Study: Stanford Scientist Claims DNA in Vaccines Could Cause Autism

I'm not presenting this as an "anti-vaxxer", or as someone from the pro-vaccine side. I am simply sharing it to begin a conversation and find out what others think about this information.

The doctor and these findings were brought up in this thread a few months back: www.abovetopsecret.com... - I wanted to include the study AND include disclaimers ahead of time so this doesn't become an all out argument (taking away from the useful conversation) like a lot of the vaccine threads turned into

Okay, now that a disclaimer is out of the way:

Anti-Vaxxer Article

The article itself is obviously anti-vax, but let's just look at the information logically; basically, the article (and the study) conclude that there are often "residual human fetal DNA fragments" found in vaccines, and this DNA can alter the DNA of the vaccine recipient:

Dr. Theresa Deisher, a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University, the first person to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells, determined that residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccines may be one of the causes of autism in children through vaccination.

“It is possible that these contaminating fragments could be incorporated into a child’s genome and disrupt normal gene function, leading to autistic phenotypes.”

The article also provides a link to the full study Dr. Deisher is referring to: St udy (you have to zoom in on the PDF to actually read the information)

What do you guys think about this study and its implications?

NOTE: If someone says something that gets you emotionally charged, please refrain from attacking them personally or turning this into a versus thread. I really just want to see what the general reception of this study/finding is, no attacks or people getting all upset. Thank you all in advance

a reply to: FamCore

Mods - I hadn't noticed that in the earlier thread the original poster also included the study as a comment later on.

Feel free to close/delete thread if deemed necessary. Thank you!

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: FamCore

Mods - I hadn't noticed that in the earlier thread the original poster also included the study as a comment later on.

Feel free to close/delete thread if deemed necessary. Thank you!

No need to close it, I'm sure new eyes will be visiting.

I've heard of this before, several years ago in fact! Wish I could remember where I saw/read about it. WHat people really ought to note is that research is ongoing and nowhere near complete, and yet vaccines are in full use!

Some of the components of Vaccines for kids are derived from fetal dna. DUH!!!! Vaccine skeptics and others have known this since the 80's. I'm more and more confident everyday as a vaccine skeptic in my views and beliefs. Science and history will end up siding against so many childhood vaccinations. The same way the cholesterol causes heart disese myth is a complete lie. Vaccines are safe will be its equal.

Ok, forgive me but I am not familiar with this information.

Fetal cells in vaccines? Is there proof of this? Is this a known 'fact' that I am just unaware of?

a reply to: FamCore
1. There's no epidemiological link between vaccines and autism. The paper allegedly supporting this link (footnote 6) does not include the word "autism." That's a fairly serious omission/misrepresentation.

2. The Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute is not unbiased. Their stated raison d'etre is to end the use of electively aborted fetal tissue in medical research. They claim to have an alternative to MMR and are asking for money to manufacture it.

I'm sympathetic toward their cause, but I don't find them very trustworthy because of the autism thing.

Vaccines are important. That said, they should be as safe as possible and have independent oversight. There have been quite a few incidents of known contamination over the years.

I welcome a rational discussion about vaccines. Seems like both "sides" have become almost religious in their views.

The argument is almost like this:
Side 1: I will eat everything because nothing I eat could ever hurt me.
Side 2: I will quit eating entirely because my food might have arsenic in it.

a reply to: FamCore

you might had missed my thread. Only 2 flags Merck Acknowledged FDA Approved Vaccines Originating From Aborted Human Fetuses

a reply to: pirhanna

keep taking your vaccines buddy.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

S & F gmoneystunt - it's sickening to me that this is the case. the FDA DISGUSTS me

a reply to: FamCore

there are still vaccines with insect dna. I wonder how safe that is

Basically, it looks like they artificially porated some human cell lines. Of those, cancer cells (already abnormal) and monocytes took up some exogenous DNA. Of course, the exogenous DNA was concentrated several orders of magnitude over what you'd see from the DNA residue in the vaccine. And you wouldn't normally have a lot of LPS or saponin around to porate the cells, but even if the kid was septic, you wouldn't see the amounts they used.

So the test didn't exactly reflect a normal life-sustaining condition, and even then you didn't get transfection into the neural cells.

I might add, if you were to have dumped bacterial DNA into the soup at that concentration, you'd have got bacterial DNA pasted in as well. So unless you've got a kid in a bubble, if he/she ends up with a butt full of lipopolysaccharide they're going to be having this go on in a "natural" way as well.

I also think it's a long long long illogical leap they make when they say "human DNA taken up by human cells will be transported into nuclei and be integrated into host genome, which will cause phenotype change. Hence, residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccine can be one of causes of autism spectrum disorder in children through vaccination"

You've got two sort of dissimilar sentences spliced with a "hence" here. I think that "hence" is under a lot of strain. You might as well say "chicken DNA found as a residue in egg based vaccines can cause your kid to grow feathers and cluck".

This is advocacy science. Doesn't mean they're completely wrong, but it's like having a PETA mouthpiece "discover" that eating meat is bad for you. For all I know it might be true, but I don't trust that sort of study - they're always going to find that things fit what they wanted to find.

a reply to: pirhanna

I wouldn't say both sides have become "almost religious..." I'd say people who are "pro-vax-ers" might fall into that category, and some anti-vac-ers, too, but what do you call those who just want to be told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then to be given opportunity to make their own choice... I think I hear what you're saying, but I'd say I fall into this 3rd category, and want to live as I want to live... For the MOST part. Discussion is welcome, I'd say, too, but I don't necessarily want that discussion to take my choice(s) away.

Disclaimer: this is an "after my bedtime post." If I'm "wrong," it ain't my fault... Lol