On most questions where a majority with authority is facing a minority of dissenters or skeptics, the majority is delusional.
IOW, you are living in the Matrix; much of what you and people believe is fundamentlaly wrong.
Reason 1 is that the majority forms its view by circular reasoning, and rejects any attempt at logical discussion without considering it seriously, so it is prone to delusion.
Reason 2 is a minority wouldn’t be holding out without a good reason, because they are punished for their opposition with scorn and hatred at least. The usual reason they are so stubborn is they are defending rational truth.
Reason 3 is there’s often big money to be made or political power to be gained by influencing the majority opinion. Rationality doesn’t have a press agent, and there’s no money in swaying the minority position.
Basically every paper in the vaccine safety literature is plainly so confounded as to be useless. Since there are no Randomized Placebo Controlled (RPC) trials supporting vaccines, virtually all studies report on the association (or lack thereof) between vaccines and some iatrogenic condition. But parents who believe vaccines made their kids sick, stop vaccinating them, which systematically moves sick or vaccine damaged kids in the studies into the “low vaccine”, “low thimerisol”, or etc. bin. This invalidates most studies supporting safety (and the few remaining ones suck for other reasons). Numerous studies report incredible preventative effects for vaccines, presumably because of this corruption, like having more thimerisol or more MMR’s is strongly preventative of autism and other mental development issues, or like having more vaccines was strongly preventative of atopy, apparently even years before patients got the vaccines. The fact this confounding factor is overlooked demonstrates extreme confirmation bias and is the defining factor of Cargo Cult Science according to R.P. Feynman. The above is point 3 out of 10 from
Its painful to bear views that make many think I’m an imbicile and dislike me. So please, if anybody has a rational argument why any of this is wrong, I beg to be enlightened. I’ve set up a diagram for the purpose that will support you to add your criticism exactly where it is pertinent.…
The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies
Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to
the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule; Board on
Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine
ISBN 978-0-309-26702-1 230 pages (2013)
The most interesting thing about this work is what it doesn’t contain: citations to any of the numerous works that I have pointed out showing problems with the vaccine series.
For example, all of the animal work. Bishop et al. The Guinea-Bisseau studies. Epidemiological studies such as Miller and Goldman, Delong, or Tomljenovic and Shaw.
Any reference at all to ASIA (Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants). Any mention of vaccine contaminants such as animal retroviruses.
Searching the Institute of Medicine report for “alum” yields discussion of four references, Nilsson et al. (2003) who compared patients receiving vaccines with aluminum phosphate adjuvant to patients receiving vaccines with aluminum phosphate adjuvants, so provide no evidence about the safety of aluminum adjuvants. Verstraeten et al (2008) who compared patients receiving vaccines with AS04 adjuvants to “control” patients also receiving vaccines with aluminum adjuvants, so too can offer no evidence about the safety of aluminum adjuvants.
Pittman, P. R. 2002 about which they say “Using a randomized trial, Pittman (2002) showed that the risk of adverse events was reduced if the second dose of subcutaneous anthrax vaccine, adsorbed, is given 4 months rather than 2 weeks after the first dose.”
and Gruber et al(2003), which is an interesting paper. From Gruber et al:
“Children were grouped into dose percentiles according to cumulative doses of any vaccine given up to 5 years of age (<10%, 0–11 doses; 10%–50%, 12–14 doses; 51%–90%, 15–20 doses; >90%, 21–27 doses).
Results. The cumulative vaccine dose was inversely related to atopic dermatitis prevalences at 6 months (13.8%, 5.2%, 5.1%, and 4.5%), 2 years (16.9%, 10.9%, 7.4%, and 3.7%), 3 years (27.6%, 16.4%, 13.5%, and 4.5%), and 5 years (28.3%, 16.0%, 9.3%, and 11.9%). Asthma followed a similar pattern at age 3 (22.4%, 8.6%, 6.7%, and 6.3%), age 4 (20.0%, 8.6%, 8.9%, and 8.1%), and age 5 (20.8%, 12.6%, 10.3%, and 5.5%). Allergic sensitization rates were inversely related to the cumulative vaccine dose at age 2 (37.5%, 29.1%, 23.8%, and 12.9%).
Conclusion. Children with a higher vaccination coverage seemed to be transiently better protected against development of atopy in the first years of life.”
This is also the only paper I’ve seen to present a result on aluminum not sharply indicating toxicity: “Apart from diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccines, relatively few children received other aluminum-containing vaccines (hepatitis B, N = 1; tick-borne encephalitis vaccine, N = 96). No dose-response relationship was found regarding atopic manifestations, total serum IgE, or allergic sensitization at 5 years of age or earlier (data not shown).”
The IOM said of this study: “the committee believes that this was a well-constructed and well-reported study and may serve as one example of a means by which the U.S. immunization schedule could be studied.”
Unfortunately, neither the IOM nor Gruber et al seem to have remarked, that there appears to be no reason to believe the correlation means the vaccine is protective against atophy and asthma, rather than the results following from parents delaying or withholding vaccination for kids they perceived damaged by earlier vaccines, at risk from vaccines, or sickly. Indeed, if Gruber et al are really doing what they say, they are binning the kids by the total amount of vaccination they had by 5. So to claim the vaccination was causing the lack of atophy at six months would imply future vaccines prevented earlier atophy. It seems much more likely earlier atophy caused lack of later vaccines. The aluminum results could well result from a combination of aluminum damage to those who got more, and patients who were more evidently damaged fleeing into the low aluminum pool by withholding further vaccinations.
There’s plenty of evidence to confirm the existence of parental concern. The 2004 IOM study on autism says they reviewed 1348 VAERS reports of autism immediately after a vaccination. Even if such events may be purely circumstantial, their perceived nature will bias the experiments by putting damaged kids into low vaccine bins. Its putting the cart before the horse to assume parents can’t ever recognize their kid be damaged, as an assumption in testing whether vaccines damage. And even if they can’t, its clear, they will often assume when their kid gets sick after a vaccine that they shouldn’t give him more, lifting him into the low vaccine, low aluminum, or low thimerisol group in the design of all these experiments.
Gruber et al is the fourth study I’ve found declaring that vaccines are strongly protective in ways never expected. There is a repeated finding that early Thimerosal is significantly preventative of general developmental disorders,unspecified developmental delay, and attention deficit disorder ASD, and that MMR is signficantly preventative of ASD in younger siblings of ASD victims. Each study’s authors put this down to chance, but the repeated finding makes this unlikely. These consistent results support the alternative hypothesis that children are having visible reactions (or in the latter case, their sibling has the reaction) and being pulled from the high vaccine or high thimerisol pool by parents choosing to delay or cancel their vaccines.
I’ve also examined most of the studies the IOM cites against vaccines causing autism.
Aside from not considering the aluminum, and the contaminants, and the early and often timing as suggested by the animal literature, they also don’t consider the possibility that the MMR vaccine itself may be contributing to autism quite aside from the Thimerisol. This is in fact indicated by studies like Singh et al, who reported: 60% of autistics had an unusual antibody to vaccine-strain measles and 0% of controls did, And 90% o the autistics with this antibody also had “MBP-autoantibodies suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism. antibody implicated in autoimmune disease.”
This limits the interest in studies such as Fombonne et al, who looked at the epidemiological change when Canada took Thimerisol out of MMR. Unfortunately, at the same time they doubled the number of doses of MMR, so its six of one half a dozen of another, no? Studies like Hviid et al (2003) and Madsen et al (2003) which looked at the Danish taking thimerisol out of vaccines in 1992, manage to further self-confound by using data from in-patient only till 1995, and both in and out-patient after, where more than 10 times as many diagnoses seem to have been made out-patient. So for the high-thimerisol cases, (which are before), they have relative under-diagnosis to the low-thimerisol cases (which are by definition after) by perhaps an order of magnitude. (To its credit, the IOM survey did remark on this problem.)
(a) the IOM survey contains zero basis for believing the aluminum is safe (and doesn’t discuss this problem) and
(b) pretty much every study they have that is not confounded by looking at one vaccine in kids that got dozens, is confounded by the fact that the sick kids are being put into the low vaccine bin because they are sick and often likely because their parents believe vaccines were the cause, and in fact there is considerable evidence to indicate the parents can spot it.
“My partners and I have over 35,000 patients who have never been vaccinated. You know how many cases of autism we have seen? ZERO, ZERO. “. –Dr. Mayer Eisenstein
Given the quality of the IOM’s evidence against a vaccine autism connection, I’d have to say that anecdotal experience such as Eisenstein’s wins hands down. Its far more scientific, as well as less pretentious.
But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school– we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. — Richard P Feynman CARGO CULT SCIENCE (adapted from Caltech Commencement Address 1974) https://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
So did Gruber et al and the IOM committee both (a) not notice that their results could be explained by vaccines being withheld from the sickly, or (b) not bother to comment on it?
If they didn’t notice, they have a confirmation bias that is quite striking. If they did, they are by Feynman’s definition involved in Cargo Cult Science.
Nick Andrews; Elizabeth Miller; Andrew Grant et al, Thimerosal Exposure in
Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United
Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association, Pediatrics September 2004,
VOLUME 114 / ISSUE 3
Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(19):1477-82.
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert L. Davis, Frank DeStefano, et al.
Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized
Health Maintenance Organization Databases
March 2003, VOLUME 111 / ISSUE 3 Transient Suppression of Atopy in Early Childhood Is Associated With High Vaccination Coverage
Christoph Grüber, Sabina Illi, Susanne Lau, Renate Nickel, Johannes Forster, Wolfgang Kamin, Carl-Peter Bauer, Volker Wahn, Ulrich Wahn
Pittman, P. R. 2002. Aluminum-containing vaccine associated adverse events: Role of route of administration and gender. Vaccine 20(Suppl 3):S48-S50.
J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C.
Autoimmunity to the central nervous system (CNS), especially to myelin basic protein (MBP), may play a causal role in autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. Because many autistic children harbor elevated levels of measles antibodies, we conducted a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and MBP autoantibodies. Using serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 control children, antibodies were assayed by ELISA or immunoblotting methods. ELISA analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. Immunoblotting analysis revealed the presence of an unusual MMR antibody in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but not in control sera. This antibody specifically detected a protein of 73-75 kD of MMR. This protein band, as analyzed with monoclonal antibodies, was immunopositive for measles hemagglutinin (HA) protein but not for measles nucleoprotein and rubella or mumps viral proteins. Thus the MMR antibody in autistic sera detected measles HA protein, which is unique to the measles subunit of the vaccine. Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.
Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism
Immunization Safety Review Committee
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
ISBN: 0-309-53275-2, 214 pages, 6 x 9, (2004) http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10997.html
“The committee reviewed the extant published and unpublished epidemiological studies regarding causality and studies of potential biologic mechanisms by which these immunizations might cause autism. The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. The committee further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism that have been generated to date are theoretical only.”
The survey does not consider aluminum, contaminants, or multiplicity and timing interactions. Nor do they consider the possibility that vaccine virus takes lodge in the gut of some individuals and causes autism. For all of these there are peer reviewed papers that tie them to autism or brain damage. It does not consider the possibility of multiple causes– which invalidates pretty much all the studies they cite. If both thimerisol and
timing or contaminants or aluminum of other vaccines are independently contributing to autism, its going to obscure and make it impossible to see any statistically significant effect in the studies they consider, which compare kids getting numerous vaccines to kids getting numerous vaccines.
They do not consider the possibility that parents see their kids damaged by vaccines and thus stop vaccinating or delay vaccinations.
A kid that visibly develops problems on the first thimerisol shot may well never get another. And also, kids miss vaccinations and have them delayed because they are sick.
It is a systematic and huge bias in every study they consider that some kids are placed into the low vaccine or low thimerisol bin *because* they were vaccine damaged or sickly. This by itself invalidates all the studies they rely on for establishing safety.
There’s plenty of evidence to confirm such visible problems. The IOM study in fact says they reviewed 1348 VAERS reports of autism immediately after a vaccination. Even if adverse events may be purely circumstantial, their perceived nature will bias the experiments putting damaged kids into low vaccine bins. Its putting the cart before the horse to assume parents can’t ever recognize their kid be damaged, as an assumption in testing whether vaccines damage.
In fact there is significant evidence to show this is exactly what is happening. There is a repeated finding that early Thimerosal is significantly preventative of general developmental disorders, unspecified developmental delay, and attention deficit disorder ASD, and thatMMR is signficantly preventative of ASD in younger siblings of ASD victims. Each study’s authors put this down to chance, but the repeated finding makes this unlikely. These consistent results support the alternative hypothesis that children are having visible reactions (or in the latter case, their sibling has the reaction) and being pulled from the high vaccine or high thimerisol pool by parents choosing to delay or cancel their vaccines.
Nick Andrews; Elizabeth Miller; Andrew Grant et al, Thimerosal Exposure in
Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United
Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association, Pediatrics September 2004,
VOLUME 114 / ISSUE 3
The studies the IOM rely on have other problems as well.
Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. 2003. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA 290(13):1763-6. http://www.fourteenstudies.org/pdf/HG_8.pdf
This paper took advantage of the fact that Denmark reformulated its Pertussis vaccine to take out the thimerisol for a while to try to compare kids who got more thimerisol vaccines to kids who got less thimerisol vaccines. “Doses administered before June 1, 1992, were considered to contain thimerosal, and doses administered after June 1, 1992, were considered thimerosal free.”
The first problem as noted above is that if parents observe the child having problems, they withhold or delay further vaccines, which biases the problem children to the low thimerisol group.
A second problem is they changed the definition how they diagnose autism during the period from in patient to in and out. “In 1991-1994, only inpatients were included in the Danish Psychiatric Central Register. From 1995, both inpatients and outpatients were included.”
So the kids getting high thimerisol (early) are almost certainly more underdiagnosed (or less overdiagnosed) than the kids getting low thimerisol (later in the period.)
And this relative underdiagnosis appears plausibly to be by an order of magnitude or more, since another study on Danish Data reported 13.5 times as many outpatient diagnosis
Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(19):1477-82.
Thomas Verstraeten, Robert L. Davis, Frank DeStefano, et al. Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases
Patients were classified not by total Thimerosal, rather by Thimerosal in a period such as 0-3 or 0-7 months, and then the patients are evaluated later. In Vaerstraten et al, for example, only neuro-developmental diagnoses made after 1 year are included, so that patients that were more immediately damaged by early Thimerosal could have been excluded and the low- Thimerosal patients may be diagnosed due to proximate effects from post 1yo Thimerosal containing vaccine administration that the high-Thimerosal patients were not subject to, having had them earlier.
Vaerstraten et al also observed that the patients who received the most Hg in the
first 7 months of life also had many more well-child visits, and many more URI visits
in the second year of life. Rather than contemplate the possibility that this is
evidence that the Thimerosal or the vaccines are damaging the immune systems of
the patients, they adopted criteria that selected sicker than random controls, using
controls “restricted to children who had made at least 1 visit to a clinic or an emergency department at the same month of age as cases.”
And, of course, their study is invalidated by parents observing vaccine damage and withheld vaccines.
Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality
Kathleen Stratton, Andrew Ford, Erin Rusch, and Ellen Wright Clayton,
Editors; Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines; Institute of
Medicine, The National Academies press 2011. 862 pages. PDF Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality
The authors consider vaccine condition pairs, to decide if the literature supports or rejects the hypothesis the vaccine causes the iatrogenic condition. Looking at table D3, which looks at vaccine- condition pairs for causality, there are 14 for which the evidence is said to convingly support causality, the vaccine is causing the condition.
There are 4 where the evidence is said to favor acceptance.
There are 5 where the evidence is said to favor rejection, including MMR causing autism.
And there are 123 where the evidence is insufficient to evaluate.
Also, the survey pretty much only looks at vaccines as individually causing conditions. It doesn’t address at all the safety of the aluminum, the contaminants, the timing and multiplicity of vaccines interacting with development of brain and immune system, which are iatrogenic vectors that I believe are well established by the scientific literature.
Immunization Safety Review: Multiple Immunizations and Immune Dysfunction Kathleen Stratton, Christopher B. Wilson and Marie C. McCormick, Editors, Immunization Safety Review Committee, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10306.html ISBN: 0-309-50866-5, 152 pages, 6 x 9, (2002) Institute of Medicine.
The recent IOM vaccine survey restricted itself to the last 10 years of studies, referencing the 2002 survey as having looked at the impact of multiple vaccines in depth up to that time. I wanted to be sure I hadn’t missed any earlier important studies that might contain cogent evidence against the hypotheses of multiple vaccine damage vectors. So I went to
see what they were relying on. The 2002 study states:
The scope of the committee’s inquiry can be summarized in the following three questions: 1. Do multiple immunizations have adverse short-term effects on the developing infant immune system that are reflected in increased susceptibility to heterologous infection (infections other than those targeted by the immunization)? 2. Does exposure to multiple antigens, as administered in vaccines, directly and permanently redirect or skew the immune system toward autoimmunity, as reflected in type 1 diabetes? 3. Does exposure to multiple antigens, as administered in vaccines, directly and permanently redirect or skew the immune system toward allergy, as reflected in asthma? The committee was unable to address the concern that repeated exposure of a susceptible child to multiple immunizations over the developmental period may also produce atypical or non-specific immune or nervous system injury that could lead to severe disability or death (Fisher, 2001). There are no epidemiological studies that address this. Thus, the committee recognizes with some discomfort that this report addresses only part of the overall set of concerns of some of those most wary about the safety of childhood immunization.
Note for starters that they explicitly conclude that there is no published evidence to address whether multiple vaccinations can cause death or severe disability or mental damage. This is a problem because autism comes under mental damage and animal studies show mental damage and there is significant epidemiology, even some discussed in this IOM survey, to indicate death. So its interesting already to see how anybody could conclude vaccines are safe, when the IOM is saying there isn’t published information to address whether the series will kill you or damage your nervous system.
Next note that they don’t address the safety of the aluminum at all, as may be verified by searching the pdf on “alum”. There is some discussion about the merits of alum as an adjuvant, but zero consideration of iatrogenic effects or toxicity. Also the document doesn’t contain the term “contaminant” or “retrovirus” or “circovirus”. My contention is that the scientific literature strongly supports the hypotheses that vaccine aluminum is highly toxic in the quantities administered, that early and or multiple vaccines are damaging brain and immune system development, and that contaminants such as animal viruses are damaging, and that there are no papers in the peer reviewed literature whatsoever providing cogent evidence against any of these three hypotheses. Apparently the IOM 2002 aren’t going to rebut most of that.
They claim to review 2. multiple antigens and auto-immunity and 3. multiple antigens causing asthma, but I haven’t reviewed that part because antigens seems to be a less interesting vector, as we saw in discussing De Stefano et al 2014. DTP has over 3000 antigens and almost nothing else has more than a handful. Both sides of a study are going to have had multiple immunizations and aluminum and multiple opportunities for contaminants, which may largely mask any effect of multiple antigens if one exists. If you read them and find something striking let me know. The IOM report itself says “the committee concludes that the epidemiological and clinical evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between multiple immunization and an increased risk of allergic disease, particularly asthma.”
So they haven’t claimed its safe wrt asthma. Isn’t the law that the FDA is supposed to certify drugs are safe before they go on the market? How can they when the IOM admits they don’t have evidence on the subject? Shouldn’t patients at least be warned vaccines may cause asthma and allergies?
Now lets review what the IOM say about (1) heterologous infection. “Heterologous Infection The committee reviewed several case-control or cohort studies (Black et al., 1991; Burstein and Fleisher, 1994; Davidson, 1991; Griffin et al., 1992; Kristensen et al., 2000) and a randomized controlled trial (Otto et al., 2000)… Despite these variations andlimitations, the overall findings from the studies consistently demonstrated eitherno effect or a beneficial effect of multiple immunizations on heterologous disease.Therefore, the committee concludes that the epidemiological and clinical evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and an increased risk of heterologous infections.“[Bold in the original].
So I reviewed the studies they reviewed. As I will detail, my conclusion based on my review is that all the studies they reviewed but one are so hopelessly confounded as to provide no useful evidence on the subject. The one study remaining suggests strongly that the vaccines are causing damage. It has been confirmed by other independent studies since their study.
General Non-specific Morbidity is Reduced After Vaccination Within the Third Month of Life – the Greifswald Study S. Otto, B. Mahner, I. Kadow, J. F. Beck, S. K.W. Wiersbitzky and R. Bruns, Journal of Infection (2000) 41, 172–175, doi: 10.1053/jinf.2000.0718
Otto et al is the only “randomized controlled trial” so lets start with that. Otto et al randomly selected some kids to go into a pool to have their 2 month vaccines at 3 months and then asked the mothers to keep a record of whether the kids had any symptoms, “unspecific, morbidity-related signs… with a diary card.”
The Placebo effect is the very well established effect that something like 1/3 of patients are helped if the Doctor prescribes a placebo. The exact flip side of this is patients who don’t get a placebo have to think they are worse off than the patients who do. In this case, you have Mothers being told they have to wait for their kid’s vaccine, which they have been repeatedly told is highly necessary to his health. Its clear they were anxious, because 13 of them insisted on changing to the early vaccination group. Then the study doesn’t even ask that the kids be sick, or even go to the Doctor. They have the mothers keep a journal. Since the disparity in reported symptoms is much less than I would have expected from the placebo effect, I would say this study is perfectly consistent with the vaccines actually doing a lot of damage to the immune system, being masked by an even bigger placebo effect given the way the experiment was carried out.
The authors comment on not doing the experiment double blind by giving all the kids injections at 2 months half of which would be placebos. They say that would be unethical because it would expose half the kids to an extra saline injection. Let me get this straight. It would be unethical, with parental permission, to give half the kids in one experiment an extra saline injection, but its just fine giving all the kids in the world dozens of injections full of aluminum and antigens without any RPC tests against actual placebos?
This study also suffers from the common problem that putting kids who get vaccinated exactly on time into a “high vaccine” pool is highly prejudicial because (a) parents who succeed in getting them vaccinated exactly on time are being selected by a real world intelligence/achievement test which is likely a proxy for prior propensity to produce smart/healthy children and (b) kids miss the date because they are sick (or in other experiments because they’ve had a prior vaccine reaction) which puts sick or vaccine damaged kids into the “low vaccine” group. This was not a small effect in this study: 114 out of 335 kids (36%) who were assigned to the early vaccine group were dropped because they didn’t get it on time.
Next we have Black SB, Cherry JD, Shinefield HR, Fireman B, Christenson P, Lampert D. Apparent decreased risk of invasive bacterial disease after heterologous childhood immunization. Am J Dis Child. 1991;145:746–769.
This is yet another paper that finds a protective effect for vaccines that is not expected,
and ignores a plausible hypothesis explaining this protective effect but invalidating
or even reversing the study’s impact on vaccination safety.
Black et al compare invasive bacterial disease victims to controls drawn from a sample of patients. Its clear from their table 2, that the invasive bacterial disease victims
are drawn from a distribution that doesn’t go to the doctor often for well care visits.
73 of the cases had 0 or 1 well care visits in the previous 6 months, against only 23 with 2; whereas for the controls the ratio was 15 to 22. Presumably patients who don’t go for a well care visit, for whatever reason, are a priori unlikely to have been vaccinated, since
vaccinations typically occur at well patient visits. Clearly, however, there is no basis in their data to conclude the vaccines failed to make the disease more likely, without some better understanding of the subpopulation from which invasive bacterial disease patients are drawn. They missed the lede. Their data are demonstrating nothing about vaccines, because they demonstrate there is a sub-population highly susceptible to invasive bacterial disease which isn’t getting medical care, perhaps children of drug addicts.
Does recent vaccination increase the risk of occult bacteremia?
Burstein JL, Fleisher GR. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1994 Jun;10(3):138-40.
Burstein et al compare patients who are sick with one complaint to patients who are sick with other complaints and all of who are getting lots of antibiotics, as well as lots of vaccinations. Perhaps that would make sense if you were interested in one complaint, or one vaccine. Obviously its not going to tell you anything reliable in a climate where multiple vaccinations are causing multiple complaints, which is precisely what the evidence indicates.They are compared on the recency of vaccination, which also biases patients who got the vaccine further from the disease also got it younger, yet another confounding factor. But perhaps the biggest problem is, the animal data reports vaccine simulants damage immune systems permanently, they damage development. So you need to look for lasting or even increasing damage from vaccines as well as damage proximate to the vaccine.
Next: DTP Immunization and Susceptibility to Infectious DiseasesIs There a Relationship?
Michael Davidson, MD, MPH; G. William Letson, MD; Joel I. Ward, MD; Angela Ball, MD; Lisa Bulkow, MS; Peter Christenson, PhD; James D. Cherry, MD, MSc
Am J Dis Child. 1991;145(7):746-749. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1991.02160070046020.
I haven’t read the article, because it is critiqued in the paper itself, as described in the IOM study. “The authors note that a possible explanation for the lack of difference observed in the study is overmatching. Overmatching is where cases and controls closely resemble each other on factors related to the exposure of interest. In this study, matching based on the number of DTP vaccines received may have resulted in the lack of difference in the timing of DTwP immunization between cases and controls. However, the authors observed that matching according to the number of DTP vaccines was necessary and reduced potential confounders such as those related to health status.”
Apparently the controls got the same number of DTP’s as the cases, so again not very informative.
For the second part of the study, the IOM notes: “The authors note that the higher frequency of disease in the pre-DTP group compared to the post-DTP group may have resulted from a “well-child effect,” whereby immunization of children with illnesses was postponed until they were well.”
Seems sensible. If some of the parents wait till the kids have been healthy for 30 days before administering DTP, which might be a sensible precaution, then you are definitely going to get distorted results.
Finally the IOM committee read:
Kristensen I, Aaby P, Jensen H. Routine vaccinations and child survival: Followup study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa. BMJ. 2000;321:1435–1438.
In rural Guinea-Bisseau, scientists polled 15,351 mothers of 6 month olds to see which infants were vaccinated, and then came back a year later to see who was still alive. Kids who’d gotten at least one vaccine had a relative mortality of .74 compared to kids who’d gotten none. After cluster, age, and other vaccines were adjusted for, BCG was associated with mortality (0.55 (0.36 to 0.85)). However, recipients of at least one dose of DTP had relative mortality (1.84 (1.10 to 3.10)) and recipients of one dose of OPV had relative mortality 1.81 (1.07 to 3.05). Recipients of measles vaccine had a mortality ratio of 0.48 (0.27 to 0.87). When deaths from measles were excluded from the analysis the mortality ratio was 0.51 (0.28 to 0.95).
The difference between this study and the previous studies reviewed above is: this study is a lot cleaner, it is looking at mortality in a very clean before and after fashion, and the result it is finding is opposite to the very obvious bias that the kids getting vaccines are also getting better care and have wealthier parents and better sanitation. All the previous studies, as we have seen, are worthless. This study actually is interesting evidence that DTP at least is doing damage.
Since the IOM report in 2002, a second study in Guinea-Bisseau confirmed the first, reporting that having previously gotten DTP in addition to OPV more than doubled mortality for kids in the pediatric ward up to 5 years of age compared to kids who only got OPV, from 6% to 15%. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15297050 Vaccine. 2004 Aug 13;22(23-24):3014-7. Oral polio vaccination and low case fatality at the paediatric ward in Bissau, Guinea-Bissau. Aaby P, Rodrigues A, Biai S, Martins C, Veirum JE, Benn CS, Jensen
These results suggest that DTP, and possibly OPV, are doing harm. As I have reviewed, there is significant literature indicating vaccine aluminum, vaccine interactions with brain and immune system development especially as shown in the animal literature, and vaccine contaminants are doing harm. So its a plausible hypothesis that DTP is damaging the immune systems of the recipients so that they die of various causes. Moreover, BCG is a scratch, not an injection, so it seems unlikely to contribute to the vaccine damage vectors I have identified, and it’s effectiveness is controversial even among people who usually accept vaccines. A hypothesis consistent with these facts is that BCG vaccine is serving largely as a placebo, doing neither harm nor good but merely a proxy for propensity to get vaccinated, a hidden factor representing parental circumstances and child raising skills. If that is the correct explanation, then the true increased mortality compared to a placebo for DTP in Guinea-Bisseau would be at least 3. Since measles deaths were not a factor, and MMR is given at 18 months and does not contain adjuvants, MMR could have a similar role here as a proxy for good care.
I have also previously reviewed, of course, much other evidence that the vaccines are damaging. Here our purpose was to review the IOM 2002 study, demonstrating that it had no rational basis for claiming safety, and that it cited no papers cogently opposing our remarks on the dangers of vaccine aluminum, contaminants, or developmental interactions as reported in the animal literature. Its worth emphasizing however, one thing I discovered in this review, that the IOM survey explicitly declined to claim safety in several aspects after examining the literature. They said they found insufficient literature to state that multiple vaccines weren’t causing atypical or non-specific immune or nervous system injury that could lead to severe disability or death, nor did they find sufficient literature to state that they weren’t causing asthma or allergies.
“So there came a time in which the ideas, although accumulated very slowly, were all accumulations not only of practical and useful things, but great accumulations of all types of prejudices, and strange and odd beliefs. Then a way of avoiding the disease was discovered. This is to doubt that what is being passed from…
IS THE WORLD WARMING? SHOULD MY CORPORATION BUILD A FACTORY IN MANILA? IS A MAMMOGRAM MORE LIKELY TO INCREASE OR DECREASE LIFE EXPECTANCY?
How can you be sure you have the best answer to such complex questions? How can experts be sure?
TRUTHSIFT not only gives you the best answer available, one which optimally combines the wisdom and expertise of everyone who cares to contribute, but it diagrams why this answer is declared best so that you can see for yourself.
TRUTHSIFT combines our collective wisdom in the only known way that gets the best answer: rational thought. Rational Thought isn’t a popularity contest, and it isn’t one expert’s opinion, and it isn’t what we might think, hope, or want to be true. As neuroscience research has taught us, it is also something that humans are not naturals at. Its determined by logic. TruthSift is revolutionary because we combine people’s intuitive inputs logically to arrive at the best answer, as only cool logic can.
This method of combination brings out the best interactions of people, by naturally dividing the issue into logically connected sub-issues. People contribute to the sub-issues they have expertise in, and are guided to overcome any biases or incorrect ideas or emotional viewpoints by the contributions of others, which directly address these with proof.
TruthSift displays whether each statement is logically established (Bold border) or has been logically refuted (thin border) based on all the contributions of members to date. For every statement people care to debate, one of these alternatives is true and TruthSift reveals which is the case, and lets you explore the proof or the refutation, or add to them.
TRUTHSHIFT’S PROCESS IS LIKE PUBLISHING IN The SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, BUT EASIER. TruthSift asks you to contribute to a diagram any time you have a rational point to make that hasn’t been made yet on that diagram. If you see something somebody has posted that is wrong, and you can explain why you think its wrong, and nobody else has yet pointed this out, please post. If somebody has challenged a post, and you can correct the post or explain the misunderstanding, please do. If you have something you want to say, and you think you can prove or disprove it, please do. The goal is to build diagrams that show what is logically established, and how the plausible refutations are refuted, to which nobody has any remaining objection.
TruthSift asks of its members that you believe every public post you make is correct, not duplicative of a parallel post in the diagram, and clearly stated. By correct we mean, does rationally prove or refute its conclusion. Attacks directed at people rather than the statements themselves are not permitted.
The world has suffered greatly from group think, as we expect TruthSift to reveal. Without the discipline of TruthSift, experts draw false yet confident conclusions to a far greater extent than most realize, and these errors propagate and cascade. However, with TruthSift, a new world will be revealed.
We urge you to join us in creating a collective intelligence greater than any that has hertofor existed on Earth.
TruthSift also supports private diagrams, where only invitees participate. Large organizations are particularly prone to group think, and to known distortions in propagating information up the hierarchy. TruthSift will let all your members contribute to decisions or planning or reports exactly where their comment is pertinent, and reveal the logical consequences. TruthSift instills and enforces critical thinking.
Basic Membership is free and only requires an email address.
TruthSift.com invites you to try our platform for crowd rationality in alpha.
The world hasn’t had a good method for deciding truth and establishing it in a transparently correct way. TruthSift solves this problem.
How it Works
TruthSift members engage in a process analogous to publishing in the scientific literature, but easier. If you think you can prove something, you can post a diagram of your proof. Or if you have a statement you’d like to know if others can prove or refute, you can post that. To get started you can just “Add Topic”, which will give you an edit window for a first statement in a new diagram. Or if you see a post that is wrong, and can give a not-yet-posted reason why, you can post a challenge.
Diagrams are composed of statements, represented by rectangles, with connectors represented by colored arrows: proofs are black arrows, assumptions blue, challenges red, remarks purple, and tests pink.
Statements have a title and a body. The title is shown on the diagram, the body may be viewed as a web page by selecting View from a menu displayed after rightclick on the statement.
Diagrams may be browsed in different layouts. Clicking on the Gold, Red, or Blue Box on the home page will take you to a view centered, respectively on either the Topic, most recent Con, or most recent Pro statement. You can walk around to see the rest of the diagram by double click on other statements. This focused view is recommended for large diagrams. Alternatively, Clicking on the Diagram Title on the home page will display the whole graph. Double click on a statement or Layout in the right-click-on-whitespace menu lets you switch layouts.
TruthSift rates a statement “Tentatively Established” only when there is a proof of it with no step in active dispute. A demonstration that begins from observations that are unchallenged and proceeds through unchallenged proofs with no step of the demonstration in dispute. Tentatively Established statements have thick black borders.
If anybody disputes any component of your proof, and can state a reason why its in error, they can add a challenge to the component, and if they want a supporting network of proofs and assumptions for their point of view. (EXAMPLE 2)
Now you or someone else may respond to this challenge. For example, you may edit the challenged component of your proof to fix the problem that was pointed out, or explain more clearly why the challenge is mistaken if it is. And you may counter-challenge the challenge if you believe the challenge was mistaken, or is mistaken after your edits, and you can state why. (EXAMPLE 3)
TruthSift keeps track of which statements are established by demonstrations that have no actively disputed assumption or proof.
Every Tentatively Established (TE) statement is easily recognized by its thick border and thick outgoing connectors. To have a thick border, a statement needs all of its incoming blue assumption connectors to be TE (thick), no incoming thick challenge (every challenge has been rebutted by a TE counter-challenge), and if it has incoming proofs, at least one must be thick (it has at least one TE proof).
TruthSift members lay out all the proofs and refutations members believe are pertinent to an issue until they run out of rational objections.
Like the scientific literature, the process naturally divides up a question and its field into important underlying issues and harnesses group intelligence in an optimized way. At the end what can and what can’t be rationally established, and why, is laid bare, together with a demonstration that no literally no member can raise objection to any point in the proof. Every statement is either proved by a TE demonstration, or Refuted by a TE refutation.
Where users still unavoidably disagree, TruthSift diagrams include stipulations. Stipulations make explicit any underlying assumptions that some still challenge, the arguments against them, and the differing consequences if they are true or misguided. Statements whose status depends on any of the stipulations in the diagram are shown with rounded corners. A statement that would be Tentatively Established if all of the stipulations are true, and Refuted if some of them fail, will have rounded corners and thick borders. A statement that will be Refuted if all the Stipulations are true but Established if some of them fail will have rounded corners and thin borders.
TruthSift Probability Mode supports construction of flexible and powerful statistical and causal models. TruthSift supports probability values to be entered into the statements, and then estimates the probability each different statement is true, marginalized over all the probabilities entered in all the statements of a diagram. Test statements affect only probabilities, but not the establishment status of statements. Test statements include an estimate of the likelihood some observation would have occurred given that its Target statement is True, and an estimate of the likelihood the observation would have occurred given the Target statement is False. All statement types also have a Proposed Probability, which indicates the expected probability the statement has its claimed effect. For example, statement A may be a cause (proof) of statement B 0.3 of the time. Probability Mode does a Monte Carlo calculation reflecting all of the causes and tests in the diagram, and reports for each statement its probability of being true, printed at the bottom of the q-tip displayed when the mouse pointer hovers over the statement.
TruthSift asks of its members that you believe every public post you make is correct, not duplicative of a parallel post in the diagram, and clearly stated.
By correct we mean, does rationally prove or refute its conclusion. Ad hominem attacks are not permitted. The goal should be to create a clear exposition of what can be proved, and how the principal challenges fail. Think of yourself as publishing a paper in the scientific literature.
TruthSift also encourages editing of previously posted statements to improve clarity of the diagram. The default setting on statements is collaborate, which allows others to edit your statements, but if you don’t like their edits you can restore your previous statement from your my participation page or change the setting.
Quick Start Guide
In TruthSift, statements are represented on diagrams by boxes displaying a title, and containing a body that may be viewed as a web page. Connectors are represented by colored arrows joining the boxes: proofs are black arrows, assumptions blue, challenges red, remarks purple, and tests pink.
The topic statement of a diagram has a gold box, and the other statements are boxes shaded blue if they support the topic (PRO), red if they oppose it (CON), or grey if they don’t definitively do one and not the other.
Right-click of statements, whitespace, and connectors each display menus that together control most features.
Diagrams are represented on the home page by a title and 3 boxes. The Gold Box is the Topic statement, and it is Tentatively Established if its border is thick, else it is NOT-TE. The Blue Box is the most recent PRO Statement, and the Red Box is the most recent CON statement. Clicking on a box will take you to a focused view of that statement and its immediate neighbors in the diagram. The title links to a view of the full diagram. From the full diagram, Center-on-view (available from the statement right-click menu or by double-click on the statement) focuses on any selected statement and its incomers and outgoers.
The Add Topic Button at the top of every page launches an edit window where the Title and Body of a new topic statement may be added, initiating a new diagram. Additional statements may be added to a diagram by right-click on an existing statement, which displays a menu including “Add In Statement” and “Add Out Statement“. Mouse over one of those will display a submenu that allows selection of the type of connector. Selecting a connector type will pop an edit window where the title and body of an additional statement may be added. Right-click on whitespace displays a menu allowing to save one’s new diagram, or one’s edit of an existing diagram.
On the edit window, a statement may be designated a citation. It will then be drawn with a dashed border. This may be used to indicate statements linking to (and perhaps summarizing) some trusted source, like a publication in the peer-reviewed literature. (Citations are treated exactly like ordinary statements in terms of computing establishment status, however.)
The default save of a new topic is to Draft mode, but there is a choice on the save menu to choose Public, or drafts may be published from your My Drafts Page on the My Account dropdown. Once it is saved to Public, others will be able to edit it.
Every new statement that is added is initially TE, because it has been asserted and nobody has challenged it. This means that if you raise a challenge to any statement anywhere on any diagram, your challenge statement will be TE, and the statement you challenge will be classified Refuted until your challenge statement is responded to, and any other statements that are relying on that challenged statement in their Demonstration, will also be considered Refuted until your challenge is responded to. Your challenge of an underpinning deep in a graph may change the status of the topic statement, if its demonstration logically relies on the statement you challenge.
A statement will be TE only if all of its incoming assumption connectors are thick (TE), none of its incoming challenge connectors are thick, and, if it has incoming proof connectors, at least one of them is thick. Once proofs are added for a statement, we insist it have at least one TE proof to be TE. (If no proof has been added to a statement, we presume it self-evidently provides its own proof but it is perfectly valid to challenge it demanding further proof if you argue it doesn’t.) Each time the diagram is edited, the system rates all statements by starting at the statements with no incoming connectors, which are TE by definition, and updating statements once all of their parent statements have been updated. Statements will be graded Tentatively Established if all their assumptions are TE, and at least one proof is TE, and no Challenge is TE.
If you see a statement that is bordered in thick, you know there is a demonstration for it nobody has validly rebutted any statement of. On the other hand, if it has thin borders, then there is a TE challenge of it, or of every proposed demonstration of it.
The key to creating useful content with TruthSift, required for all posts by the Guidelines, is that every statement you add to an existing diagram should have a body you believe is rational and novel within the diagram. For example, if you add a proof for a statement, your proof should in your view prove the statement is true, and it should not duplicate a statement already added to this diagram, and likewise if you add a challenge for a statement, it should rationally show (and give a novel proof) that the statement is not true. If you believe an existing statement can be re-used for another purpose, you may add an additional connector to it by selecting the target with a left click and then right-clicking on the existing statement. If you can supply a reason why a statement does not imply a result given by an outgoing connector, you may challenge the connector after right-clicking on it. It is valid to challenge a proof connector if you can state a reason why it does not provide a proof.
As long as people only post serious proofs and challenges, statements and connectors respecting the guidelines(LINK), a diagram should be created where people explain what is wrong or right with the proofs and challenges that are suggested, and which publishes transparently whether there is or is not demonstration for each statement to which nobody has raised a valid objection.
One suggested way of dealing with difficulty in providing absolute proof of statements, is to edit the statement into a form that can be proved, eg if “X” can’t be proved, you may be able to prove “All of the peer reviewed papers in the literature report X.” Note this latter is readily challengeable with a counterexample.
If there are underlying differences that simply can’t be resolved, statements may be stipulated using the right-click statement menu. A diagram with stipulations added may then be created (leaving the diagram without the stipulations intact). In this new diagram, statements then will be rated relative to the stipulations. In this case we provide the next best thing to consensus establishment: consensus establishment relative to key stipulations, and provide (as an aid to the user to form an opinion), the proofs of and challenges to the stipulation. Statements whose TE status depends on the stipulations are drawn with rounded corners. Stipulated statements on a diagram are shown in green.
Please collaborate with others in the search for and transparent publication of truth and proof, avoiding ad hominem attacks and other such banned frivolity. Users repeatedly posting irrational or ad hominem or other banned content will be banned. Unpopular content or content others feel is stupid is ok so long as you are genuinely trying to be rational—if someone feels its stupid they should explain why.
It is encouraged to edit a challenged statement, if you can improve it so the challenge is no longer correct, and then to add a challenge to the challenge pointing out that it has been responded to. It is also encouraged where appropriate to split the original challenged statement into a small multiplicity of statements, for example breaking down part of the original intent into a separate assumption or proof, if the challenge seems to be addressed to only part of the original statement, thus breaking out the parts where there is no discord, and specifying more precisely and narrowly points for which differences remain.
The edit history of each statement is available on its View page, which may be displayed using the statement-right-click menu.
The default setting for statements is collaboration mode, others will be able to edit your statements if they believe they can improve the proof or the clarity. If they do and you don’t like the change, you may restore your version using the history available from your My Participation page (and may change the setting).
Right-click on whitespace displays a menu that supports a selection of Layouts, 3 showing only a single statement and a small neighborhood of the diagram, and two showing the whole diagram. Center-on-view available from the statement right-click menu allows one to step around the diagram in tight focus. You may also center-on-view by double click on the statement. If a statement has connectors not shown in a focused view, they are indicated with an inward pointing triangle or an outward pointing triangle. The full diagram layout shows all statements arranged with all connectors pointing right to left. In the Community Layout, statements may be dragged and positioned. The Community Layout shows the last saved positioning.
If you position the mouse pointer anywhere on the document, you may zoom in or out of the pointer using the mouse roller. If you position the mouse pointer on whitespace and hold the mouse button down for a few seconds, it will display a small dark circle and you may then drag the diagram, allowing to look around a large diagram.
All members may post and edit public diagrams. Premium membership (automatically included now, later free for the first 3 months, $2/month thereafter) allows a user to host and participate in private diagrams for associates or colleagues. We hope you will find this useful for your work, planning, and studying. Invitations may be controlled by following the sharing link below your private topic.
We are in alpha and users with comments or suggestions for features or improvements you’d like to see are kindly requested to email them Here(firstname.lastname@example.org) or post or participate in a public diagram arguing for them.
TruthSift offers many features not described in this brief intro. More extensive documentation is in preparation.