Unreliable Anti-Vaccination Websites:

Joseph Mercola's anti-vaccination website is another site often referenced by those who oppose vaccination. Similar in many respects to the Whale site, Mercola's site likewise employs misrepresentation of the scientific literature when attempting to validate claims. One example is an article regarding MSG here :

MSG is, itself, a debatable substance. Here are a few problems I have with this particular link:

Just for fun, I did do this at PubMed and there are no studies relating glutamic acid, neurotoxicity, and vaccinations.
Plug in "glutamic acid brain lesions neurotoxicity" and the closest you get is:
[Neurobehav Toxicol 1979 Winter;1(4):279-83 Monosodium glutamate neurotoxicity, hyperosmolarity, and blood-brain barrier dysfunction]
This study in rats involved feeding them 4 GRAMS per kilogram of monosodium glutamate which may induce neurotoxicity when a rat is severely hyperosmolar.

Plug in "glutamic acid obesity seizures" and you get:
[Behav Brain Res 1987 May;24(2):139-46 Monosodium L-glutamate lesions reduce susceptibility to hypoglycemic feeding and convulsions]
Another experiment involving high dose MSG in rats.

When you follow this suggestion, you get this:
[Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 1984 Nov-Dec;6(6):455-62 Excitotoxic food additives--relevance of animal studies to human safety.]
"...a comparative evaluation of animal (extensive) and human (limited) data supports the conclusion that excitotoxins, as used in foods today, may produce blood elevations high enough to cause damage to the nervous system of young children, damage which is not detectable at the time of occurrence but which may give rise to subtle disturbances in neuroendocrine function in adolescence and/or adulthood."
Again, vaccines are never mentioned.

Actually, what we know is that excessive amounts of *anything* may be neurotoxic. Human breastmilk contains both free glutamine and glutamic acid.

This author appears to makes a HUGE (unjustified) leap in logic trying to tie MSG in vaccines to neurotoxicity. I find it interesting that the active websites that condemn the use of MSG/glutamic acid (like msg.net and nomsg.com) do not mention vaccines as a worrisome source.
It all seems to boil down to who you believe. For those who find the FDA a credible source, free glutamic acid, for most, is not felt to be a significant problem. For those who believe the big business/industry/government conspiracy, MSG/free glutamic acid is a huge (hidden) problem right up there with vaccines. This is one of the weaker arguments I've ever seen in the anti-vaccination campaign.

"Scientific Terrorism" is a term coined to describe much of what occurs among the anti-vaccination movement. From "Understanding Those Who Do Not Understand: A Brief Review of the Anti-vaccine Movement" : "An inadequate scientific knowledge base within the media, and an irresponsible tendency towards the sensational contributes and plays into public fears and concerns as the media and the anti-vaccine groups engage one another without regard to scientific knowledge, fact, or credentials, leading to the coining of the term "scientific terrorism".

Here is just one aspect of scientific terrorism in this Mercola link - using the scientific literature in a deceptive manner in order to appear credible:

Reference #6, it turns out, does state a rise in asthma and asthma deaths (they were surveys), but gives no explanation for that rise related to vaccination. If you take a look at the reference, you'll notice that it doesn't actually have anything to do with mucosal immunity and a "resultant" rise in asthma. This reference also does not support the statement "mucosal immunity remains relatively weak and stunted in many children" as a result of vaccination.

Reference #7 did NOT show that vaccination resulted in increased atopy. The conclusion was: "Measles infection may prevent the development of atopy in African children".

Reference #8 was NOT a controlled study as stated above. It was a *letter* to the editor of JAMA describing findings that were not part of a designated study. This comment was based on findings of children who had received whole cell DTP prior to the change to all DTaP. The authors did NOT account for asthma risk factors between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups when calculating their relative risk which make the conclusions of questionable validity.

Reference #9 - the conclusion: "Prevalence of atopy is lower in children from anthroposophic families than in children from other families. Lifestyle factors associated with anthroposophy may lessen the risk of atopy in childhood." Anthroposophic families were less likely to vaccinate. This study does not conclude that vaccination resulted in MORE atopic disorders.

Reference #10 is the Christchurch study which is frequently cited in the anti-vaccination literature. My interpretation: Of the children studied, only 23 were unvaccinated - that's less than 2% of the children in the study (23 out of 1265). For the vaccinated children, even if you assume that the 23.1%, the 22.5%, and the 30% were all DIFFERENT kids (which is unlikely)...that means 75.6% of the vaccinated children had childhood allergy or asthma. That leaves 24.4% of the vaxed kids who did not...or 303 children who did NOT have asthma/allergy problems. 303 vaccinated children WITHOUT asthma/allergy is a LOT more than 23 unvaccinated children without asthma/allergy. Or, to look at it another way, less than 2% of the study population was unvaccinated and did not have asthma/allergies but OVER TWENTY FOUR PERCENT (24%) of the study population were vaccinated and still did not have asthma/allergies.

Reference #17 - The abstract: "study of the major genomic alterations occurring during serial passage of Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) in a Trichoplusia ni cell line was conducted. Progeny viruses from 24 independent passages were randomly selected and analyzed with restriction endonucleases. Specific deletion mutations were generated repeatedly in the PstI-G (7.6 to 13.1%) and the PstI-I (14.4- 17.9%) regions; these mutations became predominant in the serially passaged stocks in which they arose. The deletions in the PstI-G region and two different insertions in this region were mapped to a 1 Kb PvuII-Bg/II fragment (9.85-10.70%) reflecting a high degree of sequence specificity in the initiation or selection of genomic alterations in this region. Insertional mutations were observed frequently and repeatedly within the PstI-E/HindIII-I region (33.6-37.2%) of the AcNPV genome. Individual examples of insertional mutations were observed in several other regions of the genome."

This sounds very scientific but I wonder how this actually applies to vaccines.

Reference #18 - The abstract: "Post-infectious or post-vaccinal demyelinating encephalomyelitis and neuritis may be due to immunological cross-reactions evoked by specific viral antigenic determinants (epitopes) that are homologous to regions in the target myelins of the central and peripheral nervous systems. Such homologies have been found by computer searches in which decapeptides in two human myelin proteins were compared with proteins of viruses known to infect humans. These viruses include measles, Epstein-Barr, influenza A and B, and others that cause upper respiratory infections. Several regions identified in myelin basic protein and P2 protein can be related to experimental allergic encephalomyelitis or neuritis in laboratory animals."

I'm afraid this one is over my head. I'm still trying to put together how this article supports what Buttram has asserted regarding measles proteins and brain proteins.

Reference #23- The abstract: "Dysregulated immune system in children with autism: beneficial effects of intravenous immune globulin on autistic characteristics. We theorize that the high titers of rubella antibody…presented in mothers of children with autism would be transplacentally transferred and may persist for a prolonged period in the child. When such a child gets MMR immunization, rubella antigen may complex with preexisting antibodies, and such complexes might play a role in pathogenesis of autistic features."

Based on the abstract, I cannot tell if the rubella antibody found in the mothers of this study were naturally acquired antibodies or vaccine derived rubella antibodies. It would seem logical to assume that this may occur from both types of rubella antibody.

Monographs like this make large leaps in logic that are seemingly supported by the scientific literature, but when one takes the time to look at those references, it becomes obvious that the references are misquoted, misrepresented, and/or misused.

More misleading information from the Mercola website may be seen here

Home VPDs Definitions FAQs
Anti-vax sites Schedule Rules Hot Topics
Links About me Email me
Make your own free website on Tripod.com