Vaccinatietopic #8 - Mexicaanse varkenshoax?

quote:

Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."

Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, "It does not matter...Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism." Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

quote:

Dr. Deisher told LSN that "short fragments of human DNA residuals in vaccines present two well-documented potential physiological dangers" and "the possibility for auto-immune reactions." While the immune system recognizes the DNA as foreign, its similarity to an individual’s own DNA can cause the immune system to attack parts of the individual's own body.

Another danger springs from the length of the DNA fragments. Residual DNA fragments consisting of less than 250 base pairs (bp) have been shown to have a higher probability of entering the nucleus of human cells. Once inside the nucleus, short DNA fragments can integrate with the genome of the cell. The probability of integration is 1 billion times greater with DNA from the same species than with DNA from another species, according to the abstract.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jun/10060312

quote:

Vaccins tegen Nieuwe Influenza A (H1N1) hebben niet gezorgd voor een groter risico op het Guillain-Barré-syndroom, dat spierverlamming veroorzaakt. Dit verband werd veelvuldig gesuggereerd tijdens de pandemie van 2009. Ten onrechte, blijkt nu uit een grootschalig Europees onderzoek.

De resultaten van het onderzoek zijn deze week gepubliceerd in het British Medical Journal.

Verdenking
In 1976 werd tijdens een grieppandemie in de Verenigde Staten een vaccin in verband gebracht met GBS, waarna de vaccinatie abrupt werd afgebroken. Onderzoek in de jaren hierna toonde aan dat er nauwelijks of helemaal niet sprake was was een verhoogd risico, maar de verdenking van griepvaccinatie als 'trigger' van het Guillain-Barré-syndroom bleef bestaan.

Vijftig miljoen
Het European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) besloot daarom tot onderzoek onder vijftig miljoen Europeanen die in 2009 zijn gevaccineerd tijdens de pandemie van Nieuwe Influenza A (Mexicaanse griep). Na analyse van deze omvangrijke groep mensen, afkomstig uit vijf landen, bleek er geen significant verband te bestaan tussen de griepvaccinatie en een groter risico op Guillain-Barré.

Spierzwakte
Het Guillain-Barré-syndroom is een zeldzame neuromusculaire aandoening, die leidt tot disfunctioneren van de spieren. In Nederland worden ieder jaar 150 tot 300 mensen door het syndroom getroffen. Patiënten die aan de ziekte lijden, verliezen in korte tijd hun spierkracht. Guillain-Barré manifesteert zich zowel bij mannen als bij vrouwen en is niet leeftijdgebonden. De ernst van de ziekte kan sterk variëren, van nauwelijks merkbare spierzwakte tot een vrijwel volledige verlamming.

Ervaringen
Meer informatie, waaronder patiëntenervaringen, is te vinden op de website www.guillain-barre.nl.
Lees ook het artikel over GBS in Monitor, het magazine van het Erasmus MC. Een artikel over vaccinaties is eveneens te vinden in Monitor.

Bron: http://www.erasmusmc.nl/c(...)mex.griepvaccin.gbs/

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 09:23 schreef Resonancer het volgende:
Menselijk DNA in vaccins,

[..]

maar dat vergaten ze gewoon te vertellen.....

quote:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Response to “Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review”
by Ratajczak, HV (Journal of Immunotoxicology 8:68–79,
2011)
Jamie C. DeWitt1 and Rodney R. Dietert2
1Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA,
and 2Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

In a recent review paper by Ratajczak (2011) on theoretical
aspects of autism, the lines between speculation
and well-supported science were blurred with respect
to how possible risk factors for autism were described.
Considering the potential public health implications
if speculation leads to action, we felt that we needed to
respond to the way in which Dr. Ratajczak presented
information in the review.
Autism is a childhood disease that has an estimated
prevalence of 1 in 110 children in the United States (CDC,
2009). The accompanying social costs of treating autistic
children have sky-rocketed, and the emotional costs
endured by families with autistic children are impossible
to estimate. Hindrances to the treatment and prevention
of autism are directly related to the heterogeneity of
risk factors that likely contribute to an autism diagnosis
and the phenotypic heterogeneity of the disease itself.
Genetic susceptibilities combined with a myriad of
exogenous factors including maternal infections, stress,
environmental pollutants, pharmaceutical agents, and
dietary insufficiencies are thought to contribute to the
etiology of autism. However, specific pathways are hypothetical
at best and causality among putative risk factors
has not been established. The review by Dr. Ratajczak
goes beyond a discussion of scientific studies of putative
risk factors of autism to assign both causes and specific
preventative measures linked with those causes. In our
opinion and based on the present state of the scientific
literature, this is inappropriate.
In her review on autism, we feel that Dr. Ratajczak
misrepresented the following points:
(1) Perhaps the most publicly and scientifically debated
issue surrounding risk factors associated with autism is
vaccine safety. Dr. Ratajczak writes that “The incidence
and prevalence data indicate that the timing of introduction
of vaccines and changes in the type and increasing
number of vaccines given at one time implicate vaccines
as a cause of autism.” Several recent studies indicate that
vaccination, specifically the vaccination against measles-
mumps-rubella (MMR), does not increase the risk
of autism. Notably, a longitudinal study done in Japan
over a 4-year period (1989–1993) demonstrated that the
incidence of autism was not different across the interval
before, during, and after this MMR vaccination window
(Uchiyama et al., 2007).
The vaccine controversy arose from a single paper
published in 1998 (Wakefield et al., 1998), suggesting
that the MMR vaccine was linked to autism. For parents
with autistic children looking for a reason to explain their
child’s diagnosis, this paper seemed a blessing and led
to anti-vaccination cries from celebrities and advocacy
groups. The original Wakefield et al. 1998 paper was fully
retracted by the Lancet on 2 Feb 2010 following a report
of the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council. The
British Medical Journal concluded that the study had been
fraudulently concocted (Godlee et al., 2011). However,
the damage to public health persists. The outcome of this
flawed work included the resurgence of previously controlled
diseases in the United States and United Kingdom
that led to injuries and deaths in children who were
not immunized against MMR. Numerous studies were
unable to replicate the fraudulent Wakefield findings

and, in fact, produced additional data against the ability
of the MMR vaccine or the preservative, Thimerosal, to
induce autism in children or autistic-like effects in animal
models. Similarly, a study by Price et al. (2011) indicated
that no increased risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders was
associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines given
during prenatal, birth-to-1 month, birth-to-7-month, and
birth-to-20-month age periods. Regarding the Wakefield
controversy, an editorial by two scientists who study vaccine
safety (Poland and Spier, 2010) emphasized that the
movement from evidence-based medicine to media and
celebrity based medicine lead to barriers to discovering
causes and effective treatments for autism.
While we agree that a review article on the risk factors
associated with autism must include a discussion of
vaccine safety, not because it is scientifically meritorious
but because it is an issue that the public seems to think is
scientifically debatable, we do not feel that Dr. Ratajczak
suitably addressed the issue. Although the cited articles
were published in reputable journals, the language that
Dr. Ratajczak used to discuss vaccines as risk factors in
autism did not make it clear that the debate surrounding
this issue has moved from the scientific arena to the
arena of media hype and misinformation. In addition,
although it is well accepted that the immune system of
newborns and children is more sensitive to perturbations
than the adult, there is no agreement on the specific
age at which sensitivity is the highest. Therefore, asserting
that the immune system of a 2-month-old is more or
less compromised than a 1-month-old or a 1-year-old is
hypothetical, at best, and misleading at worst.
(2) The title of the article Theoretical aspects of autism:
Causes—A review implies that autism has a sufficient
number of theoretical causes to warrant a review. A parent
or health care provider searching through scientific
literature databases could easily read the title and make
the assumption that the etiology of autism has a theoretical
basis. Skimming through the article would lead such
readers to suspect that being pregnant or getting exposed
to agricultural pesticides can cause autism, even though
no strong scientific evidence points to these factors as
causal. At best, the article reviews the hypotheses that
have been proposed as risk factors for autism, not theoretical
causes. This may seem a point of semantics, but
given the media focus on the search for causes of autism,
any assertions about causative factors should be strongly
supported by well-documented epidemiological findings
backed by rigorously-controlled animal studies that
establish biological plausibility. Currently, such data
simply do not exist to assign causality.
(3) Deductive logic is part of the scientific method and
allows scientists to base conclusions on empirical observations.
In the absence of empirical evidence, scientists
develop ideas based on relatively little data, with the
understanding that asserting such ideas often drives the
development of additional empirical evidence. This is
the creative aspect of science and helps to push the boundaries
of knowledge. However, stating such ideas as theory
removes the experimental piece required to move an idea
to theory. It glosses over gaps in data and forces a reader to
fill in the missing information with speculation and supposition.
For example, under the “pregnancy” section of
“conditions,” pregnancy is not really a theoretical cause of
autism; prenatal viral exposures during pregnancy may
affect the blood-brain-barrier, which may increase the
risk of autism. In one cited study (Atladóttir et al., 2010),
the authors indicated that “…this study is an exploratory
study” and that “…the significant associations observed
could therefore be chance findings (Type I error).” In the
review article by Dr. Ratajczak, this study is presented as
evidence that viral infections in the first trimester and bacterial
infections in the second trimester of pregnancy are
associated with a diagnosis of autism in the offspring. In
reality, the Atladóttir et al. (2010) study merely indicated
that maternal infection increased the risk of autism, not
the diagnosis. In addition, the possibility of a Type I error
indicates that if it was assumed that viral infections were
associated with autism, the reality is that they really were
not. Dr. Ratajczak’s critical error is not citing the article(s),
but overstating the conclusions of specific articles particularly
in light of the authors’ own stated conclusions. Doing
so takes this review article from a critical assessment of the
literature to significant over-speculation.
The absence of definitive causes for autism is a powerful
force that turns mild associations and even assertions
into key risk factors. The search for causes to explain
why a particular child succumbed to an autism diagnosis
leads down a slippery slope from strongly supported
scientific hypotheses to a desperate search for answers
in the milieu of questions with little to no scientific support.
Such questions often receive a multitude of media
attention because the answers seem so simple. However,
with a disease as heterogeneous as autism, no answer
concerning its etiology will be simple, linear, or absolute.
It is, therefore, imperative that scientists in the autism
research arena appreciate that over-speculation may
lead to sensationalism.
The decision of the Editorial Board of the Journal of
Immunotoxicology to publish Dr. Ratajczak’s manuscript
reflects the need to improve and expand upon the scientific
literature surrounding the etiology of autism. We laud
the journal for their desire to contribute to the discourse on
autism and appreciate the efforts of the reviewers to ensure
that reviews are timely and supported by relevant peer-reviewed
literature. Considering that the scientific debate on
vaccine safety has concluded that vaccines do not contribute
to the incidence of autism, neither the editors nor the
reviewers likely anticipated the negative impact on public
safety if parents fail to vaccinate their children as a result of
reading Dr. Ratajczak’s misleading statements about vaccine
safety. Similarly, asserting that autism has theoretical
causes may mislead casual readers into believing that the
scientific community has reached a consensus on the specific
risk factors that contribute to autism etiology.
We agree that certain risk factors have a greater probability
of contributing to autism than others; we do notagree that any risk factors have been deemed causal. We
hope that we have emphasized that while Dr. Ratajczak’s
review was timely and necessary, it over-speculated, relied
heavily on exploratory studies, and discounted the conclusions
of the scientific community with regard to the safety
of vaccines. We hope that we have clarified some of the misconceptions
that may have been raised by Dr. Ratajczak’s
review and appreciate the opportunity to comment.

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 12:20 schreef switchboy het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Uit Fins onderzoek is gebleken dat kinderen die het vaccin tegen Mexicaanse griep hebben gekregen ongeveer negen keer meer kans hebben op de slaapziekte dan de kinderen die het vaccin niet hebben ontvangen. Meer onderzoek is nodig, maar vooralsnog wijst alles erop dat het vaccin – in combinatie met andere factoren – toch echt tot de slaapziekte kan leiden.
http://www.scientias.nl/v(...)de-slaapziekte/24526

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 13:30 schreef switchboy het volgende:

[..]

[..]

quote:

Sixth study in recent months links mercury in flu shots to brain damage, autism

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.co(...)e.html#ixzz1SSKdkVYN
http://www.naturalnews.com/031678_mercury_autism.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225508

etc

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 13:32 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

[..]

Gelukkig maar, hopelijk geldt dat ook hiervoor.

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 13:41 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

[..]

En daar ben jij het mee eens ? Heb je n bron erbij svp?

Ik lees dingen die haaks op dat comentaar staan. Niet direct over DNA als oorzaak maar wel over de link vaccinaties/autisme. En dan natuurlijk vnl door de toevoegingen van kwikverbindingen. deze b.v..

[..]

quote:

Atladóttir, H. O., Thorsen, P., Østergaard, L., Schendel, D. E., Lemcke,
S., Abdallah, M., and Parner, E. T. 2010. Maternal infection
requiring hospitalization during pregnancy and autism spectrum
disorders. J. Autism Dev. Disord 40:1423–1430.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2009. Autism
and developmental disabilities monitoring network surveillance
year 2006 principal investigators. Prevalence of autism spectrum
disorders - Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring
network, United States, 2006. MMWR Surveill. Summ. 58:1–20.
Godlee, F., Smith, J., and Marcovitch, H. 2011. Wakefield’s
article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ
342:c7452.
Poland, G. A., and Spier, R. 2010. Fear, misinformation, and
innumerates: How the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy
groups damaged the public health. Vaccine 28:2361–2362.
Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Croen LA,
Hinrichsen VL, et al. 2011. Prenatal and infant exposure to
thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of
autism. Pediatrics. 126:656-664.
Ratajczak, H. V. 2011. Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review.
J Immunotoxicol 8:68–79.
Uchiyama, T., Kurosawa, M., and Inaba, Y. 2007. MMR-vaccine
and regression in autism spectrum disorders: negative results
presented from Japan. J. Autism Dev. Disord 37:210–217.
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D.
M., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A. P., Thomson, M. A.,
Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S. E., and Walker-Smith, J. A.
1998. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis,
and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet
351:637–641.

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 13:30 schreef switchboy het volgende:

[..]


[..]

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 13:41 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 14:14 schreef Re het volgende:

[..]

op zich interessant die studies in ratten ergens in Polen

beter is het te studeren in echte mensen babies, wat ook gedaan is met 0,0 effect

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20003103

quote:

Information extracted from studies indicates that: (a) activity of low doses of Thimerosal against isolated human and animal brain cells was found in all studies and is consistent with Hg neurotoxicity; (b) the neurotoxic effect of ethylmercury has not been studied with co-occurring adjuvant-Al in TCVs; (c) animal studies have shown that exposure to Thimerosal-Hg can lead to accumulation of inorganic Hg in brain, and that (d) doses relevant to TCV exposure possess the potential to affect human neuro-development. Thimerosal at concentrations relevant for infants' exposure (in vaccines) is toxic to cultured human-brain cells and to laboratory animals. The persisting use of TCV (in developing countries) is counterintuitive to global efforts to lower Hg exposure and to ban Hg in medical products; its continued use in TCV requires evaluation of a sufficiently nontoxic level of ethylmercury compatible with repeated exposure (co-occurring with adjuvant-Al) during early life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21350943[uid]

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 15:39 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

Waarom is de stof eigenlijk voor n hoop vaccins in de ban gedaan, als het toch geen kwaad kan ?

quote:

Op zondag 3 juli 2011 05:14 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
Is 'innocent until proven guilty' tegenwoordig uit het raam gesmeten?

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 februari 2010 17:11 schreef Lavenderr het volgende:
Ik merk hier weleens dat sommige users van Big Pharma een charitatieve instelling willen maken. Zou de kritiek dan verstommen?
Maar dan is er dus ook minder geld om nieuwe medicijnen te ontwikkelen.

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 18:07 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Quatsch van de bovenste plank.

Zo lang men 10 maal zoveel budget over heeft voor reclame dan is onderzoek echt niet in gevaar.
Biljoenen omzet en er is geen geld voor onderzoek. Wat een bullshit.

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 16:39 schreef Re het volgende:

[..]

Misschien omdat er nu betere en goedkopere alternatieven beschikbaar zijn

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 18:10 schreef Re het volgende:

[..]

2x ongeveer, en de meeste pharma bedrijven halen winst uit 1-2 blockbusters, de rest is nauwelijks winstgevend

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 18:10 schreef Re het volgende:

[..]

2x ongeveer, en de meeste pharma bedrijven halen winst uit 1-2 blockbusters, de rest is nauwelijks winstgevend

quote:

the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993223,00.html

quote:

While the industry is quick to claim how much it must spend to come up with new drugs, it is slow to acknowledge the contributions of the Federal Government and American taxpayers. Universities, foundations, researchers and congressional committees have concluded for years that many major drugs owe their origins to research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute and other public agencies.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/(...)0.html#ixzz1STaDmq7J

Big Pharma big bucks pt.1

quote:

Drug companies now spend more than $12 billion a year hawking the newest, most expensive brand-name drugs to patients and doctors in the U.S., regardless of whether those drugs are truly needed or any better than what's been available for years. Big Bucks, Big Pharma is an incisive expose of how marketing has infected everything doctors and patients learn about drugs, and a much-needed antidote to the tidal wave of self-serving drug company propaganda that dominates the airwaves. Anyone who ever prescribes or takes a pill should see this documentary."
- Alex Sugerman-Brozan | The PAL Project

quote:

Op maandag 18 juli 2011 16:33 schreef Cerbie het volgende:
Van menselijk DNA krijg je autisme? Dan is de gehele reproducerende samenleving autistisch, denk eens aan al dat DNA dat je uitwisselt tijdens zoenen en sex.