Toxicity for fetuses during 2-vaccine 2009/2010 season?

  • Context: Medical 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Toxicity Vaccines
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around concerns regarding the potential toxicity of vaccines during the 2009/2010 flu season, specifically focusing on a paper that suggests a possible link between fetal deaths and the administration of both the swine flu and seasonal flu vaccines. Participants explore the credibility of the claims made in the article, the qualifications of the author, and the implications of the findings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references an article claiming an unusual increase in fetal deaths reported via VAERS during the 2009/2010 season, suggesting a possible synergistic toxic effect between two vaccines.
  • Concerns are raised about the credibility of the article's author, who is described as an "Independent Computer Scientist" without relevant credentials.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the validity of the claims made in the article, questioning the statistical analysis and the biological mechanisms proposed.
  • Participants note that the article does not adequately address variations in fetal loss rates across different states, raising doubts about the conclusions drawn.
  • There is a discussion about the relevance of Thimerosal, with some participants pointing out that it is no longer used in vaccines, which may render the study's findings outdated.
  • One participant suggests that the journal in which the article was published has a low impact factor, indicating potential issues with the quality of the research.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the claims made in the article, with multiple competing views on its credibility and relevance. There is no consensus on the validity of the findings or the implications for vaccine safety.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the article's statistical analysis and the qualifications of the author, as well as the potential for bias in the study's conclusions. The discussion reflects a broader concern about misinformation surrounding vaccines.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,771
Reaction score
255
TL;DR
An article cited below claims that statistically there seems to be a increased reporting for fetal deaths in the US during the time in which many women received both the swine flu and the seasonal flu vaccines, and suggests, by ruling out some other factors, a synergistic effect between the 2 vaccines. I find the article suspect, but I am neither a biologist nor a statistician. Could there be any validity in this?
The article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3888271/ claims (if I read it correctly) that there was an unusual increase in fetal deaths reported via the VAERS reporting system (which, it must be said, anybody can report, so the data there has to be taken with a grain of salt-- but the author claims to have taken this into account) in the US during the 2009 to 2010 swine flu epidemic (as compared to the year before and the year after) that the author (an "Independent Computer Scientist") claims suggests a synergistic toxic effect between two vaccines when both taken -- the swine flu epidemic of that year (H1N1) and the seasonal flu vaccine -- since each vaccine alone was tested as safe, and tht the deaths from either flu alone (despite the vaccines) should not have accounted for. In the "Discussion" at the end, the author briefly discusses a possible biological mechanism having to do with the mercury from the Thimerosal used as a preservative in the swine flu vaccine, but I am not in a position to judge the validity of these conjectures. Nor am I sufficiently adept to judge the mass of statistical manipulations contained in the article, or to know whether the author took all confounding factors into account.

(Although this article was published eight years ago, the present mass of misinformation surrounding vaccines has made me flinch when a negative result concerning vaccines surfaces.)

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
The author has no applicable credentials. From the paper

Acknowledgments
The author thanks Neil Z Miller for invaluable assistance with this manuscript; Paul G King, PhD, for expertise related to Thimerosal-containing influenza vaccines, and also Eileen Dannemann, Director of National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW), for contributing to the survey data on fetal loss

I would not waste my time. These are not reputable folks IMHO.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara, DaveE and nomadreid
Ah. OK, thanks, hutchphd
 
nomadreid said:
I find the article suspect, but I am neither a biologist nor a statistician. Could there be any validity in this?
Me too, on all counts. Did they demonstrate any validity? Not really, IMO.

Yes they have some statistics on their side, but they left as much unexplained as explained. For example, "Table 4. Rate of fetal-loss reports by state": How does his mechanism account for the fact that the states AZ, FL, MN, and MI have fetal loss rates around 0.3, but the states AK, ME, KS, MA, and MT all have loss rates that are above 1.4, a 400% increase? These are not small populations.

Also if their mechanism is Thimerosal, why didn't they study/report on earlier vaccines that also used this compound. It feels pretty biased, but I'll be nice and just say lazy.

nomadreid said:
Although this article was published eight years ago, the present mass of misinformation surrounding vaccines has made me flinch when a negative result concerning vaccines surfaces.
Surfaced, or dredged up. Nobody uses Thimerosal any more. Even if the study is correct, it's irrelevant, except perhaps as medical history.

And the best part: the author (yes one, single author) -
Gary S Goldman, Independent Computer Scientist, Pearblossom, CA

There are better places to get your information about vaccine risks than an "Independent Computer Scientist" in Pearblossom.

OK, next, the journal: Human and Experimental Toxicology (HET). The most recent journal impact factor data I could find was 2018 where it ranked 64th out of 87 journals in the category "Toxicology".

This is a favorite tactic to confuse people with pseudoscience (tobacco, vaccines, flat earth, whatever), publish, or find, a poorly done study so others can cite it, knowing full well that practically no one will actually read it. After all he does have a PhD.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara, berkeman and nomadreid
Thanks, DaveE. This confirms my suspicions.
 

Similar threads

Medical NeuroQuantology another gem, hiding in plain sight
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K