occurred for the same reason that a coke can fizzes if you let it warm before opening it: cold water holds less dissolved CO2 than warm water. As Le Bon remarked, the Crowd didn’t care about the logic in jumping to its conclusion.

Third, another image, the hockey stick graph. Recall how this graph, unfortunately, was created by poor mathematics , and by suppression of data showing very fast warming before 1550 and recent decline. The crowd didn’t care the image wasn’t logical. This graph formed the centerpiece of the IPCC report back in the day and launched much of the crowd think momentum that continues the movement. Note that the data that disproves the theory should be the most interesting to scientists not in the grip of crowd think– but we have academic scientists hiding their own most interesting data.

Fourth, let us take Le Bon’s advice, and fight images with images. Here is a link to a blog post discussing the 400,000 year old Greenland Ice Core data. Check out these images, and see if that shakes your Global Warmism. Greenland Ice Core Data.

Oh, and the image discussion wouldn’t be complete without this. Polar Bear Population Thriving, with cute photos.