This Just in! Vaccines STILL Do Not Cause Autism

[Doctor X]

From the wonderful Quackwatch:

Yet another study debunks vaccination-autism link.

New findings from the CHildhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) study have found no difference in the blood levels of mercury among children ages 2-5 with autism spectrum disorders and children who were developing normally. [Hertz-Picciotto I and others. Blood mercury concentrations in CHARGE Study: Children with and without autism. Environmental Health Perspectives, Oct 19, 2009] The complete report is available at http://www.ehponline.org/members/200...36/0900736.pdf

and:

Vaccination crusader honored and libeled.

Paul Offit, M.D., has received the American Academy of Pediatrics President's "Certificate for Outstanding Service," in recognition of his ongoing commitment to promote immunization." Offit, a pediatrician, is chief of infectious diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. His 2008 book, Autism's False Prophets, Amazon.com: Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure (9780231146364): Paul A. Offit MD: Books exposed the opportunism of lawyers, journalists, celebrities, practitioners, politicians, and miscellaneous cranks who are promoting the myth that vaccines cause autism. Vaccine opponents, enraged by both the book and the award, have responded by making false and misleading statements about him.

--J.D.

[The Lone Ranger]

We were discussing this very subject in class the other day. (I was lecturing on the Immune System.)

A surprising number of students were quite vocal in saying that they didn't trust vaccines, and would be unwilling to let their own children be vaccinated.

I guess I haven't been paying attention, because I was floored by how many people were saying -- completely seriously -- that vaccination would cause autism or mercury poisoning, and/or that it was all a money-making scheme on the part of the medical industry and that vaccination wouldn't at all reduce your chance of getting the disease in question. Given how common such beliefs seem to be, I can only assume there are a significant number of people/organizations who are actively promoting such nonsense.


Cheers,

Michael

[Waluigi]

Anti-vaccine rhetoric is big amongst social conservatives. A few of my friends are anti-vaccine, and out of that group, all but one of them homeschool their kids (they wouldn't be allowed in public schools without a vaccination record, anyway).

I just don't get it.

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by Waluigi

Anti-vaccine rhetoric is big amongst social conservatives. A few of my friends are anti-vaccine, and out of that group, all but one of them homeschool their kids (they wouldn't be allowed in public schools without a vaccination record, anyway).

I just don't get it.

Is there no exception for conscientious objectors?

[godfry n. glad]

I am of the opinion that vaccines have been repeated proven to be effective in reducing the incidence of many a infectious disease.

I don't know enough about the claims of a form mercury used as a preservative in vaccine serums as the cause of autism to comment intelligently on it.

However, of late, I've been forced into researching what I can about influenza vaccines and I'm growing more dubious by the day.

It seems that the claims being made by the vaccine manufacturers have been excessive. A leading epidemiologist, Dr. Tom Jefferson, with the Cochrane Collaborative, a private international medical research monitoring organization located in Rome, has been raising all sorts of doubts about the effectiveness of the vaccines and, in particular, the claims made on behalf of the vaccines by the manufacturers. Dr. Jefferson, as head of the Vaccines Research section at Cochrane is no critic to sneeze at....he's often touted as being one of the most familiar with ALL the studies done on influenza vaccines and associated influenza outbreaks. He has publicly stated that of the hundreds of studies he has reviewed, most are so much "rubbish"....poorly done studies which purport to support industry claims.

A study done in 2004 by Dr. Lisa Jackson of the Group Health Cooperative of Seattle and her cohorts at the University of Washington tested the claims made by influenza vaccine suppliers by researching elderly patients in the Seattle area....thousands of them. JAMA refused to publish it because it questioned the prevailing vaccine claims....She had to publish in the International Journal of Epidemiology, where it was published in 2006. Indeed, other studies which come to light in sources like Lancet and BMJ seem to be reinforcing the findings of Jackson et al. Dr. Lone Simonson, currently at the George Washington University Center for Global Health and former head of the research wing at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has typified the Jackson study as a superlative piece of epidemiological research. It seems that, at minimum, the claims of the vaccine manufacturers is vastly overblown...at worst, we could be spending billions of public health funds on what is essentially a scam.

From what these epidemiological researchers are finding, the vaccine producers have been overselling their product. It is not clear that it has all the benefits they claim...or, if it has the benefits which the public believes it does. They are calling for more testing. Leading epidemiologists are calling for more evidence....

What is interesting is watching what all the "science blogger" types are doing in response to this. It seems that in instances where science bloggers might come down with respiratory viral influenza, they tend to lose contact with the desire for evidence. They seem to be willing to go with whatever set of promises the vaccine manufacturers issue...without evidence. They even claim that there is no need for evidence.

And, they busily defame Dr. Jefferson....and anybody who sows doubt as to the effectiveness of the influenza vaccines.

Curious. "Evidence-Based Medicine" is tossed out the window when bazillions of dollars for development and distribution of hundreds of thousands of untested 'vaccines' are on line....

For more evidence....I suggest that the Shannon Brownlee article in the November Atlantic be consulted.

The question is not autism....but effectiveness. Does it do what the vaccine manufacturers say it will do and upon what evidence have we to support those assertions? It seems that if there is any, it is wholly inadequate.

[The Lone Ranger]

Part of the problem with influenza is that there are so many different viral strains -- and they mutate so rapidly -- that by the time a vaccine for the latest strain is widely available, it may be of limited utility. That is, indeed, something that isn't exactly widely advertised.

Cheers,

Michael

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Part of the problem with influenza is that there are so many different viral strains -- and they mutate so rapidly -- that by the time a vaccine for the latest strain is widely available, it may be of limited utility. That is, indeed, something that isn't exactly widely advertised.

The same is true for the multitude of Coronavirus

This fact used to be the reason why nobody even tries to make a cold vaccine, or almost every other Coronavirus

That being said, can anyone here explain how you got rid of Dr X?

[Doctor X]

This sort of follows the whole conspiracy theory pathology which includes:

1. Belief in "Secret" Knowledge:

People like believing they have discovered or learned something that most people have not. This makes them feel intelligent and insightful.

2. Belief in Higher Powers at Work:

In this case "teh guv'ment"--you have to be pretty special to have governments against you. However, it also fits the religious angle since, clearly, "t3h guv'ment"--"dey durk ur jerbs!"--is opposed to the Natural Healing [Tm.--Ed.] that one can get through sending money to some pervert in a bad suit and comb-over.

3. Belief in the Ability to Control:

SCIENCE [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] tells us things we cannot do. We are not "special'--which means, as individuals, we are not special at all. We cannot live forever--at least you lot cannot, I am magNIfIcent. We get diseases, we age, bad things happen. However, medical conspiracies allow you to believe we have control, it is just that the EvilScientistSecularHumanistProgressiveNoCultureWa rriorYou have robb'd us of this ability/truth, just like Bush robbed us of JFK, who would have ended Vietnam, made the 60's last forever, with free ice cream and ponies! Clearly the Jews are to blame.

You can avoid sickness, tragedies, if you just get your mind right! If not, well, clearly you did not have your mind right! I will pray for you. . . .

4. Ability to Ignore Evidence:

This is easy: all it requires is a willful ignorance. Seriously. Many [Straw--Ed.] people ask me if they may touch my clothes. Then they ask me how seemingly intelligent people can believe in fairy tales, Holocaust Denial, creationisms, alien abductions, U2's musical ability, that evolution has "no evidence," that the "Big Bang" has been "rejected" by "98.3%" of "scientists!" That there "is evidence for" a Global Flood, for "inferior races and sexual orientations"--"the gay is a choice, but SCIENCE says they are mutants. We should kill them. Praise Jesus!"

Easy: just ignore the evidence.

I mean, if people can ignore the evidence for a Holocaust and U2 suckage, ignoring evidence for evolution and the effectiveness of vaccination is easier than Margret Mary behind the woodshed. For this we have:

A. Contrary Evidence Remote: Get home schooled and you can avoid all sorts of things like the fact the Earth is banana shaped and sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes. In the case of vaccinations, who the hell studies the immune system if they have not studied evolution and basic physiology.

We are dealing with people who believe in "auras," "personal angels," and Boy.

Unfortunately, you can go through life not knowing how your body works.

Further, the effectiveness of things like vaccination diminishes the contrary evidence. For example: who gets measles these days? Who gets polio? Smallpox? Like HIV sufferers, they must not pray enough, or be gay, or not white. Now, someone who has a rudimentary knowledge of the science knows WHY that is! They also can cite cases where "rare" diseases suddenly did not become so rare when vaccination decreased. Which brings us too:

B. The McGuffin: From Hitchcock's joke about misdirection in his films. A McGuffin, as he told the story, is something that keeps tigers off of the cruise ship. When someone protests that there are no tigers on the cruise ship, Hitchcock responds, "then it isn't a McGuffin!"

Most think the joke should be: "see? It works!" That is part of vaccination/health woo and quackery--you simply attribute success to any fool thing you do. Of COURSE my dancing in my tighty whities to Katrina and the Waves prevents kuru! Have you ever SEEN anyone GET kuru since I started violating various city ordinances?

No?

I win.

However, understanding Hitchcock's joke: it is a goal-post shifter. He wanted the viewer to pay attention to something that is not important. As such, they have to have the ability to alter its significance themselves!

I have often [Pontificated.--Ed.] that disproving a deity is easy once you define one. Otherwise, the adherent will keep changing the characterization--even contradicting himself--yet hiding behind his lack of a concrete concept.

So the Woo will point to homoeopathy. That does not work? Quickly discarded to Chinese Medicine [Tm.--Ed.]. Is that a crock? Well, that is because you do not have faith, you cannot expect it to work because Western Science [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] cannot understand it.

I mean, have you seen an electron? SCIENCE [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] does not even know what electrons are. Besides, you believe you were created out of nothing! Why are you afraid? Hoyle, the celebrated astronomer, disproved the Big Bang years ago.

I will pray for you. . . .

All of that serves, in the mind of the conspiracist, to reinforce his beliefs. It is a pile of fallacy--argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam. This brings us to:

C. Availability of "Evidences": Need proof that evolution is false? Read Ann Coulter. She talked to "scientists" who say, after 150 years, no evidence has ever been found. It must be true: Sean Hannity had her on discussing it. Why would it be on a mainstream news program if it was not true? Besides, the latest U2 concert sold out.

This is part of the Persuasion and Healing lesson--wonderful psychology classic--in which religious fundamentalism is akin to brain washing--you have to provide continued support for the delusion.

And support you can find! From Important People [Tm.--Ed.] People like . . . Tom Cruise! He was in movies! He fucked Nicole Kidman . . . we think. Jenny McCarty fucked people important. She also has a Sick Child [Tm.--Ed.]. You should listen to her. Do you hate children?

This blends with the argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam for much of the "evidences"--thanks--has NOTHING to do with the subject. A fantastic demonstration of this is Errol Morris' Mr. Death regarding a hapless schmuck who basically convinces himself the Holocaust never happened because of his . . . "science." The science the amateur performs is IRRELEVANT to finding evidence for a Holocaust. I might as well fly a kite and declare I proved gravity does not exist.

People who lack the interest, patience, curiosity, et cetera to study biology, for example, will happily swallow a webpage that says cavemen rode dinosaurs and "the Jews" are out to steal your stereos. Nonsense! Your stereos are mine!

So, in light of the above [ZZzzzZZzz--Ed.], if you need evidence that you are "special," that you are stronger than diseases, that you can control your body with thought and prayer, et cetera there are webpages and Talking Head ready to spew affirmation. You are not wrong, "THEY" are wrong!

Which brings us to "They":

5. The Need to Believe There Are People Interested Enough in You to be Out to Get You:

I mean you have to be important for the Bush and Obama Administration, not to mention the Jews and Richard Dawkins, to be out to get you. Please respond by speaking a bit more loudly to your pen.

The mere fact that so many are telling you are wrong means you MUST be right. This is the "why are Atheists so obsessed with Big Daddy" fallacy. Why are "the Jews" so "obsessed" with the Holocaust?

Obviously because it never happened.

Why is Big Pharma [Time Shares available.--Ed.] so behind vaccinations?

Because they need the money! If everyone just prayed, drank herbal tea, listened to No Line On the Horizon Big Pharma, the Jews, the Bush Administration--which still controls Obama--and probably Belgium--will all go bankrupt, so they make you take vaccines, study evolution, believe in the Holocaust, and want you to treat homos like human beings so they can keep making money.

6. Things Would be/Will be Better When:

A lot of conspiracy theories, if not all, in some way involve prejudice and bigotry. All the adherents may not have such feelings, but look closely enough, and you will probably find it. What closely follows the above:

If everyone just prayed, drank herbal tea, listened to No Line On the Horizon there would be no autism, no cancer, no Jews and probably no black people. Women would probably know their place, too. There would also be no homos--since they would not have mutated, made the choice, or we could just start killing them again.

There is a bigotry. There is a willingness to "blame the victim" for human tragedy. As above, it is easy to do if such a tragedy does not happen to you. I have, unfortunately, heard arguments that HIV only happens to "fags," to "blacks," and the like. I have, unfortunately, been accused of "being a Jew" for noting that, well, yes, the Nazis were evil.

Is that behind vaccination conspiracy? Perhaps it is unfair for me to paint with the broad brush, but I am afraid there is a hatred or at least a willingness to throw under a bus "someone else." In order to find support for the theory, believers will:

A. Take in the Ridiculous to Obscene to Maintain the Delusion:

Fred Leucter may not have started life as an Anti-Semite or Holocaust Denier . . . but he found support and later "evidence" from such. A parent who wants to blame "Big Pharma" my not think "the Jews" are "behind it," but there are webpages that will feed into that. Lie with pigs, you start to smell like Bono. To that end:

B. Make Excuses for the Implications of the Delusion:

When shown the rather unpleasant basis for such, adherents will try to dismiss it. They are "not like that." The person may hate homosexuals, women, "but his evidence is sound!" This is a sick cherry picking.

Which brings us almost full circle to:

7. The Need to Blame

All of those reasons--willful ignorance, latent prejudice, fear, et cetera--provide us with "something" to blame for our lives. This is obvious for the Big Conspiracies. The World would be better if a bunch of misfits did not frame Oswald for killing JFK--all because they needed curry! If "the Jews" did not control the money, Hollywood, et cetera--ALL would be better.

Does this apply to vaccination? Absolutely. I can think of few more gut-wrenching tragedies than the serious illness to death of a child. Blaming "someone else" makes sense. It provides "balance." As a few have observed, when you compare the deified JFK to the schmuck that was Oswald . . . clearly there is no "balance." There MUST have been a conspiracy. Implied in this is the hope to bring a justice for the fantasy world never happening--we can "punish" the people who caused the autism, caused the disease, gave U2 a recording contract.

--J.D.

[F-X]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I can think of few more gut-wrenching tragedies than the serious illness to death of a child. Blaming "someone else" makes sense.

I can remember when autism was "blamed" on the parents. So yes, blaming somebody made sense to all the medical people in the world. And since it was the parents fault, nobody looked for a physical cause for autism.

It was a certain type of "cold mother" that caused autism. The medical world had declared (with no evidence at all) that autism was caused by bad parenting.

One can hardly imagine that at the same period in time, mercury based "medicine" (calomel, or mercurous chloride) was used as a medical treatment for teething.

The result of this was Acrodynia (also known as "calomel disease," "erythredemic polyneuropathy," and "pink disease"). It was mercury poisoning. It was also commonplace amongst children in the first half of the 20th century.

Some Doctors figured out it was mercury causing it, but it took decades before people stopped using mercury as medicine.

It's hard to believe, but in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and even the 60s, almost every Doctors didn't know mercury was a potent nerve poison. A deadly substance to developing children, to a fetus, and of course, to adults.

Some people still insist, despite all the evidence, that mercury isn't harmful. I'm not kidding. They think mercury is OK to inject into a human body. To use in fillings, to actually place mercury into a living human being.

And no amount of evidence will convince most of them. Having made up their minds (with no evidence) that mercury is somehow not a poison, they try to defend it.

Smart people realize that if a Doctor or researcher or internet expert can't grasp that mercury is bad for human beings, then anything else they say is suspect.

Because if you are that close minded, that insane, to insist that mercury is OK (it's just a little bit, it isn't that bad, there is no evidence, or what ever fucked up reasoning they use), if you keep insisting mercury is OK, then you have lost the audience.

I doubt everybody gets together and plans it out. Some conspiracies are just a conspiracy of ignorance.

The worst thing about it, even when a smart skeptical person just points out the facts about mercury (thimerosal, mercury fillings, coal fired power plants, whatever), the very people who are supposed to be skeptical, to be scientific, they act like idiots and turn on their own, throwing out claims and ad homs and using logical fallacies. And they don't get it.

It's a closed mind that won't even look at evidence.

You can present anything and everything in the world, it won't change the facts. Mercury is a poison. Thimerosal is used in a vaccine for one reason. To kill any living organism that contaminates a vial of a vaccine. Which it does quite well.

Injecting any amount of any mercury based chemical compound into a human being is a bad thing. You can talk and reason and say anything in the world, it won't change that.

Recent animal studies have revealed a possible mechanism for how even a small amount of thimerosal can damage the brain.

Thousands of parents have watched, in abject horror, as their healthy normal child gets sick immediately after getting a vaccine. (that probably doesn't even contain any mercury).

Then after a serious medical problem, the child is no longer the same.

Saying this can't happen, that it never happens, that it would have happened in any case, none of that will change the mind of somebody who watches it happen.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I can think of few more gut-wrenching tragedies than the serious illness to death of a child. Blaming "someone else" makes sense.

To Doctors, blaming the child makes sense.

To parents, blaming a vaccine makes sense.

Blaming parents doesn't make sense any more. But it used to make sense. Remember? Autism used to be the parents fault.

Actually, the mothers fault.

So when somebody tries to get on a high horse, I tend to shoot the horse out from under them.

When Acrodynia, (Pink disease), was an epidemic, no Doctor knew what caused it. Because kids grew out of it, (after teething there was no need to use mercury any longer), nobody really did much about it. At first.

This was widespread mercury poisoning of small children. Millions of them. And no Doctor knew what caused it.

Now, we have Autism, on the rise, an epidemic, but kids don't grow out of it.

And no Doctor knows what caused it.

That's right. Nobody can tell you what causes autism. They can only swear it isn't anything medical science is doing that causes it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Waluigi

Anti-vaccine rhetoric is big amongst social conservatives. A few of my friends are anti-vaccine, and out of that group, all but one of them homeschool their kids (they wouldn't be allowed in public schools without a vaccination record, anyway).

I just don't get it.

It's big amongst the far left ultra crunchies too. Natural living folks, ya know

Hey F-X, you have made a lot of assertions without providing any evidentiary support. Hows about some links or citations?

[F-X]

I too get some small amount of enjoyment over the amazing lack of science when it comes to sacred cows.

[Waluigi]

Yes, the seasonal flu vaccine only protects against what they predict will be the most common strains of the virus. So, it's not perfect. I'm not sure how well that is advertised to people getting the vaccine.

When I think "vaccine", I think things like Diphtheria, Hepatitis, MMR (measles/mumps/rubella), etc. Vaccines that have proven to be pretty darn effective, and have resulted in a much lower rate of childhood mortality in the countries that can afford the vaccinations.

The seasonal flu vaccine (including H1N1, which would have been part of the seasonal flu shot if they had isolated the strain in time) I consider to be quite optional, though at least somewhat effective in warding off the flu.

[godfry n. glad]

I am also under the impression that the US health care community's commitment to utilize vaccines, and mass vaccination, to battle annual viral influenza infections is largely as an outgrowth of the GW Bush administration's intiative and commitment of $7.1 billion dollars to develop vaccines and mass vaccination in the face of the 2005 avian flu epidemic....the epidemic that wasn't.

This raised all sorts of flags for me.

Then, I was informed that the firms involved in the development, manufacture, distribution and provision of the vaccines have been freed of all product liability. I don't know about you, but providing bazillions of public dollars for producing it and then letting the producers/distributors go scott-free if there are any adverse reactions or failure of protection.....well, that seems exceedingly ill-advised. That such comes with the sponsorship of the GW Bush administration makes it seem even worse.

This raised more red flags.

Then, in discussing this whole thing, a fellow employee pointed out that the Bush administration was big-time into pimping for the pharmaceutical treatment and shovelled out beaucoup bucks to stockpile Tamiflu for the troops. The thing is, the patentholder for Tamiflu is Gilead....a vaccine company whose CEO was Donald Rumsfeld from 1997 until he became Secretary of Defense in 2001. We are informed that Mr. Rumsfeld recused himself from the 2005 government decision to stockpile this medication....yeah, right...like Dick Cheney recused himself from decisions as how to utilize Halliburton. I'm not convinced. Besides, seasonal influenzas are already showing signs of resistance to Tamiflu...such is the nature of rapidly mutating viral strains, as I understand it.

The red flags flying at this point looks like the PRC political event.

Also...Calls for double-blind, placebo-controlled tests of the vaccines have usually been met with claims that such testing would be "unethical". Yet, I note that such tests have already started here in the US...tests specifically focused upon the potential protection is affords asthma sufferers.

Is it really "unethical", or would stringent tests show that the vaccine has limited effectiveness in preventing influenza deaths? If, as has already been shown, the claims of the vaccine producers are vastly inflated...is that not "unethical"?

Then, how many years have we had where the vaccine just could not get to where it was deemed to be needed to avert a major epidemic outfall...only to have all the dire predictions disappear as if a fart on the wind?

Lastly...Why is it that those who keep calling for "evidence-based medicine" suddenly decide to jettison the evidence and go with inadequately tested, unevidenced means of treating an epidemic?

I think somebody needs to "follow the money" and explain for me why all the "evidence-based medicine" people are doing so much hand-waiving and tap-dancing on this issue.

[godfry n. glad]

Doc is ranting. I'm not sure what he is responding to, but it's not me, as I'm under the opinion that I'm on his ignore list.

I'd really like to see what he has to say about the influenza vaccine controversy (which has absolutely zero to do with mercury or autism....but does directly relate to another of his favorite mantras, "evidence-based medicine"). Yes, I know it's tangential, but I don't think anyone here is arguing with him about vaccines and autism, so would somebody ask him his opinion on the influenza vaccine issue?

[F-X]

And having blasted that salvo across the muddy waters, I'm going to tell ya something that can not be proved. At least to my knowledge. I have no evidence, except a nurse who told the story.

And it is a story that actually happened, but that won't matter to somebody who has made up their mind that mercury never caused any harm, ever, to any child, at any time, because it was injected into their young body.

But to those with a keen mind, and sense of how the world actually is, you might grasp this right away.

In the good old days, before Thimerosal (which I am going to keep calling mercury, because that is the active ingredient, the shit that kills, making a vaccine sterile, even when you jab a filthy needle into a vial), before mercury was removed from some vaccines (it is still used, lets not even try and pretend it isn't), back in the good old days, you had this big multidose vial of a vaccine.

It could have ten, or twenty, or if you really wanted to save money, 40 doses of a vaccine in it. Between using it, you keep it in a very cold frig, so it stays fresh.

Now before you stuck the needle in it, after you grabbed it out of the cooler, you are supposed to roll it around, because the mercury settles to the bottom. Being a metal and heavy and all that, it is just physics, it settles out.

So you are supposed to mix it all up good and well before you pull a hypo of vaccine out of it. So everybody gets a small amount of mercury, not some big dose of it.

But human beings, being human, sometimes they are lazy, or stupid, or distracted, or in a hurry. They might not roll it around like the instructions say. So, with no malice, no conspiracy present, other than the ever present idiocy of the normal human being, it is possible that a lot of doses are pulled with not much mercury in them at all.

Hell, if it was me that was getting a dose I would carefully pull the clear fluid with no mercury at all, because the mercury is only useful to keep the vial sterile, it doesn't do anything to help the vaccine work.

So, having an eye witness that yes this is exactly what happened some of the time, it isn't hard to believe that sometimes, in the good old days, the vial in the frig ends up with a lot more mercury in it when it is half full. Or worse. Most of the mercury stays in the vial, because the same lazy nurse or assistant is pulling the vaccine each time.

So what happens to the poor kid who gets the last dose out of the vial?

Does mercury from Thimerosal stay in the body? In the brain? Not from what most science shows. It is cleared out, in most every human, pretty quick. So even if a child got a huge slug of thimerosal, injected quite by accident, it shouldn't show up later.

That doesn't mean it can't raise utter hell in the few days it is in the body. If it happens at the same time the young human is raising a serious immune response to three or four diseases (the purpose of the vaccine), it might do something. Something bad.

And here is the fucked up part in this whole sad story. Nobody knows what happens when you inject a shitload of mercury into a young mammal, along with three or four vaccines.

Which is why this whole stupid debate is even going on. If Thimerosal had ever been subjected to animal studies, for safety reasons, we wouldn't even be having a conversation about this.

If the science was already done, and everybody knew what happens, knew all about it, like we know about lead, cadmium, benzene, kepone, EDB, asbestos, you know, shit that we absolutely know about, if we knew as much about Thimerosal as we do those things, there would be no debate.

That we do not know, that is the real unbelievable part of all this.

There are no science based studies (on animals, like apes), to show what can happen to a developing mammal brain when it is subjected to Thimerosal.

[F-X]

The Doctor slipped in, but there it is. Just as expected.

However, the minuscule amount of mercury the body absorbs from amalgams is far below the level that exerts any adverse health effect [1-6].

By that reasoning, (and it is a sort of twisted reasoning, flawed as it is), if a poison is below the level it can "exert any adverse health effect", then it is OK to be exposed to it. 24/7, for the rest of your life.

This is the modern day belief system of industrial society.

We don't speak of science and facts as facts, (mercury is one of the most poisonous substances on the planet, it is in no way good for you, in any form, in any dose), but instead mercury is discussed as "acceptable amounts of poison", or "it's not enough to hurt you".

It isn't that those statements aren't true (most of the time, mercury in fillings doesn't cause any serious harm), it is that they are made at all.

That is the perversion of science and logic that is odious to a freethinker.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by F-X

The Doctor slipped in, but there it is. Just as expected.

By that reasoning, (and it is a sort of twisted reasoning, flawed as it is), if a poison is below the level it can "exert any adverse health effect", then it is OK to be exposed to it. 24/7, for the rest of your life.

Ayup.

For instance, water. Kills you in large doses. (Not talking about drowning, just straight up water, ingested normally.) Harmless in smaller doses.

Many things are dangerous only in substantial doses. The amount of mercury it takes to have noticeable effects on humans is pretty large. If the total possible amount that could come out of, say, your fillings, is lower than the dose that has any effect, then all that being exposed to it for a long time does is spread the dosage out and make it even less likely to do anything.

If you can extract 1mg of mercury from fillings, that doesn't mean 1mg per hour, or 1mg per day, or 1mg per year. It means 1mg, ever. (Specific number arbitrary.)

Carbon monoxide, just to make it extra fun, is demonstrably beneficial to a lot of mammal life in extremely small dosages, but extremely lethal in larger doses... Meaning that there is at least one documented case of a substance where a large dose is immediately fatal, but a small dose is actually good for you. ... To say nothing of, say, aspirin. Whole bottle of aspirin? Painful death. One a day for a year or two? No ill effects at all.

That is the perversion of science and logic that is odious to a freethinker.

What should be odious to a freethinker is not checking your assumptions.

[-FX-]

Five years later, thread still going?

Originally Posted by seebs

For instance, water. Kills you in large doses.

And air, it's deadly. You get too much and you just die.

Unlike mercury, water and air are dangerous.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Five years later, thread still going?

We're too close to our maximum threads per forum threshold, so we need to keep re-using the old ones.

[F-X]

Now being in the thick of it, (Thanks Doc, and I really mean that), let me just explain why my dentist doesn't use mercury.

Yes, I know, what possible use could quackwatch (or any of it's followers) have for listening to somebody who actually went to a special school and became a Dentist and actually treats people all the time. What possible value could that have?

People who are not a Dentist, but think they know more than a Dentist (and there are many online) are a prime example of close minded stupid. I'm not talking ordinary stupid, I am talking stupid at a level that is almost impossible to crack.

So why does my Dentist not use mercury?

Because mercury is dangerous, it is poisonous, you have to follow all kinds of procedures and laws when using it. Before it is mixed, the mercury gives off, well, mercury vapor, and nobody wants to breath that. Especially not every day. If you spill it, it is an EPA nightmare. To dispose of it requires special containment, it cost money to dispose of it.

If you get caught throwing it in the trash or medical waste, it is a huge fine.

It is also stupid to use it as filling because you have to drill out a lot of tooth to be able to use a metal filling. It weakens the tooth. Over time gaps occur between it and the tooth, and bacteria can grow in there and cause rot.

It is an archaic and old fashioned and dangerous material to use in teeth. It also looks like shit.

Even if mercury was 100% safe, it is a bad material to use in teeth. There is absolutely no scientific reason to use it in dentistry.

Science based medicine shows modern materials bonded to teeth is the best way to treat teeth that have decay. You drill a little hole and bond it closed, and it looks nice.

Defending mercury in teeth isn't even an issue to anyone who practices modern medicine. It is an absurd argument to have.

Just like arguing about mercury in vaccines.

There is no reason to use mercury as a preservative in any vaccine, except to make them cheaper. (the same rationale is used to continue using mercury in teeth).

Taking a scientific argument (is mercury bad to put in human beings?) and making it an economic argument doesn't make the scientific facts go away.

Saying it isn't enough to hurt anyone is not a scientific argument. The only reason that even comes up is economics. And the fact that it was done in the past.

I could explain in great detail this point, but experience has taught me one thing. If somebody has made up their mind about something, no amount of plain facts, or science, or logic or reason, will change their mind.

I'm speaking of online arguments, not real scientist, who are quite willing to change their mind after somebody else spends years working on something, and then they get published in a prestigious journal.

[F-X]

There is a classic example of why arguing with somebody on the interwebs is useful as entertainment. That is, if you are a masochist.

FX: Mercury is bad for you.

eClown: Water is bad for you in large amounts.

FX: There is no reason to use mercury in any medical way.

eClown: A little Carbon Monoxide is good for you.

FX: Doctors didn't know how toxic mercury was when they first used it.

eClown: A little mercury won't hurt you.

FX: Doctors used to tell mothers they caused autism.

eClown: You should check your assumptions.

FX: Pink disease was actually caused by mercury, but Doctors didn't know this.

eClown: Many things are dangerous only in substantial doses

FX: Science, especially medical science, should be based on real evidence, not beliefs.

eClown: I have seen no evidence that vaccines are bad for anyone.

FX: Logic and reason seem to go out the window when science based medicine gores a sacred cow.

eClown: If there was any problem we would know about it already.

FX: Doctors are seriously concerned about vaccine side effects, especially when they have to get a shot.

eClown: Polio was wiped out by vaccines! Why do you hate science?

[F-X]

As for assumptions, here is a big one of mine.

Because most kids are not autistic, and most kids get vaccinated, (and these days it is a lot of vaccines), vaccines do not cause autism. In the sense that vaccinations=autism

That is an assumption of course. It might be a fallacy. It is certainly bad logic.

Like, peanuts don't make kids sick. Because most kids eat peanut butter, and most kids don't get sick when they eat peanut butter. In the sense of peanuts=sick kid

That is why I say it is an assumption. And bad logic. I know for a fact that some kids get real sick if they even contact the smallest bit of peanut. They can get sick from eating food that was manufactured in the same place as peanuts are used. Some kids will die if the eat a peanut.

So that sort of reasoning doesn't hold up.

As for Thimerosal (mercury), what is so ridiculous is that we know so little about it. Not a single animal study? That is bullshit.

And autism, it is tragic that we know so little about what causes it. And expensive. If you believe the numbers, and I am skeptical of them, it is an epidemic of unbelievable numbers.

The predictions (1 in 100) are a shocking amount of life time disabilities, it equates to the kind of money that could bankrupt a country. It is a fantastic figure, it is many many times worse than Polio ever was.

I'm skeptical because that level of a serious and lifetime disorder is so monstrous, it is simply unbelievable that nobody knows what is causing it.

And it has to have a cause, because it is a growing figure. That our level of science doesn't even have a clue about it, it is beyond belief.

I am most skeptical.

[Qingdai]

I believe that vaccines are good for the public body at large, but can be detrimental to an individual.
For some, a great body of general evidence doesn't necessarily translate into a useful action for an individual.

For example, weight gain in pregnancy. Some is good, unless you are over-weight. Then it may be good to lose weight in pregnancy. For years the standard advice was to gain 25 pounds no more, no less. The advice changes as the evidence changes, as it should, but patients get confused about what they should do and learn to distrust general advice. Unfortunately, general advice is what you get for the most part, due to time constraints when dealing with a medical doctor.

I've already had H1N1, but my doctor recommended I get the vaccine anyway, if I fall into the risk category (which I don't). That may be good general advice, but I view it as a waste of resources, like taking an anti-biotic for a cold.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

I've already had H1N1, but my doctor recommended I get the vaccine anyway, if I fall into the risk category (which I don't). That may be good general advice, but I view it as a waste of resources, like taking an anti-biotic for a cold.

Really? The novel H1N1 that is going by the popular moniker, "swine flu" this year? You had a sample taken and tested so you know?

If that's the case, then you have the antibodies....there's no need to vaccinate you at all.



Nuthin' like knee-jerk medicine....

[JamesBannon]

Whatever causes autism, be it genetic, developmental or environmental, it is not the MMR jab. That much we do know. The reason it got such coverage was that symptoms of Autistic Spectrum Disorder often appear at around 18 months - 2 years, just the time when the MMR jab is usually given. Because the problem takes that long to surface, and then often quite some time to diagnose correctly, people often associate it with giving the vaccine. There are problems associated with vaccines, but Autism is not one of them.