This Just in! Vaccines STILL Do Not Cause Autism

[JamesBannon]

Because when you switch the discussion to injecting a little cadmium, it becomes obvious why arguing for it is stupid. Nobody with even a little science background is going to take you seriously if you are arguing that a little hexavalent chromium won't really hurt you. Or that it's only a small amount of beryllium, it will be excreted in a few days.

Ummm... Beryllium and Cadmium are both used as tracer elements in radiography.

[F-X]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Of course, since it is a bactericide and fungicide, it is toxic when ingested or injected, but this does not mean it causes autism.

You bring up an interesting point.

That we do not know what Thimerosal can do to developing mammals is just flat out un the fuck believable. It's like, what in the hell happened to injecting animals with shit to find out what can happen?

Again, this whole autism/mercury/vaccine bullshit arguments that go all over the place are all because of the lack of science.

Take a boatload or two of chimps, inject some of them with the vaccines, and see what the hell happens. Inject some more of them with a shitload of thimerosal and see what happens. Don't inject some of them at all. Inject the momma chimps, inject the baby chimps, do all that scientific animal testing that we know how to do to find out what happens.

Do it more than once. Do it over generations of chimps, do it it in all those scientific ways where you can simply know what Thimerosal can or can't do to primates.

It isn't some mysterious task. This is done all the time.

We DON"T EVEN KNOW if Thimerosal CAN EVEN CAUSE neurological problems. Hard to believe, but nobody even knows.

I say find out. That is how evidence based medicine works. Everything else is bullshit and avoiding the issue.

Yes it cost money, yes it would maybe hurt some chimps, but so what? It's not like the military hasn't done this to tens of thousands of chimps already.

They are doing this kind of thing to chimps right now.

[F-X]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Ummm... Beryllium and Cadmium are both used as tracer elements in radiography.

Do tell. This should be interesting.

[JamesBannon]

Look it up. Beryllium is used in radiographic studies of the gut (or, at least, it used to be).

[JamesBannon]

Hmmm... It seems I boobed. What was I thinking of?

[F-X]

I say that because the only injecting of beryllium I've ever heard of was in animals, which are later dissected to find out where the beryllium went.

Mice and guinea pigs received radioactive beryllium in the form of BeSO4 or BeO via transthoracic or intratracheal injection. One month after the injection of beryllium the adrenal function of the animals was altered with metyrapone injected sc. The animals were sacrificed 1 mo after metyrapone administration, and beryllium was determined in the lung, liver, spleen, heart, kidney, adrenal and femur.

Altered adrenal function as an inducer of latent chronic beryllium disease
J. J. Clary, C. R. Hopper and H. E. Stokinger

I mean, According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, beryllium and beryllium compounds are Category 1 carcinogens; they are carcinogenic to both animals and humans.

I don't believe for even a moment that anyone injects any amount into a person, for any reason.

[F-X]

You slipped in. Yes, what were you thinking?

[JamesBannon]

My mistake, I was thinking of Barium, not Beryllium. Of course, that too is a toxic metal.

[F-X]

To get some perspective on how toxic mercury is, we could look at the comparism of "acceptable levels" for kids, set by really big and smart organizations of smart scientist type people.

The World Health Organization (WHO)The daily permissible intake (DPI) levels
micrograms per kilogram per day = µg/kg/day

5 µg/kg/day of lead for children
1 µg/kg/day of cadmium for an adults.

The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
minimal risk level (MRL)
2.00 µg/kg/day for inorganic mercury
0.12 µg/kg/day for methyl mercury.


5.00 µg/kg/day of lead for children
0.12 µg/kg/day for methyl mercury

There is no amount for sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate, or thimerosal.

You may not know this, but good old thimerosal used to be used as a topical antiseptic. Once they discovered, (the hard way) that is was neurotoxic, they stopped using it as an antiseptic. Turned out that even using it on your skin could causes nerve damage.

Just like the MSDS states.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by F-X

If you buy the figures out of England and America (1 in a 100) for autism, studies really need to be done. Because that is an incredibly expensive and widespread disaster for a society. 1 out of a hundred kids born is going to need lifetime care? They can't work, and the expense is crippling.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold the phones. If you think all, or even most, people on the autistic spectrum are in need of lifetime care, you obviously don't know anything about autism.

Why don't you tell seebs he can't work and is incurring crippling expenses.

Eliminating vaccines as a possible cause is essential to being able to discover what is causing this. Something is causing it. If the numbers are true.

Maybe you should start with the diagnostic criteria and expansion thereof over time before you start on the possible causes.

I want to know what is going on.

Could have fooled me since you haven't even looked at the actual disorder and the myriad ways it expresses before concluding vaccines are causal.

[LadyShea]

It is incredibly stupid to say mercury has been removed from childhood vaccines, when it hasn't. In fact, it is simply a lie.

So the CDC is lying? Got proof of that?

[ChuckF]

gettin bettar itt

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

Hmmm... It seems I boobed. What was I thinking of?

Barium, most likely.

ETA: I really should have kept on reading the thread.

[F-X]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So the CDC is lying? Got proof of that?

Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.

CDC - Concerns - Mercury and Vaccines (Thimerosal) -Vaccine Safety

Babies, infants and young children are considered at risk for flu. So it is recommended that they get the flu vaccine. Every year.

If you inject somebody every year with a vaccine that has mercury (Thimerosal) in it, then saying "is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines" is quite simply a deception.

Let me make this clear with an example.

"Since 2001, with the exception of some vodka, I have not had a single alcoholic drink."

wtf?

"No, it's true. I quit drinking in 2001. Except for when I drink vodka."

That is a ridiculous claim. It is so wrong, it is hard to explain how wrong it is. The part where you say, "I quit drinking" is a lie. The part where you say, " I have not had a single alcoholic drink.", that is also a lie!

"No it's not! I clearly said 'except for vodka' when I made the claim!"

(facepalm)

AAAHHH!!! I want to punch you in the groin!!

[LadyShea]

My 3.5 year old son has never been recommended a flu shot, and he has had all recommended vaccines.

Also they mentioned the exception right there so I fail to see a problem.

AAAHHH!!! I want to punch you in the groin!!

Really? That seems extreme over a discussion. You're a douche.

[F-X]

I was talking to myself in that post!

So technically, I was talking about punching myself in the groin.

Never mind that.

So nobody ever recommended giving your child a flu vaccine?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

All this talk of hydrogen, sodium, chlorine, oxygen is just a red herring.

Not really.

I accept that mercury is toxic, and compounds containing it are generally toxic.

The point is that F-X doesn't seem to accept the notion that the amount of something you get is relevant. Chlorine can kill you, but that doesn't mean that any dosage of even toxic compounds containing chlorine is something that will kill you. The chlorine chemicals we put in pools are toxic, and you definitely shouldn't drink them. There's no reason to drink them, in any amount. This does not mean that it's therefore highly dangerous to use them in your pool.

Mercury might be more toxic, but the point of discussing these other elements is just to point out that he's making a couple of fundamentally wrong arguments:

if some element is toxic, then it's dangerous in any amount
if some element is toxic, it's just as toxic in any compound, and thus that compound is dangerous in any amount

I don't deny that mercury is toxic, I just deny that it's necessarily dangerous in any amount, and so on and so forth about thimerosal. The fact that it's toxic, of course, means that we should exercise care in its usage, and not use it unnecessarily, and not when the costs outweigh the benefits.

But the evidence also is that thimerosal doesn't cause autism. And I'm not at all convinced that the costs of using it in vaccines outweigh the benefits (more affordable vaccines and so forth, which can have implications for availability and thus how widespread the usage of said vaccines is, etc.).

So far, all F-X has offered as an argument against using thimerosal is "Mercury is toxic! It's dangerous! It doesn't matter how little you use, or the properties of the specific compound!"

Originally Posted by F-X

Mercury is on the same OSHA list as Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Hexavalent Chromium, and Lead. You can make the exact same arguments about those as people do for mercury.

Yes, you can.

And people do, for some of them. Arsenic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are medical uses for arsenic. That doesn't mean you should think that arsenic is completely safe, and that you can just snack on it like potato chips. That doesn't mean that in a controlled usage, that you can't benefit from using it in certain small doses.

Now, if there was a medical application for lead, beryllium or cadmium, you would have to do the same thing. Weigh the benefits against the costs. If you're using a small dosage, the costs are going to be correspondingly smaller. Just because someone's ingesting a tiny amount of cadmium doesn't mean they're going to die or get cancer, in small enough doses it may be basically irrelevant, and the benefit you get may greatly outweigh the harm (if there is any).

The thing is to base it on evidence, not just "Cadmium bad! Therefore all uses of cadmium bad!"

In fact, a rational person might wonder what in the hell is wrong with you, if you tried to argue it is OK somehow to inject those into a child.

No, a rational person would wonder what the benefit was, and whether it had been found to be safe, rather than stupidly assuming that it couldn't possibly be beneficial.

A rational person would want reasons to use it, rather than rejecting it out of hand.

Because when you switch the discussion to injecting a little cadmium, it becomes obvious why arguing for it is stupid. Nobody with even a little science background is going to take you seriously if you are arguing that a little hexavalent chromium won't really hurt you. Or that it's only a small amount of beryllium, it will be excreted in a few days.

No, it doesn't become obvious. And if there were real medical benefits to be had from using a tiny amount of hexavalent chromium, then you would have to weigh that against the harm. And if it was a small enough amount, there may only be negligible harm. You're acting as if a doctor would just want to inject hexavalent chromium for no reason. For shits and giggles.

That doesn't mean that we should just say "Hey, I wonder what happens if you inject a bunch of hexavalent chromium into your bloodstream!"

That would be stupid.

I look at you the same way as I would somebody trying to convince me a little arsenic is OK.

Well, I guess you should have a problem with those people who have found some new medical uses for arsenic then.

Originally Posted by F-X

To get some perspective on how toxic mercury is

Wait, "how" toxic mercury is? But, but, that would imply that there are degrees of toxicity, and that not all amounts are dangerous! No, no, mercury is toxic. There's only one degree of toxicity. There's toxic, and there's not toxic.

You may not know this, but good old thimerosal used to be used as a topical antiseptic.

Yes, but how much were they using? Was it significantly more?

A relevant question that I assume did not occur to you. (Yes, they used large doses.)

Once they discovered, (the hard way) that is was neurotoxic, they stopped using it as an antiseptic. Turned out that even using it on your skin could causes nerve damage.

But wait, that makes no sense! Scientists have a giant hard-on for mercury, and they refuse to admit that it's dangerous! Why would they have stopped using their love-toy for anything?!

[LadyShea]

No, my son's pediatrician has not recommended him a flu shot, though she offers them if parents ask for them I suppose. I have never had a flu shot either, and have only had the flu once in my entire life.

I was talking to myself in that post!

So technically, I was talking about punching myself in the groin.

Never mind that.

So tell me straight, are you mentally ill? Oh, also, do you have a response to my pointing out your lack of knowledge regarding autistic spectrum disorders?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by F-X

So technically, I was talking about punching myself in the groin.

Never mind that.

Why?

[F-X]

If the flu vaccine isn't on the list of childhood immunizations, then why would the CDC even mention it in their claim?

If it isn't a childhood immunization, then they can say quite truthfully, there is no mercury in childhood vaccines, since 2001.

[Adam]

This thread is groin-grabbingly hilarious.

[LadyShea]

They were trying to qualify which vaccines no longer had it and which did. It's perfectly understandable to someone with reasonable reading comprehension.

Also, you can simply look at the incidence of use of all vaccines over the years, and compare them to autism rates. Autism should have gone down since 2001 if mercury was the cause, and has been significantly lessened in routine vaccinations...correct?

Do you even know what vaccines are on the routine schedule?

[F-X]

My comments about autism, regarding the numbers being bandied about, is about the numbers of children being born with autism. Or autistic spectrum disorders, or what ever benchmark they are using to create the numbers.

1 in 100
1 in 160
What do those numbers even mean? I'm familiar with the arguments over how autism is defined, and that it is a different method of diagnosing autism that has caused the rise.

Then others say no, it is a real rise in cases. Which is it? How can you tell?

I probably fall into some category of autism or autistic like behaviors myself, but it's not autism, it's brain damage from a terrible childhood accident. Severe brain trauma, as in, my head was split wide open.

I don't remember it, but it was apparently a bad thing to have your skull split open, what with the brains falling out and all that.

Don't feel sorry for me, like certain autistic people I know, I have amazing gifts with some things. It's all a trade off.

[F-X]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They were trying to qualify which vaccines no longer had it and which did. It's perfectly understandable to someone with reasonable reading comprehension.

Clearly that leaves some of us out of things, doesn't it?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by F-X

What do those numbers even mean?

Hint: They don't mean that every person with an ASD is faced with crippling medical expenses and an inability to work.