Oooo that's gonna leave a mark. New study shows autism-like brain changes in vaccinated monkeys

[TalkingDog]

Grab some popcorn everybody...it's about to get interesting...... :evilgrin:
The only way to read the articles is to download the free pdfs.

http://www.ane.pl/

No media outlets have glommed onto this yet, so here is a synopsis:

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh used scanning techniques monitoring both brain growth and brain function in test and control animals over time. They compared the way the brains of vaccinated and un-vaccinated monkeys developed. Scans were performed before and after the administration of primary MMR and DTaP/Hib boosters that were given at the human equivalent of 12 months of age.

During the course of the study, the vaccinated monkeys showed an increase in total brain volume when compared with un-vaccinated ones. This is a feature found in the brains in many young children with autism

The amygdala, associated with our emotional responses, did not show abnormalities until after the 12-month vaccines had been given. And after the 12-month vaccines only, the functional brain scans showed significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

This suggests that multiple vaccine exposures during the previous 3-4 months may have had a significant impact on brain growth and development in ways that are consistent with published data on autism. As for the amygdala, the unexpected findings of abnormal growth and function appear to be a a result of more recent vaccine exposures, i.e. the 12-month primary MMR vaccine and the DTaP and Hib boosters.

The Editor-in-Chief of Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, Dr. Kris Turlejski, in his editorial commentary, found the results “alarming”, and says the findings “support the possibility that there is a link between early immunization and the etiology of autism.”

From their home page:

Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis is a fully peer-reviewed quarterly with an international board of editors that publishes manuscripts submitted by authors from all over the world. It is indexed by the Institute of Scientific Information, Philadelphia USA (ISI 2009 impact factor 1.337 and Citation Halflife 6.7 years). ANE is subscribed by Libraries and individuals from over 20 countries. Its circulation varies from 300 (regular issues) to 950 (conference issues).

Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis covers all aspects of neuroscience, from molecular and cellular neurobiology of the nervous system, through cellular and systems electrophysiology, brain imaging, functional and comparative neuroanatomy, development and evolution of the nervous system, behavior and neuropsychology to brain aging and pathology, including neuroinformatics and modeling.

Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis publishes original research reports, short communications, reviews, descriptions of new methods, theoretical papers and letters to the editor. Abstracts from important neuroscience events, like European Brain and Behaviour Society (EBBS) or Polish Neuroscience Society (PTBUN) meetings are also printed. Chronicle of the Polish Neuroscience Society is published on separate pages within the ANE issues.

[SidDithers]

1. And we'll see if further study duplicates and confirms the results...

Edit:

More about the study. It was not performed soley by "Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh", but also by "researchers" from Andrew Wakefield's Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin. This from the article at the age of autism website (not linking in order to prevent the thread from being moved), that appears to have exactly the same text as your summary.

Also from that article:

Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who is not a listed author but whose support in the design of the study is acknowledged, said “I hope the model will not only provide important insights into the origins of autism, but also ways of safely testing possible new autism treatments and vaccines.”

Anything, and I mean abso-fucking-lutely anything associated with Wakefield is suspect.

Sid

[TalkingDog]

3. I'll let you know if I come across the follow-up studies.

It's an interesting way to monitor for any changes. Slightly off topic, I will say....Pittsburgh has turned into a world class medical center.....

[SidDithers]

8. Edited my post after you replied...

just wanted to make sure you saw the edit.

Sid

[Maru Kitteh]

42. They won't be for long if they associated themselves with quacks like Wakefield. n/t

[TalkingDog]

14. I didn't realize Wakefield was involved (because frankly, I'm only interested in good science)

and so I didn't make the connection between the name of the House and him.

And yes, the text is a synopsis, paraphrased from that site. When I went looking for mainstream media articles, there were none. That said, the pdfs, which you can read, say exactly the same things. If somebody could tell me how to lift text from them I would have used the information directly. My failure to understand the technology or to find a mainstream media article from a journal published today does not undercut anything about the study. Or it shouldn't, if one is truly skeptical.


"Anything, and I mean abso-fucking-lutely anything associated with Wakefield is suspect."

And there's where I run into a problem. That line of thinking suggests that you are biased against any results, no matter how well designed the experiment.

If it weren't a peer reviewed journal, I wouldn't have even bothered. But this is a good solid study. Read the articles, then make an unbiased decision.

[SidDithers]

30. I freely admit my bias against any research associated with Wakefield..

he's been shown again and again to be fraudulent and unethical.

Sid

[TalkingDog]

34. Links?

And no, not snark. I'm sincerely interested. I'd like to see what the fuss is about.

[SidDithers]

46. Here are the findings of the British General Medical Council...

which found his actions sufficient to revoke his license to practice in Britain. He does not have a license to practice medicine in the US.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected

And articles from the Guardian about the findings of the GMC
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/24/andrew-wakefield-struck-off-gmc

There was also a good article by Brian Deer outlining his conflict of interest:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1027636.ece




He has since set up shop in Texas, where he continues to peddle his nonsense, and has a loyal following of celebrities and autism "advocates".

Sid

[ZombieHorde]

2. I am a skeptic on this issue, but this research is pretty interesting. nt

[uppityperson]

4. Question about a line you posted...

"During the course of the study, the vaccinated monkeys showed an increase in total brain volume when compared with un-vaccinated ones. This is a feature found in the brains in many young children with autism"

Is this feature found in the brains of many young children without autism?

Logic: Dogs have fur. Fur is a feature found on many cats. Cats are dogs.

[TalkingDog]

9. I'm relaying information from the journal. The best way to answer your question

is to tell you to do the work. Read the study, read the other articles in this months journal (which are all on the topic of autism) and make your own determinations.

[uppityperson]

29. I am off to work, don't have time now, was hoping someone might

be able to tell me if those changes are also found in non-autistic children also as "This is a feature found in the brains in many young children with autism" doesn't mean much by itself.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[texastoast]

15. I think it is probably a mammal thing

But who knows how that singular human gene not found in other species might affect that mammal thing.

[TalkingDog]

5. Seriously? A peer reviewed journal? You are down voting a well-constructed, peer reviewed study?

Wow.... that's some fundamentalist mindset you got there....

[jobycom]

12. Who are you talking to? You're the OP, and you're insulting the OP?

:wtf:

[TalkingDog]

17. No, I'm responding to the folks

who most likely consider themselves skeptics, but don't want to read anything that challenges their world view. The vote count moved to zero.

Read the subject line again.

[jobycom]

24. Are you talking about the unrec feature?

If so, how do you know why they're unreccing you? Maybe it's because you downgrade the research with the in-your-face taunting commentary so that people can't read the research freely. Maybe they are unreccing you, and not the article.

If you're talking about something else, let me know. I can't tell from either post what you mean, but given some of the weird ass paranoia about unrecs around here, I'm guessing.

And if that's it, just for disclosure, I didn't "vote" either way. I'm still checking out the link and the posts.

[TalkingDog]

33. Down voting, un-rec...okay, I can see that.

And I will cop to teasing.

And I will cop to the assumption that it was based on the subject and not the teasing snark.

"Skepticism" is a button of mine. I don't mind people asking reasonable questions, or reasonably pointing out problems with the material. (otherwise I wouldn't admit that your theories on the possible reasons for unrec.s have merit) But I don't care for out of hand dismissal without reading the material. (and if someone downloaded and read the entire article in less than 2 minutes, I will cop to making assumptions about that too)

Dismissal out of hand is lazy, sloppy and frankly, beneath anyone who even pretends to think for themselves.

[jobycom]

39. Unrec isn't about the material.

It's just a recommendation on whether the rec-er thinks it's worth reading. I've seen posts (usually mine) with great material presented in a boring way go nowhere, and I've seen the same material later posted by someone with a headline flair make the front page. It's all in the presentation. :)

[1monster]

37. I just hit rec and it is still ZERO.

[Bill McBlueState]

54. it's a conspiracy111

[stray cat]

28. A peer reviewed journal with a low impact factor - a pretty soft study

that may or may not be worth validating. These are journals people glance at for ideas but the stringency for publication is lower than for those with higher impact.

[Igel]

43. "Peer-reviewed" does not mean "correct."

I've seen peer-reviewed journal articles ripped to shreds so badly that the authors were tripping over themselves to recant their contents. Instead of waiting for an official retraction in the next issue, they send out emails to listserves subscribed to by people who'd have read their research.

I'll repeat one scenario. I was at a lab meeting. We newbies were given a large pile of stuff to read to bring us up on the state of the art in a given sub-sub-field and methodology. We started off with a seminal work in the field, spun off of the main author's dissertation. The PI of the lab group was the author's dissertation advisor and mentor.

This work had led to dozens of articles. Almost all confirmed the results and applied them to novel situation. Some didn't. In fact, a few non-mainstream authors not only failed to replicate the results, but their results were highly similar. These all used different techniques. They were all published in trash journals, a few couldn't get their work accepted and had to publish in working papers. Almost none of them were hired in tenure-track jobs, and either they abandoned their work or didn't get tenure. Thing is, in some adjacent fields some results were surfacing that called the seminal work into question and seemed to support the small minority of dissenters. That had made that a hot topic again. The Status Quo needed defending, and the lab group would at least in part do the defending.

During the general discussion at the lab meeting, one grad student, B., said he wasn't sure he agreed with the seminal work. He couldn't say why. A hunch, he called it. He was duly assigned the task of presenting the research more or less as his own: experimental design, data, analysis, conclusions. For various reasons B.'s presentation was delayed a month.

B. got up, finally, and trashed the work. It took over an hour. The first 40 minutes ran through statistical proofs and methods, the underlying assumptions needed to do any statistical analysis. What's "random" mean? How many degrees of freedom were there? How do you determine it? Most importantly, he'd shown that in the standard proof to arrive at the standard assumption, to make the math easier they assumed an offset of one for the degrees of freedom. You always had to have one, so "0" degrees of freedom plugged into the equation meant "1". Then he looked at the experimental design and derived the numbers needed for the stats--the work had been done in that very lab and the data was sitting in filing cabinets and disk storage boxes.

When B. pointed out the lurking degree-of-freedom problem the PI gave a gasp and started scribbling. He got to the conclusion about the same time B. did. B. had to run through the experimental design and showed that the authors--including the PI who had just gasped--screwed up in their assumptions 8 or 9 years before. It was peer reviewed, and nobody caught the mistake. Far more than a dozen tenured researchers in the US and abroad replicated the mistake and the erroneous conclusions and had their peer-reviewed articles published in journals. When B. asked if there were any questions, the PI said that they were going to talk but B. had a paper to write. An easy one, since all he had to do was write what he had just said. The lab meeting was over, no questions needed.

That night the PI sat down with B. and had a conference call with the primary author of the article, the #2 guy in the field with hefty grants, tenure at a top 10-school, and a flock of students. They talked. B. would be the primary author on the article they'd write.

Peer review failed. Massively.

My own dissertation advisor had written an article--completely different field. He asked me what I thought and I pointed out that the data sources he had listed in the bibliography trashed his conclusion. Not only were his conclusions wrong per the data available, but it would be hard to revise the conclusion because the data was spotty and incomplete. I pulled out copies of the articles--I thought them relevant to what I was doing, so I had read them--and spouted counterexamples. He handed me the preprint. It had been peer-reviewed and was being published as we spoke. He said that if I was right, the reviewers--some big names in the field, all friends of his--and he were wrong and would be embarrassed by such a stupid mistake. They were Scholars, I was a grad student, ergo I must be wrong. Quite Aristotelean of him, esp. since he'd just seen the data. Needless to say, our relationship went sharply downhill after that. Perhaps if it hadn't been published already things would have gone differently.

Peer review means many things. I take it to mean that it's likely that there aren't any butt-obvious errors, although sometimes it means that there was some reason for publishing it that might override simple accuracy. Peer review in important journals tends to be a bit more rigorous--you know that the articles are going to be more intensively scrutinized, the reviewers tend to be a bit more conscientious.

Still, I've seen stupid things in reviewers' comments, I mean really, really asinine comments. Once I read the comments for an article that pointed out that the original publication of a standard formula was actually different from the standardly used/taught version. It found the earliest instance of the "standard" formula in the first edition of textbook, the typo corrected in the 2nd edition but that the first edition was the one uniformly cited. The original version fit the data a little better. One reviewer's comments were trivial except for saying the article couldn't be published because the formula cited wasn't the one standardly accepted. In other words, he missed the entire point of the article.

In another case my wife reviewed an article on Ngasan, a language. We happened to have the source materials used on our bookshelf, so she looked up the data. She noticed that the guy cherry picked data and acted as though his data was uniformly representative of the language. I helped--my Russian's better, the sources were all in Russian. Her review went to 20 pages, helping the guy by providing data and organizing it so that the grad student's paper would essentially write itself--I spotted the patterns and the conclusion they supported. It was published with little revision because Big Name reviewers thought it ingenious--it precisely supported what they'd come to believe in the previous year or two. The revisions my wife's data would have required wouldn't have supported the Big Names. She was a post-doc.

Take peer review with a grain of salt. Things slip through because of reviewer inattention, reviewer bias, authorial misrepresentation. Some things are published to provoke research. Others make a political point.

[msanthrope]

52. A withdrawn, Wakefield-sponsored study, you mean....this research

was withdrawn from the journal of NeuroToxology, and this is it's third try at something resembling a peer-reviewed study....



http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/too_much_vaccineautism_monkey_business_f.php#more

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. I assume the vaccines were thimerisol free.

That opens up a whole boat load of possibilities, none good.

Vaccines have been a mixed blessing godsend. smallpox and mumps are things of the past. (we hope).

[mike_c]

18. no, they were not....

"...single dose, preservative-free vaccines
were purchased and thimerosal added as previously
described (Hewitson et al. 2010a) in order to
mimic the pediatric vaccines used between 1994-1999
(Centers for Disease Control, 1995)...."

[Canuckistanian]

19. I thought thimerosal was the ONLY problem

The anti-vaccine crowd thinks that the vaccine itself causes autism?

[Subdivisions]

7. It has already been declared here on DU that vaccinations DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM.

No further study is required.

[KansasVoter]

41. LOL...yes, no studies have confirmed it does not. Wrong!

[Subdivisions]

45. Hey, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I was just being facetious. n/t

[KansasVoter]

47. OK, sorry!!

[msongs]

10. that must be why every child vaccinated becomes autistic nt

[TalkingDog]

20. I'll keep saying it: Read the articles. There are some that talk about other factors.

I just found this one interesting because of the observed physical changes in the brain.

[guitar man]

11. So maybe that explains

...the Bu$h years :crazy:

[mike_c]

13. the methodology strikes me as a bit shakey...

...but I've only just begun to read the paper. The authors acknowledge a bias in favor of the published results, although it's a subtle acknowledgment:

We purposefully assigned a larger
number of animals to the exposed group in order to
optimize the chances of observing what we anticipated
to be an uncommon or idiosyncratic effect.

The control group was only four animals, and the treatment group was twelve. The unbalanced design doesn't bother me as much as the sample size, especially the small control population.

Another potential issue is that the actual data were somewhat ambiguous in the sense that conventional compartmental analysis using arterial input-function data was impossible due to the animal's age/size, so "image-based methods of analysis based on the definition of an anatomical “reference” region" were employed. That's going to be subject to considerable challenge, I suspect. Graphical analyses are difficult to standardize.

The results for amygdala volume are pretty ambiguous, IMO:

Overall, these data indicate that there was a statistically
significant interaction between time and exposure
on left amygdala volume, such that the pattern of
change over time differed according to exposure (Wald
χ2=6.29; P=0.01). While there was no significant main
effect of exposure on left amygdala volume (Wald
χ2=0.43; P=0.51), the main effect of time approached
significance (Wald χ2=3.61; P=0.06).

The authors seem to have some difficulty interpreting the meaning of their analysis (not uncommon, actually). The notion of "approaching significance" has no real statistical meaning. Further, in Fig. 3, it appears that only total amygdala volume difference at time two is significant, but it's hard to say. I haven't found their narrative description of those results yet, so I'm just inferring from the graph.

It's an interesting paper. The rest of that journal issue has other papers about autism, too.

[TalkingDog]

26. I thought the sample size was small too.

But realistically, maintaining and scanning hundreds of monkeys would be impractical wouldn't it?

And thanks for parsing out the statistical stuff. Not anywhere near my forte.....

I put the link up to the site, because it has a variety of articles on the same subject. I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just not a fan of folks who have a knee-jerk reaction and reject possibilities out of hand.

[mike_c]

31. that's why I like to use human babies for studies like these instead of monkeys....

So much easier to obtain, and so much easier to maintain. You can get hundreds in any third world country, and no one fire bombs your labs when you dispose of them at the end of the expt.


















Wait for it...
















:sarcasm: :rofl:

[EstimatedProphet]

32. Yep, agreed

The control group was only four animals, and the treatment group was twelve. The unbalanced design doesn't bother me as much as the sample size, especially the small control population.

There's good statistically-sound ways to allow for unbalanced designs. Using a really small (and yes, 4 is really small!) control group isn't one of them.

The notion of "approaching significance" has no real statistical meaning.

I personally hate when I see that. It's a novice mistake. In effect it says "these results don't meet the criteria for significance, but I want them to".

[stray cat]

16. The journals impact factor is 1.3 - I review for a higher one 1.7

and the reviews are really low stringency

[TalkingDog]

23. Thank you Stray Cat. That's very interesting. How does one find this information

on impact factor and stringency?

That's why I love DU, we've got everybody here.

[stray cat]

25. Usually its on the home site for the journal - at least if the journal has been around for a while

I actually was glad to see there was a journal lower than 1.7 - it made me feel better since I just published in the 1.7 one. The journals serve a useful purpose for people generally with fewer resources to publish in but the reviewers while wanting to make sure the experiments are done reasonably well the hurdles are much lower.

:hi:

[seabeyond]

21. alarming. they had better shut the fuck up and do NO more research or.... surely they

are anti science.

oh wait

this is part of sciences job, .... research

wtf

we dont need no research on this. just a bunch of shining parents that dont know what the fuck their eyes see

[Feron]

22. Well it looks like the study leaves a lot to be desired...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/jb_handley_wants_to_see_monkeys_with_aut.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/05/some_monkey_business_in_autism_research.php

Anti-vaxers are the creationists of the scientific world. They cling to their false beliefs no matter how much evidence piles up to the contrary. But unlike creationists, their beliefs kill.

[SidDithers]

27. From Science Based Medicine..

about previous studies that Laura Hewiston has authored about autism:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=100

Also oddly enough, Hewiston appears to have a background in primate research and has presented multiple times at the meeting of the American Society of Primatologists, an observation that makes me wonder how she got roped into these studies. Apparently she has an autistic son, and that may be coloring her decisions. Unfortunately, Dr. Hewitson wouldn’t be the first researcher whose personal brush with autism led her down the path of questionable science. It appears that such may be the case with her.

Indeed, having learned that she has an autistic son, I really, truly wanted to give Dr. Hewitson the benefit of the doubt as I read these abstracts, assuming that perhaps her love of her son was affecting her scientific judgment and that she might not know what she was getting into when she collaborated with Andrew Wakefield. Sadly, I then discovered what seems to be a very serious and apparently undisclosed conflict of interest, as a commenter has informed me. Not only is Dr. Hewitson married to Dan Hollenbeck, a regular contributor to the Age of Autism website (which would not in and of itself be a major conflict of interest), but she and her husband are listed as litigants in the Autism Omnibus proceedings (see #437):

437. Laura Hewiston and Dan Hollenbeck on behalf of Joshua Hollenbeck, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims Number 03-1166V

<snip>

But it goes beyond even that. Kev has also figured out that not only is Dr. Hewitson married to Dan Hollenbeck, but that Dan Hollenbeck works for Dr. Wakefield at Thoughtful House as Director of Information Technology and that his website FightingAutism.org is also part of Thoughtful House. Kev sums things up quite well:

So, here we are with three poster presentations from a woman who has an autistic son, affiliated with DAN!, is married to the Thoughtful House IT guy (who also happens to be on the Board of Directors of SafeMinds) and these afore-mentioned poster presentations are also co-authored by Andrew Wakefield. I wonder just how impartial this science can be?

It’s hard not to answer: Not very.

I repeat, the credibility of anyone connected to Wakefield is suspect.

It'll be interesting to see if SBM has any posting about this newest article.

Sid

[TalkingDog]

35. Post them if you find them.... thanks. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

44. "her love for her son'"?

Not really. Sounds more like she is desperately trying to prove it's not genetic, and therefore not her fault. Very common among parents who are (or pass for) neurotypical.

[Confusious]

36. The dutch did a study of their entire population

No difference in autism rates between those who were vaccinated and those who weren't.

[LeftishBrit]

38. 'Autism-like brain changes'?

There are *no* brain changes that can at present clearly distinguish autistic from non-autistic individuals. The discovery of such would indeed be a major breakthrough.

It is true that autistic individuals on average have slightly higher brain volume than non-autistic individuals. However, the association is not strong, and there are many things that are associated with brain volume: notably intelligence (people with higher IQs, on average, have higher brain volume than those with lower IQs - though the effect, again, is not enormous).

As regards the relationship between amygdala size and autism, results at present are very conflicting. Some studies show a higher amygdala size in autism (Schumann et al, 2004; Piven et al, 2009), while some show a *lower* amygdala size in autism (Abell et al, 1999; Arehart-Treichel et al, 2007) and some don't show any relationship.

Moreover, most statistical effects in this study were nonsignificant, and it is puzzling why the control group consisted of only 4 monkeys (eventually reduced to 3). Difficult to draw clear conclusions from such a small control group.

So this study really doesn't tell us much about relationships between vaccines and anything to do with autism.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

40. Big Pharma uses a lot of "peer reviewed" studies that are no better than this one

"Peer Review" is an easy fake. Read "Our Daily Meds" by Melody Petersen for a detailed description of some of the different methods that can be used to rig 'em, for starters.

I always really appreciated WS Burroughs' take on Xtian anti-vaccers: all you have to o is be patient enough for Mother Nature and a good strong virus to do the job for you. Evolution wins every time.

This "study" is really nothing but junk, I hope you know.

[SidDithers]

48. Orac tears apart Wakefield, Hewiston and this "study"...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/too_much_vaccineautism_monkey_business_f.php#more

Sid

[msanthrope]

50. This research was withdrawn after Wakefield lost his license....

This research--which, BTW, involves giving Macque monkeys 4 years worth of human vaccines in one year--has been used previously in other studies. It's Wakefield, all over again, and a perfectly good waste of monkeys.


"Note that this research is the same research that was published in NeuroToxicology last fall and then withdrawn in February in the wake of Wakefield's disgrace due to his having had his medical license taken away by the General Medical Council in the U.K."

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/too_much_vaccineautism_monkey_business_f.php#more

[apples and oranges]

51. Does anyone know if spreading out the vaccines over 5 years makes a difference?

My sister has to make a decision on what to do. She isn't anti vaccine, but she doesn't want to give her child the full doses right away.

[SidDithers]

58. Yes, it means the child is less protected for a longer period of time...nt

Sid

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Autism is an epidemic which has an environmental trigger.

Nothing should be off the table in the search for it.

[Karenina]

55. You know what's really STOOPID???

So many "special interests" were threatened by parental reports and empirical evidence that they were NEVER able or willing to find common ground or cause on behalf of our children AND INVESTIGATE. My "belief" is that there are environmental and genetic factors, some of which may have been triggered by an overdose of yet more "foreign agents." Suffice to say that we slowed my son's "schedule" down considerably and no further acute side effects were observed.

I was SO LUCKY two decades ago to have had access to pediatric professionals who were open to parental input. I know they put our information to good use while we were in their practice. The big picture Pharma and "remediation" doodah... Barn door, cows and all that.

Don't let the oil get into the water in the first place. Nur meine Meinung.

[seabeyond]

57. this is what i feel like and what pisses me off.... nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. If there were a link between MMR vaccines and autism...

how come there is no link between MMR vaccines and autism?