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

  • #1
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,545
167
Summary:
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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
hutchphd
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,757
2,914
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.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara, DaveE and nomadreid
  • #3
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,545
167
Ah. OK, thanks, hutchphd
 
  • #4
DaveE
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,893
1,528
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara, berkeman and nomadreid
  • #5
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,545
167
Thanks, DaveE. This confirms my suspicions.
 

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

  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Replies
20
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
988
  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
409
Replies
2
Views
562
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
677
Top