Comments on: NIH wakes up

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:20:44 +0000

So if you’ve been exposed to heavy metals throughout your life, would chelation be an effective method in treating the symptons or not?

By: shane

shane — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:07:04 +0000

I also guess those “One Less” commercials tick me off, I got the hep B vaccine back in 6th grade and regret it now as it was pointless and the schools said they were trying to prevent the spread of disease in classrooms. (which of course is a lie)

Maybe because no one got hep B? That is a shame that a preventable disease was like prevented.

By: Calli Arcale

Calli Arcale — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:19:46 +0000

Todd, here’s a link about provoked mercury testing. There are sensible urine tests for mercury, but that’s not what Luke was describing. He described what the chelation-pushers often recommend: a provoked urine test. In a provoked urine test, a chelating agent is adminstered before urine is collected. In a perfectly normal person, this will produce an abnormally high urine mercury level. It’s useless unless you have their normal baseline to compare it against. In other words, an ethical practitioner (and/or one who actually knew what they were doing) would have tested Todd’s son’s urine *before* giving him a chelating agent.
http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2006/02/got-mercury.html

I’m still looking for a reference on the hair analysis. Mercury does show up in hair, but I understand the usefulness of testing hair is not as good as patients are led to believe. I’ll dig up the reference, make sure I’m remembering it right.

By: Calli Arcale

Calli Arcale — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:08:12 +0000

Todd, I’ll see if I can dig some up. I know it’s come up a lot at Respectful Insolence, as vaccination is something of a pet topic over there.

Luke, regarding Gardasil I think it’s a worthy thing. But I do not think it is worth mandating for school admission, and indeed, few districts do. It is not required in my state (Minnesota). This is not merely because of safety concerns but because it is not possible to obtain herd immunity when such a large disease reservoir (males) will remain. It has insufficient societal benefit to justify recommending mass vaccination. It fails the risk-benefit test, at least on the societal level. On the individual level, it may be a different matter. I have a few years yet before I have to decide whether or not to have my daughters vaccinated against HPV. I think it’s a good vaccine, and individually there is a good risk-benefit equation. But I am concerned that it is being overhyped, perhaps in an attempt to recoup development costs, and perhaps among politicians out of a misguided attempt to pander to women voters by appearing to be extra focused on their health.

Other vaccines are a different story. The mandatory childhood vaccines are not a money-making enterprise. In many cases, the government actually has to subsidize them in order to ensure the vaccine makers will keep producing enough quantity of them, and they furthermore have to provide litigant-friendly mechanisms for compensating people who are injured. Unlike other drugs, the profit margin for vaccines (even with the subsidies) is so paper-thin that it wouldn’t take very many lawsuits to scare a manufacturer away. So the government pays out instead. It’s fair; mandating the vaccine was the government’s idea in the first place, after all. But by and large, vaccines are not a big profit maker. They’re reliable (in terms of return on investment) but the payout is not all that large. If you want someplace with a really big profit margin, look to impotence cures and anti-aging treatments, both alternative (Enzyte, Juvenon) and pharmaceutical (Viagra, Botox). That’s where the real money is.

By: Celtic_Evolution

Celtic_Evolution — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:47:45 +0000

@ LukeL

Luke, you make quite a few “truth-statements” that don’t seem to be based in much truth. Not any that any of us can find that is factually verifiable. Shane already pointed out your complete mis-representation of deaths caused by Gardasil. I think you need to look into these things yourself instead of just buying into the latest mass-hysteria driven hype. No link has been found between Gardasil and any death. Period. Until proven, any outrageous claims to the contrary are just that…outrageous claims.

Ok… so you think it was pointless. What are you basing that on? What factual evidence do you have to back up the claim that it is pointless? Are you just smarter than pretty much every trained physician at the CDC? Or are you just guessing? And so what if it was pointless in your mind? Were you harmed in some way by getting it? Why on earth would you regret it?

Luke… I think you have some anger issues that might be terribly misplaced here. What are you really angry at? Just think about it…

By: Todd W.

Todd W. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:31:27 +0000

@Calli Arcale

Interesting info on the false positive aspect of hair samples and forced urine tests. Can you provide a link that has more info on those?

By: shane

shane — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:57:04 +0000

From the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) on 2 deaths in Europe.

The EMEA said: “In both cases, the cause of death could not be identified.
“No causal relationship has been established between the deaths of the young women and the administration of Gardasil.”

There have been 3 deaths in the US. I can’t find a link to a citation that Gardasil was a causal link to the deaths. Lots of blogs from anti-vaxers though.

By: LukeL

LukeL — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:45:40 +0000

The problem I have is schools requiring it for admission. We are not talking about an endemic disease which spreads like wildfire. A couple of girls have died from this vaccine and I think more studies need to be done to make sure it is safe.

By: shane

shane — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:33:24 +0000

LukeL, as far as preventing risk behaviour cancer.gov refers to this as “refrain from any genital contact with another individual”.
That should be easy enough.
For those who choose to be sexually active cancer.gov suggests “a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent genital HPV infection”.
That should be easy too but they go on to say “However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected”.
Oops.
What about condoms you say? Cancer.gov says “HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered”
Damn, now that is a bugger.
Let us see what is left? I know maybe could immunise young girls before they become sexually active. Boys too because we carry HPV too. We don’t get as much cancer as the girls but we bare some of the responsibility. But of course that will just promote risky behaviours just like condoms do…

By: LukeL

LukeL — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:16:14 +0000

I am saying that people who had childhood cancer are encouraged to get the vaccine every year as chemo can destroy or harm an immune system for life. I also have a bone tumor disorder as well. I see a lot of vaccines as nothing more than a money making tool, or a way to give false security to people.

The vaccines for HPV and Hep B are some of the worst as these are nearly 100% preventable and people who get the vaccine may be under the impression they are immune for life, or engage in risky behaviors and get another disease. I just find it sick that we are pushing for HPV vaccination (a std) amongst 9-11 year old girls under the idea it is a cancer vaccine.

Vaccines for things like Small Pox, Polio, Measles etc. are great but ones for common aliments should only be used for those who have very weakned immuned systems.