Move the Goalposts... It's Time to Talk Aluminum

Spend more than five minutes on an anti-vaccination website and you will soon realize that most antivaxxers aren't exactly fans of aluminum.  No we aren't talking about aluminum cans or cookware, but rather we are talking about aluminum in a salt form which is commonly used in vaccines to act as an adjuvant.  In simple terms, the aluminum increases the effectiveness of a vaccine due to how it triggers a reaction within the immune system.

Aluminum has been used within vaccines for over 80 years, so you might ask yourself why are antivaxxers suddenly so focused upon aluminum when it isn't exactly a new ingredient?

Well to answer that, you first need to realize where we have been.  Antivaxxers have previously attempted to single out other ingredients such as thimerosal as they blamed it for various conditions up to and including autism in children.  They used scare tactics to associate thimerosal with mercury poisoning due to a misunderstanding of the differences between ethylmercury and methylmercury.

However, even prior to these cries of mercury poisoning from the antivaxxer community, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was already in the process of reviewing the use of thimerosal in vaccines.  Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA carried out a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in vaccines.  The review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal other than local hypersensitivity reactions near the injection site.

In the early 2000's, the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) performed a review of all available research including studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark and they specifically focused upon the hypothesis that thimerosal was a contributing factor to childhood diseases such as autism.  The committee concluded that the available data and studies rejected the casual relationship between thimerosal (or vaccines containing thimerosal) and autism.

This is probably a good time to mention the fact that the IOM is part of the National Academy of Sciences and is a non-governmental institution. That may not seem particularly relevant, but since antivaxxers have a severe distrust for the federal government or any three letter agency (CDC, FDA, EPA et al), it should be clarified that the IOM is an independent organization and therefore would not share the same perceived bias(es) as a government agency.

Even though the IOM rejected the relationship between thimerosal and autism the FDA, as a preventative measure which had begun years earlier, was already in the process of removing thimerosal from vaccines.  As of 2001 thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines recommended for children six years of age or younger (keep in mind autism generally presents itself between ages two and four), and the only exception to this were some versions of the inactivated flu vaccine (although thimerosal-free versions are available).  In addition to this, all new non-influenza vaccines licensed since 1999 contain no thimerosal.

So what was the end result of removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines? Did we see a significant drop in the rates of autism? Nope. In fact, since 2001 the rates have actually gone up, and thus the theory that thimerosal was responsible for the "autism epidemic" was quite obviously no longer popular to rally behind. Children who had never received even trace amounts of thimerosal were still being diagnosed with autism and therefore antivaxxers realized they could no longer place blame upon thimerosal. It soon became obvious it was time to try something new.

Move the goalposts - we have another new theory!

When antivaxxers realized that pinning their hopes upon thimerosal might not exactly pan out, they shifted gears a bit and started focusing on one specific vaccine (the MMR vaccine) which they claimed was directly responsible for autism in children.  It was around this time that they started professing that Andrew Wakefield was a genius and seemed to have the secret to unlocking the root cause of autism due to a study he published in 1998 which attempted to link the MMR vaccine with autism.

Of course after Wakefield was discredited and stripped of his medical license, and after his "study" was retracted, and after he was found guilty of fraud and manipulation of data.... well he didn't exactly seem like the great savior afterall and he soon found himself the laughing stock of the scientific community.  It was around this time that many antivaxxers decided to back-peddle a bit and distance themselves from Wakefield (although in some extreme antivaxxer circles, Wakefield continues to be considered a favorite son).

So at that point the antivaxxers decided that instead of focusing on the MMR vaccine specifically, they should simply talk about vaccines or vaccine ingredients in more general terms because scaring people by talking about mercury poisoning or "toxicity" is generally more effective than trying to convince people that a discredited doctor was right all along.

You guessed it - time to pick up those goal posts and slide them back just a bit further!

A few years ago around the time many antivaxxers decided to stop talking about thimerosal or the MMR vaccine, they decided to start talking about other vaccine ingredients such as formaldehyde.  Why the focus on formaldehyde?  Well it surely had nothing to do with science, but rather it was about perception.  It seems most people associate formaldehyde with high school Biology class where a fetal pig or a frog was stored in it prior to dissection.  They recall the strong odor and the fact there were warning labels which stated severe over-exposure to the liquid could result in death.  They also associate formaldehyde with embalming fluid and dead bodies... so surely this isn't something that should be in a vaccine should it?

Well the truth is there is very, very little formaldehyde in vaccines, and it just so happens that we already have far greater quantities of formaldehyde in our bodies at any given point than we ever receive from any vaccine.  It turns out we have around about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood.

Per the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's (CHOP) Vaccine Education Center: "Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value at least five-fold greater than that to which an infant would be exposed in vaccines".

In fact, we as humans actually NEED formaldehyde to survive since it is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids, thus suggesting the amount in vaccines would somehow be harmful was at best ignorant, and most likely simply dishonest.  Thus after antivaxxers realized the amount of formaldehyde found in vaccines was insignificant, they actually went so far as to suggest there is a difference between "natural" formaldehyde, and "synthetic" formaldehyde... once again showing that antivaxxers seem to ignore even the most basic tenets of chemistry.

The formaldehyde argument didn't seem to gain much traction however - most likely since anyone who has ever taken a basic chemistry course understands what formaldehyde really is - so the antivaxxers soon decided it was time for something new.

Get the shovel out... those goalposts need to be moved yet again!

This brings us to present day - when many antivaxxers have decided the one ingredient within vaccines which is REALLY, REALLY harmful (for reals this time), and the one ingredient that has the potential to cause the most damage is none other than aluminum.  Per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), "[a]luminum salts, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate have been used in vaccines for more than 70 years" so you might think the antivaxxers are a bit late to the game... but hey - better late that never right?

I suppose to the layman, telling them you are going to inject them with aluminum sounds about as appealing as telling them you are going to inject them with mercury.  Saying these things scares people... and isn't that the point?  We can't expect people to realize that the aluminum is the most common metal on the entire planet can we?  Can we expect them to know that there is a vast difference between a chemical compound containing aluminum and an actual piece of aluminum that may be used to form a soda can?

The truth is, aluminum is actually all around us, and even in us.  Aluminum is found in our water, it is found in our the soil, it is found in the air, it is commonly used in antacids, aspirin, and yes it is even found in our food including fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat.

So what is an antivaxxer to do when they soon realize that aluminum is all around us? What can they do when they find out the average human contains between 50 and 150 mg of aluminum at any given time?  What do they do when the find out the average daily intake of aluminum may range from 10-110 mg?   Well... they simply decide to focus on the amount of aluminum in vaccines rather than the amount of aluminum anywhere else in our body or our environment. Seems legit.

The problem is, vaccines really don't contain very much aluminum.  A typical vaccine contains no more 0.85 mg of aluminum per dose.  To put this in perspective, aluminum is also found in soy-based infant formula (0.46–0.93 mg/L) and milk-based infant formula (0.058–0.15 mg/L) which means an infant will consume more aluminum in a few days of drinking formula than it would receive from a typical vaccine.

Per CHOP, "During the first 6 months of life, infants could receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. That’s not very much: a milligram is one-thousandth of a gram and a gram is the weight of one-fifth of a teaspoon of water. During the same period, babies will also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk, about 40 milligrams in infant formula, or about 120 milligrams in soy-based formula.

Even more shocking, a common over the counter antacid has around 300-600 mg of aluminum hydroxide (approximately 104–208 mg of aluminum) per tablet, capsule, or 5 milliliter (mL) liquid dose! That means if you take a single tablet of a commonly available antacid, you are consuming as much as 245 times more aluminum than you would get out of a typical vaccine.

So why aren't antivaxxers out there protesting against antacids?  If you consider how much aluminum a typical adult human might consume in a 24 hour period as a result of some heartburn, it would seem to be the equivalent of hundreds and hundreds of vaccinations, yet antivaxxers fail to even mention it.  Why are these same antivaxxers not signing petitions to have soy-based infant formula removed from store shelves when it exposes infants to 30 times as much aluminum as vaccines within the child's first six months of life?  Could it be the antivaxxers are just slightly biased due to all of their previously failed attempts at pinning the root cause of autism on the vaccine industry?

The truth is, even if someone does ingest 2000 mg of aluminum in a single day, it will quickly leave their body via their feces and urine, which results in over half being flushed out of the body within 24 hours and over 70% of the aluminum being flushed out of the body within five days.  There have been some reports of long term complications surrounding high levels of aluminum exposure which I am certain many antivaxxers have latched on to, but unfortunately for them there have been long term complications from exposure to every element and chemical compound known to man.  As it turns out, the number one cause of drowning in humans is a result of too much exposure to H₂O (commonly called "water"), yet I don't hear many people asking for the government to investigate Evian or Aquafina to see if they are killing people.  Go figure.

Sort of makes you wonder where the goalpost will move next doesn't it?

Mr. Hubbs Convoluted Idea of "Research"

As is often the case with conspiracy theorists, Mr. Hubbs believes he has a superior knowledge of science, medical issues, vaccines, and healthcare in general.  He believes anyone who doesn't agree with him or share the same viewpoint is somehow ignorant or being manipulated by the CDC, FDA, AMA, or "big pharma".  Mr. Hubbs commonly refers to Doctors and Researchers (or anyone who cites scientific evidence to support a claim) as "sheeple" and he believes his vast amount of time spent on the Internet somehow makes him an expert on vaccinations and medicine (among other things such as hacking and Apollo Moon landings).

Case in point, Mr. Hubbs sent an email which included the following passage:

Go review the information! I can explain it very easily, but I am not spending any more time with this today. Its all there. I have done thousands of hours of research and reading. I can tell you the real facts are all there. If you aren't willing to research it when it is right in front of you; then simply don't trash it. Only you can learn the truth; if you want to; I am not going to tutor and baby sit you. You clearly have no intention to want to know the real facts anyway.   ~Lowell Hubbs

This is a prime example of how Mr. Hubbs shows us that his idea of "research" involves sitting in front of a computer and reading various blogs or websites from anti-vaccination drones or accepting unsubstantiated statements from self-proclaimed experts who claim they can cure autism or have a 100% success rate curing cancer, but who are never able to prove their claims with reputable scientific studies.

The reality is, true medical research and knowledge is not gained by parroting statements of others (which may or may not even be based upon fact).  True research is done by those in the field and in the lab who are working with these issues as a career rather than a hobby.  If and when a breakthrough is made or a discovery is reached, these experts don't run out and blog about it or make bold claims to the public, because they know no outcome is considered proven science until it can be fully and accuarately replicated.

This is why the scientific community relies so heavily upon peer-reviewed science.  Anyone can make a claim, and anymore can claim they are able to prove such a claim, but fortunately for modern academia it isn't acceptable to merely take someone's word for it.  When it comes to matters of science and matters of fact, the conclusions and outcomes of studies need to be examined, verified, challenged, and yes authenticated.  Only when facts are double and triple checked, and only when statements and theories are examined by one's peers and validated to be accurate can we accept them as fact.

However in the mind of Mr. Hubbs, fact doesn't require such scrutiny.  It is more than sufficient to read a blog or a website and the statements of a profitteering alternative medicine practitioner and accept what they say at face value.  Mr. Hubbs doesn't have the critical thinking ability nor the scientific background to understand that this is not how science works, but that doesn't stop him from pretending what some of these people say is factual.

Rather than attempt to prove any of these statements or hypothesis, the anti-vaccination types fall back upon that old tired line that they are unable to publish their findings because they wouldn't be accepted in any medical journal.  Mr. Hubbs himself often repeats this excuse when pressed for evidence and he attempts to make claims about the flow of scientific information is controlled by "big pharma" or that the AMA et al would never allow such studies to be published because it would harm industry profits.

Granted when informed that there are hundreds of different scholarly journals published around the globe (many if not most of which are out of the reach of the AMA) and thousands upon thousands of studies published each and every year, Mr. Hubbs keeps finding excuses as to why none of these anti-vaccination "experts" have ever been able to prove any of their findings or publish any of their research in a true peer-reviewed journal.

For Mr. Hubbs it all comes down to money.  He claims there is no money to be made by a natural cure and therefore there is no funding to publish a study which would explain it.  However as I have discussed in the past, this quite simply is not true as there are many research grants available for the independent researcher who wishes to find a cure or new treatment for a disease.

Perhaps one of the greatest medical advancements in the past 100 years comes to us from Dr. Jonas Salk who provided us with the world's first polio vaccine.  Did Dr. Salk do his research at the behest of a pharmaceutical company in the name of profits?  Did Dr. Salk become a multi-millionaire from the patent to his vaccine?  Did Dr. Salk only license his vaccine to a specific company and charge an outrageous amount for it in order to pad the company bottom line and his own personal bank account?

The answer to these questions are all no, because not only did Dr. Salk not seek to hide his vaccine from the public, he offered it to all with no profit motive.  In fact when famously asked who owns the patent to the vaccine, Salk responded, "No one. Could you patent the sun?".

The point is, we as humans all have a desire to create a better society.  Although greed and money are driving factors for many, those who toil away for decades in a lab don't do so for fame or for wealth... they do so in order to make a difference.  There is no greater honor for a scientist that to discover something which can help eliminate disease among mankind or cure the suffering of others, and knowing they made a difference is worth exponentially more than any amount of material wealth could ever be.

The fact is our society loves a hero, and if there was a man or woman who could cure cancer, or if there was a person who could unlock the keys to the true root cause of autism that person would be not only a hero within the United States, but across the globe.  No amount of profit or greed would ever keep such a secret in the dark, but then again no amount of logic or fact is ever about to convince a conspiracy theorist like Mr. Hubbs that sugar doesn't cause polio and you can't cure cancer with baking soda.

Gardasil: Fact vs. Fiction

As you get to know Mr. Hubbs you realize his medical and vaccine conspiracy theories are not only limited to autism or mercury or thimerosal, but rather to pretty much any vaccine ever developed. This includes the MMR vaccine, the polio vaccine (I'm working on a post related to his "sugar causes polio" nonsense), and of course the Gardasil vaccine.

In fact, for quite some time you could even say Gardasil was Mr. Hubbs' favorite topic, and he considers himself one of the world's foremost researchers on the subject. Granted 100% of what he knows has been obtained via Google searches and he has never set foot in an actual scientific research lab and has never taken a single college course on biochemistry (or any other college course for that matter) nor has he ever bothered to read the numerous medical studies which were performed on the vaccine prior to the FDA approval, but lets try to avoid those issues for now.

So although it doesn't surprise me that Mr. Hubbs would write about Gardasil, what does surprise me is that he makes claims which he himself has never been able to substantiate with science. Case in point is the following comment left on a Gardasil discussion by our very own Mr. Hubbs:

"The fact is 90% of HPV infections clear on their own. This vaccination is unproven to how long immunity lasts, may be no more than 5 yrs at best. HPV is not proven to cause cervical cancer, only that HPV sometimes resides in precancerous cervical lesions. The theory that any virus causes cancer is also unproven and questioned by several medical reseachers. [sic]" ~Lowell Hubbs

So here we have Mr. Hubbs giving us facts about HPV as if he has first hand knowledge. Don't bother asking for a source to validate his statements however as Mr. Hubbs is likely to refer you to his own blog as evidence. The simple truth is HPV may clear on its own, but so can the mumps or measles or any number of other viruses. Meningitis could also clear on its own if you really want to get technical, but does that mean nobody should get vaccinated because the virus MIGHT clear on its own with no side effects?

It probably doesn't matter to Mr. Hubbs that those with HPV could spread it to others just as those with measles or mumps could spread it to others. Mr. Hubbs doesn't seem to care about those who might contract a virus from another person however, he just wants to prevent anyone from ever being vaccinated. The fact that a virus could be passed from person to person and could eventually lead to one or more people being diagnosed with cancer, or in some cases that people could actually die as as direct result from a simple preventable virus just isn't that important to Mr. Hubbs.

Of course his care for others doesn't stop there, and his comments continue:

"some Gardasil ingrediants,[sic] polysorbate 80, (said to disperse the ingrediants [sic] in the vaccine more uninformly [sic]), causes infertily [sic] in mice, and no research on that by Merck was done. The vaccine also contains histidine, also known to cause severe allergic reacions [sic], additionally the vaccine contains sodium borate, similar to Borax and has been used as roach killer, tell me whay [sic] that is in the vaccine? Do the homework, stop first, research this on the net extensively like I have for weeks. The benfits [sic] do no outweigh the risks." ~Lowell Hubbs

So according to Mr. Hubbs, the benefit of preventing a young girl or woman from contracting cervical cancer doesn't outweigh the risks of getting the vaccine. Granted he doesn't provide any facts or figures to show us why these risks are so significant, and he doesn't compare the number of doses given of the vaccine with no side effects versus the few claims of vaccine injury.

So let's go ahead and do that for Mr. Hubbs since he seems incapable of doing so for himself. According to the CDC as of September 30, 2010, approximately 32 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the US. That is 32,000,000 doses and according to Mr. Hubbs, 32,000,000 chances that a risk would outweigh a benefit.

So of these 32,000,000 doses, how many resulted in negative side effects or "risks"? Well, again according to the CDC as of September 30, 2010, there were 17,160 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the US. Of these reports, 92% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 8% were reports of events considered serious.

So out of 17,160 events, approximately 92% (or 15,787 events) are non-serious. This includes things like pain at the injection site (common for any shot), dizziness, headache, fever, or fainting. Since these events are not serious and typically clear up on their own, lets disregard them for the sake of this discussion.

This leaves us with the 8% (or approximately 1,373 events) which are classified as serious. Of this 8%, some of these events include girls being diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), although once again if we refer to the CDC source material we find "there has been no indication that Gardasil increases the rate of GBS in girls and women above the rate expected in the general population, whether or not they were vaccinated."

So what does that mean? Well it simply means the incidence of girls being diagnosed with GBS occurs in the same rate whether they were or were not vaccinated with Gardasil. Therefore scientifically speaking we cannot link the rate of GBS with the vaccination and the only reason these types of events are reported to VAERS is because the system is intended to collect all events whether related or not. Since there is no proven increase in the rate of GBS, it doesn't appear this is a significant risk.

Another serious event reported included blood clots. This isn't so much of an issue with Gardasil as it is with an injection itself of course, but as it turns out those girls and women who experienced blood clots were in the "at risk" category which includes those who smoke, those who take oral contraceptives, and those who are considered obese. Thus in this case, a number of factors may have contributed to the blood clots including lifestyle choice... so is this something we can blame solely upon the Gardasil vaccine? Not very likely.

An example of this would be building a home. The foundation is designed to support a single family home with one story above ground, and assuming the house is build as designed everything will be fine. However decades later, the new owner of the house decides he needs more room, so he adds another two stories to the house. He doesn't bother to reinforce the foundation, and assumes everything will be fine. He finishes the project and decides to put a new hot tub on the third floor which holds 1,000 gallons of water. A few weeks after living in the new expanded house it starts to settle. A few weeks after that the foundation develops a huge crack on one wall, and soon the foundation fails and the house falls down bringing the hot tub and the 1,000 gallons of water into the basement.

So is the hot tub to blame for the foundation failing? Obviously not - because there was a known weak point in the home. Had the foundation been strong enough to accept a larger structure, there wouldn't be a problem, but we don't blame the failure on the hot tub merely because we didn't know about the weak foundation.

The same is true with a case where a vaccine or medication might result in a condition which was underlying. Even if we didn't know about the condition, is it the fault of the vaccine if it comes to the surface? If we did know about the condition, but didn't think it would impact us, is it still fair to blame the vaccine if we are proven wrong? I dare say there is inherent risk in everything we do, but we can no more blame the vaccine for an underlying condition when we knew about the risk factors than we can blame the hot tub for the failing foundation when the builder knew about the weak foundation.

All of this said, the one primary serious event that everyone is concerned with is the risk of death, so if it is determined that Gardasil results in girls dying simply by taking the vaccine, then surely it needs to be addressed. Looking at the CDC material, we can see that out of those 32,000,000 doses of Gardasil that have been given thus far, there have been 56 deaths reported among females who have received the Gardasil vaccination.

Now if we assume every woman receives the full recommended three dose schedule of the vaccine, that tells us that 10,700,000 woman have received Gardasil thus far, and of those 10,700,000 woman 56 have died. I don't mean to trivialize 56 deaths. In fact I don't even mean to trivialize one single death, but the math tells us these 56 deaths account for approximately 0.0005% of the women who received the Gardasil vaccination. In other words the remaining 99.9995% of women are still alive and with us.

More importantly however, according to the CDC out of these 56 deaths (which of only 30 have been confirmed thus far), there was "no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine". This means that if a woman died of a totally unrelated heart issue within days or perhaps even weeks of receiving the Gardasil vaccine, that event would be reported to VAERS. It doesn't mean Gardasil caused the issue, but to err on the side of caution, all such events are reported.

However since the analysis of these deaths does not include any pattern or clustering when compared to non-vaccinated control groups, no reasonable researcher or scientist (or even anyone with an open mind) can claim that these deaths are all related to the Gardasil vaccine itself. In fact if you read about the actual deaths in greater detail, you will find in some cases the deaths were directly attributed to causes such as illicit drug use and heart failure. Can we really blame a death upon a vaccination when the women decides to inject herself with illegal drugs and dies of an overdose? I personally don't think so.

Now it is quite possible a woman out there has died or been seriously injured as a direct result of the vaccine. Each person is unique, we all have different genetic traits including dominant and recessive genes. We each have different risk factors, different traits such as allergies or reactions to chemical compounds, and we each have our own medical histories which may include other prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, supplements, nutrient intakes etc, etc. Therefore no medication, supplement, or even food is compatible with all humans, and as such there will always be a risk when someone decides to eat a new food, take a new supplement, use a new brand of toothpaste, or yes even take a new medication or vaccination.

Obviously anything and everything we do has risk, and it is up to each individual to determine if they feel that risk is acceptable when compared to the benefits of eating the food, swallowing the supplement or vitamin, taking the medication, receiving the vaccine, or undergoing a medical procedure etc. I don't believe that is my place to tell someone else that they must get vaccinated, but at the same time I don't believe it is in Mr. Hubbs' place to tell them they can't. It is a personal decision best left up to the individual when they take all of the risk factors into mind.

However it seems clear in this case, the risk of receiving a Gardasil vaccination is no greater than the risk of choosing to eat a sandwich for lunch or the decision to take aspirin to relieve a headache. For all of the screaming and yelling and arguments made against this vaccine really don't live up to scrutiny when you look at the facts and examine the real numbers.

Granted I'm not the only one who feels this way, as a poster named "Amber" who responded to Mr. Hubbs' comment had the following to say:

"Ah, well, we all know internet research trumps firsthand experience…"

Well played Amber... well played indeed.

http://www.hpvhometest.com/merck-gardasil-has-your-child-been-vaccinated-tell-us-your-story/

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/7/750

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html

http://vaers.hhs.gov/index

Autism-Vaccine Link: Evidence Doesn't Dispel Doubts

Here is yet another article I found which speaks of the mythical autism-vaccine link. It seems the more you read about this subject, the more evidence keeps stacking up against any link between vaccines and autism whatsoever. Granted the lack of scientific evidence to support such a link is sufficient for most able-minded individuals, but for the anti-vaxxers out there walking around unsupervised, it is likely they will ignore this evidence just as they always do. After all, what good is a conspiracy theory if there is evidence debunking it?

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/vaccines-autism 

One of the statements in this article caught my eye. It reads as follows:

"In the absence of any answers from the scientific community, any scintilla of suggestion is going to get magnified by the social process of talking it out," Sanders says. "All you need is one individual's story and it will expand."

 That is a good summary of what happens when Google educated "experts" such as Mr. Hubbs read something on the Internet and start to accept it is scientific fact even though it cannot be validated. These self-proclaimed anti-vaccination pundits hear a story about some random child or listen to preachings of a anti-vaccination pitchman and they drink it all in without ever taking a few minutes to ask objective questions.

The important factor to remember here is absence of scientific fact does not in any way add credibility to a theory. If someone claims dinosaurs were able to communicate verbally but cannot prove it with scientific fact, it does not in any way suggest all dinosaurs communicated telepathically. As always, when someone makes a claim or forms a hypothesis, it is their duty to support that opinion with real science which the anti-vaxxers are never able to do.

The article goes on to state the following:

"The MMR scare started 10 years ago with a report published in The Lancet that described the cases of eight children who, as their parents recalled, developed autistic symptoms and digestive ailments shortly after getting their first MMR dose. The researchers proposed that the vaccine might trigger a previously unknown form of regressive autism. They suggested that maybe the measles virus in the vaccine lodged in the intestine, causing some kind of reaction that then affected the brain.

After that, experts studied whether the MMR vaccine could cause autism. To do that, they looked for clues among kids who did and didn't get the vaccine.

Since that initial finding, 14 studies including millions of children in several countries consistently show no significant difference in autism rates between children who got the MMR vaccine those who didn't.

The bottom line: It's very unlikely that the MMR causes autism, researchers say."

I should note the report published in The Lancet that is referenced above is the now-discredited study by Andrew Wakefield which The Lancet has actually retracted due to it being based upon flawed methodology and unsupported scientific methods. Nevertheless it shows how time after time, study after study, country after country, group after group, the science consistently proves there is no increase in autism rates in vaccinated children when compared to their unvaccinated peers.

Rest assured the anti-vaxxers don't accept science however, and they are quick to point out how some of these studies must have been financed by "big pharma" or how they information is corrupt because of the association with the FDA, CDC, AMA, or some other agency with a three letter acronym.

However try as they might, even if they stretch far enough to eliminate several of the existing studies to what they feel is bias or potential conflict of interest, a logical person still has to acknowledge the growing body of evidence that clearly dispels the autism-vaccine link. Notice I said "logical person", which tells us that someone like Mr. Hubbs is most likely convinced that vaccines do cause autism, and no amount of research or science will tell him otherwise.

It is in situations like this that we need to review the first quote above - because this is a prime example of where absence of science is often used to push forth an unsupported opinion. Even if we were to discredit or eliminate every single one of the studies referenced in this article, and even if we eliminate the dozens of such studies that have been done elsewhere around the globe that overwhelmingly prove that vaccines do not have any link to autism whatsoever, that still does not in any way prove that vaccines DO cause autism!

The concept is clear - an absence of scientific evidence does not prove a hypothesis, and that is a simple fact that continually trips up even the most ardent anti-vaxxer alive (including Mr. Hubbs). Then again, if we continue reading the article we find even more good news for science:

"The 2004 IOM review included five large-scale studies that compared autism rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. These and other recent studies, including one published in The New England Journal of Medicine in September 2007, have shown that children who received vaccines with thimerosal are not more likely to have been diagnosed with autism than those that weren't vaccinated or received less thimerosal from vaccines."

Once again, we have large studies which discredit the supposed vaccine-autism link including specific research about the dreaded thimerosal, but yet even this is not enough to convince the anti-vaxxers than vaccines aren't the root cause of autism. When pressed with this evidence or when asked questions about why the rates of autism haven't decreased since the phase-out of thimerosal in the late 90s and early 2000s, the anti-vaxxers don't have a legitimate answer. Instead of admitting that they were wrong, they continue to move the goal line and now claim instead of thimerosal or the MMR vaccine, autism might be "triggered" by vaccines rather than actually "caused" by it.

Yes I know - the difference really doesn't matter to those who have autistic children, and no matter the excuse it doesn't change the facts that study after study has found no difference in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. If there was any shred of merit to the anti-vaxxer claims, we should witness a huge disparity where unvaccinated children rarely are diagnosed with autism while vaccinated children are diagnosed at a much higher rate -but that just isn't the case.

So does it really matter? What is the big issue with someone choosing to not vaccinate their children or why should we care? Well the simple truth is, unvaccinated children are at a much greater risk to contract and spread these diseases, and that has a significant and detrimental health to our populace.

Case in point:

“Every year, 2.5 million unvaccinated children worldwide die of diseases that vaccines could have prevented, and vaccines prevent the deaths of an additional 2 million children, according to the World Health Organization.”

So according to the WHO, 4.5 million children would die each and every year if it were not for life saving vaccines, and yet the anti-vaxxers out there spreading unfounded fear about some mythical link to autism don't seem to care. Not only do they put the lives and safety of these children in danger, but they have the audacity to proclaim they actually care about children when they promote their extremely dangerous anti-vaccination views.

Obviously each parent needs to decide for him or herself what is best for their child, but this decision should be based upon sound science and proven fact rather than hysteria, unsupported opinion, or random conspiracy theories. If anti-vaxxers such as Mr. Hubbs really cared about children, they would easily recognize the benefits of vaccinations (and the 4.5 million lives they save each year) far outweigh any known or perceived risks, but that viewpoint requires compassion rather than cynicism which suggests we won't be seeing it from Mr. Hubbs anytime soon.

Additional Reading Material: No link found between vaccine mercury and autism.

Yet Another Conspiracy Theory From Mr. Hubbs

The Original Strawman!

Here is another tidbit sent my direction that originated from the mind of Mr. Hubbs.  After reading this, I actually started to think that perhaps Mr. Hubbs is simply the Internet's greatest troll, because I just have a hard time believing any human capable of tying their own shoes would also be capable of such nonsense.  Nevertheless I don't want to prevent anyone else from the pleasure of reading the thoughts of the Google-educated medical genius that is one Mr. Lowell Hubbs:

"If I was in first year medical school I would be very worried about where this all is going, and will be going in the coming years. That as to the collapse of not only the vaccine program and the truth be known; about all of modern medicine. Now, tat is not to say pharma drugs never have any purpose or good, they sometimes clearly do. The problem is the continued selling sickness for profit that has now sold us more worthless dangerous drugs than a person could count. It is totally out of control; as well as the number of no liability vaccines, and more being added. Learn what we know on all levels and I guarantee you, you will want to walk right out of that medical school today. Learn how cancer is reversed by the natural ways, the how and the why as well. learn of the magnitude of what has been suppressed. How can any natural means compete, when pharma and the FDA require millions of dollars in sham multiple end point clinical trials to approve anything and everything that is a drug. They have refused to allow, no matter how well done, anything whatsoever into any pharma peer reviewed or the AMA Journal, that refutes their lies and only drugs and vaccines misinformation. It can sit for years in a journal of toxicology, or nutraceuticals journal, never considered." -Lowell Hubbs

So I guess in Mr. Hubbs world, the proven science of vaccines and modern medicine in general are all about to "collapse".  Sort of makes a person wonder what will replace all of the proven treatments and remedies, but I suppose to a crazed conspiracy theorist like Mr. Hubbs a little back cracking via a chiropractor should be good enough to cure almost anything that ails the body, and a little baking soda can take care of that pesky cancer that kills millions each year.

We also see in Mr. Hubbs rant that once again he is trying to suggest that the FDA and or AMA controls all of the scientific research on the planet.  Apparently in Mr. Hubbs' mind, the FDA needs to approve all clinical trials and "allow" research to be published.  I'm not sure if I should be laugh or cry at the level of misunderstanding displayed here my Mr. Hubbs, but clearly he has a very myopic view of the scientific world around him.

Mr. Hubbs often wonders why he is labeled a conspiracy theorist, but when someone invents claims about government agencies controlling the flow of information or when someone professes that cancer can be cured by nothing more than baking soda, yet the reason this information isn't widely known is because the government is suppressing the information, it seems clear they are pushing forth nothing other than a conspiracy.

Mr. Hubbs and his fellow antivaxxers can't seem to explain why some wealthy individual hasn't funded research on these miracle cures, because logically it simply doesn't make sense. Anyone with even a shred of common sense would understand if there was any validity to these claims, wealthy benefactors would be lining up to fund the research if for no other reason than it would ensure they have a legacy which is responsible for saving millions of lives, and they would likely even earn a Nobel prize for their efforts.

If Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or T. Denny Sanford thought for a second that they could have their names associated with a legitimate cancer cure, you can rest assured they would be funding the research and making it available worldwide, however as it stands these men have donated Billions of dollars worldwide on a variety of research projects, medical efforts, and disease prevention programs and yet even with those Billions in funding nobody has been able to prove baking soda can cure cancer.  Coincidence?  I doubt it.

Are we to believe these philanthropists are somehow influenced by "Big Pharma" and therefore they are preventing their Billions from funding such research?  Or should we accept a much more logical explanation - no matter how much money is tossed at the issue, baking soda isn't a viable treatment for cancer, and that is the one and only true reason no such research has been made public.

Perhaps Mr. Hubbs would like to contact the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and explain his miracle cancer cure to them?  They provide millions of dollars worth of funding each and every year to a variety of medical studies ranging from traditional disease treatments to biomedical research to alternative treatments for diseases such as HIV, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.  They also direct their funding at scientists and researchers instead of at direct projects, thus if a researcher wants to study the impact of treating tumors or cancer cells with baking soda they would be more than free to do so.

In addition to this, the HHMI also funds projects and research throughout the world, so there should be no excuses about the FDA, AMA, CDC or other US agency interfering with the research, as even the most crazed conspiracy theorist will never convince anyone of moderate intelligence that the US government is somehow capable of controlling scientific study worldwide.

Clearly, the more we learn about Mr. Hubbs and the more excuses he has, the more it becomes clear he will never be anything but an uneducated and ignorant conspiracy theorist.

Thimerosal in Vaccines: Questions and Answers

As with most, antivaccinationists (or antivaxxers as they are so affectionately called), Mr. Hubbs often finds himself making claims about the effects of thimerosal in vaccines.  He refers to the (now discredited) Andrew Wakefield study which attempted to link thimerosal with autism along with speaking of newer Wakefield studies with primates trying to suggest this link actually exists.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hubbs, there is not one single peer-reviewed study in existence which proves such a link exists.  In fact, of the dozens of studies which tried to determine if such a link exists, they all have found no correlation between thimerosal and autism whatsoever.

So why is there so much focus upon thimerosal in the first place?  Well, the simple truth is thimerosal has been used as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s and although there have never been any published studies indicating it causes autism (or is even linked to autism), thimerosal is composed of approximately 50% mercury by weight, and anytime you mention mercury it is going to raise alarms with the antivaxxers.

However the FDA has a fabulous Q&A page on thimerosal located here.  The page states that "as a vaccine preservative, thimerosal is used in concentrations of 0.003% to 0.01%. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 ml dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose."  It should also be noted that due to the fear surrounding mercury and lowered EPA guidelines for mercury (the EPA's methylmercury reference dose is .1 micrograms/kg body weight per day) thimerosal has been phased out of childhood vaccinations as shown by this table.

So is 25 or 50 micrograms of mercury something to be concerned about?  Depends who you ask, but for all the attention given thimerosal by the antivaxxers, you might think they would care just a tad more about a simple can of tuna.  Why tuna?  Well as it turns out, a six ounce can of tuna contains approximately 52 to 60* micrograms of mercury which is more than vaccines with the highest levels of thimerosal.

I'm a "show your math" kind of person, so let me spell this out in detail.  First we need to define how much mercury is in the tuna, and for that we can use this chart provided by the FDA.  Reading that chart shows us that albacore tuna has 0.353ppm of mercury.

Now we need to determine how many grams of tuna are in a can.  For that we convert 6 ounces to grams and we come up with 170 grams (0.0352739619496 oz per gram).  So now we take that 0.353ppm of mercury in the tuna and multiply it by the number of grams and we get the answer of 60.01 (0.353 x 170).

So basically, there are 60 micrograms of mercury in one 6 oz. can of albacore tuna.  There is a bit less in light tuna, an a bit more in fresh tuna, but you get the idea.  In case you don't trust my numbers, here is another source.  I should note they determined there were approximately 52 micrograms in a can of tuna whereas my math above shows closer to 60, but their figures are from a study from 1993 (see reference below) whereas my figure is based upon updated FDA findings from a study performed in 2002-2004.

Long story short, if you are really concerned about the mercury in vaccines, you should be protesting at your local supermarket, because children are much more likely to be exposed to mercury via canned tuna than they are via vaccines, and it is safe to say people who like tuna and/or feed it to their children probably do so more than a few times in their lives, so imagine the cumulative effect of eating one can of tuna per week for an entire year - yet when is the last time you saw a conspiracy theorist website about how commercial tuna fisherman are trying to harm children in order to profit?  If one exists I surely haven't seen it.

However, research does continue on the usage of effects of thimerosal, and recent studies from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) have continued to not find long term effects or negative side effects.  In fact, the FDA states the following:

"More recent NIAID-supported studies at the University of Rochester and National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD examined levels of mercury in blood and other samples from infants who had received routine immunizations with thimerosal-containing vaccines. [Pichichero ME, et al. Lancet 360:1737-1741 (2002)] Blood levels of mercury did not exceed safety guidelines for methyl mercury for all infants in these studies. Further, mercury was cleared from the blood in infants exposed to thimerosal faster than would be predicted for methyl mercury; infants excreted significant amounts of mercury in stool after thimerosal exposure, thus removing mercury from their bodies."

So essentially if studies have not found impacts to children, and considering the rates of autism diagnoses have not decreased even though thimerosal is no longer in the vast majority of childhood vaccines... how can antivaxxers like Mr. Hubbs still be arguing that thimerosal causes autism?  If they feel it is really about mercury itself, why can't they explain why Japanese children don't suffer higher rates of autism even though they are exposed to much higher levels of mercury due to their diets which are heavy in seafood?

Well the simple answer is they really can't explain these questions, and they know it.  However to admit there is no such link between thimerosal and autism would mean the antivaxxers would need to admit they have been wrong all along - and we all know that isn't very likely.  The more complicated answer is that rather than admit thimerosal doesn't cause autism, most antivaxxers will attempt to switch gears and claim it was never about thimerosal but rather about all vaccines causing autism.  Don't bother asking for the science to support these theories however as they can't provide it.  

This is typically the point that the typical antivaxxer (Mr. Hubbs included) will start professing that the FDA or CDC or "Big Pharma" or some other agency or organization is suppressing the studies which would prove such a link, but aside from a conspiracy theorist it is hard to actually accept such an explanation.  There are countless scientific agencies, research hospitals, Universities, and private companies in American any of which is capable of performing such studies and proving a link if one exists - yet we are expected to believe that every one of the researchers, scientists, doctors, and other trained experts who work for these various organizations is somehow in bed with the drug companies so they are unwilling to produce a study which could possibly have a negative impact upon the financial stability of these companies?

I ask anyone with a rational mind if this seems even remotely plausible.  Aside from the fact it would be a sheer impossibility to pay off or otherwise silence tens of thousands of people without at least a few of them blowing the whistle, the fact is America doesn't control all scientific discovery on the planet.  There are dozens of nations out there doing their own research, and yet not a single one of these nations has ever produced a single study which has been able to prove a link between vaccines and autism.  

Does this sound like a coincidence?  Are we to believe there is some vast multi-national conspiracy to hide the truth from the other six billion humans on Earth who aren't somehow connected to the medical or scientific community?  Or could it possibly be that Mr. Hubbs and his compatriots are merely ignorant of scientific fact and unwilling to accept the truth?  I think the answer is more than obvious.

However, if anyone has any doubts about the safety or long-term impacts of thimerosal, there  have been a few studies performed on the subject which are readily available to review.  A word of caution however - if you are an antivaxxer, reading any of these studies is bound to make your head explode from all of the scientific research and fact, so don't say you weren't warned:

1. Batts AH, Narriott C, Martin GP, et al. The effect of some preservatives used in nasal preparations on mucociliary clearance. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 1989; 41:156-159.
2. Batty I, Harris E, Gasson A. Preservatives and biological reagents. Developments in Biological Standardization 1974;24:131-142.
3. Beyer-Boon ME, Arntz PW, Kirk RS. A comparison of thimerosal and 50% alcohol as preservatives in urinary cytology. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1979;32:168-170.
4. Gasset AR, Itoi M, Ishii Y, Ramer RM. Teratogenicities of ophthalmic drugs. II. Teratogenicites and tissue accumulation of thimerosal. Archives of Ophthalmology 1975;93:52-55.
5. Goldman KN, Centifanta Y, Kaufman HF, et al. Prevention of surface bacterial contamination of donor corneas. Archives of Ophthalmology 1978;96:2277-2280.
6. Keeven J, Wrobel S, Portoles M, et al. Evaluating the preservative effectiveness of RGP lens care solutions. Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists Journal 1995;21:238-241.
7. Naito R, Itoh T, Hasegawa E, et al. Bronopol as a substitute for thimerosal. Developments in Biological Standardization 1974;24:39-48.
8. Wozniak-Parnowska W, Krowczynski L. New approach to preserving eye drops. Pharmacy International 1981;2(4):91-94.

*Average for Chunk White Canned Tuna. Yess, Norma J. "US Food and Drug Administration Survey of Methyl Mercury in Canned Tuna," Journal of AOAC International, Vol. 76, No. 1, 1993, pp. 36-38. 

Lowell Hubbs Quote of the Day

“How credible is anything you are told by people in that medical field, when modern medicine is one of the leading causes of death in America. They have all been brainwashed, just like you. Any doctor that speaks out is sytematically [sic] destroyed; it is just a fact.” ~Lowell K. Hubbs

Well there you have it.  Of course don't bother asking Lowell to prove that modern medicine is one of the leading causes of death in America, because he will point you to his personal website as evidence.  

However, for those of us interested in real facts supported by science, here is a complete listing of the most common causes of death in the US.

• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
• Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
• Diabetes: 71,382
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
• Septicemia: 34,828

Complete table with source documentation can be found here.

So apparently if you die of a medical condition, Lowell believes that is the fault of modern medicine. That makes perfect sense.  Of course any doctor who dares speak out against the medical establishment is "sytematically [sic] destroyed", and those that don't speak out are simply "brainwashed".  I guess that is rather convenient, but in reality such a statement with no supporting evidence is what we call a conspiracy theory.

The reality of the situation is that countless doctors do speak out against medical techniques, drug interactions, process errors and numerous other medical issues each and every day.  This is what helps to keep medicine evolving and what helps to develop newer and better treatments. 

Case in point, when doctors and researchers started realizing that there were problems with Vioxx, did they get ostracized from the medical community for speaking out?  No they didn't, and in fact it led to an FDA investigation, the drug being pulled from the market, and eventually billions of dollars (yes that is billions with a "b") worth of fines and settlements being paid by Merck.

Yet throughout all of the process, not a single doctor or researcher lost his or her job or was in any way harmed by voicing their opinion that was a direct assault against one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on the planet.

I guess not everyone in the medical community is as brainwashed as Mr. Hubbs would have us believe.