Infant Monkeys Given Doses of Vaccines Develop Autism Symptoms

Evidence is mounting up === Lawsuits Lawsuits Lawsuits

Rates of autism spectrum disorder among children born in the 1990s surged dramatically, from about 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 150 children.

Infant Vaccines Produce Autism Symptoms in New Primate Study by University Of Pittsburgh Scientists

The abstracts presented at IMFAR, the world’s top autism science conference, describe biological changes and altered behavior in vaccinated macaques that are similar to those observed in children with autism. Unvaccinated animals showed no such adverse outcomes.

vran.org...

reply to post by rory212


Yep, its time to expose them.

Well, maybe find a big red ant hill first.

Safety studies of medicines are typically conducted in monkeys prior to use in humans, yet such basic research on the current childhood vaccination regimen has never before been done.

www.safeminds.org...

Excuse me... ummmm.... yeah.
Alrighty then.

Sooooo.... yeah, I guess I can't really top that statement.
Thanks for calling those of us nutters who don't trust the gov't propaganda about vaccines.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

Safety studies of medicines are typically conducted in monkeys prior to use in humans, yet such basic research on the current childhood vaccination regimen has never before been done.

www.safeminds.org...

Excuse me... ummmm.... yeah.
Alrighty then.

Sooooo.... yeah, I guess I can't really top that statement.
Thanks for calling those of us nutters who don't trust the gov't propaganda about vaccines.

Exactly.
I've talked to people personally about vaccines. One example struck me; mother's story of how her child could speak and function normally until vaccinated, was years again before he spoke and exhibits the symptoms until this day.

Well, can only hope this gets more exposure.

reply to post by rory212

I guess we shouldn't vaccinate infant monkeys. Autism rates in humans, however, are conclusively not correlated with vaccination.

I'm going to see what I can't run down on this article and see if I can't at least find an abstract. Just based off a quick perusal I have found one mistake. Laura Hewitson hasn't worked at the University of Pittsburgh since 2010.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by rory212

 

I guess we shouldn't vaccinate infant monkeys. Autism rates in humans, however, are conclusively not correlated with vaccination.

Cigarettes are not "conclusively" correlated with cancer.

Arguments can be ridiculously twisted to show innocence or guilt by any decent attorney. Take Obama's recent attorney's argument trying to throw out his fake BC as real evidence because of it's obvious forgery. Just 1 example. When the MAIN studies are done by the mfg of the product, they will always be swayed in favor of said product. Common knowledge.

Ok so I have found a little more out about this study. This is not recent. It comes from 2008 and is apparently actually the work of Andrew Wakefield. For those who don't know Wakefield he was a major advocate of the autism-vaccine link and published a paper in 1998 supporting the claim. Since that time Wakefield's research has been found to be primarily made-up. In February 2008 he had his medical license revoked and in 2010 30 different charges related to his work were proven among which included a dozen charges related to the abuse of developmentally challenged children. Shortly before his license was revoked he submitted a paper to the journal NeuroToxicology but the paper was not published after he was exposed. This paper was then pretty much broken up into three different papers which his proteges attempted to have published. This paper is one of them. In fact if you check out the abstract it even has a special thanks section for Wakeman. I'll see if I can turn up a peer-reviewed rebuttal to this paper but in the mean time here is a response from Scienceblogs.

Too much vaccine/autism monkey business for me to be involved in--but apparently not Laura Hewitson

reply to post by Xcalibur254


This apparently took place in 2008. Why we are just hearing about it raises questions about the entire process.

www.whale.to...

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Ok so I have found a little more out about this study. This is not recent. It comes from 2008 and is apparently actually the work of Andrew Wakefield. For those who don't know Wakefield he was a major advocate of the autism-vaccine link and published a paper in 1998 supporting the claim. Since that time Wakefield's research has been found to be primarily made-up. In February 2008 he had his medical license revoked and in 2010 30 different charges related to his work were proven among which included a dozen charges related to the abuse of developmentally challenged children. Shortly before his license was revoked he submitted a paper to the journal NeuroToxicology but the paper was not published after he was exposed. This paper was then pretty much broken up into three different papers which his proteges attempted to have published. This paper is one of them. In fact if you check out the abstract it even has a special thanks section for Wakeman. I'll see if I can turn up a peer-reviewed rebuttal to this paper but in the mean time here is a response from Scienceblogs.

Too much vaccine/autism monkey business for me to be involved in--but apparently not Laura Hewitson

Your comment about Dr. Wakefield is misleading, to say the least. He was involved in this research, but only as part of a large team.

In the program for the conference, the 7th Annual International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR), there are three separate presentations listed that report results from the overall research program. The first, an oral presentation entitled "Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior, and Amygdala Growth and Opioid Ligand Binding" (the "amygdala abstract") was led by Dr. Hewitson and lists 12 co-authors, including five of her colleagues from the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. Wakefield. Other authors are chemists, pathologists and psychologists from the universities of Kentucky, California-Irvine, and Washington. www.whale.to...

reply to post by frazzle


As I said in my other post these findings, along with two other presented papers, originally came from a paper submitted to NeuroToxicology that had Wakeman as the lead researcher. When Wakeman had his license revoked the paper was rejected. The findings of the paper were then split up into three separate papers that Wakeman's proteges attempted to have published. This is one of them. In a means to help the paper be published Wakeman was removed as an author and simply relegated to a special thanks.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by frazzle

 

As I said in my other post these findings, along with two other presented papers, originally came from a paper submitted to NeuroToxicology that had Wakeman as the lead researcher. When Wakeman had his license revoked the paper was rejected. The findings of the paper were then split up into three separate papers that Wakeman's proteges attempted to have published. This is one of them. In a means to help the paper be published Wakeman was removed as an author and simply relegated to a special thanks.

Not being rude but I think you are talking about Anrew Wakefield. Just fyi.

reply to post by strangedays


You're right. I was listening to Yes and was thinking Rick Wakeman instead of Andrew Wakefield. Kind of embarrassing considering one is one of the best in his field and the other is a lying fraud.

old news, was used on soviet citizens for exactly this reason

reply to post by Xcalibur254


So he had his license revoked? Nothing amazing there, look what he was trying to do.

And the best rebuttal you could find was from a blog? Why do I even bother reading your posts...

I'd pay alot of money to see a autistic blind monkey with down syndrome, pants, suspenders, and a helmet on ride a bike.... haha......

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


If I find a peer-reviewed rebuttal you still won't change your mind. You have already admitted that you believe vaccines cause autism and anything that says otherwise is lying. You simply came into this thread to troll.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I also want to point out that ScienceBlogs isn't just some blog. It is a group of blogs each maintained by a member of the scientific community. It is presently the largest online community dedicated to science. The article I linked to previously was written by a scientist/surgeon. Here you can also read the view of Steven Novella, one of the leading neurologists in the country.
Terrible Anti-Vaccine Study, Terrible Reporting

The questions you need to be asking yourself are why did Hewitson make no mention of the fact that she stood to financially gain by proving vaccines were linked to autism? At the time her daughter was involved in the Omnibus suit regarding vaccines and autism. Why did she contradict the findings of the 2008 paper in a 2010 paper using the exact same data? Why does she try to pass these findings off as fact when this is merely a pilot study? Where is the actual study that these are supposed to be building to? Why does she try to draw any kind of conclusions when she only used two, yes 2, controls? This work by Hewitson is the definition of bad science. She has a clear agenda and her methodology is, to put it kindly, shoddy. People on this site actually need to become literate to science instead of claiming studies that prove their worldview right are 100% right and perfect while anything to the contrary is bad science or outright lies.

Originally posted by strangedays

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by frazzle

 

As I said in my other post these findings, along with two other presented papers, originally came from a paper submitted to NeuroToxicology that had Wakeman as the lead researcher. When Wakeman had his license revoked the paper was rejected. The findings of the paper were then split up into three separate papers that Wakeman's proteges attempted to have published. This is one of them. In a means to help the paper be published Wakeman was removed as an author and simply relegated to a special thanks.

Not being rude but I think you are talking about Anrew Wakefield. Just fyi.

You're right, Dr. Andrew WakeFIELD. This guy:

www.ageofautism.com...

In an attempt by British Medical Journal to wrest Andrew Wakefield’s libel case from the jurisdiction of a Texas court its editor Fiona Godlee has denied ‘under penalty of perjury’ that she and her colleagues were ever aware that Wakefield resided in Texas, despite numerous references in the journal to this fact since 2005. The declaration which was made to the court twice, first on 28 February 2012 and then on 5 April, coincided on the second occasion with the presentation by Wakefield’s lawyers of annotated evidence that the fact had often been reported by the journal. This claim must cast doubt on Godlee’s competence and reliability as a witness. It follows her remarkable claim last year, at a meeting of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, that she did not know that BMJ’s business partners Merck and GSK were manufacturers of MMR vaccine . It also follows the revelation last month that BMJ had not had the article by Brian Deer – on which its claims of fraud against Wakefield were based – externally peer reviewed, as claimed at the time of publication, (See BMJ HERE.)

INCEST

These need to be stopped.
Injections of this sort do not help immunity..
They make you weaker.

I was pressured into a flu vaccination two and a half years ago.
I haven't been the same since.
Talking is super rough.
Went a bit off my rocker for a while..
Only now getting back to normal

Thanks, OP, hopefully this article will go viral

The fact they have NEVER run safety tests on these???
INCOMPETENT.



mm read the previous responses now..
And I must question.
Maybe his credibility was destroyed BECAUSE of his findings?
Medicine is Money.
But I am not as knowledgeable about this subject..
Only that it makes sense to me; cause and effect.