Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the first link: "Living organisms are constantly exposed to a broad range of environmental antigens, as exemplified by the recent re-emergence of measles virus infection among a subpopulation of Japanese young adults who were not vaccinated against the virus. We therefore conclude that systemic autoimmunity necessarily takes place when host's immune ‘system’ is overstimulated by external disturbance, i.e., repeated exposure to antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality, and propose here ‘self-organized criticality theory’ explaining the cause of autoimmunity."
So they are referring to any type of exposure to antigens, including via the environment. Immnuization in this case does not seem to mean only "vaccine-induced immunization".
In addition, Schoenfeld seems to have invented the syndrome (named after himself), starting with a definition that is too vague to mean much. He even runs his own journal.
"Out of curiosity, I went back to what appears to be the original article in which ASIA was defined by Yehuda Shoenfeld, who is known for testifying for 'vaccine injury' victims and running a journal sympathetic to antivaccine views, even publishing works by quacks like Mark and David Geier. The 'syndrome' appears to have been made up of whole cloth based on unfounded assumptions. He’s also been known to speak at antivaccine conferences and 'vetted' the antivaccine propaganda movie The Greater Good for 'accuracy,' and the movie’s producer promotes ASIA."
Autoimmunity is not the same as autoimmune disease.
Also at the AARDA site is a list of autoimmune diseases, of which two are listed as following vaccines: acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) and Guillain Barre syndrome (GBS).
ADEM can follow viral or bacterial infections. Recovery is usually complete. Note that the viral infections that may cause it include measles, mumps, and rubella.
The evidence for a vaccine causing ADEM is inconclusive. Whether the MMR vaccine can cause it is debatable, as multiple large studies have not supported causation with MMR or other vaccines, except one rabies vaccine. If the measles vaccine does cause ADEM, the risk at most is estimated as 10 per million. The risk of getting it from measles infection is one in 1000.
Guillain Barre syndrome can also be caused by infections. Since it was associated with flu vaccine in 1976, the incidence of GBS has been monitored each flu season, and a situation similar to what happened in 1976 has not recurred since then. A causative relationship, if it exists at all, between flu vaccine and GBS would result in about one case of GBS per million doses, much smaller than the risk of GBS after influenza infection.
The machine marches on, just as I said it would. The usual posters using the extreme propaganda blogger Orac as their source and attacking and slandering any and all researchers who's findings are not favorable to vaccines. It's so predictable and the motives are so transparent.
Tomljenovic has published 29 studies, It's true that some of them have not been favorable to vaccines. That makes her target for the pro-vaccine machine. Anyone who speaks out about vaccines is slandered and called a quack no matter what their qualifications are. Orac, the skeptical raptor, et al are pro vaccine propaganda bloggers and are a huge part of the machine to discredit anyone and anything that is negative about vaccines. I've noticed that these blogs are used as evidence over and over and over again in these types of threads. They are not evidence. People can and should read the studies for themselves rather then relying on biased bloggers slanderous (paid) opinions.
The reason Tomljenovic gets called out is because she publishes pseudoscientific hogwash. She is not a slandered martyr.
If you are going to vet scientific articles about vaccines yourself, it would be wise to have a thorough foundation in the principles of immunology, infectious disease, and epidemiology. We already know how threatened you are by the suggestion that you actually read an epidemiology textbook, heaven forbid.
Orac is David Gorski, MD, PhD. He is a surgical oncologist.
Please note the vilification by ant-vaccinationists in their attempt to discredit Dr. Gorski, including the "pharma shill" gambit.
"Dr. Gorski has been funded over the last decade by institutional funds, the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. He has recently held a small grant (€30,000) from Bayer HealthCare through its Grants4Targets program, a fact that will no doubt bring forth more criticism. Never mind that the grant expired in 2012. Before that small seed grant, so bereft of pharmaceutical funding was Dr. Gorski that before his talks, as part of his disclosures, he often joked that no pharmaceutical company was interested enough in his research to want to give him any money. For everything else, however, like most biomedical scientists in academia, Dr. Gorski must beg the NIH and other granting agencies for the money to keep his lab going. Currently, Dr. Gorski’s research is funded by the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program with two-year Breakthrough Award expiring in 2017."
I often quote people who write at Science Based Medicine because, well, they promote science based medicine. They do not sell anything.
Who else is at SBM:
Steven Novella: Founder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine.
Kimball Atwood IV, MD is a practicing anesthesiologist who is also board-certified in internal medicine.
Mark Crislip, MD has been a practicing Infectious Disease specialist in Portland, Oregon, since 1990
Harriet Hall, MD also known as The SkepDoc, is a retired family physician
Dr. Gorski and Dr. Novella are honest to goodness research scientists.
"Big Pharma is paying you to promote their products and discredit CAM.
No it isn’t. We are not Pharma shills. We are not paid anything for writing this blog. We do not get money from pharmaceutical companies. We do not accept gifts from drug companies. We do not get kickbacks for prescribing certain drugs. We have no incentive to favor drugs over other treatments. Incidentally, critics who prefer natural remedies to pharmaceuticals should note that many CAM diet supplements are sold by subsidiaries of Big Pharma."
"As of 2/8/13, the day this entry was written, the Society is paid for by the sweat equity of Mark Crislip, Jann Bellamy, David Gorski, Harriet Hall, and Steven Novella, who were initial members of the Committee to form this organization.
The website and the Society has been financed by the Board Members. The website has been written in Joomla! by Mark Crislip.
You are welcome to donate to the Society or purchase books etc to support our goals, but it is not necessary to join to access the website. Membership will have its privileges and is tax deductible.
We want and need money. Without money few of our goals can be attained.
We will be accused of being a big pharma shill no matter what the truth, but we receive no funding from any medical industry."
Terri, if you have actual verifiable proof that anyone I have cited in any of the many threads about vaccines here is a "big pharma shill", please provide it. Otherwise, please stop parroting an extremely tired anti-vax meme.
Do not accuse Dr. Paul Offit of being a shill, either. He knows more about vaccines than Tomljenovic could ever dream of.
People can and should read the studies for themselves rather then relying on biased bloggers slanderous (paid) opinions.
Do you really think the anti-vax writers and researchers aren't getting paid? Tomljenovic herself most certainly got paid to do her "research". You are very naive if so!
Slandering the researcher using nothing but name calling. Check. Slandering the poster who brought up the study. Check. Citing credentials of the pro vaccine propaganda shills. Check.
Did you forget that many of the "discredited" also have similar credentials?
The extremely defensive, over reaction to a post about one single study showing the possibility of problems with autoimmunity and vaccines speaks volumes about the machine that is behind the push for mandatory vaccines. It's like I said something personal about a friend or family member. Suzy, do you personally know some of these people?
If you're pro-choice for abortion and pro-force when it comes to vaccination then I see that as extreme hypocrisy.
Your point of view is that murder is murder, and therefore the right to an abortion also gives you the right to murder your neighbor's 5-year-old. And if anyone disagrees with that point of view, you call it extreme hypocrisy.
Do you really think the anti-vax writers and researchers aren't getting paid? Tomljenovic herself most certainly got paid to do her "research". You are very naive if so!
Maybe Miss Terri needs to be reminded that Andrew Wakefield got paid to do his now discredited study that attempted to connect ASD and the MMR vaccination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Slandering the researcher using nothing but name calling. Check. Slandering the poster who brought up the study. Check. Citing credentials of the pro vaccine propaganda shills. Check.
Did you forget that many of the "discredited" also have similar credentials?
The extremely defensive, over reaction to a post about one single study showing the possibility of problems with autoimmunity and vaccines speaks volumes about the machine that is behind the push for mandatory vaccines. It's like I said something personal about a friend or family member. Suzy, do you personally know some of these people?
I think you grossly misunderstand how scientific research works. Let's say ten peer reviewed studies are done and they all show the same result. Than let's say one study is done that shows a totally different result. You can darn well bet a lot of people are going to be critiquing the study that shows a result different than all the others. The burden is going to be on the person conducting that study to show why his results are better than those in the other ten studies. Most will focus on what was different about that study and why totally different results were achieved. It has nothing to do with personalities and it has everything to do with basic credibility. Did the scientist follow establish protocols? Were there flaws in the research design or the methodology? Did out and out falsification of data or results occur?
I'm on to your game. When studies don't show what you think they ought to show than your line always becomes "they are shills for big pharma" or "they were paid off". It keeps you from ever having to get into the research that does show that vaccines meet all reasonable safety standards.
Its not really very original and its certainly not correct.
(From Mark who has absolutely no relationship with pharmaceutical companies anywhere with the possible exception of shares of stock in a 401K plan.)
Last edited by markg91359; 04-26-2016 at 08:39 PM..
I think there was a legal case where they could trace who was the person who infected another person with HIV, and held that person legally liable. But I honestly don't know the location or date of the case.
Maybe Miss Terri needs to be reminded that Andrew Wakefield got paid to do his now discredited study that attempted to connect ASD and the MMR vaccination.
I think you grossly misunderstand how scientific research works. Let's say ten peer reviewed studies are done and they all show the same result. Than let's say one study is done that shows a totally different result. You can darn well bet a lot of people are going to critiquing the study that shows a result different than all the others. The burden is going to be on the person conducting that study to show why his results are better than those in the other ten studies. Most will focus on what was different about that study and why totally different results were achieved. It has nothing to do with personalities and it has everything to do with basic credibility. Did the scientist follow establish protocols? Were there flaws in the research design or the methodology? Did out and out falsification of data or results occur?
I'm on to your game. When studies don't show what you think they ought to show than your line always becomes "they are shills for big pharma" or "they were paid off". It keeps you from ever having to get into the research that does show that vaccines meet all reasonable safety standards.
Its not really very original and its certainly not correct.
(From Mark who has absolutely no relationship with pharmaceutical companies anywhere with the possible exception of shares of stock in a 401K plan.)
As a lawyer, could you give us a primer on the legal definition of "slander"?
From Katarina, who once received a ticket to a Rockies game from a pharma rep. Oh, yeah, I've had a few sandwiches from Jason's deli that some of the reps brought to the office. Man, I can be bought off easy, eh? Other than that, no relationship with pharm companies except perhaps in my 401K.
As a human being I believe that I do have the right to control what goes into my body and what does not. Do you believe that the government owns a citizen's body or do you believe that a citizen owns their body? Are you pro-choice or pro-life when it comes to abortion? Does the phrase, "keep your laws off of my body" mean anything to you?
Do others have the right to protect their bodies from what others do or do not put in to theirs....that's the question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
