It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?!
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
bla bla de da
Originally posted by NJE777
thanks so much... I was banging my head against a brick wall.....
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Would really like to get all doctors opinion on this.
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.
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
Seems like there's no connection to the two to me, but who knows how you anti-immunization people will see it.
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.
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:
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
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Disagreed with, wouldn't say 'debunked'. It implies that you proved the entire study to be invalid.
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
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!
Originally posted by TaupeDragon
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)