Saturday, August 8, 2009

Vaccination Lies V- The Eyes Have It!

Yesterday I was corrected by an anti-vax proponent that a scientific article she sent me about glutamate toxicity on neurons was not meant to imply neurological dysfunction, it was meant to demonstrate glutamate's deleterious effect on vision. See yesterday's comments.

Apparently there are a few micograms of MSG in some vaccines, and anti-vax interests need to find medical literature to bend so that they can convince you that it is a contributing factor to their claims of vaccine injury. So let's look further at glutamate, a naturally-occurring amino acid, when conjugated with sodium (the stuff in table salt)- is the evil Monosodium Glutamate!

On vaccinetruth.org page 3 (again note the word "truth" there wouldn't be any bad information or bending reality here) we see the following:

...According to lead researcher Hiroshi Ohguro, his is the first study to show that eye damage can be caused by eating food that contains MSG. A report in the New Scientist this week explains that in the study, rats were fed three different diets for six months, containing either high or moderate amounts of MSG, or none. In rats on the high-MSG diet, some retinal nerve layers thinned by as much as 75 percent, and tests that measured retinal response to light showed they could not see as well...

When you look at the study it reveals that 150 g rats were fed 20 g of MSG per 100 g of food. That's like a 150lb person getting 2 lbs of MSG for every ten lbs of food! I'd guess eye damage would be the least of your worries! The work was published in the journal Experimental Eye Research.

Once again, not all of the facts are given. There seems to be the little factoid that a vaccination might have a few micrograms, or a millionth of the amount fed to rats for six months. Again, very deceiving.

The next paragraph tells us (after some uncited material):

Scientists know that a diverse number of disease conditions such as ALS, Alzheimer's disease, seizures, and stroke are associated with the glutamate cascade (Blaylock, 1994).

A quick search of the scientific literature on PubMed using "Blaylock 1994" as search criteria reveals 16 articles, none of which have anything to do with glutamate.

The statement is not necessarily false when taken at face value, it is just not used that way on the website. The glutamate cascade is an intracellular signaling pathway. When glutamate binds its receptor (naturally and you are doing it jillions of times each second) a series of events occurs. The receptor tells a membrane bound protein to dissociate and parts of it move throughout the cell, looking for an interaction partner, passing the message that glutamate has bound the receptor. With each intramolecular step (G-protein mediated signal transduction for the interested) the signal amplifies because the active protein can continue to interact with several partners. They can then interact with several, and so on, which is why this is called a cascade. Interruption or augmentation of the regulated processes is in fact associated with disease and disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer's, etc.

The author neglects to tell you that this is a normal and natural process and does not mean that glutamate is CAUSING "ALS, Alzheimer's disease, seizures, and stroke", as it is implied. Again, a distortion of legitimate medical information, either outright lying or the author does not know better (personally, I'm guessing the latter in this case). Either way, she is bastardizing legitimate medical information information to scare parents into not giving medical treatment to their children (and not eat Chinese food!)

Next there's some study from 1957 that they had to resurrect to evidence against MSG, and I'm not going to go look it up to debunk it. Doesn't it get boring?

The last part is again a simple tactic of the anti-vaxers, a heartwarming anecdote:

Many parents of children with ADHD have found that elimination of MSG from their children's diets has resolved ADHD. In 1991, CBS's television program, "60 Minutes," did a segment on MSG. One of the children featured in the segment suffered from ADHD. His condition was resolved through elimination of MSG from his diet.

There you go. One kid's ADHD resolves after his parents stop feeding him Doritos. Go figure. I guess that solves that problem. Again, anecdote, one sample, no experimental controls, personal bias, blah, blah, blah.

All of this stuff is on that website and targeted explicitly to stop parents from vaccinating children. Don't just trust me, look it up yourself. There is nothing in that MSG section that stands up to further scrutiny. Nothing. It is all lies, distortions or extrapolations and it is being used to shape medical decisions.

The slanted distortion of MSG information can be used as a barometer for all information on the site- information, sometimes good studies, misrepresented or not scientific in the first place.

17 comments:

makita said...

The MSG story shows a pretty general concept in biology: in large enough quantities *everything* (including just plain water) is dangerous, and in small enough amounts *nothing* is dangerous.

By the way, in the mouse study, if they're feeding mice 20% of their weight in MSG, that is an enormous amount of sodium. Did they separate the sodium effects from the glutamate effects, i.e. how do they know the thinning of the retinal nerve layers was not the result of excessive sodium in the diet. High sodium diets have well-documented health risks.

Wendy said...

So ask the vaccine manufacturers to take the MSG out...one less thing for me to bitch about right? Why do vaccine makers add MSG in the first place? I mean it’s a tiny amount- what function could it possibly have? Flavor enhancer? I say do like I do…order your Chinese/Vaccine without MSG….

Roxanne said...

A small amount of MSG stabilizes the antigen. It becomes more stable in storage therefore it is less expensive to produce and lasts longer therefore it is available to more people.

Scientists don't throw a pinch of this and a pinch of that for good measure. As if they are sitting around the cauldron and stirring it up(add a pinch of eye of newt)!

Vaccine information month rules.

Anonymous said...

My husband wants to vaccinate our baby but I don't. When you give this information it makes me reconsider and I'm going to keep studying this and watching your site.

Pamela Ronald said...

There are many parallels between the "anti-vaccination"; "All GE crops are bad" and the "Global warming doesnt exist crowd"

Part of the problem is that there is so much information available to the public that they pick and choose what they want without knowing whether or not it is scientifically based.

Thanks for taking this on

Roxanne said...

With the advent of the internet information is there for everyone to consume. I do love this and do not want to be censored, but we must be skeptical.

We all must consider what is written is not so, on both ends of the debate.

If you are searching for information it is good idea to investigate where the information is coming from and how it was obtained.

The great thing about science is that experiments are conducted, papers on the experiments are written, then they are reviewed and critiqued by other scientists before it becomes published information. A lot of research goes into what starts as a hypothesis.

Even when a so called expert gives information, look into the credibility of the source. I hear and see a lot of "medical" programs that are just glorified infomercials.

What seems to be popular is that a famous star or starlet gets a theory about a subject so near and dear to them. This theory is not researched, it is just an idea that probably has more of a correlation that a causation to an issue that they have had no experience in and no doubt have just been faced with it recently. (That is also the difference, most scientists do their research for the greater good, not necessarily becasue it is a personal crusade.) Then the famous star/starlet finds more correlations and they feel it is enough to prove their theory. That is when it starts to snowball and other people with similar ideas get on this bandwagon. This bandwagon then gets on Oprah and then it is so.

These days a famous Hollywood figure has more credibility than a scientist.

Wendy said...

Question for anonymous:
Why don't you want to vaccinate?

Wendy said...

Scientists don't throw a pinch of this and a pinch of that for good measure. As if they are sitting around the cauldron and stirring it up(add a pinch of eye of newt)!


Have you ever read the media and exipient list from the CDC for vaccines? Monkey kidney tissue, mouse brain, brilliant green dye, aluminum, formaldehyde, endotoxin, calf serum, dog kidney, ect...sounds like a good satanic ritual to me....

Roxanne said...

..sounds like a good satanic ritual to me....

It does sound ghoulish to the under-informed. When we apply science and medicine it demystifies these ingredients. We know that these are used in the most productive means to generate the products needed to keep us safe from preventable disease. I look at bovine serum and kidney cell lines very differently. They allow us to do wonderful research and provide life-saving medicine. Not so satanic or scary if you learn about it.

Wendy said...

How does injecting toxic chemicals and animal cell lines confer immunity?

Roxanne said...

Over 800,000 scholarly articles can tell you. You need to read, and not just the stuff that supports your fake cause. The immune response has been brilliantly studied. It is well understood. The burden of proof is on you to tell me how vaccines don't work. Not mine to show you how it does. Take an immunology course before you give horrible advice to concerned parents.

Wendy said...

So hostile!...Don't forget your flu shot Roxanne...and please get the Swine flu too...you'll need 4 doses between them.…also, get the flu shot with the mercury …don’t worry a little neurotoxin never hurt anyone…have you had your Gardasil yet? You’ll need three doses of that one…all those girls dying after the vaccine, fakers….be ‘one less’ Roxanne.

Roxanne said...

No hostility at all, just answering your question. Sounds like you are the hostile one, please no personal attacks; ouch, you hurt my feelings.

makita said...

Wendy,
Chemical names are often confusing. Things may sound very similar, but are really very different. And really, scientists don't go digging through their lab supplies wondering what toxic ingredients they can add to their vaccines. Everything that goes in it has a specific and important function. Sometimes you can replace one compound with another. But ultimately, they have to ensure that the vaccine that so much effort went into making it, will stay as effective for as long as possible, as inexpensive as possible. Many different factors need to be weighed off.

No satanic rituals in any lab I've ever been in. Just plain old science, using the knowledge acquired over many, many years, peer-reviewed and published in many journals, applied for the good of all mankind.

FYI, I do have a child with autism. And he is fully immunized, as are my neurotypical children.

Wendy said...

Makita: Was your son normal before 15months like so many regressive autism cases or born that way? It used to be, in regressive cases, the children were fine up until 15-18 months just coincidently I sure, tongue firmly in cheek, when the shots were given. Now the new vaccine schedule has the shots given at 12 months and it not so easy to see the change in the kids. Just curious...you don't have to give me your son’s medical history if you don't want to.

Also, just so you know, I’m sure that vaccine manufacturers are not having satanic rituals in the lab, I have been known to exaggerate a tiny bit, however I don’t think it’s fair to say injecting kids with those components.....nothing but immunity will occur…

makita said...

When my son was first diagnosed at around 15 months of age, my first inclination was also to stop immunizing immediately. That's what I did. Then, I searched through the literature. I read all the relevant posts online, I read the papers, studied the statistics. I happen to be a scientist, so I can evaluate the data easier, follow the hypotheses, the statistics, and I can interpret the data.


His pediatrician was entirely open to changing his immunization schedule by splitting up the shots, or do whatever I choose, so I wasn't forced to make a decision by the pediatrician. My husband is not a scientist and left the research and therefor the final decision up to me, although I did discuss all the data with him.


From my research I concluded that there was nothing to substantiate the claims that immunizations have anything at all to do with autism, except for a very small number of extreme cases, while they are absolutely crucial in the fight against serious diseases that used to kill children all the time.


In fact, the more children that are not immunized, the greater the chance that our "herd immunity" will be compromised. I'll explain a little more. When more children remain non-vaccinated, pathogens will be able to exist in more children. The pathogen (virus, bacterium) will be have a lot more opportunity to mutate and overcome the protection offered by immunizations to all children by spreading.


From the pathogen's point of view having a relatively small number of children to infect present a bottleneck. Their goal is to spread as far and wide as possible. A bottle neck is a cue for them, and their mutation rates will increase. Biology will find a way to bypass the immunity that exists in others that are immunized. And I don't mean that in an active way; I don't mean that a virus makes a choice. What I'm saying is that viruses will mutate at a higher than usual speed and as soon as one of these mutants can break the immunity, it has free reign. Now there's an entirely new group of susceptible children that were not susceptible before.


The crux of the matter is this. If there was any scientifically verifiable evidence that immunizations were responsible for autism, I would be first in line to say that parents ought to have a choice in whether or not to immunize their children. I have seen autism, I live with it every day, I meet children with autism regularly, and it's not a pretty picture.


The fact is that such evidence really doesn't exist. And there is great risk for *all* of us, if there is a large group of people that are not immunized. I understand the knee-jerk reaction of parents when their children are first diagnosed with autism. I had the same reaction. I also had my child on a gluten-free casein-free diet for 18 months. I can go on and on. Ultimately though, the science won.


I welcome your response Wendy (or anyone else).

Wendy said...

When my son was first diagnosed at around 15 months of age, my first inclination was also to stop immunizing immediately.

You mean you stopped vaccinating…immunizing… very different…so you are saying he was fine until his shots?


His pediatrician was entirely open to changing his immunization schedule by splitting up the shots, or do whatever I choose, so I wasn't forced to make a decision by the pediatrician.

They know…they have seen it happen so many times…of course he was flexible…so are all mine…


From my research I concluded that there was nothing to substantiate the claims that immunizations have anything at all to do with autism, except for a very small number of extreme cases,

Hannah Polling, Billy Banks and 3000 others that have won compensation for vaccines causing autism come to mind….there will be more…but don’t forget a gag order is placed when you win against the govt for vaccine injury.

while they are absolutely crucial in the fight against serious diseases that used to kill children all the time.

Uh…I don’t think so…you’d have to prove that. My son had measles and whooping cough..so did I …he was vaccinated…they don’t work.


In fact, the more children that are not immunized, the greater the chance that our "herd immunity" will be compromised.

We’ve never had herd immunity in the US…never will…
I'll explain a little more.

no need to explain…

these mutants can break the immunity, it has free reign. Now there's an entirely new group of susceptible children that were not susceptible before.

Unless the virus mutates and becomes more virulent like what happened with Prevnar vaccine debacle.


The crux of the matter is this. If there was any scientifically verifiable evidence that immunizations were responsible for autism, I would be first in line to say that parents ought to have a choice in whether or not to immunize their children. I have seen autism, I live with it every day, I meet children with autism regularly, and it's not a pretty picture.

No it’s a horrible picture. Are you saying you are for forced vaccination?

The fact is that such evidence really doesn't exist. And there is great risk for *all* of us, if there is a large group of people that are not immunized.

78% vaccinated in Florida. Do you see mass disease? CDC says we need 95% coverage to be safe…have you read that study they claim herd immunity from?

There all ready is a large number of people unvaccinated. I wish someone would do a study on the 3400 in Chicago in the Homefirst medical center….. Or the Amish…Can you imagine a whole community of unvaxxed kids? You’d think there would be disease outbreaks all day long…but no…just healthy kids with no autism.

I understand the knee-jerk reaction of parents when their children are first diagnosed with autism. I had the same reaction. I also had my child on a gluten-free casein-free diet for 18 months. I can go on and on. Ultimately though, the science won.

Did the diet work? Did you chelate?
Can you show me your science? What made it true for you? This is what I’ve been asking Kevin for, for a month it seems…show me the science! Please,just not the horse with botox study…

I welcome your response Wendy (or anyone else).