Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 News and Comment
 [Teresa Binstock Comment on Fombonne
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  


United Kingdom
608 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2006 :  22:43:13  Show Profile  Visit john's Homepage  Send john an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Fombonne et al's newest article (1) prompts questions: Is the article a scientific document? The answer appears to be No, it is not. If not, then what is the article's purpose?

In this email, a brief part of the article is illustrative. Consider a quote from page e141:
"By and large, biological studies of ethylmercury exposure have also failed to support the thimerosal hypothesis. (25,39,40) Despite the accumulation of negative studies, concerns from the public have not been entirely alleviated, and fears continue to be fueled by well-publicized media accounts of a spectacular nature. (41,42)"

Fombonne et al's intentions are elucidated by the citations chosen and omitted in support of the statement that "biological studies of ethylmercury exposure have also failed to support the thimerosal hypothesis". Fombonne et al deliberately fail to mention the increasing number of studies that affirm biological plausibility (eg, 101-111), and the article's peer-reviewers (if any) and editors of the journal "Pediatrics" allowed Fombonne et al (1) to be published without correcting Fombonne et al's omission of these important references (101-111).

Were Fombonne et al (1) a peer-reviewed scientific study, they would have been required to mention studies contradicting the preferred position of Fombonne et al. In numerous journal articles, researchers assert a preferred position and add "But see...", and there list citations with findings contrary to the researchers' preferred position. Furthermore, Fombonne et al refer to Kirby's work as a "media account" and by those words fail to convey the significance of the numerous peer-reviewed citations included within "Evidence of Harm...".

The fact that Fombonne et al fail to mention and fail to present the peer-reviewed cites affirming the thimerosal hypothesis' biological plausibility (eg, 101-111) indicates that Fombonne et al (1) is not a scientific article but instead merits consideration as a political treatise reinforced by economic incentives, not the least of which is Fombonne's reputation as a court witness hired by vaccine manufacturers.

Since Fombonne's statement as quoted above is substantially misleading and conveys a conclusion contrary to fact, the Fombonne et al article (1) may merit the judgement Purposefully Fraudulent. In fact, we ought consider whether Fombonne and his coauthors (1) -- in complicity with the editors of the journal "Pediatrics" and the directors of the corporation known as the "American Academy of Pediatrics" -- have committed an act of scientific fraud for the purpose of altering public perceptions regarding vaccinations.

Furthermore, Fombonne et al misconstrue the IOM's 2004 hearing as a biological study and fail to mention that the hearing's conclusions were predetermined by the CDC, which funded the hearing (discussed in 112, 113-114). Thus the Fombonne et al article (1) appears to be part of a larger collusion wherein some officials seek to enforce the idea that injecting thimerosal does no harm, despite a growing body of evidence that thimerosal injections are injurious.

Teresa Binstock
Researcher in Developmental & Behavioral Neuroanatomy


773 Posts

Posted - 10/29/2006 :  04:17:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I am surprised that Teresa Binstock did not make mention of the fact that Eric Fombonne did not have a look at any of the actual vaccine records of the subjects in his study.Any elementary school teacher, in Ontario, Canada anyway, can tell what vaccines their students have had because photocopies of their vaccine records are available with their registration information in their OSR (or Ontario Student Record) files. These records may not be up to date, because some of the students have received additional vaccinations afterwards, like flu,chicken pox and meningitis vaccines which are not listed on our official childhood immunization schedules. Certain populations have also received vaccines as infants, which are not listed on our province's immunization schedule, and the same could be true in our neighbouring province, Quebec. I know that in Ontario, many children received hepatitis b vaccines as infants, and these vaccines likely contained thimerosal because thimerosal-free hepatitis b vaccines did not even become licensed in Canada until cerca 2000/2001, years after Fombonne claimed that vaccines in Quebec were free of thimerosal. If Fombonne was comparing numbers of children diagnosed with ASD to what was happening on the childhood immunization schedule in effect in Quebec at the time, he may as well have been comparing apples with oranges. Even here in Ontario during those years, many children were receiving vaccines which were not listed on the official childhood vaccination schedule. Quebec also has a sizable immigration population, and the vaccines many immigrants get are not the same which are offerred to children who are born here to parents who were also born in Canada. My children were never even offerred the hepatitis b vaccines that many children in their birth cohorts had in another part of town, namely in Chinatown. Over the last 6 or 7 years, I have found out that many of my previous students have received additional vaccines, outside of our childhood immunization schedule, as infants. Too many of these children are experiencing speech and language, reading, and learning difficulties. I wish that someone would do an objective study which looks at students' vaccination and educational profiles. So far, I have not found any. Eric Fombonne hopes that his recent study will put the vaccine issues to rest, but his study is not capable of doing that, for the simple reason that he did not even examine his subjects' vaccine records. He is making judgments about the safety of vaccines WITHOUT looking at anyone's actual vaccine records, and is basing his study on what the childhood immunization schedule was at the time. In my mind, his "ecological" study is no better than the stupid TV and autism study. I know for a "fact" that what is in an immunization schedule does not necessarily equate with vaccines received by actual real live schoolchildren. Often, they have received more vaccines than are listed on the official schedule.

And no-one seems to want to deal with that!

Go to Top of Page

John Stone

United Kingdom
1254 Posts

Posted - 10/29/2006 :  10:25:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Note also John Heptonstall's interesting commentary on the study, which amazingly PEDIATRICS published:

Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05