Childhood Vaccinations??

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Your infowars site does not mention CNN anywhere in the article, and your "Mercury is Good" site is from...prisonplanet.tv?! You honestly expect anyone even remotely related to the medical profession to trust that?!

Its kinda funny you say that.. I bet clicking on original didnt catch your eye... No matter its not a big deal I have it here for you.



Ahh Mr Intellegence, look at the video I belive its from a Fox Affilate who states that the MECURY IN VACCINES ARE GOOD FOR KIDS.

boy I am getting all hissy and pissy over this.. anyway besides saying that a site is dis info try proving it wrong..

Kinda hard when its got you mainstream news backing his ass.. isnt it???

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
bla bla de da

So is what you are saying, Its cool to give kids under the age of 5 50 diffrent shots containing about 40 something% the legal amount of mecury the EPA allows an adult something good.

I would like to see prove that mecury is good for kids... Ohh wait I already did that.. NM case closed.. Time to close this tread and add it to the junk pile where all the other cool treads go..

Wyrdeone is correct.

Nothing to see here people just move along.

Originally posted by NJE777

thanks so much... I was banging my head against a brick wall.....
urgh!!

np..

[edit on 2/3/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 2/3/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 2/3/2006 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Would really like to get all doctors opinion on this.

Oh yeah baby!! We all would....always good to have a registered medical practitioners opinion...

for thimerosal, no immunizations intended for children 6 and under actually contain more than a trace amount of this compound, and many of the adult immunizations have been reformulated with cheaper preservatives. I know in my country, very few immunizatios contain any thimerosal at all.

so trace means nil, zilch, zero?????
oh lmao..... u need to be flamed...

On your own FDA site, it shows that the FDA works with the WHO to eliminate exposure to thimerosal to the point where any exposure is nearly
harmless

nearly harmless...oh wow nearly harmless is ok....

Seems like there's no connection to the two to me, but who knows how you anti-immunization people will see it.

oh gee wizz wish I'd pulled this one out to start with, may have actually saved myself some energy....so from this earlier response we know your responses are biased...why it is the old us and them garb... lmao.... anti immunization people why ur on the other side of the fence!!! lol

nimrod moron....urgh that's all I have to say...

ok think we have established that ur blurb is exactly that.. a big fat ratty blurb.....

git bak to ur books mr student......
lol


[edit on 3-2-2006 by NJE777]

[edit on 3-2-2006 by NJE777]

No, of course not but there's no denying that something went wrong after sometime in the 1980s and autism isn't the only problem. to be clear, i'd be happy to find out it was something else entirely, but at the first glance, it's clear that something is in the vaccines, perhaps it's contamination and affects only 1 in 1000 doses, perhaps it's systemic, i don't know, and i never specifically singled out any vaccine, mind you.

Hey Long Lance - sorry, I missed this post - mainly because I was watching it all kick off between BSL and NJE777.

I don't think that it *is* clear it's something in the vaccines, or 1 in 1000 doses - I can only really go on my general knowledge and what I've read from the Evidence Based Medicine Links and Trials that I've posted.

There's an article that does, though:

Source

..
A relatively recent development in
autism studies has arisen from the observation and sharing through internet
and other support groups by parents that their children became autistic
after vaccinations, notably the triples, DPT and MMR. There certainly have
been isolated incidents of vaccine injuries for many years with little
support from the medical profession or the vaccine makers
..

Maybe it's me, and maybe it's a failing, but I tend to favour large scale population studies, like the Finland one, which didn't show any link between MMR and autism or GI disorders.

If someone could provide *one* link showing an increase in autism in vaccinated v non-vaccinated children *in large populations*, I would hold my hands up. But it hasn't happened.

The problem I feel with the two sites is that they make strong claims, and don't really back it up with that sort of evidence from peer-reviewed journals.

This is a critique of the autism:vaccination 'research' that goes on:

quackwatch link

..
Parents of now grown vaccine injured children, who warned pediatricians and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) officials in the 1980’s that their once healthy, bright children regressed mentally, emotionally and physically after reacting to DPT vaccine with fever, high pitched screaming (encephalitic cry), collapse/shock, and seizures, are grieving with a new generation of parents whose healthy, bright children suddenly regress after DPT/DTaP, MMR, hepatitis B, polio, Hib and chicken pox vaccinations. The refusal two decades ago by vaccine manufacturers, government health agencies and medical organizations to seriously investigate reports of vaccine-associated brain injury and immune system dysfunction, including autistic behaviors, is reaping tragic consequences today.

I kind of have a problem with what the 909 shots site says. It's a dedicated anti-vaccination site (fair enough), but again, they say strong things without (in my opinion) backing it up.

1 The reaction to DPT - I'm not denying children experienced this, but it's anecdotal. Where's
the population study showing more ASD in vaccinated v non-vaccinated children in large
populations

2 They say that there has been no serious investigation of vaccine-associated injury reports.
SO WHAT WAS THE FINLAND STUDY?

Elsewhere in the link they're making claims for asthma and diabetes without really backing it up. I'm inclined to blame diabetes increases in kids on obesity, and asthma on air pollution. My guess is as good as theirs, and again, they really don't back up their claims with peer-reviewed articles. And those they do use, they quote out of context. For example:

A University of California study published by the U.S. Department of Education in 1996 found that "The proportion of the US population with disabilities has risen markedly during the past quarter-century . . . this recent change seems to be due not to demographics, but to greater numbers of children and young adults reported as having disabilities."

I don't see*what* that has to do with vaccination, with begs the question why they used the article.

Same for the AAAI - they quote the organisation as saying that asthma incidence is rising. Fine. What's this got to do with vaccines? If you're going for cause and effect, quote a paper linking a rise in a non-vaccinated v. vaccinated population.

Same for the Lancet - the quote a rise in diabetes rates in kids. Fine. What's this got to do with vaccines? Cause and effect etc etc

I could carry on, but I have to go to work! Point is - 909 made a lot of claims and didn't really back it up. Their sources were either out-of-context, or completely unrelated to what the article was saying.

All the anti-vaccination people need to do to shut down the whole vaccine industry is to find one reputable population study that shows higher rates of eg. autism in vaccinated v non-vaccinated populations. Until then they're just howling at the moon.

Am I saying that I base everything on evidence completely? No. As I said previously, thiomersal just seemed pointless, and you could get the same benefit from a vaccine without using it.



TD

quote: Seems like there's no connection to the two to me, but who knows how you anti-immunization people will see it.


oh gee wizz wish I'd pulled this one out to start with, may have actually saved myself some energy....so from this earlier response we know your responses are biased...why it is the old us and them garb... lmao.... anti immunization people why ur on the other side of the fence!!! lol

So you think I should have no opinion whatsoever? No one ever says anything at any point in their life without some sort of opinion biasing it.

NJE, I really think you need to step back and put things in perspective. You are attacking someone for giving their personal opinion, and you are only doing so because they disagree with you. Do you act this way in real life or are you only doing it because this is the internet? Also, how does me being a medical student have a negative effect on a MEDICAL discussion? What medical school do you go to? Or, more aptly, where did you study biochemistry, molceular genetics, and organic chemistry? Those are all undergraduate classes, not medical school, and they are also the only knowledge I've used in giving my OPINION on this topic, so really, my medical knowledge doesn't even enter into it.

~MFP

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Maybe it's me, and maybe it's a failing, but I tend to favour large scale population studies, like the Finland one, which didn't show any link between MMR and autism or GI disorders.

Is that the study you sited in this thread where they didn't even study the applicable age group and based their findings on children admitted to hospital for autism? The findings were going to yield that result no matter what as they didn't even include the relevent test subjects.

I could carry on, but I have to go to work! Point is - 909 made a lot of claims and didn't really back it up. Their sources were either out-of-context, or completely unrelated to what the article was saying.

Nearly all of the studies seem mishandled and carried out with bias.. they deny a link, are phasing this 'harmless preservative' out yet president bush was making moves to give immunity to vaccination companies against being sued for injury. Could they be expecting class actions suits sometime in the future?

All the anti-vaccination people need to do to shut down the whole vaccine industry is to find one reputable population study that shows higher rates of eg. autism in vaccinated v non-vaccinated populations. Until then they're just howling at the moon.

..Most of the studies seem to be sponsored by drug companies. It could be like tabbacco companies studying the effects of smoking on health.

Of course a simple way to find out the facts is to do a study on the autistics themselves and see if they have mercury poisoning.. many parents have this proof but that doesn't seem to be counted in official stats because they're not an 'official studies'.. they have to get them tested for poisoning because otherwise I doubt they could legally get them treated for it.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by riley]

that was not the edit button! :shk:

[edit on 3-2-2006 by riley]

Is that the study I debunked in this thread where they didn't even study the applicable age group and based their findings on children admitted to hospitalfor autism? The findings were going to yield that result no matter what as they didn't even include the relevent test subjects.

Hello Riley

Disagreed with, wouldn't say 'debunked'. It implies that you proved the entire study to be invalid.

Does this link work or not? It depends on which computer I use - nevertheless, if it *does*, please critique it:

big BDJ article posted before

If it doesn't, and you want, I'll cut and paste and email it to you.

Similarly, please critique this one:

bandolier article posted before

My point still stands - there is really only one side of this argument producing large-scale population studies, and it's not the anti-vaccination camp.

To turn this argument around - fair enough, go ahead and attack the Finland studies, please go ahead and produce a study that *shows a link* between MMR and autism, or GI disorders and which uses large scale population.

As I said before, you could shut vaccinations down overnight if *anyone* produced a study showing a difference in autism rates between a vaccinated and non-vaccinated population.

Of course a simple way to find out the facts is to do a study on the autistics themselves and see if they have mercury poisoning.. many parents have this proof but that doesn't seem to be counted in official stats because they're not an 'offical studies'.. they have to get them tested for poisoning because otherwise I doubt they could legally get them treated for it.

Define 'mercury poisoning'. What sort of test, and how carried out? Hair, urine, blood? If you could provide a link to any diagnosisI'd be interested to read it.

www.quackwatch.org...

This is not to say I'm Thiomersal-friendly - had 'free' versions for my son, as I've said previously, because I just couldn't see the point giving it.

It has also been mentioned before that MMR doesn't have any thiomersal so we're going to have to be careful there's no crossover in any debate - it just serves to muddy the water.

Cheers

TD

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Hello Riley

Disagreed with, wouldn't say 'debunked'. It implies that you proved the entire study to be invalid.

I did. Back then I explained myself and the study was like twenty years old..

..but I thought'debunked' sounded harsh so edited it.. of course you posted in the meantime. Oh well.

Critiqueing now.

No worries Riley

If you can provide a link on the 'mercury poisoning' testing as well I'd be really interested - I have to go to work now, so hopefully will get back to you this evening

TD

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
No worries Riley

If you can provide a link on the 'mercury poisoning' testing as well I'd be really interested - I have to go to work now, so hopefully will get back to you this evening

TD

That might be difficult with having access to individual autistics test results. Parents have taken it upon themselves to test.. and no corporation is going to sponsor studies that could be used against them. I'm going to try track some down though. I must admit.. I'm pretty annoyed with my doctor right now. I specifically asked for a urine test for heavy metals and she gave me a blood test instead which according to 'quackwatch' is useless.. and I've already been waiting over a month for the results!

----- edit [yet again]
I will post the article when I have permission.. but it turns out I have nothing to worry about and that that mercury article is very innacurate.

I'll look through those sites.. it will take me a while to analise the information though.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by riley]

That might be difficult with having access to individual autistics test results.

Parents have taken it upon themselves to test.. and no corporation is going to sponsor studies that could be used against them. I'm going to try track some down though. I must admit.. I'm pretty annoyed with my doctor right now. I specifically asked for a urine test for heavy metals and she gave me a blood test instead which according to 'quackwatch' is useless.. and I've already been waiting over a month for the results!

Hi Riley - just running in between patients, so this is going to be quick!

Do you have anything about general claims for 'mercury toxicity' made by the anti-vaccination websites? I was just wondering if we could make a value judgement on the claim of mercury exposure based on the methodology they used.

And again, in case anyone is jumping into this halfway through, I'm *not* a Thiomersal proponent! Had TM-free vaccinations for my kid on the basis that it wasn't a necessary constituent of the vaccine.

Regards

TD


----- edit [yet again]
I will post the article when I have permission.. but it turns out I have nothing to worry about and that that mercury article is very innacurate.

I'll look through those sites.. it will take me a while to analise the information though.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Hi Riley - just running in between patients, so this is going to be quick!

Smiling? Sadist!

Do you have anything about general claims for 'mercury toxicity' made by the anti-vaccination websites? I was just wondering if we could make a value judgement on the claim of mercury exposure based on the methodology they used.

I'm still looking through them [not specifically 'anti-vaccination' sites though] tryng to get an informed opinion. Urine testing seems to be the go [try giving an autistic a blood test without getting bitten]. It does seem that there are indeed doctors who will prescribe the anti-toxin drug [name escapes me] to make a buck [without testing] but from memory many parents on the autistic sites [and that I've known personally] have said they've had their kids test positive to mercury.. and treating kids for mercury poisoning without being tested is considered irresponsible in the medical community [as it should be]. Before I get into anymore about methodology, I still have to wait for permission from the dianostic site.. I have no idea how long it will take but they are pretty specific.

And again, in case anyone is jumping into this halfway through, I'm *not* a Thiomersal proponent! Had TM-free vaccinations for my kid on the basis that it wasn't a necessary constituent of the vaccine.

No probs.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by riley]

This may be related - seeing as we're are several generations into vaccinations.

8 Million Babies a Year Born with Birth Defects

Worth checking out.

Hmm...I don't see how that's even remotely related, soficrow. Babies aren't inoculated in utero, and I don't really know of any autistic mothers. The supposed side effects of mercury are on the brain, not uterus, uterine tract, or gametes of a person. Can you maybe find a way to relate this or not bring it up?

Ciao,
~MFP

Source - www.nomercury.org...

Hello all

NFE77 - I gave you a Way Above for those great links you posted, and the Congresional 2004 item. I admire your stubborness. Good stuff! Just filter out the noise, and don't let them get to you.

Thich - Thank you for pointing out that old thread! That was me (kdx175) as the 6th poster and the personal experience. I forgot my old password and made a new handle.
That old thread kind of sputtered out when I couldn't find any studies done on Ethyl vs Methyl. Fast forward to now and I found a 2005 primate study that compares them. Burbacher-EHP-Primates-April-2005

TaupeDragon - I respect what your trying to do in the thread, by trying to keep some sort of lid on this. Thats fine, we can keep it to Thimerosal for the purposes of this discussion. Lets see... You asked for a large population of unvaccinated -vs- vaccinated study.
22,000 amish is decent amount I think Where are all the Autistic Amish?
I'm sure your aware the Amish don't vaccinate.

dsl4 - I think your last question to the group was about Mercury's class of toxicity. I don't know if your just not willing to do the research yourself, or you are just baiting people.
I wasn't going to bother, but here is a quick link I found about Mercury Mercury the Most Toxic Heavy Metal
There's probably better sources out there, but this one was quick.
As far as the most toxic "Element?"
It appears Thallium might hold that spot.

WyrdeOne - I see by your line of thinking that "environmental mercury" is a bigger threat than "vaccine mercury" and you may be right. I also see it as a threat and donate to the local OSPIRG cause.
However, I think you are forgetting one important distinction.
The EPA limits for mercury exposure are guidelines for Skin contact, Breathing, and Eating, NOT FOR INJECTIONS INTO THE BLOODSTREAM.
I think there is a difference, especially with developing babies.
Sorry for raising my voice, but sometimes I feel this stuff just goes above peoples heads and they miss it.

I have to go now... I got some important stuff to do with my son.
I will just leave you with this Wikipedia entry on Thimerosal



[edit on 3-2-2006 by KDX175DUEX]

dsl4 - I think your last question to the group was about Mercury's class of toxicity. I don't know if your just not willing to do the research yourself, or you are just baiting people.

I asked the question because there is no real way to classify the MOST toxic metal, you run into issues of radiation characteristics, binding abilities, protein receptors, etc. Nice try though, and thanks for being so rude, =)

MFP

First, you said several times that "mercury is used as a preservative". This is just blatantly false. THIMEROSAL is used as a preservative, which breaks down into ethylmercury and methymercury, depending on the pathway. Neither of these are pure mercury, do not have the same effect as pure mercury (even though they are still harmful), and thus cannot be studied the same as pure mercury. Your point is moot.

Everyone...you need to understand that bsl is just a med student and only knows what he reads in books. He hasn't experienced much in the real world. bsl: Mercury is Mercury is Mercury. It's ALL bad and all toxic and all quite poisonous...so spare us the lecture on ethyl and methyl mercury vs. plain old mercury. If I mix a pile of crap with a pile of roses, as far as I'm concerned, I still end up with a pile of crap.

bsl...will never consider an opinion that differs from his own, will never admit when he is wrong, and will read all the proof of vaccines and Thimerosal being quite harmful and still say what his text books say: Thimerosal is a great way to preserve vaccines and vaccines are awesome. He is closed minded and always will be and I guess he'll make a fantastic doctor as a result. Just like the fantastic doctors that are killing people every day....and causing birth defects and autism and any number of other disorders because their textbooks aren't in agreement with reality.

To quote Einstein: "When you're green you're growing and when you're ripe you're dead." bsl is very ripe.

If one knows everything, how does one ever learn anything?

Originally posted by KDX175DUEX
TaupeDragon - I respect what your trying to do in the thread, by trying to keep some sort of lid on this. Thats fine, we can keep it to Thimerosal for the purposes of this discussion. Lets see... You asked for a large population of unvaccinated -vs- vaccinated study.
22,000 amish is decent amount I think Where are all the Autistic Amish?
I'm sure your aware the Amish don't vaccinate.

Hello KDX - that's a really good point! I'm all ATS'd out tonight - hard day at the office!

Will chase this link down tomorrow afternoon when I feel human again.

Best wishes and have fun with your kid!

TD

Originally posted by TaupeDragon,

www.traceelements.com...
Hair Mercury Testing:
An Accepted and Viable test

Recently, it was brought to my attention that an inaccurate article on mercury testing appeared on a website that is dedicated to discrediting and eliminating alternative health therapies. The article titled; Dubious Mercury Testing, written by a Dr. Robert Baratz appears to be focused on discrediting any possibility that mercury amalgams could contribute to clinically significant levels of body mercury burdens, even while admitting that amalgams will tend to increase levels of mercury in the blood and urine. The author makes this claim, despite the fact that many researchers have reported and published data that has shown amalgams can contribute to increased mercury exposure. (Lorscheider, F., et al. Mercury Exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: Emerging Evidence Questions a Traditional Dental Paradigm. FASEB J. 9, 1995) (Lorscheider, F., et al. Mercury Exposure from "silver" fillings. Lancet 337, 1103, 1991) (Siblerud, R.L. The Relationship Between Mercury From Dental Amalgam and Mental Health. Am.J. Psycho. Vol.XLIII, 4, 1989) In fact, there is so much information and evidence available, that some countries are projecting a ban on the use of mercury compounds in dentistry. (Grandjean, P. et al. Mercury Poisoning. Lancet Vol.342, 1993)

I do not wish to debate in length the issue that mercury amalgams can contribute to significant mercury levels in the body and cause a host of related health disturbances, even though evidence strongly suggests that they do. I do however, want to take issue with his statements that hair mercury testing is "dubious". In the section under Hair Analysis the author makes the following statement, "Hair mercury levels are not an accurate indicator of mercury exposure. Hair testing has never been standardized to provide meaningful information. In fact, it cannot be standardized." In response, I can say that this is an incredibly uninformed statement. Analysis of mercury levels in hair have been standardized for many years, here in the U.S. and many other countries as well. One study reported that reproducibility of mercury results in different laboratories was within 6.3 percent. (Anal. Chim. Acta 84, 2, 1976) Data from other studies and from varying laboratories and authors also exhibit a good consistency. In fact, inter-laboratory studies conducted by Trace Elements, and involving three different laboratories revealed a reproducibility within 5 percent. It should also be noted that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services incorporates hair mercury analysis as part of a public health objective. The CDC states that "Relationships have been established between the concentration of mercury in human scalp hair and dietary methylmercury exposure." State Health Departments, Bureau’s of Epidemiology have adopted the use of scalp hair for determining mercury exposure. Further, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration publication (FDA 95-1206) states "The best indexes of exposure to methyl mercury are concentrations in hair and blood. The average concentration of total mercury in non-exposed people is about 8 parts per billion (ppb) in blood and 2 parts per million (ppm) in hair". Parenthetically, the FDA in conjunction with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have supported studies by the University of Rochester to gather data on the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of methylmercury in the fetus and infant using hair mercury analysis. The World Health Organization (WHO) many years ago adopted as the international standard for the upper tolerable level of mercury in hair as 5 ppm. (WHO Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and the Contaminants Mercury, Lead and Cadmium. Geneva, Switz. WHO; 1972. Tech. Rpt. Series 505) Other reputable scientific studies have supported the WHO guidelines as well. (McKeown-Eyssen G, et al. Methylmercury exposures in northern Quebec, II: neurologic findings in children. Am.J. Epidemiol. 1983;118)

That was the first part of the article.. it's quite indepth. I admit they do mention fillings etc but that is not the primary issue.. they are a testing laboratory and should know what techinques work therefore I consider them credible.

Hair [same source]

Hair is a keratinized tissue consisting of protein. As the hair is being form it is exposed to the internal metabolic environment including the blood, lymph, and extracellular fluids. Constituents entering the body are then accumulated into the hair and reflect a time weighted exposure record of nutritional and toxic metal intake. The previously sited sources of State, Federal and World Health Organizations are in strong disagreement with the author’s statement that hair mercury does not reflect concentrations in the body. Many other researchers as well as myself also disagree. For example, a report by Wilhelm, Muller and Idel, found that scalp hair was a useful indicator of internal mercury exposure.(Wilhelm, M. et al. Biological monitoring of mercury vapour exposure by scalp hair analysis in comparison to blood and urine. Toxicol Let. Nov; 88: 1-3 1996) Their study involved dental students in which hair, blood and urine was tested prior to and following their first exposure to mercury as operating dentists. All biological tests reflected exposure and the hair mercury correlated with blood levels. Exposure to mercury from dietary intake also reveals a distinct correlation between hair and blood mercury levels.( Suzuki, T. et al. Mercury in red cells in relation to organic mercury in hair. Tohoku. J. Exp. Med., 116, 4 1975) Numerous other studies have also shown a relationship to mercury exposure as well as other minerals as measured in the hair with body accumulation from polluted areas as well as minerals in local soils. (Gebel, T., et al. Biological monitoring of persons in areas with increased soil mercury, arsenic and antimony content. Gesundheitweesen 1998 60, 10) (Tommaseo, P.M., et al. Trace elements in human scalp hair and soil in Irian Jaya. Biol.Trace Elem. Res. 62 1998)

It seems either methods of testings are reliable.. though hair of course is someone's history. I do not like 'quckwatch' at all and consider it dissinformation. I've seen it a couple of times and it uses emotive language and scare tactics.. until I found this information I was indeed concerned that the blood test I had was pointless.

It is irresponsible for them to spread myths that mercury testing does not work.. what about parents of autistic people that read that? It would be sensible to get their kids tested for mercury poisoning before having them treated with Chelation; problem is if they read 'quackwatch' they deem that pointless and skip that entire process.. exposing their kids to potentially dangerous treatments they do not need.

I will get back to this and other issues.. when it's not still sunny outside.. I'm not wasting good weather at a computer screen.
Please read the entire article.. I'd like to post the whole thing but don't want to break mod rules etc.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by riley]