Jenny McCarthy still thinks vaccines cause autism

By Phil Plait | February 27, 2010 12:34 pm
drjennymccarthy_250

The web is abuzz about an interview antivax activist and public health threat Jenny McCarthy did with Time magazine. A lot of folks seem to think that McCarthy is backtracking on her claims that vaccines cause autism.

Let me be very clear: that simply isn’t true. McCarthy is still making the same debunked, discredited, and dangerous claims:

Each of these theories [proposed by antivaxxers] has been thoroughly discredited by scientific research, but that has done nothing to silence McCarthy and her Generation Rescue colleagues. "Come and see our kids," says McCarthy. "Why won’t the CDC come and talk to the mothers, talk to the families? Then tell us there isn’t a link."

Sounds to me like she’s up to the same old health-hazard hijinks. So why are so many people saying she’s changed her mind? In some of the emails I’ve received and on a few websites, they’re claiming that McCarthy has admitted that her son never was autistic, and instead had Landau-Kleffner syndrome, a neurological disorder. But that’s wrong; she never admits that in the article — the author suggests that Evan’s symptoms are similar to Landau-Kleffner, but that’s it.

As recently as three weeks ago, McCarthy and her equally deluded boyfriend Jim Carrey both publicly defended Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced doctor credited for starting the modern movement claiming vaccines cause autism. You can find that statement on the Natural News website, run by the equally wrong Mike Adams, who couldn’t find reality with three sherpas and a GPS.

So why is this misinformation that McCarthy has changed her mind being spread so much? Part of the problem is an article in Hollywood Life, which obviously mischaracterizes the Time interview, saying:

And she is also reversing her initial position that the MMR shots caused Evan’s autism.

Nowhere in the Time interview does she reverse her position! Hollywood Life is wrong, plain and simple. In fact, the Time article author says plainly:

…[McCarthy] blames the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine for giving her son autism.

I don’t see how this could be any more clear.

[Note: the URL for the Hollywood life article is even a misstatement: "http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2010/02/26/jenny-mccarthy-says-her-son-evan-never-had-autism/"; McCarthy said no such thing in the interview.]

So she is still standing by her earlier claims. Mind you, she still says she "cured" her son of his disorder by putting him on a gluten-free diet, which, to be clear, is nonsense. In fact, a lot of people have wondered if her son was ever autistic, and is now simply doing better as he ages; many disorders mitigate with time.

Also, this is a person who claims we are injecting our kids with too many vaccines, but has no issue injecting herself with the most dangerous protein known to humanity, so clearly her viewpoint is somewhat skewed from reality.

I urge people to read the article from Time magazine in its entirety; the author is clear he thinks McCarthy is wrong, that all of science and reality are stacked against her, and he even states simply that she is "dangerous".

I agree. She is a terrible influence on people; her science is wrong, her medical advice is dangerous, and she gives people false hope.

There is hope for parents with autistic children, but that hope comes through understanding the situation, using real evidence and data, and in knowing that thousands upon thousands of doctors are trying to understand autism as well. If there’s hope, it’s through science.

I know that McCarthy loves her son, and I do think she’s trying to help. But I also know that her claims about vaccines and autism are completely wrong, and instead of helping she’s making things far worse — not just for kids with autism and their parents, but for the population as a whole because vaccinations rates have dropped and we’re seeing a resurgence of preventable diseases.

This misinformation being spread about her isn’t helping. Her stance has not changed, and she is still a force for antireality. People listening to her are not helping their own children, and if they don’t vaccinate their kids they are putting everyone else in danger as well.

[Update: Surly Amy at Skepchick has similar thoughts on this.]

Comments (287)

  1. shawmutt

    It really seems like few people take the time to read well-written articles like this one from Time magazine, choosing instead to skim, cherry-pick, distort, and misrepresent.

    This happens every time a journalist takes the time to write a long article like this. I sometimes wonder who is to blame for dismal science reporting in the major media outlets–the media outlets, or readers who can’t seem to get past 140 characters.

  2. Brett G

    I was wondering where the hollywood live article got their (mis-)information from, she mentions nothing like that in the Time article. And the Time article seems HEAVILY slanted towards the anti-vax BS.

  3. The opening of that article by Mike Adams reads like satire. It’s sad, really.

  4. Oli

    In some ways, I miss the old days. When liars like her would be burned at the stake.

    But that’s against human rights nowadays…

  5. CybrgnX

    Hey-Oli-sorry to disappoint but my studies of the witch burnings would show, HER type were never accused of being a witch. And you got the 1st letter wrong.

    Why do you think she is wrong??? Look at her GREAT credentials!!! Both of them!!!
    Anyone with those credentials wouldn’t lie!!!! ;-}

  6. has no issue injecting herself with the most dangerous protein known to humanity

    Well yeah, that’s how she got famous.

    Oh, you meant botox.

  7. CybrgnX: Anyone with those credentials wouldn’t lie!!!!

    Did you not learn anything from Liar Liar?!

  8. This is no surprise. The level of denial in these people is huge. It would be easer for many fundies to give up their belief in god that for these people to accept the science.

  9. IainMC

    The Mike Adams page looks like a carefully constructed faux-antivax site by a Quackometer/Skepchick/Bad Science [or insert your favourite blog here] inspired designer to show how horribly misguided these people are… and then you realise it’s entirely sincere. Beyond parody.

    And I couldn’t help notice how the cartoons advertised at the bottom reminded me instantly of Chick Tracts the moment I saw them. Hm, does a closed mind cause you to draw cartoons in a certain way?…

  10. Kevin F.

    I think Jenny McCarthy causes stupid.

  11. Paul

    In the days of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, 150 years ago or so that Ob/Gyn doctor took the radical position that doctors should sterilize their hands before delivering babies. In his clinic he practically eliminated child bed fever which killed so many mothers at that time. While he would eventually be called the “Father of antisepsis” he was roundly dismissed and ridiculed by the “experts” of his day. Dr. Charles Meigs the emmiment head of Jefferson Medical colleges Ob/Gyn departement, said, “Physicians are gentlemen and gentlemen’s hands are clean”. Others called his work, “The Koran of peurpeural fever (child bed fever) theology”. So the killing continued unabated for decades more condemning tens of thousands of women to a painful death after childbirth.

    When autism was first described as a disease in the 1940s, the standard medical theory, first promulgated by an “expert” with a degree in philosophy was that the child’s disease was the result of “refrigerator mothers”.

    Leaving aside questions of vaccine efficacy now we have people questioning the wisdom of taking a vaccine that often contains a preservative already banned in much of the world for documented neurotoxicty. A mercury based preservative that is entirely unnecessary for safe and efficacious vaccination. One that was to be banned from all pediatric vaccines in the US until the previous president vetoed that bill.

    Once again the experts are out in force ridiculing those who are concerned for their safety and/or the safety of their children. Well, I am skeptical of such experts.

    http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

  12. JenniferBurdoo

    A mercury-based preservative that has not been used in the US for years now and was never shown to have anything to do with autism. It may be unsafe, but in other ways.

  13. Jim

    No no Phil you’ve got it wrong. Jenny McCarthy isn’t “anti-vax.” She’s “anti-toxin.” By the way where are all these “pro-toxin” people? I’d love to know what would cause someone to support ingesting toxic levels of chemicals.

  14. James B

    @12

    Guilt-trip anecdote that criticises the scientific establishment 150 years ago? check.

    Woeful misrepresentation of genuine science in favour of anti-vax scare-mongering? check.

    Dismissing the wisdom of generations of intelligent scientists based on the paranoid delusions of an ill-informed minority? check.

    The force is strong with this one.

  15. Daniel J. Andrews

    No no Phil you’ve got it wrong. Jenny McCarthy isn’t “anti-vax.” She’s “anti-toxin.”

    …unless the toxin can make you look younger when injected, or is safely encapsulated in leak-proof packaging and implanted beneath mammary glands.

    Paul (12), go to Larian’s comment (1), and follow the links to find out why your claim about “mercury” in vaccines is wrong on at least two different levels. The one you’re looking for is here.

    If you get the simple stuff wrong, how can we trust you with the more complicated stuff?

  16. R-man

    @12.

    Yesterdays heresy may be todays great truth, but that doesn’t mean all great truths started out as heresy.

    Sometimes you’ve just got call a nut a nut.

    With all due respect to Ms McCarthy, in this instance she is wrong. No evidence supports her position, but all evidence undermines it.

    I find your anecdote about the first diagnosis of Autism strangely poetic. We have here an “expert” with a degree in acting, stating that the disease is the fault of vaccines.

    Since the expert in the 1940′s was wrong, it is fitting that Ms McCarthy is also wrong.

  17. Plutonium being from Pluto

    … the equally wrong Mike Adams, who couldn’t find reality with three sherpas and a GPS.

    Love that line! ;-)

    So much I may have to steal it sometime … ;-)

    Of course, it could be applied to a lot of other people as well but I don’t want to derail this thread so I won’t name any examples! (*Cough*, Al Gore, *cough*) ;-)

    @ 14. Jim Says:

    …By the way where are all these “pro-toxin” people? …

    Oh they’re around .. In fact they’re a lot more common than you may think. I’m one myself and chances are that you are too! ;-)

    Takes a swig of beer, thinks of dope smoking buddy and the number of times my brother has unsuccessfully tried to quite (normal) smoking …

    I’d love to know what would cause someone to support ingesting toxic levels of chemicals.

    Alcohol, nicotine, caffine, marijuana, LSD, “ecstasy”, “speed”, peyote, kava, chocolate, etc …

    Name your poison!

  18. Plutonium being from Pluto

    D’oh! Typos! “Quit” not “quite” smoking there obviously. :-(

  19. PatK

    Ah, 12.

    The old “mercury” canard. Except what would or should have happened to every hatter and child of a hatter? What should have then happened in the 1930′s when they finally managed to get mercury out of their profession?

    What’s that? No autism epidemic among hatters or hatter-kin? No immediate reversal of same fortunes in the late 1930′s?

    Hmm. Okay, so if you can be a hatter’s child and not get autism, I suppose the alternative would be to be on a mostly or all-fish diet nowadays..

    Wait, that’s bunk as well? Seafood-munching folk are no more likely to have children with autism than the rest of us? Well, strike two.

    I suppose it’s reverse-homeopathy then. A molecule of mercury is waved in the direction of a child and *bam!* autism, but the same mercury consumed and inhaled does no harm, and is in fact beneficial?

    After all, when the latest logical course is run, we just fail over to another one until we are proven right. Right? That’s how science is done, right? You get a lab coat, you say what you want to find, and you keep going until you find it. It’s like making a wish only with test-tubes.

  20. Kne

    I think I understand what’s going on, here. It sounds like someone in the media finally caught on that nothing Ms. McCarthy says is true, so they decided they can make up things about her, as well. Her whole plan is that if the media say something is true often enough, then everyone will believe it. Now they’re saying she’s changed her mind, and who is she to disagree? If she tries to claim she never changed her mind, they’ll just paint her as someone who can’t make up her mind at all. Won’t do wonders for her credibility.

    We can dream…

  21. Keith

    It shows just how totally stucking fupid Jenny McCarthy is.

  22. Pluto-blah-blah-whatever @#18, if you can’t leave your ignorance in the threads where it can be discussed and addressed for the hogwash it is, then get the hell out and don’t come back.

  23. Mark Hansen

    Paul, Autism was first described in 1911, not the ’40′s. Nice try for a link with vaccination though. You (and any others that want to play the thiomersal card) should do, oh, about 5 minutes worth of research to determine how much is in current routine childhood vaccines. I’ll make it easier for you. Think of a number between zero and nil. It’s been that way since at least 2001 (leaving aside vaccines that never had it anyway). So why haven’t children’s autism diagnoses gone down?

  24. John Paradox

    At SALON, their This Week In Crazy features our favorite pro-disease advocate. The article is generally dismissive of the woo, but does take a step or two into their alternate universe.

    Quote: And it’s because of parents like McCarthy, and their stubborn refusal to give up, that a fantastic amount of encouraging work has been done in the last few years to help kids who fall across the autism spectrum

    and later:

    The correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism may still be unproven, (WTF?)

    Article link

    J/P=?

  25. I urge people to read the article from Time magazine in its entirety; the author is clear he thinks McCarthy is wrong, that all of science and reality are stacked against her, and he even states simply that she is “dangerous”.

    Actually, I thought that the Time piece was far too favorable to McCarthy and paid way too little attention to what really goes behind the scenes at Generation Rescue. Plus, if you look at the comments, there’s J.B. Handley pawing off his science abuse and quack advocacy which should’ve been taken head on by Greenfeld.

  26. fred edison

    Jim Carrey recently became a grandfather. His daughter had a baby. I can only imagine what kind of helpful and wise grandfatherly advice he’ll offer her.

    Jenny McCarthy is obsessed with the superficial and artificial beauty treatments that paralyze facial muscles for months at a time, done in a vain attempt to prevent a few crows feet that might seem unattractive or show her premature aging from too much sun damage, alcohol, etc. It’s her face and career and she’s welcome to do as she likes.

    When it comes to vaccines and herd immunity it becomes another story that affects more than just her. Jenny’s poorly informed and harmful anti-vaxx advice evidently continues unfazed by the utter disgrace and total discredit of Wakefield. You’d think she would have learned something important and lasting from that experience. But then again, clinging to false beliefs and comfortable denials are powerfully addictive mind-poisons, in a sense, not easily dispatched.

  27. Zanne

    I began working in the field of autism in 1978 when incidence was 1 birth in 10,000. During my 30 year career, there was a staggering and almost unbelievable increase in the number of births of children who would later be diagnosed with ASD. The first time I had a mother report her child stopped talking the day after her MMR was in 1978. I had dozens of parents mention this correlation long before Wakefield reared his head! I do not trust the CDC. Their board members are often MDs or pharmaceutical company owners who have a vested interest in NOT proving a relationship to vaccines and autism, specifically thimerasol. I appreciate Ms. McCarthy’s honesty, personally. All parents can do is educate themselves and make the best choices for their families based on their own experiences. Bottom line is, intensive early intervention using the methods of applied behavior analysis in inclusive early childhood educational settings is THE most promising “cure” out there.

  28. Pieter Kok

    From a purely tactical point of view, the rumor that JMC is backtracking on her claims may not be so bad, since it can be used to dilute her “message”. So perhaps we should not be too diligent to debunk this particular misconception.

    In any case, I predict that in years to come, when this has all blown over, we will identify the retraction of Wakefield’s work and his public discredit as the final blow for the anti-vaxers. I’m not saying that we should be complacent, but I do think there is great cause for optimism.

  29. Jenny McCarthy causes stupid :|

  30. Mike

    I really enjoy both of these actors and I feel bad that they’ve taken a foolish position on something that they obviously know very little about . We’ve all been wrong before and I’m sure they will look back on this one day and cringe .

  31. Oli

    Let’s just stop giving these idiots the attention they want. Probably cheaper than burning them.

    EDIT: Also, why is she so angry about her son’s autism? It’s not like it’s a deadly disease or something, just a disorder. You can live with it.

  32. I think the part that makes people think she’s shifting her stance from the article is “She has backed off from her most heated rhetoric and says she is now not against all vaccines but is in favor of studying them further and modifying the schedule by which they are administered. ”

    So a change from a shrill no-vaxx stance to a ‘hey let’s look at vaccine safety and schedule’ which seems all the more horrible given that was going on the whole time she was promoting her BS and spreading nonsense. The damage is done now.

  33. Robin

    I love how the anti-vaxxers accuse mercury of causing autism, yet she serves sushi at her “school”. What an idiot.

  34. Mike Mullen

    “I began working in the field of autism in 1978 when incidence was 1 birth in 10,000. During my 30 year career, there was a staggering and almost unbelievable increase in the number of births of children who would later be diagnosed with ASD. The first time I had a mother report her child stopped talking the day after her MMR was in 1978. I had dozens of parents mention this correlation long before Wakefield reared his head! I do not trust the CDC. Their board members are often MDs or pharmaceutical company owners who have a vested interest in NOT proving a relationship to vaccines and autism, specifically thimerasol. I appreciate Ms. McCarthy’s honesty, personally. All parents can do is educate themselves and make the best choices for their families based on their own experiences. Bottom line is, intensive early intervention using the methods of applied behavior analysis in inclusive early childhood educational settings is THE most promising “cure” out there.”

    So no reference as to what this career of your’s might be? Paranoid dismissal of all evidence against the link between vaccines and autism? Random anecdotes presented as evidence? Mentioning thimerasol even after its been out of MMR vaccines for a decade?
    Well I think I can make a diagnosis of your condition but they have rules about bad language here…

  35. Daniel J. Andrews

    Zanne…do you know anything about recall bias, correlation vs causation, confoundment? If you did, then you’d realize your recollection of past events is highly subjective. It is in all humans. Scientists have such rigorous methodologies to try and minimize these biases. Any scientist who thinks s/he can’t be affected by these biases because they are aware of them are prime candidates to being fooled by those biases if they try and take shortcuts on methods.

    Their board members are often MDs or pharmaceutical company owners who have a vested interest in NOT proving a relationship to vaccines and autism, specifically thimerasol.

    Like Wakefield and his vested interest in his own vaccine, and being in the pocket of trial lawyers trying to discredit the current vaccine?

    btw, if you’d taken 5 minutes to read the other comments you wouldn’t have embarrassed yourself with the thimerasol comment (not to mention your worldwide conspiracy theory among MDs, lab techs, scientists, epidemiologists, etc to keep the evidence under wraps).

    All parents can do is educate themselves and make the best choices for their families based on their own experiences

    Perhaps you could take your own advice and educate yourself on thimerasol–you’d find out it hasn’t been in vaccines for a number of years, and that autism rates haven’t declined as predicted by MMR opponents.

    Bottom line is, intensive early intervention using the methods of applied behavior analysis in inclusive early childhood educational settings is THE most promising “cure” out there.

    Do you have any evidence for that? (whatever “that” is because your bottom line sounds like something you copied and pasted without understanding what it says).

  36. As far as I’m concerned, this site offers all the credentials Jenny McCarthy needs to offer medical opinions: http://www.celebsdb.com/Jenny_McCarthy/

  37. Greg in Austin

    Zanne Says:

    I began working in the field of autism in 1978 when incidence was 1 birth in 10,000. During my 30 year career, there was a staggering and almost unbelievable increase in the number of births of children who would later be diagnosed with ASD.

    If stories count as evidence , please answer this: So, you worked with parents of autistic children for 30 years. How many children who were not autistic did you work with? How many of them did get their shots? What were their stories?

    How many parents did you talk to who said, “My child got his/her MMR yesterday, and is still talking today?”

    I just want to know why your story counts as evidence, but millions of stories that say there’s no link don’t?

    8)

  38. Paul #12:

    McCarthy blames the MMR shot for her son’s autism. You know that MMR, being a live vaccine, never had any mercury in it. You do know that, right?

  39. Becca Stareyes

    I began working in the field of autism in 1978 when incidence was 1 birth in 10,000. During my 30 year career, there was a staggering and almost unbelievable increase in the number of births of children who would later be diagnosed with ASD.

    Zanne, here’s another anecdote for you. I have an ASD, as does my little brother. I wasn’t diagnosed until after my brother was — I was about 12 at the time. I have a father and two uncles who I’m told I act a lot like, and my mother suspects that they may be on the spectrum as well. However, they don’t have an interest in getting diagnosed, so they may or may not have it. All of us, with the exception of my little brother, have a pretty mild form in that we were able to function without therapy. Now, if me (or my sister — more likely) had a child on the spectrum — quite possible, given it runs in the family — s/he would most likely be diagnosed before s/he entered school, because we know what to look for.

    So, the question is — are you willing to consider that the increase of ASDs is because more people like me are identified early (or people who have more severe cases, but less typical presentation) rather than increases in people like my brother or folks farther on the spectrum than he is? Because when doctors go back and try to review old cases with the same standards as today, they do find more ASD cases than were diagnosed at the time.

  40. Lauren

    Phil, I was settling in to read the Salon article linked from your Twitter, when this made me cackle. I figured the massive irony would be appreciated here: http://tinypic.com/r/2vc7t5k/6

  41. Wesley Struebing

    Zanne (29): Remind me not to come within a lightyear of you and your idiocy with any of my grandkids…

  42. @Zanne

    Not sure why you brought up thimerosal when talking about the MMR. As others already mentioned, the MMR never contained thimerosal.

    Others have also mentioned recall bias and confusion over correlation and causation. Go to AntiAntiVax and read over the info there. In particular, view the videos linked in the Additional Resources section that discuss correlation vs. causation.

    Finally, a few follow-up questions for you: How many parents of autistic kids noted that their child developed autism the day before the MMR? How many weeks/months before? How many developed it weeks after? How many developed it months/years after?

    The symptoms of autism generally start to appear, regardless of vaccination status, around 18 months-3 years old (though sometimes as early as 12 months). By chance alone, we would expect a fair number of these to fall around the time that the MMR is first given. Prometheus has a written some good comments on this in past autism threads here (don’t have any links right at hand). So, your experience, while intriguing, is actually about what we would expect. Indeed, there have been epidemiological studies that find this very thing: that while there appears to be a causal connection, there isn’t.

  43. TheBlackCat

    I read something interesting recently. There is some decent evidence that in autistic people, the auditory brain stem nuclei are often, if not always, deformed, both in overall shape and in the properties of their neurons. In humans, as best as I can tell these nuclei are fully formed within a couple of weeks of birth. What is more, these nuclei have their primary development at different points in time. The earlier a nucleus develops, the more it is deformed. Those that develop last are almost normal. These results are based on small samples now, but if they pan out it would mean that autism almost certainly begins before birth.

  44. JupiterIsBig

    If there is an increase in Autism, why irrationally focus on a preservative in a vaccine?
    As well, you’d have to question lots of things we use now which our great grandparents didn’t.
    Aluminium, fire retardants, plastic solvents, teflon saucepans, pesticides in cotton, GM, electronics and all of the chemicals in those. NiCad, NmH.
    Glues in MDF furniture.
    The list is huge.
    Maybe even it’s because of some unknown effect of not having worms or other diseases.
    All I know is I trust the epidemiologists who assure me the mercury preservative and the vaccines are safer than the diseases they help to prevent.
    And I do have a child in the Autism Spectrum.

  45. Katharine

    The thing is, the anti-vaxxers don’t look at any of the OTHER research about autism and the indications that it’s genetic (no word on whether it’s epigenetic, but I don’t think vaccines can be blamed for THAT because other autism research indicates that the changes in autism are larger than what can be caused at the period in life when children get vaccinated), causes certain other malformations which don’t come about as a result of vaccines (or to be parsimonious, I suppose, at least in the way the antivaxxers think they do, but I’m pretty sure the vaccines aren’t doing anything) because a vaccine couldn’t cause those malformations as quickly as has been claimed, and is generally more prevalent in families that already have an autistic person in them.

    To those who are trying to rebut the idiots in this thread, awesome, but the problem is they’re not going to listen because they probably don’t want to admit it’s their own genetics or something in the uterine environment or something out of their control that’s the problem, if it’s in fact autism. Half of them, anyway, don’t understand basic biology and they can’t be arsed to read basic research because it’s beyond their tiny little heads to comprehend.

    I’m really tired of people who don’t know squat about stuff making hyperbolic claims about it.

  46. MarkW

    Lugosi at #38: Thanks for that. I’ve just had a verbal warning from my boss.

    You really should have pointed out that your link isn’t safe for work.

  47. lcdlover

    Hello and great blog!!!

    Here’s a relevant thread: The increasingly lame Boston Globe Has done it again. The low-circulation Saturday edition can be counted on for the most inane editorials and articles. Last time it was Stephen Meyer posthumously enlisting Thomas Jefferson in his creationist crusade – http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/jeffersons_support_for_intelligent_design/
    This time, Joanna Weiss waxes stupid in her quest for “common ground” with the anti-vaxxers:
    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/02/27/seeking_common_ground_in_the_autism_vaccine_debate/

    I know the Globe won’t print my letter-to-the-editor re this claptrap so here it is because this kind of stuff needs to go:

    The Globe and Ms. Weiss do the public a disservice by the publication of the op-ed piece “Seeking Common Ground in the Autism-Vaccine Debate”. Weiss’s wishy-washy, on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand stance on whether vaccines cause autism is indeed anti-science, since only fringe voices lend the link any credence. And what exactly is meant by “no definitive non-proof”? Perhaps it is meant to be considered as opposed to “some non-definitive non-proof”? Such fuzzy terminology only confuses the reader, leading one to believe there may be some doubt among clinicians, which there is not. It is reprehensible to fortify a specious notion that encourages people to disregard basic health practices, based on the spurious philosophy that every point of view is equally valid, particularly if motivated by parental love. Ms. Weiss and dubious authors such as Dr. Sears would have us occupy some Twilight Zone-like middle ground – lying – to paraphrase Rod Serling, “between science and superstition… the pit of man’s fears, and the summit of his knowledge”.

    Thank you for reading
    Barry

  48. Plutonium being from Pluto

    @ 24. The Panic Man Says:

    Pluto-blah-blah-whatever @#18, if you can’t leave your ignorance in the threads where it can be discussed and addressed for the hogwash it is, then get the hell out and don’t come back.

    And if *you*, Panicky man, can’t follow the BA’s rules and be civil and polite instead of just insulting other commenters here who happen to disagree with you then why don’t *you* just get the hell out and not come back yourself?

    It’d be a boring world if we all agreed all the time wouldn’t it?
    You are entitled to express your opinion. I am equally entitled to express mine.

    But, Panicky-man, what you are NOT entitled to do is abuse people just because they don’t share your views. Comprendez?

  49. Plutonium being from Pluto

    BTW. Panicman – whose blog is this again?

    If the Bad Astronomer asks me to do something then I’ll comply, this is his blog.

    You? Not so much. :roll:

  50. Bela Okmyx

    Waitaminnit – first Evan was an “Indigo Child” (or maybe Jenny was the “Indigo” and Evan was the “Crystal” – http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/your_friday_dose_of_woo_generation_woo.php), then he was autistic, then he was “cured” of autism, now he may have Landau-Kleffner syndrome? What’s next? ADHD? Bipolar? Maybe he’s just a normal, bratty little boy? (I have two; I blame my own bad parenting, not thimerosol, “toxins” or any other such nonsense.)

  51. The Guy

    “has no issue injecting herself with the most dangerous protein known to humanity”

    You’re right, but with most things it is dosage which determines toxicity. As I’m sure you’re aware it is a common tactic used by anit-vaxxers to say that X Y and Z in vaccines are toxic. They of course do not realize that the dosages of these chemicals are so low that there are no ill effects from the use of these preservatives.

    So I guess what I’m saying is, don’t use the same tactics that they do, you’re better than them!

  52. ND

    Katharine,

    About debating idiots and how they aim to willfully stay in that state… debating them is a good thing in the off chance a few of them might listen, but it’s also more about those who are just reading these blogs. Debating the idiots armed with facts and pointing out the flaws in their arguments in a rational and logical manner is a very educational. It shows how people can be cranks, argue from ignorance, throw about red herrings, and willfully ignore facts that are presented to them and come back to make the same old tired and flawed arguments. It shows that one should be skeptical and not take everything at face value. I’m sure there is an enlightened and zen argument that you can’t change the mind of someone who is stuck and does not want to be changed, but that is not the ultimate goal.

    Debating people here is good experience when coming face to face with such idiocy in real life.

  53. Gamercow

    Won’t ANYONE think of the CHILDREN??!?!?!?!?!?!? [handflail]

  54. Here’s the first vaccines a child receives in life:

    Birth: Hep B
    2 months: Hep B, Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV
    4 months: Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV
    6 months: Hep B, Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV, Flu
    12 months: MMR, Hib, PCV, Varicella, Hep A, Hep B

    How many of the vaccines above have been analyzed for their relationship to autism? One, the MMR.

    If that means “vaccines” don’t cause autism, I have a bridge to sell you. If you were real scientists, you would be repeating what Bernadine Healy is saying…

    JB

  55. ND

    JB Handley,

    Show us the evidence that link vaccines with autism.

  56. Charlie Young

    …and we thought this thread was dead. Cue the fireworks…

  57. Hey look everyone! JB Handley is here! I was hoping this conversation would wander off into alt-med nonsense.

    And look! I was right. Tell me, Mr. Handley, let’s assume what you posted is accurate. What does that have to do with autism? And please, none of your usual character assassination, or your general confusion about what autism is, or your intellectual dishonesty, or your duplicity.

    Of course, that won’t leave you much to say…

  58. Chris

    JB Handley:

    How many of the vaccines above have been analyzed for their relationship to autism? One, the MMR

    Wait, weren’t you the one who was blaming thimerosal? Which is now not in pediatric vaccines.

    First you have to establish that autism is increasing outside of increased diagnosis, and including many children who had other diagnoses before 1994. Then you have to note that there have been several other studies like (and even Sallie Bernard contributed to the design of one study!):

    Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
    Tozzi AE, Bisiacchi P, Tarantino V, De Mei B, D’Elia L, Chiarotti F, Salmaso S.
    Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82

    Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants after Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
    Pichichero ME, Gentile A, Giglio N, et al
    Pediatrics, February 2008; 121(2) e208-214

    Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California’s Developmental Services System: Mercury in Retrograde
    Schechter R, Grether JK
    Arch Gen Psychiatry, January 2008; 65(1):19-24

    Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years
    Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team
    N Engl J Med, Sep 27, 2007; 357(13):1281-1292

    Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links with Immunizations
    Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D
    Pediatrics, July 2006, Vol. 118(1):e139-e150

    Thimerosal in Vaccines: Balancing the Risk of Adverse Effects with the Risk of Vaccine-Preventable Disease
    Bigham M, Copes R
    Drug Safety, 2005, Vol. 28(2):89-101

    Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
    Heron J, Golding J, ALSPAC Study Team
    Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):577-583

    Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
    Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B
    Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):584-591

    Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original Data
    Parker SK, Schwartz B, Todd J, Pickering LK
    Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):793-804

    The Evidence for the Safety of Thimerosal in Newborn and Infant Vaccines
    Clements CJ
    Vaccine, May 7, 2004, Vol. 22(15-16):1854-1861

    Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases
    Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al
    Pediatrics, November 2003, Vol. 112(5):1039-1048

    The Toxicology of Mercury–Current Exposures and Clinical Manifestations
    Clarkson TW, Magos L, Myers GJ
    New England Journal of Medicine, October 30, 2003, Vol. 349(18):1731-7

    Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism
    Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M
    Journal of the American Medical Association, October 1, 2003, Vol. 290(13):1763-6

    Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data
    Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, et al
    Pediatrics, Sept. 2003, Vol. 112(3 Pt 1):604-606

    Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines. Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association
    Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, Simpson D
    American Journal of Preventive Medicine, August 2003, Vol. 25(2):101-6

    Vaccine Safety Policy Analysis in Three European Countries: The Case of Thimerosal
    Freed GL, Andreae MC, Cowan AE, et al
    Health Policy, December 2002, Vol. 62(3):291-307

    Mercury Concentrations and Metabolism in Infants Receiving Vaccines Containing Thimerosal: A Descriptive Study
    Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, Treanor J
    The Lancet, November 30, 2002, Vol. 360:1737-1741

    An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines
    Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD
    Pediatrics, May 2001, Vol. 107(5):1147-1154

    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
    Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

  59. JB, if you were a real vaccine safety advocate, you/Generation Rescue would contribute significantly to bona-fide vaccine safety research instead of squandering money on advertising and other nonsense, and you’d be actively encouraging others to do the same.

    You seem to know even less about autism.

    JB on autism

    “Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error”

    -Cicero

  60. Paul

    @15

    Unless you have a medical degree I am not certain where the guilt trip idea is coming from, however, I suppose I should also mention that Semmelweis, the now acknowledged great scientist, physician and father of antisepsis was involuntarily committed to an insane asylum where he died from sepsis, (i.e.a blood infection just as child bed fever is a form of sepsis) after being beaten by the prison guards. Feel better? Or if you want to feel guilty perhaps you can find for me the article in the peer-reviewed medical literature that repudiates the “refrigerator mother” hypothesis for autism, as cruel nonsense, though the only consistent explanation offered in the peer reviewed medical literature. Maybe you should just get back to your light saber.

    @17
    You are correct there are the examples of Pasteur, Jenner, John Snow, of great advances easily accepted. There are also, Galileo, Semmelweis, Copernicus. There were the recent heresies of smoking being bad for you of hormone replacement therapy being bad for you of Vioxx causing heart attacks etc, it is a mixed bag is it not. A former playboy centerfold is the perfect poster girl for mindless ridicule of a serious topic, namely what is the true safety and efficacy of vaccines in various diseases.

    @20
    If I understand you correctly Pat you are taking the position that because environmental exposure to mercury resulted in a well documented and characterized syndrome of peripheral tremors, neuropathy and central nervous dementia (i.e. Mad Hatters disease) we should not be concerned with injecting ethyl mercury directly into tissue, (along with immune stimulating epitopes) when it is unnecessary to do so and the practice is banned in much of the world. You’re mad as a hatter Pat.
    @25 The case studies of 11 children with autism was published by Leo Kanner in 1943 this defined and described the disease of autism. Possibly the word autism was used in 1911 when talking about schizophrenia is that what you are getting at? In 2007 or 2008 the recommendation was made to expand influenza vaccination to include children. Most of these vaccines including those given to children contain thimerosal. So you are in error. There was legislation to ban thimerosal from all pediatric vaccines but this was vetoed by the last President. In fact a mother trying to be conscientious would potentially expose her child to 19 thimerosal containing vaccines by age 18, a larger cumulative dose than before action was taken to remove it.
    @40, Yes, I know that, Somehow neither you nor some others noticed I never stated that thimerosal causes autism. You do know how to read, right?

    So in summary I don’t know what causes autism and didn’t pretend to though given medicine’s storied history I would not dismiss and would give great weight to parents concerns over vaccination. But does anyone want to argue that thimerosal should remain in vaccines? Even if it were 100 million dollars to remove it, perhaps we could just ask AIG for 1/2000 of the money we recently gave them. I would say, given that it has been banned from Japan, Russia and elsewhere for documented neurotoxicity, given the neurotoxicity of mercury and lack of formal toxicity studies on ethyl mercury, given that it is injected directly into tissue, bypassing the gut and given simultaneous with foreign immune stimulating proteins the possibility that thimerosal is responsible for autism is a good sight better idea than the “refrigerator mother” hypothesis promoted by Drs Kanner and Bettleheim. But really, this has been the only conventionally accepted consistent explanation offered in the peer reviewed medical literature and while it has fallen out of favor I don’t know where it was ever formally disavowed. Where is someone to take up the banner of medical orthodoxy and argue with me that it is not thimerosal it is sexually frigid mother’s that cause autism. You can bring in McCarthy and Carey I am sure they would enjoy your science based exposition.

  61. Chris

    Paul:

    So in summary I don’t know what causes autism and didn’t pretend to though given medicine’s storied history I would not dismiss and would give great weight to parents concerns over vaccination.

    Recent studies are pointing to genetics, with some possible pre-natal environmental impacts. Those are things that happen before the child is born. Actually one known cause of autism is the mother catching rubella at a certain time during pregnancy. So one prevention of autism is the MMR vaccine.

    Paul:

    I would say, given that it has been banned from Japan, Russia and elsewhere for documented neurotoxicity,

    Evidence? Especially the bit about the documented neurotoxicity, that seems to be missing from the studies from many countries that I posted above. If you have others that show your contention, please post them.

    Oh, and thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines (including some influenza) almost ten years ago.

  62. Mark Hansen

    Paul, which vaccines, aside from the flu vaccine (which is also available in thimerosal-free form), contain thimerosal? A current reference showing this would help. The CDC seem to think that thimerosal was removed, as Chris pointed out, almost 10 years ago.

  63. @JB Handley

    Let’s see. Did you not claim that autism was just mercury poisoning? If that’s the case, then why are you bringing up the vaccines other than MMR?

    Oh, wait. You also supported the MMR theory, commenting on how there were thousands of stories that you’ve heard of children regressing into autism after a single shot of MMR, which never had any mercury in it. Why dumping that line of thought?

    Ah, right, because the evidence has come in against a thimerosal or MMR link, so you need something else to blame. Tell me. What is the basis for believing that vaccines are the culprit? Why not rubella, which is a known risk factor? Why not parental age, as some recent studies suggest? Or anti-seizure meds taken during pregnancy? Or inherited genes? All of those have more evidence behind them than a purported vaccine connection. So why are you focusing on vaccines?

    Please enlighten us. And do be sure to cite well-designed scientific studies published in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals that show a causal link between vaccines (any vaccine(s)) and autism.

    Oh, and on a side note, since I’ve not received a response from your co-editor, Kim Stagliano, why are my comments being censored over at Age of Autism?

  64. TheBlackCat

    Still waiting for anti-vaxxers to comment on the pre-natal deformities in auditory brainstem development. That indicates that autism develops before birth. So if autism develops before birth how can vaccines cause autism when they are administered after birth?

  65. Paul

    Chris,

    According to the CDC and others autism rates have increased some 5 to 10 fold or more in the course of a generation, until the latest CDC estimate has it afflicting, from memory, some 1/70 or more male children. Unless you choose to arbitrarily dismiss this scientific data, how on earth is that consistent with genetics? Gene prevalence increased five-ten fold intra-generation? The critique of diagnostic bias has been brought up, I don’t buy it, I know two families with autistic children, one a pediatrician I worked with when at FDA and another a child psychiatrist. It is not a subtle finding it is dramatic and tragic. If anything previous clinicians who were forced to rely more on physical diagnosis as opposed to lab tests would have described it more frequently. It is consistent with an environmental or infectious exposure.

    I don’t pretend to be expert in this area, however, given what you have written I do have to ask you, if you accept that pre-natal exposure to rubella is a cause of autism why on Earth would you confidently and blithely dismiss that childhood exposure to live attenuated rubella must be harmless and couldn’t possibly also cause autism?

    There is evidently a 1977 study from Russia which found significant neurotoxicity with thimerosal, I can’t read Russian, maybe I’m wrong. Yes some flu vaccine doesn’t have thimerosal.

    Mark:

    This is from John’s Hopkins http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm. The flu vaccine, as of 2007, is recommended for children and there is no law (again as it was vetoed) against giving thimerosal containing vaccines to children. The interesting question to me here would be which are the better selling vaccines, as people are asking me all the questions and I’m doing the work, I’ll ask you, based from sales numbers what percentage of childhood influenza vaccinations are thimerosal containing? Probably a pretty difficult question to easily answer, might make a good paper;)

    Paul Maher, MD MPH
    http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

  66. Chris

    Caution, TheBlackCat, with that question. In the cognitive dissonance realm they bring up that the mother has been vaccinated. That is apparently Kim Stagliano’s excuse for why her third un-vaccinated daughter is autistic.

    No, it is not genetics… it is still an evil vaccine that was given probably ten years before the child was born!

    I actually encountered this thinking almost twenty years ago on Usenet. Someone tried to claim that my son’s seizures were caused by drinking cow’s milk. Except my son was a newborn and only drinking breastmilk. So the guy claimed it was because I drank milk. Somehow he thought that over shadowed the very difficult delivery, which was very near getting a Caesarean (and looking back, I should have had a Caesarean).

  67. Chris

    Phil Plait:

    And please, none of your usual character assassination, or your general confusion about what autism is, or your intellectual dishonesty, or your duplicity.

    Don’t forget cybersquatting! If you go to just plain oracknows dot com you will land on one of Handley’s Generation Rescue sites. After several years he still squats on that address! A real charmer he is.

  68. @Paul

    The CDC numbers represent the rates of reported diagnosis. Whether this is reflective of the actual incidence is another matter. Just as the incidence may be under-diagnosed or under-reported, it may also be over-diagnosed (e.g., families with “quirky” or behaviorally problematic kids seeking a diagnosis in order to get special help). Keep in mind, also, that in addition to greater awareness and more sensitive diagnostic tools, the diagnostic criteria for ASDs were expanded in the 80s/90s to include higher-functioning, less-obvious syndromes, like Asperger’s and PDD-NOS.

    Regarding thimerosal-containing flu vaccine sales, I don’t have the numbers, but in general, TCVs are cheaper than non-TCVs, because TCVs can be shipped in larger lots and kept for a longer period of time. Non-TCVs require more packaging materials and expire sooner, requiring more frequent replenishing of supplies.

    there is no law [against TCVs] (again as it was vetoed)

    You keep bringing this up, yet fail to produce any reason why such a law should have gone through. The only study you mention (and don’t even provide a link/citation for) is incredibly old. While it may be relevant, it is very likely that the findings are either unrelated (e.g., examining ingested doses of thimerosal orders of magnitude greater than found in the entire vaccine schedule) or that subsequent studies have failed to replicate or have overturned its findings.

  69. Dr. Rocketscience

    I know two families with autistic children…
    Oh yay, anecdotes! Two, in fact, that’s double-plus-good!

    OK, everybody, say it with me now:

    The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.

  70. Father of Child with Autism

    @Becca 41 – Excellent point about the genetic link. On both my wife’s side of the family and my side, we have relatives (In their 50′s and 60′s) who probably are on the spectrum but have never been tested.

    Not only that but my nephew is on the spectrum and I’d be willing to bet I am too (or have asperger’s). I do sincerely believe that there is a genetic link.

    @ JB Handy – Show me one piece of evidence. One. Otherwise go crawl back into bed with your trial lawyers and your idiot actor friends and leave the science to scientists.

    In regards to Zanne:

    “Bottom line is, intensive early intervention using the methods of applied behavior analysis in inclusive early childhood educational settings is THE most promising “cure” out there.”

    This is actually correct (except for the word “cure”). Early intervention and ABA are the best treatments for kids with Autism. It did wonders for my son. He started with floor time and then graduated to ABA around the age of three. Both floor time and ABA are behavioral therapies, not snake oil like chelation or hyperbaric oxygen or whatever else those quacks are selling.

  71. Mike C.

    I know for a fact that Jim Carrey’s movies cause Infantilism, among other not so great things.

  72. Mark Hansen

    C’mon now Paul, I specifically asked which childhood vaccines excluding the flu vaccine contain thimerosal. Cough up or shut up.

    P.S. Just to give some helpful info, here’s a quote from the CDC:
    ” Which childhood vaccines do not contain thimerosal?

    Today, with the exception of some influenza vaccine, none of the vaccines used to protect preschool children against 14 infectious diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative. (Those with a concentration of less that 0.0002% contain what is considered “trace”, or insignificant, amounts). Certain influenza (flu) vaccines and tetanus-diptheria vaccines (Td) given to children 7 and older contain thimerosal as a preservative.”

    Full text at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs_availfree.html

  73. Mr. Handley has fallen curiously silent. Hmm…

  74. Michael Glavic

    Oh, we’re editing/censoring now. No wonder people seem to have fallen silent

    Michael Glavic

  75. No, Michael Glavic (#76), I don’t censor. That’s what the antivaxxers and other antireality folks do. I do use a spam filter though, but as long as people don’t violate my commenting policy they are free to make foolish statements all they want.

  76. Michael Glavic

    Call it spam (your idea of a bad thing?) I still call it censoring, (whatever it is?) and where you don’t leave that for others to decide for themselves I guess it would be your show, for whatever that’s worth? (call it what you will? of calling it what you will and presenting as much, of such selection criteria, and objectivity?) but I don’t fancy it. It’s not objective enough for “me,” for what I seek of objectivity, of where it’s not presented it’s not Objectivity, it’s “your” subject/subjectivity (and that wouldn’t be of the facts, of science, for us to choose for our selves, Thereof, now would it

    You censor plain and simple as far as I’m concerned, and I find that somewhat “abusive” (not so just?) to Objectivity

    I feel I have to say that because I don’t think everyone here “can” figure that out for themselves, (Really, of what you’re developing perhaps?) and I did want to help in that respect, by as much as I was trying to say that you call “spam,” or whatever, that there is a shortage of names for those who would deny freedom of expression and Objectivity (and justice) by as much.

    Thanks for posting what you (your spam filter) felt worthy of selecting from me for whatever message it is you want to get across. The better analyst will make sense of It, I’m pretty sure, and the others, need not worry about It, with the likes of me around, (if not so close?) that I should care about what people think and say about me of my spirit, for as much, of Communication, where you might need a name for that.

    Best wishes, Phil and All

    Michael Glavic

  77. LoriC

    As a so-called “anti-vaxxer”…I will say that I have looked at BOTH sides of this. Looked up the vaccine ingredients myself, and weighed the risks. I decided the risk was too great to my children. I spent hours and hours and hours looking at so much research.

    Thimerosal has NOT been completely removed from all childhood vaccines as they would have you believe. It is still there in trace amounts in some vaccines and in larger amounts in other vaccines.
    Go to the CDC website to see the list of ingredients.
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

    Also, many are not aware that the Flu shot that is recommended to everyone now has 25mcg of mercury in it and it has been recommended to pregnant women for years..thus that would negate the whole “vaccines don’t cause autism since thimerosal has been removed” argument since they have been injecting into pregnant moms and it WILL cross the placental and it does cross the blood brain barrier.

    Pregnant women get fillings, amalgams, they are 50% mercury! Look it up, it’s not a hidden fact. It’s just something that most people don’t bother to research.

    Children w/ autism have defects in methylation, sulfation which can be caused my mercury toxicity.

    Urinary porphyrin tests reveal high levels of mercury.

    Aluminum toxicity has been scientifically linked to Alzheimer’s..why is it so hard to believe that a toxin that is injected into a baby, which bypasses all of our natural pathways to detox and natural protective mechanism, is going to cause some problems???

    Vaccine reactions are not that uncommon, just look up VAERS…the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System…they estimate that only about 10% of all adverse events go reported….only TEN PERCENT!
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/vaers.html
    Would they have this in place if they really believed that they were 100% safe???

    Congress passed a law that gave immunity to Pharmaceutical companies from being sued for vaccine reactions…how does that give them an incentive to make them safe? They have no one to answer to.

    The tobacco industry hid for years their evidence that cigarettes cause cancer….people laughed at the notion, were so skeptical.

    Do you all really think that the government is above hiding information from the people? or covering their own butts?

    As far as genetics go in Autism…this is a well-known scientific fact, taught to doctors in medical school

    There is no such thing as a genetic epidemic.

    And last, if any of you who are pro-vaccine can find the answers to these questions..then have at it…because the CDC can’t, the vaccine manufacturers can’t, the doctors can’t either..

    http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vaccine_debate.shtml

    Happy Hunting,

    Lori

  78. @LoriC

    Many of the misconceptions you repeated in your post are addressed at The Truth About the Evils of Vaccination.

    Your comparison to the tobacco industry is way off. Some facts: The scientific community were the ones that found the dangers of tobacco and argued against the tobacco companies, even when the public thought the notion ridiculous. There was a lot of science pointing to tobacco products as a cause of cancer. The scientific community has found no link between vaccines and autism and considers vaccines generally safe. There is a lot of science showing that there is no connection. There are no quality studies showing that there is a connection. The two situations are completely different.

    Regarding the “no such thing as a genetic epidemic” bit, has it possibly occurred to you that there is no epidemic of autism? The apparent increase in diagnoses can largely be explained by changes in diagnostic criteria, increased awareness and surveillance, and more sensitive screening tools (which can detect cases earlier, but unfortunately also lead to false positives and overdiagnosis).

    On your thimerosal comment, you are aware that thimerosal exposure is below even 1980s levels, no? So, if thimerosal were to blame, then autism rates would have fallen over the last several years. Even with some flu vaccines containing thimerosal (thimerosal-free versions are available and are more often recommended for pregnant women than thimerosal-containing versions).

    Regarding aluminum, there is more aluminum in the food you eat and the air you breathe than in vaccines. It is one of the most abundant metals on the surface of the Earth. Further, the aluminum in vaccines is in the form of aluminum salts, not elemental aluminum. The particular compound is not toxic in the doses found in vaccines. Your argument is like saying that table salt is bad because it contains the extremely toxic element chlorine. Or that water is bad because it contains the highly flammable and toxic hydrogen.

    Visit the link I provided. It goes into much greater depth than I have in this post and addresses many of the points you raised. Also, follow the links on that page to more information and source materials.

  79. @LoriC

    I took a look at that link and chuckled when I saw this question:

    Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

    There is a medicine that has, as its primary ingredient, botulinum toxin, a neurotoxic protein that, in even small doses, is one of the most deadly toxins known to humans. However, in small enough amounts, it actually has clinical benefit. For example, it is used to treat cervical dystonia, to decrease abnormal head position and reduce neck pain. However, its more famous application is as a cosmetic, to reduce fine wrinkles. The product’s name is Botox. Something that is proudly supported by Jenny McCarthy.

  80. LoriC

    LOL……. So , No one brave enough to try and answer the questions in the LINK I provided? HMmmmmmm????

    The only responses have been to what I wrote, but no one willing to try and find the RESEARCH that answers the important questions…the ones that the CDC, the scientists, and Doctors CAN’T even answer????

    Scandal Looms Over Key Scientist In Danish Mercury Autism Study
    http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/scandal-looms-over-key-scientist-in-danish-mercury-autism-study.html

    This is THE study which the CDC used to “prove” that vaccines don’t cause autism in AMERICAN children…if you want to know if they are a factor or not..then do a study on AMERICAN children…
    VACCINATED V. UN-VACCINATED..until that’s done..there is NO proof.

    Todd W. You make a good point. HOWEVER, the amounts we are talking about w/ shots are not just ONE shot…it can be as many as 3 or 4 in ONE visit and they have not done studies to show if the accumulation of ALL of these shots and what is in them is effecting children negatively. AND, if a child has impaired detox pathways..then the toxins from the first shots may not have been eliminated and then the child gets more..this keeps adding up and when the body doesn’t get rid of it..it absorbs into tissue like the BRAIN, and even organs in the body.

    FACT is, there ARE vaccine reactions, they are documented…did ANYONE follow the link for VAERS??? or are you to scared to see for yourself???

    There are children born w/ a susceptibility and wouldn’t it be smart to do a few tests to make sure that there weren’t any mutations that would impair a baby’s ability to detoxify what’s in the shots??

    Todd, you picked out a few points in my post, but failed to see the forest for the trees….you never addressed the well known fact that mutations on methylation, sulfation, COMT CAN and DOES impair a person’s ability to detox heavy metals.

    As far as genetics V. better diagnosis..I will have to hunt for it, but there is a peer-reviewed study that shows it is NOT better diagnosis…we really do have an epidemic on our hands and at this rate it’s only going to get worse…when I find I’ll post it.

    Lori

  81. Mark Hansen

    Just one addendum to Todd’s points.
    Lori, your list from the CDC does indeed include all the vaccines with Thimerosal. However what you did not notice or did not point out was that there is a * next to nearly every one. That * in the footnotes is to show that the amount of Thimerosal is a trace (<0.3 mcg) amount. As the footnote also points out, those same vaccines can be considered Thimerosal free.

  82. R

    With the large trend of unvaccinated children, and the lack of Autism with in the unvaccinated community. Speaks volumes. I have 3 boys. One of which is vaccinated. Guess which one has autism(PDD)? The vaccinated one. The other 2, who are not vaccinated, are not affected. My son regressed after a set of vaccines(not the MMR) DPT and Polio….at 3 years of age. He was fully potty trained and had a full vocabulary. The vaccines he received were “contaminated” hot lots, actually recalled by Lederle Pharmaceuticals, some years later, as they brain injured other children who received the same lot and batch of vaccines.
    The not so funny thing is this……I was never notified of that Hot Lot recall, by the doctor who gave it, nor by the Pharma company who made it…..Yet I am caring for a permanantly disabled child the rest of my life. His doctors insist his present diagnosis is PDD, in the autism umbrella, and I insist he should be diagnosed as Vaccine injury.
    Vaccines are Medical proceedures, they have and do cause vaccine injury, it is the lack of reporting it, that is making this so difficult as parents of vaccine injured children.
    I thank Jenny for taking a leap to bring attention to this growing epidemic. It grows almost as fast as the vaccine mandates list.

  83. Mark Hansen

    BTW Lori, You might want to give people a little more than 24 hours to see your post and respond before claiming victory over teh ebil vaccinators.

  84. Theresa M. Stone

    You know, I feel that those of you who want to be vaccinated…go for it : ( , but those of us who don’t should not have to be forced! No amount of mercury in any product is safe and it is cumulative. That’s bottom line. Add aluminum to the mix and things get even worse. Add the other ingredients and what a “cocktail.”There are so very many studies that any one of us can read that lead right to this point. Babies are given so very many shots at one time because the docs are afraid they won’t come back for the rest…there are far too many!!We are such a “fix it now society”…what ever happened to” let thy body heal itself?” Lori’s posts are excellent and I commend her!
    The CDC needs to reeducate itself and start listening to the families of vaccinated children who have developed problems. As a matter of fact, most of us are those vaccinated children. I can tell you how each of my siblings were affected…and the story is long! Injecting substances into the body does not create the same immune response as the person that is exposed to it naturally.
    http://www.andrewmoulden.com
    http://www.vaers.org
    http://www.mayereisenstein.com
    Facebook: VINE and many many hundreds more

  85. Mark Hansen

    Also, Lori, when a website makes such an elementary mistake as this one:

    Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.

    Fact: The claim is completely false.

    then perhaps you could tell us why smallpox is strangely absent from society? Why kids that are vaccinated don’t get measles? But somehow I think that facts are not what you are really interested in…

  86. Theresa M. Stone (86): you are dead wrong. There is more than one type of mercury; ethyl versus methylmercury. Ethylmercury is used in vaccines, and your body gets rid of it very quickly. You get more mercury when you eat a can of tuna fish than you do in a vaccine.

    The mercury in vaccines is a total non-issue, only trumpeted by those so religiously against vaccinations that they will cling to any statement against them, even when it is long debunked.

    Ahem.

    It sounds like you are the one who needs re-educating, not the FDA.

  87. LoriC

    No measles in the vaccinated..hmmm??

    This is like shooting fish in a barrel! Here are the facts….and I LOVE facts!

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16583967
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5500100
    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/4/434

    and Mumps outbreak amongst the vaccinated..
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1861205
    http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/blog/2010/02/12/mumps-outbreak-spreads-among-people-who-got-vaccinated-against-mumps/

    and chicken pox
    http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701&p=chicken+pox+outbreak+in+the+vaccinated&SpellState=n-3380251365_q-hu7kwnYCfkD0Bd9r4A2FBgAAAA%40%40&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top

    @ Mark..a “trace” is not thimerosal FREE, and if you give a child more than one vaccine w/ a “trace” amount it STILL adds up to more than the EPA recommended amount.

    For God’s sake..they tell pregnant women to NOT eat fish because it has too much mercury! Why on EARTH would you then inject the mother or the NEWBORN with it, IN ANY AMOUNT????

  88. LoriC

    and still..not one person is providing the link to ANY research that answers this question?

    Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

  89. LoriC

    @Phil Plait…

    Ahem..you might want to check YOUR facts…

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ethyl_vs_methyl.html
    Ethylmercury is found in vaccines. When the toxicity of Methylmercury is produced vaccinators will usually counter with the comment Ethylmercury is totally different and safer.]

    Several pages of the paper examine the toxicity of methylmercury and its past use as a fungicide. We are led to believe that this form of mercury is much different than ethylmercury, the type found in vaccines. This is in spite of the fact that ethylmercury was used for the same purpose. In fact, Ethylmercurric Chloride, the material used as a fungicide (which was banned long ago) is what is used to make thimerosal. This can be easily confirmed by looking in a Merck Index. We now know that this type of mercury deposits twice as much inorganic mercury in the brains of primates as compared to equal doses of methylmercury (4). Inorganic mercury, following the de-methylation of organic mercury, has been identified as the primary neurotoxic agent in primate studies (5).
    The author mentions the book, “Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic” by David Kirby. It contains 436 scientific references. The author did not disclose if he read the book. This may have helped his argument since this book was read by many parents of autistic children. (4) Burbacher T, Shen D, Liberato N, Grant K, Cernichiari E, Clarkson T. 2005. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environmental Health Perspectives. 113:1015-1021. LES INCOMPETANTS: OPEN LETTER TO THE AAP By K. Paul Stoller, M.D.

    [EOHarm] Ethyl vs. Methyl

    THE NATIONAL VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPONSORED WORKSHOP ON THIMEROSAL VACCINES DAY ONE – VOLUME I AUGUST 11th, 1999

    Dr. George Lucier
    National Institutes of Health

    …A second study, which was not discussed this morning, is that adult male and female rats were administered five daily doses of equimolar concentrations of ethyl or methylmercury by gavage and tissue distribution, neurotoxicity, and nephrotoxicity assessed. This was a Magos study in 1985 in the Archives of Toxicology. And the key points of that paper were: neurotoxicity of methyl and ethylmercury were similar, although higher levels of inorganic mercury were seen in the brains of ethylmercury-treated rats consistent with what we’d said about metabolism; and likewise, because of that, the renal damage was greater in the ethylmercury treated rats.

    …I think it is important to note from the Magos study, in which he directly compared ethyl and methylmercury, that he found essentially the same results in both studies, with the exception that the renal toxicity was greater with ethyl, and I think that was because of the demethylation as a way of concentrating the mercuric chloride or inorganic mercury in the kidney.

  90. LoriC

    As far as the eating tuna V. Vaccines thing…

    IF a person, any person has a DEFECT in their pathways of detox (i.e. sulfation, methylation, and COMT..this is biochemistry, and biochemistry does NOT change)..then ANY amount of ANY heavy metal will be a potential problem.

    There is a much large number of people in the general who have these types of mutations and it is a simple blood test to find out.

    It is these types of mutations that they are find in large number in kids w/ autism ÅND their parents..if a simple blood test were DONE at birth this would indicate NO VACCINES should be given.

  91. Lori, as usual, you have everything wrong.

    First of all, the amounts are important here. Not to poison the well, but including a reference to anything David Kirby writes is an automatic disqualifier when it comes to vaccines, since he’s well-known to say things that are not precisely factual- do a web search on “Orac kriby” to get lots of examples”.

    Second, injecting five daily doses of mercury in a rat id a little bit different than giving a kid a vaccine.

    Third, if what you were saying held any water at all, then autism rates would have dropped when thimerosal was taken out of vaccines. It didn’t. So you’re wrong.

    Also, no one who understand how medicine works says vaccinations prevent 100% of diseases. What we who understand do say is that the risk from vaccination is very very small, and much lower than the risk of getting measles, mumps, rubella, or any other disease easily prevented by a vaccine. You can quote as many misleading studies as you’d like, or misquote good ones, but your points have been long-debunked.

    Vaccines don’t cause autism. They simply don’t.

  92. Maurine Meleck

    Speaking of cigarettes–remember the old tv ad that used to say
    “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette”
    Well, I say “More people on this blog who have no vaccine injured children believe everything the government and media tell them as readily as the WMD’s.
    Maurine Meleck

  93. Maurine, I have a better one: remember when smallpox killed hundreds of millions of people but then went away when doctors started vaccinating people for it?

  94. LoriC

    @ phil since you do not like the links or sources that i’m providing then i’m going to suggest that you look up something; Simpsonwood Meeting

  95. Chris

    Ah, the Simsonwood Meeting! I believe Skeptico covered that:
    Robert F. Kennedy Junior’s completely dishonest thimerosal article

    Could you come up with something not so five years ago? Thimerosal was removed from vaccines a decade ago, why are still going on about that? Even at the levels there were, there is no real evidence they caused autism.

  96. Chris

    Oh, look, I see LoriC said “Ahem..you might want to check YOUR facts…” and followed with a whale.to link!

    LoriC, I suggest you look up Scopie’s Law:

    In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately …and gets you laughed out of the room.

  97. Chris

    Interesting how this particular post stopped getting posts on Tuesday, and then Friday a bunch of posts repeating the old repeated misconceptions started to appear.

    LoriC:

    No measles in the vaccinated..hmmm??

    This is like shooting fish in a barrel! Here are the facts….and I LOVE facts!


    and Mumps outbreak amongst the vaccinated..

    and chicken pox
    ….

    Absolutely no one who knows what they are talking about claims that vaccines are 100% effective (sorry, Mark Hansen!). So yes, there is a chance that a vaccinated person will get the disease. This is especially true with both pertussis and mumps. The reason that more vaccinated will get the disease is because there are more of them. The reality is that the unvaxed are more likely to get the disease. See: PEDIATRICS Vol. 123 No. 6 June 2009, pp. 1446-1451 (doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2150)
    Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children…

    RESULTS. We identified 156 laboratory-confirmed pertussis cases and 595 matched controls. There were 18 (12%) pertussis vaccine refusers among the cases and 3 (0.5%) pertussis vaccine refusers among the controls. Children of parents who refused pertussis immunizations were at an increased risk for pertussis compared with children of parents who accepted vaccinations. In a secondary case-control analysis of children continuously enrolled in Kaiser Permanente of Colorado from 2 to 20 months of age, vaccine refusal was associated with a similarly increased risk of pertussis. In the entire Kaiser Permanente of Colorado pediatric population, 11% of all pertussis cases were attributed to parental vaccine refusal.

    Now you will say that more vaxed had pertussis than unvaxed, but here is some herd immunity math:

    Take 1000 people (ignoring the infants under 2 months who cannot be vaccinated, or babies under a year who can only be partially vaccinated), if 5% refuse vaccines then the numbers are:

    950 vaccinated persons (assuming full schedule)
    50 unvaccinated persons

    The pertussis vaccine is actually only 80% effective at worse, so the numbers are:

    760 protected persons
    190 vaccinated but vulnerable persons
    50 unvaccinated persons

    There is an outbreak and it gets spread to 20% of the population, then:

    760 protected persons without pertussis

    38 vaccinated persons get pertussis
    152 vaccinated person who may still get pertussis

    10 unvaccinated persons get pertussis
    40 unvaccinated persons who may still get pertussis.

    This is how more vaccinated persons get the disease than unvaccinated. Even if the infection rate was at 100%, there would still be more of the vaccinated getting the diseases because there are more of them!

  98. Maurine Meleck

    Some people on this blog have NO knowledge of thimerosal-if and when it was removed.
    1. Recommended removal(not law) in 1999. Done very slowly. Vials with full doses in childhood vaccines shelf life went well into 2004. Thimerosal put into flu vaccines(full dose of 25 micrograms) also in 2004. Recommended for children 6 months and up. Then the H1N1-2 recommended besides seasonal flu shot-25 micrograms of thimerosal 2 more times. Copious amounts still remain in 2 DPT’s for childdren and in some vaccines for teens. Other childhood vaccines produced with thimerosal and then removal of most in the end product but trace amounts remain at actually higher amounts than the EPA allows in our drinking water. MMR contains no thimerosal but 3 live vaccines given in one shot. Please get your facts straight .

  99. Chris

    It was gone by 2002, including from storage. If it was around, why did Burbacher have to add thimerosal to the vaccines he used in his primate study? Why was there are call on the Autism-Mercury Yahoo group by Safeminds (who sponsored his study) if anyone knew of any supplies of thimerosal containing vaccines? See it here:

    * Subject: Thimerosal DTaP Needed
    * From: Sally Bernard
    * Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:01:50 -0400
    * Yahoo! Message Number: 27456
    * Onibasu Link: http://onibasu.com/archives/am/27456.html

    A group of university-based researchers needs several vials of the older
    DTaP vaccine formulations which contained thimerosal for a legitimate
    research study. If anyone knows an MD who might have some of these
    vaccines or knows where to get them, please email me privately.

    Thank you.

    Sallie Bernard
    Executive Director
    Safe Minds

    The DPT is not administered in developed countries like the USA, UK and Japan (which is where the DTaP was developed). Which is why Ms. Bernard could not find any in 2001. The H1N1 vaccine is available without thimerosal, as is the seasonal vaccine.

    The trace amounts are not higher than EPA standards. Also the EPA standards are based on a daily intake of methylmercury. First, children are not given vaccines 365 days a year, and second thimerosal does not contain methylmercury (which as different from ethylmercury as ethanol is from methanol).

    Teenagers are way past the age that autism is diagnosed. Unless they get an annual influenza vaccine, they do not get a vaccine every year.

    The MMR has been used in the USA since 1971, and yes it is a “live” vaccine. What evidence do you have that it carries a greater risk than measles, mumps and rubella (which are returning thanks to the “research” done by Wakefield)?

    Now, if you have some actual scientific evidence that thimerosal can cause actual harm please present it. I would expect it to be from actual studies. Something like this one that Sallie Bernard was a consultant on:
    Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years
    Authors: Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team
    Source: N Engl J Med, Sep 27, 2007; 357(13):1281-1292

  100. Chris

    Okay, I have a comment in moderation.

    The part that is most important is this question: If thimerosal was still commonly in vaccines, why did Sallie Bernard post a message on the Autism/Mercury Yahoo Group in 2001 saying:

    A group of university-based researchers needs several vials of the older DTaP vaccine formulations which contained thimerosal for a legitimate research study. If anyone knows an MD who might have some of these vaccines or knows where to get them, please email me privately.

    Put her question in Google and you will find it.

    So who has no knowledge?

  101. Michael Glavic

    A curious silence it “was,” but it’s not 24 hours yet, I understand, since Lori’s last post (All these new messages since the network lost me?!. The games? whatever, that I have to keep re-writing this) In the applied behavior analytic literature that (what is going on here, perhaps? in its own way?) is often associated with “extinction,” (making problem behavior go away?) but I suppose “poppycock” is fitting that bill as well, or anything not responsive to individual communication, of and for our individual feelings, of needs, of the primary facts, of justness, of serving as much? of Understanding More, of as much.. .

    I feel everything not so much of me of as much as being relatively abusive, (as of trying to shut me up, or make me go away, which I’m feeling inclined to be doing) as I believe I represent myself best, otherwise? Communication is what you get out of it (us, of our being individuals first? for the objectivity of as much?) and you perhaps should be asking yourselves (Phil, if not everyone) a few questions in that respect. What are you getting from trying to extinguish meaningful communication, communication to more reasonably address our feelings, (primary symptoms?) and not jumping to conclusions? of science is a work in progress (no?) where it is anything so meaningful at all?

    I’ve advised anyone who would listen to me to say “no” to what they feel is unfairly demanded of them and identify abuse where they feel abused (of serving justice, Thereof, as best we can) and I more than hope you’d be OK with that, with respect to your objectivity I mean.. . (Test?)

    People? Who here feels *I’m* the abusive one saying as much? that we are being abusive to ourselves by not identifying as much (of our primary responsibility to our selves, if not each other?) as where we feel as much for as much, and understand that that is the more scientific way in addressing as much? (as I do?)

    Take your time with It, where you don’t feel like saying anything right now or whatever, but feel *free* to “say” *NO* to me (of Communication?) and identify *me* as the abuser (the primary abuser? against True communication? for what communication does if not for more?) where you *feel* I am, of answering to your feelings and prospects, Thereof (But please don’t change the subject unless you are willing to admit *you* don’t understand as much? of what there is to Understand/ing?

    That what you don’t understand could be abusive (or wrong) of your not understanding It. Not. I Feel as Understand, of the “Primary” research of the primary process. (Of the primary fact/s of the primary thing/s, if you should so will It, as Feel It?) What I call It, in Defining what I do, for what I get out of as much.. . (Be so sure? .. .

    Of Understanding More for your self, Thereof

    Cutting Lori (and all others?) some slack (towards Communication?) would keep me around, where you would be interested in as much? where you would want to know as much for your self

    On The Primary Matter? (as far as I’m concerned, and where I go, Thereof

    I would consider you (this board) abusive, enough, to say so, otherwise.

    A nasty thing “name-calling” can be, I suppose, more for some than others, I reckon. There should be no need for that, where it isn’t justified, of our Feelings, of Understanding, is my sense of It

    Where you wanted to know ahead of time how and where things go, really go?

    Yeah, I suspect there are two somewhat distinct classes developing in that respect/disrespect.

    I more than hope you’d be in the, more “meaningful” class in this respect (of fill/ing in the blanks? .. . “Justice” (for Individuals) would be fine enough for me

    If you’re more about teaching the English language (your language?) forget about it, where you don’t understand as much? .. . (I’d be looking for as much, in how I deal with it if not in dealing with all abuse.. Sorry for that digression, where I thought it might be necessary

    Also, despite the facts (of our feelings, whatever?) it really is a matter of getting the vaccines *within* us, or not, somewhat? (and if that ain’t our *individual* jurisdiction, and responsibility, what would be? what would be *just?* for the individual?) and getting our *understanding* (agreement?) I’m pretty sure is The thing with that, so, we might want to frame the issue more accurately in this respect of as much, I’d be thinkin’, as feelin’, for one and All, Thereof!

    Best wishes in that respect?

    A post like this of mine *was* censored/cut, previously (as spam, presumably) for *me* to be calling us (this board) abusive already, for those preaching, whatever?

    Censorship is censorship folks, where Objectivity would be concerned

  102. Chris

    Mr. Glavic, what exactly are you trying to say?

  103. Chris

    Also, the full paper of the study that Sallie Bernard was a consultant for is here:
    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281

    Please show equivalent evidence.

    Mr. Glavic, did you post that comment on the Age of Autism blog? Did they approve it?

  104. Lisa A. Pineau, Chaplain, Major, USAF (ret.)

    Jenny McCarthy is just one mother concerned that the American medical approach of one size fits all vaccination schedule is out of sync with what we know today about adverse reactions among many children. The concern is documented in our country; it is not a matter of guesswork. Still, our arguments may miss the goal, which is our beloved children. The many physicians and surgeons who argued against the “germ theory” once and performed surgery without regard to cleanliness are akin to those arguing against the possibility that heavy metals as “preservatives” in vaccines could possibly be harmful. Quietly, most physicians now advise against live virus vaccines. The public should know that changes are happening because some people have spoken up, and mostly non-medical people, and got our attention. Is the United States of America, a proud nation, really now allowing a corporation to state that “some” mercury can be the same as “none?” Are those allowing it like me, who cannot do the math for computing how much metal for the weight of even one child, and calculate the percentage that is so-called negligible for every child of that exact weight? The fact is that our system could be made safer and isn’t because pharmaceutical multinational corporations are fighting against it, vilifying anyone, medical or otherwise, who has concerns. We all need to keep in mind that love is the answer, right along with clear, unbiased research. We have too little of either. Thank you.

  105. Michael Glavic

    What you’re trying to understand, Chris, by as much? That would be as much your job as mine, where I feel I’ve already made my contribution, (being as objective to my feelings as I am? of understanding as much as I do) of coming at least half-way in that process (of Communication?) I’d be thinking, as feeling.. .

    It was a lot to simplify? .. . for understanding *even* more.. .

    Understand more for your self? of doing the math/analysis? of the data of Communication with respect to what we feel as communicate? If I should have to distill that even further, given what you “have” (received?) to understand, I mean, Thereof

    Some might consider it as the “art” of understanding, of an Individual, for Individualism, of Justice and Understanding More, Thereof. It Felt that way, of that data, where that might suffice, Chris

    My space to do and share with as I wish, and to deny accordingly? I’d say has relevance to the vaccine issue

    Maybe you could help me better understand it, myself (if not everything, else?) as well. Here’s more than hoping so. Here’s understanding as much as I do where I figure “you” can make a meaningful difference in that respect.. .

    Go with what you do understand of it? Leave the rest for others, (of as much? of Choice?) of Objectivity, of The choice is y/ours, Thereof, of all there is of the senses and feelings as related to Understanding

    It’s for what you get out It, Chris, as much as I’ve put into it in that respect of what I go with by what I do and nurture in others.

    Take what you get from it leave the rest for others? .. . What I’d like to see “more” from all of Us, (of that sort of objectivity) for justness to be done, Thereof

    Some Individuals might get more out of it than others. I don’t aspire to the lowest common denominator, only, as is usually associated with politics, (perhaps?) you understand, more, Thereof, is my sense of It, of all that is encompassed by as much

    Best wishes, Thereof (of “inner” if not greater objectivity, perhaps?

    Would that be a fine first or what.

    Thanks for having me in that respect

    Does anyone understand anything that I mean (or anything more) by that?

    That was me more than hoping so.

  106. LoriC

    http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55

    United States Disease Mortality Rates.

    Please notice the increases in the disease AFTER the introduction of the vaccine. With numbers already in sharp decline..there is no actual evidence to prove that vaccines were what caused the diseases to decline.

  107. LoriC

    Thank You…to Lisa A. Pineau

  108. joe

    This from 1948 was before the AMA sold their souls to big pharma

    Study from 1948? Dr. Engleys AMA blue ribbon panel findings “We found thimerosal is toxic down to a level that is almost unbelievable.Down to 1.10, maybe 100 nanograms…a millionth of a gram and that is about as toxic as you can get,” he said.”

    Also

    It is clear from this research supported by a grant from the American Medical Association that Thimerosal is neither efficacious nor safe, and should be removed as a preservative in prescription biologics and pharmaceutical products, as well as from topical over-the-counter products such as Butt-Balm that have Thimerosal present in their formulations as an active ingredient.

    The American Medical Association knows the dangers of Thimerosal,
    because they paid for the study in 1948. They will not speak up for fear of Retaliation , and loss of pharma revenue.

    Just before he died Dr. Engleys last quote and most important”if they had followed through on our 82 report the vaccines would have been freed of thimerosal and all this autism they tell me would not have occurred”

    That warning came from 1948! (and again in 82)
    What Dr. Engley was referring to, is that these world class incompetents were warned. Not once, but twice!once in 1948
    a second time in 1982.

    In fact at a congressional hearing on Thimerosal and autism Congressman Dan Burton asked Dr. Egan from the center for biologics (CBER ) “you had an interim plan in 80′s to remove this( Thimerosal,) why didn’t you. His reply was very cocky! he said I was not around back then, you will have to ask someone who was. Then the Congressman posed another question to Dr.Egan from CBER Why is it Dr.Egan the only studies done on thimerosal were done in 1929, on 22 people dieing of meningitis. They all died and we don’t know if this stuff is dangerous or not, then he said to Dr.Egan on your watch we lost a generation of children. DR.Egan then changed from super Doc. with the cocky answers, to a catatonic state. Also his eyes were as big as saucers, he looked like a deer caught in head lights. It took two women from health and human services, one on each side to escort him out of that building.

    By the way, he could not speak anymore. When confronted by WFAA ABC channel 8 Valerie Williams in the hall, she said why is it Dr. Egan that there has not been any research done since 1929?(FDA) He never answered, he was in a catatonic state and could not. But one of the women from health and human services did. She looked at her with disgust, and said if you want to know anything else you will have to contact our press office. FYI I looked on the FDA website and It was proudly announced they followed the people for one day! it was then grandfathered in when the FDA was formed.

    I really thought this is it! the halocost of American children will stop now!When this Dr. did the walk of shame, other Congressmen saw it. It should have been in all the media and the newspapers, Congress should have ripped the CDC apart the next day.

    extra! extra! the children of the US., have been poisoned by the very agency’s that are charged with protecting them. You see that was the old media, the new media does not bite the hand that feeds them.

    Oh! the Congressman’s, they don’t bite the hand that feeds them either.

  109. ND

    LoriC,

    Those graphs you linked to show death rates and not infection rates. I’m not familiar with what sort of treatments are available to the deseases that were graphed and how they may or may not help with infection rates but I think you want to look at infection rates.

    Looking at this page:
    http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_effective

    specially the first graph from the second pair of graphs, one can see the difference between cases and deaths for pertusis. The two do not appear to be in sync.

    Here’s a choice quote from the article:


    Even a first-year medical student knows that you cannot track a disease with its death rate. This is because modern medicine learns how to treat the symptoms of a disease before it learns how to treat the disease itself. As a result, the death rate from a disease regularly decreases once the disease has been characterized, even though the number of people catching the disease is constant or increasing. You can see that from the left-hand figure above. From 1940 to 1953, the average pertussis rate in the UK stayed rather steady, while the death rate dropped quickly. This is simply because doctors were treating the symptoms of the disease well, allowing those who contracted it to live longer.

    To properly track the prevalence of a disease, then, you must look at the disease rate, not the death rate. This is important for two reasons. First, the disease rate tells you the prevalence of the disease itself, and it is not affected by the ability of doctors to treat the symptoms of the disease. Second, by monitoring only the death rate, you are ignoring the devastating long-term health consequences (deafness, blindness, paralysis, etc.) that accompanies many cases of childhood disease. Many of those who actually survive diseases such as pertussis are faced with a life-long disability that resulted from contracting the disease. These children are not accounted for in a study of the death rate. Thus, the disease rate is the important indicator when tracking the prevalence of a disease, and as the data clearly show, when the vaccination rate increases, the disease rate decreases, and when the vaccination rate decreases, the disease rate increases!”

    I’m calling red-herring on the graphs you linked to. Death is not the only undesirable side-effect of infectious diseases!

    I’m also not a doctor and practically no biology background

  110. joe

    The Guy you said; You’re right, but with most things it is dosage which determines toxicity. As I’m sure you’re aware it is a common tactic used by anit-vaxxers to say that X Y and Z in vaccines are toxic. They of course do not realize that the dosages of these chemicals are so low that there are no ill effects from the use of these preservatives.

    Boy have you been mislead, 200 ppb of Mercury is considered EPA liquid hazardous waste. The children in the 90′s playing catch up received 9 vaccines 7 of which contained the Mercury, that is a staggering 32,500 ppb on one day at one setting. (Per Congressman
    Dan Burton grandson) like someone on this thread said, Aluminum
    can cause catastrophic damage. When it’s mixed with Thimerosal (Mercury) In-fact you believe in the manufacturers of Thimerosal
    or you would not be defending putting it in children.
    FYI it is on the MSDS of Thimerosal under reactivity data to stay
    away from Aluminum for they react violently together (kinda hard
    to do because Aluminum is in children’s vaccines as a catalyst) also
    when the two mix, the result is oxidation with the production of heat. kind of interesting, the children according to a NIH paid tox specialist they have found our children are suffering from oxidative stress. in a 1991 memo, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the “fathers” of Merck’s vaccination programs, warned management that 6-month-old children who, when administered the shots on schedule, would suffer mercury exposures 87 times the government (EPA) safety standards. He recommended that Thimerosal be discontinued and complained that the US Food and Drug Administration, which has a notoriously close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, could not be counted on to take appropriate action, as did the European regulating counterpart. Merck ignored Hilleman’s warning, and for eight years government officials added seven more shots for children containing Thimerosal.

    He also said this was not daily doses as such this was BOLUS DOSES all at once when viewed in this manner it appears rather LARGE.

  111. Chris

    Lots of words, but absolutely no evidence. Where was the reaction to Sallie Bernard searching for a thimerosal containing vaccine in 2001? What about the paper of a study she was a consultant on?

    A link to a congressman’s website is not considered real evidence. Mr. Glavic’s seemingly drunken word salad is not evidence. A link to a website as stupid as whale.to is not evidence.

    Major Pineau, I am also a mother. Of a child who was disabled by an actual disease which is now preventable by disease. Since I am an Army brat whose parent was a Lt. Colonel… your rank means nothing to me. Neither does the fact you are a chaplain.

    The only thing that I want to see is evidence. This is something that none of you have offered. All I have seen is the stuff pushed by clueless anti-vaccine websites. That includes any idiocy involving aluminum (folks, it is the most abundant metal element on the planet’s crust, it is in the dirt… something you would know if you even bothered with looking at a previous comment I made). Not to mention the use of whale.to (really, you guys had no idea that Scopie’s Law existes…Newsflash!… I realized John Scudamore was a nutter when I first encountered him a decade ago on Usenet!).

    All I am seeing is the same garbage I have seen pushed over the past decade starting on Usenet, on a listserv and on some blogs. You guys seemed to have missed the discussions we have had earlier debunking this idiocy. Get a new schtick, and get with the times. You are all about a decade behind on the times (like when we first told you that congressional testimonials were not real scientific evidence!).

    You have only answered with cut and paste gibberish.

    Also, I have seen is that none of you have credible reading comprehension. When I explained that the EPA standard was for consumption daily of a different compound, “joe” pipes in again on those standards. Have you ever tried Adult Basic Education for English, joe?

    Also, learn to post on more recent blog posts. You all found this particular posting when it scrolled to Page 3, now it is at least Page 4. Do you all live in a time warp? Who brings up something that was debunked five years ago? Who brings up stuff as relevant now that was dealt with a decade ago? Get with the times, it is 2010… a decade since thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines and four decades since the MMR was approved for use in the USA.

    Now, for the last time, show me the real scientific evidence. Tell me the journal, title, date and authors of the study that proves your allegations. Other wise, just go back to live under your late 1990s bridge.

    Real evidence is a paper that has been published, peer reviewed, with an abstract on PubMed and available at a local medical school library. Due to the fact that they are not “peer reviewed” papers from Medical Hypotheses is not considered acceptable (and there is a possibility that it will be removed from PubMed due to its editor’s recent stupidity).

    Wait, were all the posts from LoriC, Michael Glavic, joe, Lisa A. Pineau and Maurine Meleck the same person trying to show what idiots the anti-science folks are? If so, you are a troll who needs to crawl back under your bridge.

  112. Michael Glavic

    I do believe vaccines can be dangerous for some and not to individualize its application, for what condition might exist outside of what has been validated by science to general samples of general principles, would not be considerate and just, to the individual and individual need, and one should be careful on what to agree with on any account, making sure you understand what you agree to and not support allowing people to force you to do or accept what you don’t of your responsibility to yourself to do so, of representing yourself if you will (that anyone else could do so so well?) and of your constitutional right if not responsibility to do so, which includes serving justice where you feel you have to, specifically as with respect to “identifying” abuse (that which is not so reasonable for you?) to expose it and deal with it in that respect of (science?) what communication does is what communication is (as far as I alone am concerned, perhaps) with respect to justness and what is more objective, Thereof.

    I *don’t* agree with what Chris says (and so he has no authority over me, of as much, of reason, over authority) and I find his (or her, as the case may be) *knowledge* (otherwise of individual feelings? of those facts) rather worthless, if not harmful, to me, sorry Chris? if that hurt your feelings, me speaking for and representing myself. (But of what you might need in that respect, I would implore you to consider) Hurting your feelings wasn’t my intention (in any respect) but you do seem upset if not disturbed by something, (seeming, to me, to want to hurt mine if not others, feelings) that you don’t seem to really want to honestly talk about, or, perhaps, of as much, that I don’t really *know,* for whatever reason…

    People are as understanding as they make up their minds to be, that happiness would mean anything at all, otherwise? If we all set understanding as our goal, in our mind/s (what William James might recommend in that respect where he could have taken things that far?) to feel, for ourselves, I’m sure that would be, all the *punishment* we would need, if there would be any punishment to that at all, but where everything is more directly resolved by as much, I Feel as understand, where being so meaningful would be the thing…

    It was my pleasure to talk to all of us, but that I could have communicated with just *one* person in that respect would have been enough for me, with respect to what I’m about, and so, thank-you all for giving me that opportunity.

    In that respect I believe you know who you are, with respect to me.. Best wishes, Thereof, that I would need anything more from us

    Not corrected for lesser mistakes

  113. Chris asked the question;

    “Wait, were all the posts from LoriC, Michael Glavic, joe, Lisa A. Pineau and Maurine Meleck the same person trying to show what idiots the anti-science folks are? If so, you are a troll who needs to crawl back under your bridge.”

    Sadly, the answer is No. There are many thousands just like them. They can reel off facts and figures and cite reams of documentation that to their mind proves the link between vaccines and autism. But they never answer these simple questions.

    If the growing prevalence of autism in the USA was caused by the increase in thiomersal exposure from 75 micrograms to 187.5 micrograms during the 1990s why was prevalence rising even faster in the UK, where exposure to thiomersal never exceeded 75 micrograms?

    If it was the MMR vaccine introduced in the UK in 1988 that did the damage why did it have no impact on autism prevalence after its introduction in the USA in 1971?

    If it is a question of “Too many, too soon” how do you explain the figures for autism prevalence in the UK where we have fewer vaccines – 10 shots total for 10 diseases in the first 2 years of life compared 24 shots for 13 diseases in the USA – but more autism?

  114. ND

    I think I need to rephrase the following from my last post:

    “I’m not familiar with what sort of treatments are available to the deseases that were graphed and how they may or may not help with infection rates but I think you want to look at infection rates.”

    Should read:

    “I’m not familiar with what sort of treatments are available for the infections that were in the death rate charts, but if there are treatments which can help reduce death rates for those infected, then you’re not looking at the whole picture. Vaccines are supposed to help you not get infected in the first place and thus prevent you from passing it on to others. Infection rates are what you need to look at.”

    Those charts reduce the rather complex and chaotic events such as infections, deaths, treatments and injuries from diseases into just death rate and vaccine introduction. By only showing death rate and year of introduction for the vaccine is dishonest.

  115. Blossom

    Everyone knows vaccines cause Autism etc….
    Wakefield is being attacked lately as he is in the process of publishing evidence of injury due to the vaccine schedule from day one when hep B is injected. The first study about to come out shows that hep B disrupts the ability to consume nutrition.
    There is a reason why all these crazy articles are coming out that don’t make sense.
    Wakefield and McCarthy are showing the science.

  116. Michael Glavic

    I’m concerned with the “exceptions,” of justness and health, by as much, where you Mike, and others here, seem to be preoccupied with reframeing the issue (relative to me) towards generalities, (where I feel science can do better than that, of encompassing more, of also encompassing exceptionalities, of individuals and individual conditions and situations nonetheless? of resolving that problem) and I believe the exceptions are “increasing” of our marginalizing them, as not so well answering to them, and of their not necessarily increasing in the right direction, (for all of us and everything by as much?) where time will tell in that respect, where we would want to continue to find out where not serving exceptionalities (me of as much?) with respect to autism and science will be taking us.

    You make a good point otherwise Mike Stanton, (and others in that respect, of consensus science, perhaps) where one would be concerned primarily about that.

    Fair enough? of the “two” issues at hand, perhaps?

    I wish us all the best in that respect, of better identifying the issues, for the issue that concerns us (as individuals first, of the objectivity inherent in as much? of choice if not intelligence, Thereof) towards better addressing them, (each other? more primarily) hopefully by as much, (of Communication? Hello) where *justness* would be *my* (how we could more fairly be relating to each other) thing, in saying and doing what I do by as much, as I do.

    I fault my child’s autism for the health system and justice system’s not identifying him (or us, his parents, somewhat) well enough (if not outright misrepresenting things in that respect to our detriment?) for the treatment he required and still requires, and by extension, that encompasses everything we are talking about and trying to do here, giving us the benefit of the doubt in that respect of our embracing communication (where we do? for each other, of our individual issues, Thereof) which I feel is nothing less than doing what we’re doing in this respect (of reinforcement and support, of nurturing a greater understanding) of as much.

    Some autism has been medically attributed to vaccines, and yes, autism is going *up* despite significant actions made to accomodate our concerns with respect to vaccines and what’s in them, thank-you.

    (It’s how I felt I had to put it together folks.)

    Thanks for helping me clarify the issues, (where I have?) where you have, of communication, of communication is what it does in that respect of understanding more for our selves. (Of the primary condition?) I believe we’ve made progress in this respect of as much

    Not corrected for lesser mistakes.

  117. J Optimus

    Phil,
    Congratulations on getting something right!!! That Jenny McCarthy sure is an imbecile for thinking vaccines without mercury can cause the mercury induced brain damage that has been mislabelled “autism”.

    My son is better because I removed the mercury and he eats any kind of food he wants. Food can’t cause the same brain damage as mercury. What’s wrong with these people who listen to McCarthy?

  118. LoriC

    @Chris
    you wrote:
    “Real evidence is a paper that has been published, peer reviewed, with an abstract on PubMed and available at a local medical school library. Due to the fact that they are not “peer reviewed” papers from Medical Hypotheses is not considered acceptable (and there is a possibility that it will be removed from PubMed due to its editor’s recent stupidity).”

    I have not seen one shred of real evidence on your part either…where are the double-blind, placebo controlled studies proving that ALL vaccines are safe???

    or this question:
    Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined
    or analyzed in any vaccine study?

    or this one:
    Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

    The fact is…these studies have NOT been done and for a government agency to say that ALL vaccines are safe for ALL people without doing the research is irresponsible, and negligent to say the least.

    I would think ANY parent, of a child w/ autism or not, would want to have these studies done….

    You can’t prove something that you have no actual proof for.

    As I have mentioned before and I’ll do it AGAIN…

    We are all born with the ability to detoxify our bodies, UNLESS there is a mutation or a defect… whether it be pollutants from our environment(air, water) or what we eat, or our exposed to otherwise.

    These pathways are known as sulfation and methylation.

    Children w/ autism have been proven to have defects in one or even both of these pathways, this is identified by a simple blood test. IF this is present at birth, and you inject this child w/ a KNOWN toxins for which no actual safety studies have been done..then you give them something for which they cannot detox. The effects are then accumulative, and begin to add up over time. Some children have been known to have a reaction to the first shot.

    There are blood tests done in hospital on newborns to identify disorders such as phenylketonuria…wouldn’t it make sense to do a blood test to make sure all is working right to detox what’s in the shot???

    If they, the gov. the CDC, etc.. BELIEVE that injecting these small amounts into an infant over and over is SAFE…and if we can assume that they have taken into consideration that our bodies can detox…have they also taken into to consideration the population who is NOT able to properly detox?

    The biochemistry of the body does not change…

  119. Chris

    Lots of words, and no evidence. If you say something is “proven”, then show the actual evidence. Sorry, folks I am going to stop playing until you guys learn to think for yourselves and stop cut and pasting from websites. Especially the lie that children were routinely given thimerosal containing vaccines after 2002, even though Sallie Bernard could not find any for Burbacher’s terrible primate study!

    But here are some toys for you to play with, it is something called scientific evidence:

    Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
    Hornig M et al.
    PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
    *Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)

    Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
    Baird G et al.
    Arch Dis Child 2008; 93(10):832-7.
    Subjects: 98 vaccinated children aged 10-12 years in the UK with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); two control groups of similar age: 52 children with special educational needs but no ASD and 90 children in the typically developing group

    MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
    Uchiyama T et al.
    J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7
    *Subjects: 904 children with autism spectrum disorder
    (Note: MMR was used in Japan only between 1989 and 1993.)

    No Evidence of Persisting Measles Virus in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
    D’Souza Y et al.
    Pediatrics 2006; 118(4):1664-75
    *Subjects: 54 children with autism spectrum disorder and 34 developmentally normal children

    Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
    Tozzi AE, Bisiacchi P, Tarantino V, De Mei B, D’Elia L, Chiarotti F, Salmaso S.
    Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82

    Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants after Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
    Pichichero ME, Gentile A, Giglio N, et al
    Pediatrics, February 2008; 121(2) e208-214

    Mercury, Vaccines, And Autism: One Controversy, Three Histories
    Baker JP
    American Journal of Public Health, February 2008;98(2): 244-253

    Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California’s Developmental Services System: Mercury in Retrograde
    Schechter R, Grether JK
    Arch Gen Psychiatry, January 2008; 65(1):19-24

    Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years
    Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team
    N Engl J Med, Sep 27, 2007; 357(13):1281-1292

    Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links with Immunizations
    Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D
    Pediatrics, July 2006, Vol. 118(1):e139-e150

    Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies
    Goodman MJ, Nordin J
    Pediatrics, February 2006, Vol. 117(2):387-390

    MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan
    Authors: Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Inaba Y
    Source: J Autism Dev Disord, February 2007; 37(2):210-217

    No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
    Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
    J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.

    Thimerosal in Vaccines: Balancing the Risk of Adverse Effects with the Risk of Vaccine-Preventable Disease
    Bigham M, Copes R
    Drug Safety, 2005, Vol. 28(2):89-101

    Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal
    Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Grant KS, Cernichiari E, Clarkson T
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, April 21, 2005

    Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
    Heron J, Golding J, ALSPAC Study Team
    Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):577-583

    Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association
    Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B
    Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):584-591

    Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original Data
    Parker SK, Schwartz B, Todd J, Pickering LK
    Pediatrics, September 2004, Vol. 114(3):793-804

    The Evidence for the Safety of Thimerosal in Newborn and Infant Vaccines
    Clements CJ
    Vaccine, May 7, 2004, Vol. 22(15-16):1854-1861

    Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases
    Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al
    Pediatrics, November 2003, Vol. 112(5):1039-1048

    The Toxicology of Mercury–Current Exposures and Clinical Manifestations
    Clarkson TW, Magos L, Myers GJ
    New England Journal of Medicine, October 30, 2003, Vol. 349(18):1731-7

    Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism
    Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M
    Journal of the American Medical Association, October 1, 2003, Vol. 290(13):1763-6

    Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data
    Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, et al
    Pediatrics, Sept. 2003, Vol. 112(3 Pt 1):604-606

    Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines. Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association
    Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, Simpson D
    American Journal of Preventive Medicine, August 2003, Vol. 25(2):101-6

    Impact of the Thimerosal Controversy on Hepatitis B Vaccine Coverage of Infants Born to Women of Unknown Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Status in Michigan
    Biroscak BJ, Fiore AE, Fasano N, Fineis P, Collins MP, Stoltman G
    Pediatrics, June 2003, Vol. 111(6):e645-9

    Vaccine Safety Policy Analysis in Three European Countries: The Case of Thimerosal
    Freed GL, Andreae MC, Cowan AE, et al
    Health Policy, December 2002, Vol. 62(3):291-307

    Mercury Concentrations and Metabolism in Infants Receiving Vaccines Containing Thimerosal: A Descriptive Study
    Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, Treanor J
    The Lancet, November 30, 2002, Vol. 360:1737-1741

    An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines
    Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD
    Pediatrics, May 2001, Vol. 107(5):1147-1154

    Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001
    Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML, Yusuf HR, Shefer A, Chu SY, Rodewald L, Harpaz R.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.

    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
    Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

    Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis.
    Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV.
    Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):653-61.

    Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
    Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:302-309.

    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
    Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

  120. Wow Chris!

    So many studies exonerating vaccines. So many researchers from all over the world in the pay of Big Pharma. I had no idea the conspiracy stretched so far. Does the President know about this?

  121. Blo

    Everyone knows vaccines cause Autism etc….
    Wakefield is being attacked lately as he is in the process of publishing evidence of injury due to the vaccine schedule from day one when hep B is injected. The first study about to come out shows that hep B disrupts the ability to consume nutrition.
    There is a reason why all these crazy articles are coming out that don’t make sense.
    Wakefield and McCarthy are showing the science.

  122. Marsha

    Finally, someone gets it right to the misleading information that Jenny did a 180. It’s about time. Even though that person has a lot of other facts of the truth to the matter wrong, he got that right & the first to do so, that I’ve seen.

    I was sad to see JB Handley treated with such disrespect that he may have withdrew from further comment because of it? Kudos to him & the few others here standing in opposition to such abuse.

    In watching this thread & seeing the abusers very much out number the few trying to be heard, I was wondering if censorship was going on? Then I saw Phil say it doesn’t happen as another said otherwise???

    I wonder if JB was stifled & didn’t just withdraw due to the unfairness, after all?

    Let’s see if I get censored or if I’m allowed to have my say. We’ll see if this blog is being fair to both sides of this issue or not in order to allow others watching this thread to make up their own minds in coming to an educated conclusion to whats’ what & what’s not, to this whole matter?

    As for all those studies just posted by Chris. I could paste many links to facts that show studies coming from the foxes who guard the hen house has come to surface for what they are & it is common practice to fake them.

    Do an internet search, people, on, “faked studies and paid doctors to put their names on them”. It’s all there, in the many pages of articles & documents for proper research, all recorded in the archives of history for posterity.

    Science has made giant strides in the medical field but man’s obsessive compulsion to mess with Mother Nature has caused more harm than good in the case of vaccinations.

    How can we really be expected to believe studies when we, now, know all about the past track record of fraud that’s become so widespread, it’s even been recently reported in the news?

    Like with, Dr. Scott Reuben, a researcher, just admitted in court to faking dozens of studies for Pfizer, Merck;

    http://tinyurl.com/ycbnhra

    “It’s become common practice for drug companies to support fraudulent studies & they openly supported Dr. Reuben’s research & in fact, paid him to keep on fabricating them.”

    Then this just in recently, too, “GlaxoSmithKline deliberately hid evidence of Avandia harm, says Senate report”

    (This investigative report also reveals that GSK engaged in the intimidation of physicians…)

    http://tinyurl.com/ybxdyrw

    Vaccinations were meant for good in the beginning but went real bad due to greed & too many looking the other way.

    “They can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but they can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

    We The People have the tar & feathers, now we just need to get in that court room!

  123. LoriC

    Thanks Chris..you made my point for me! These studies only study ONE vaccine not ALL of them and do NOT answer the questions I posted!

    FACT is, they have NOT studied the effect of ALL the vaccines when administered..and many kids are given more than one at a doctors visit…

    The synergistic effects of the toxins that are in the vaccines are not studied and they have not shown the pharmacokinetics of the vaccines.

    You still didn’t answer my questions and I didn’t “just copy and paste” what I wrote..except for the questions I asked the words are mine.

    AND you never addressed my issues w/ the pathways of detox in the body either.

  124. Marsha

    It’s evident Lori is very educated on this whole matter in more ways than one & I’d like to thank her for being a loud voice of reason.

    Jenny has quite an army of those voices of reason behind her & they grow louder every day.

    In Lori’s pointing out the “synergy” of the issue it all becomes even more scary. Thimerosal was never removed as she has shown in black & white.

    Even if they cut it to whatever small trace they want to admit to or not, it’s not the only toxin we have to worry about, anyway.

    See this experiment where mercury ate away at the aluminum.

    No matter how small a trace, the brain is sensitive matter. My god, the ramifications of that is mind boggling when you see this;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Ilxsu-JlY

    This experiment gives one the idea of the point being made in the synergy of the matter, all right.

  125. katbird_27

    Tell me would you want your kids injected with formaldehyde? How about an antibiotic (gentamycin) in you vaccine? ask for the package insert of the vaccine and READ the ingredients! be informed, and then decide!
    Katbird_27, CPhT

  126. Cowards

    Does Discover Magazine have a better idea on what causes autism or is this just another hit piece trying to shut up parents of vaccine injured kids?

  127. On Wakefield’s innocence.

    If you are planning to ‘generalize’ the information you are gathering from a patient, that is medical research and you need ethics committee approval before you start, even if all you are doing is what is clinically indicated. Why? because the doctor now has conflicting interests between the patient and the generalizable knowledge — such as getting a peer reviewed paper published. So at the very latest, when kids started showing up for a pre-planned week of hell as an in-patient at the Royal Free hospital, ethics committee approval was needed. Wakefield, I’m sure lied, but many others (including me) got fooled by Wakefield’s defining medical research to exclude clinically indicated practice.

    The purpose of the research (as submitted to the ethics committee) We [Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch] will test the hypothesis that in genetically susceptible children, measles vaccinatio is associated with persistent enteric (and possibly CNS) infection, enteritis and malabsorption of vitamin B12. In the rapidly myellinating brain, which is particularly susceptible to vitamin B12 deficiency, the latter predisposes to encephalopathy…

    Add to that, the requirement that as a doctor Wakefield had to be honest, responsible and not misleading.

    So when Wakefield’s defenders complain that his paper in the Lancet was, if you squinted hard enough, factually correct, most of them are deliberating missing the point. The standard Wakefield was held to, isn’t that of a used car salesman. It is the standard of a doctor. And as such, he had to state in the Lancet that the data came from a reearch project. He had to say that even though the children were consecutively referred to the hospital, they were handpicked and were clients or contact of a lawyer suing MMR makers. Of course, if he did this, then peer reviewers would ask for the research protocol and find problems and find Nick Chadwick and find out that measles virus RNA had been looked for and all samples were either negative or positives that gene sequencing proved were false positives.

  128. @Marsha

    Sodium explodes in water – another example of the synergy of matter. Luckily, when I add sodium to my pan of rice it is in the form of a salt, sodium chloride, and is perfectly safe. If the mercury and aluminium salts in a vial of vaccine were going to react like the video you linked to they would do so long before they are injected. But as thiomersal has been removed from all the mandated vaccines in the schedule for babies and toddlers it does not matter anyway.

  129. Chris

    Marsha:

    Thimerosal was never removed as she has shown in black & white.

    Then why couldn’t Sallie Bernard find any DTaP vaccines with thimerosal in 2001?

    Are you saying she lied when she asked for help locating some for Burbacher’s study?

  130. ND

    Marsha,

    Thimeresol is not the same as the raw mercury you’ll find in your thermometer.

    As for Wakefield, it’s worth noting that 10 of his 12 coauthors retracted the interpretation that the MMR vaccine caused autism as there was not enough evidence for it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield#Retraction_of_an_interpretation

    You can also download and read the conclusions from the General Medical Counsel hearings here:

    http://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/hearings_and_decisions/data/5614.asp

  131. The Taint of Wakefield Strikes Again
    Wakefield no longer on Autism Insights Editorial Board

    Autism Insights is an open source peer reviewed journal that has a lot of vaccines cause woo people on the editorial board. Including Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Guess what? He is not there anymore. His cronies at Thoughtful House are still there. Here’s a link to the current editorial board. http://la-press.com/journal.php?pa=editorial_board&journal_id=155;

    Ever since I read the medical misconduct allegations released in 2007 against Wakefield, I have been surprised at how foolish many of the vaccine causes everything group have been. If only a tenth of the detailed allegations were true, then Wakefield would get hammered. The smart move would be distinguish between Wakefield the man and Wakefield the over eager researcher, making cut a few corners, but producing good results. So far, they haven’t moved very far in that direction.

    For those who think vaccines are NOT the cause of autism or ASD, it is a sad day when even the wackiest of peer reviewed journals decides to cut its losses.

  132. Kelly

    I don’t need to wonder if vaccines injured my son. We went to our pediatrician for his one year shots, MMR-Varicella, and a Hep A, and as soon as the nurse injected him, his eyes rolled back in his head and he went into a seizure. My pediatrician said it was because he cried too hard. I will never vaccinate again, and live with the guilt for the rest of my life. My son was diagnosed autistic by two and a half.

  133. Chris

    Sure, Kelly… you have an anecdote. That is not data.

    So why wait over a year to have your son diagnosed? Why did you not go to multiple neurologists after one year vaccines where the trauma happened?

    My son had his seizures at birth, and there was no shortage of EEGs, CAT-scans (no MRIs then) and neurologists. And again when he had another seizure during what is now a vaccine preventable disease when he was a bit over a year old. The kid has been seen by neurologists from his birth constantly until he was seven years old.

    And you waited until he was over two years old? What is wrong with you and your doctor?

    By the way, I am still waiting for someone to tell me why Sallie Bernard could not find DTaP with thimerosal in 2001, if it was common to have thimerosal in vaccines!

  134. @LoriC

    Since you are so keen on placebo-controlled, randomized studies, can you provide just one such study that supports your claims that vaccines (just one, multiple, all, thimerosal-containing or not, looking at other ingredients or not…any combination of these) cause autism?

    @Marsha

    You are worried that censorship is occurring here? Well, it isn’t. JB Handley has a tendency to drop by a place, post a single comment and disappear. If you want to see censorship, visit Age of Autism. Then pay a visit to Silenced by Age of Autism. You can also visit a number of other blogs by people whose comments are not welcome at AoA, such as Countering Age of Autism and Age of Ignorance.

  135. @Chris

    While it is rather surprising the sudden influx of anti-vaxers, I’m sure that, at the very least, Michael Glavic is not the same as any of the other posters. His particular literary style is, shall we say, unique. IANAP, but it sounds similar to the way someone with schizophrenia might write. That, or English is not his first language. At any rate, he’s very difficult to understand.

    As to the rest, they have, unfortunately, been taken in by the misguiding and sometimes lying leaders of the antivax movement: JB Handley, David Kirby, Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, etc., as well as nutters like Mike Adams and John Scuddamore.

  136. ND

    LoriC,

    Any thoughts on the problems with the death rate vs vaccine introduction charts I pointed out?

  137. Vaccines are unsafe and uneffective… recent outbreak of mumps outbreak in New York, 75% of the people were fully vaccinated. That’s a pretty poor rate of efficacy. I wonder what % of those vaccinated were diagnosed with ADD, ADHD or autism? Science doesn’t trump Mother Nature, wholefood nutrition and common sense… it’s not the pathogen, it’s the terrain.

  138. Michael Glavic

    Todd, of message #139. A bit of all *three?* or perhaps, better, a bit of All of the Above? .. . Thanks for the compliment (and diagnosis, of sorts?) in that respect, of *your* sense/s, of It, of things

    I do believe we are making progress with *communication.* (as progress?) It better than anything else addresses our “individuality,” of needs? (vs politics, otherwise, IFAU). I’m happy with that.. Onwards? I’m more primarily concerned with individualizing things, (answering to the Individual?) like science, religion, etc., of Understanding More, Thereof (for my self, Thereof, where you should be interested in the basis of my second, other, language/s? .. . (It might seem fracturing? where it isn’t?

    It seems we are now (here) moving towards Individualism, (our selves?) rather than politics (of the other issue? of science?) in that respect of as much. Poppycock, you might say to that, that anyone understands how to be perfectly reasonable, but here’s for trying? .. . (That I would need an authority, otherwise.. .

    I also have to commend Lori for being a part of that, where she is.. . Hang in there Lori, or things here would be less-sided, indead. I do believe we are going for the same thing, primarily? We’ll better know that when we get there? (of Justness? of Science?) of following our understanding for more, of that, I’d be Feeling, of Understanding More, of as much (of Communication being the primary thread of everything, somewhat, I Feel as Understand (Science of Understanding? where any other science would be so meaningful? also encompasses the science of the Individual, oh yeah, I Feel as Understand (I write to my Feeling/s.. . for whatever that’s worth?!.

    I find there is a dimension to that. (of Communication?) Where science would be more, objective? of Communication? to better analysis? (of presenting The data? Thereof?) of our Feeling/s? (of the Primary condition?) I believe you would see it too! Thereof? (Feeling/s analyst? Thereof? (of our sharing so much, Thereof, of Communication.

    Break out the white light of Understanding, to see the colors, Thereof? (of all our feeling/s and sense/s, that there would be anything else?

    Best wishes in that respect.

    On understanding *everything,* somewhat? of what it is, communicating, when you grasp what communication and everything is, for? of the facts (primary, facts, if you will, Feel, for as much?) Thereof

    The *universe* is communicating? .. . (You’ll understand what that means by how successful I am? (or you could be?) How about, Understanding? You can, when you make up your find to be, for that, I Feel as Understand

    What a problem, that the *primary* facts (of Science?) are within us? Not, really, what’s outisde of us is merely a manifestation of as much? .. . I Feel as Understand! On my, “primary” language, where you wanted to know for your self? .. .

    Thanks for having me in that respect. I really do Feel we are making progress.. Now, to individualizing the vaccination schedule, Etc., of Justness, for Justness, Thereof, that we as a group would be worth anything so meaningful? .. .

    Here’s more than hoping so.

    That Individuals, all individuals (including you) should matter.. . (to me, Etc., Thereof

    Where we’d need all of our sense for as much, and we are All that different for All that is needed, Thereof, of Understanding More, of that thing, if you will, Feel.. . as for It? of All there Is, Thereof

    It might be worth supporting Individuals, do you think? of Justness? I Feel we need *help* for as much, where you’d be interested in as much.. .

    Where the “other” issue (where you are so divided?) would be what something else wants for itself (of an alternate goal?) but wouldn’t so necessarily be right for you? of your purpose?

    I like to Feel I have a Bead on that

    Where you wanted to Know for your self. It could be here, where that would be up to you, too, if not Especially? .. .

    BWT.

  139. @Adams

    Please take a look at Chris’ statement at #99. The outbreak began with…(drum roll)…an unvaccinated individual!

    Also, I’d ask you, are you arguing that vaccines should be 100% effective to use them? That if they are any less than 100% effective, that they should be abandoned?

    That’s a pretty poor rate of efficacy.

    You’re calculating the efficacy wrong, btw. You don’t look at the total number of individuals who were infected and see how many were vaccinated vs. how many weren’t. You look at how many individuals were exposed in total and compare of all individuals vaccinated, how many contracted the disease, and of all individuals who were not vaccinated, how many contracted the disease. Again, see Chris’ comment at #99.

  140. Michael Glavic

    Regarding message #142, I meant less-sided “indeed,” not “indead,” (sheesh?) whatever symbolic connotation I didn’t mean by saying that, that you might have gotten from it otherwise?

    Corrected for a lesser mistake? .. . I do that where I Feel it’s necessary, as perhaps where I don’t have more to say

    Count on that being a temporary thing?!. I’m not about watching what I say so much, where It’s what I *feel* that matter most, in shaping all that I mean, Thereof (of Understanding More?

    Yeah, you could say I’m for *Individualizing* things for all there more meaningfully is, Thereof.. Perhaps I felt you needed, that. I don’t hear much from you otherwise?!.

  141. Chris

    Mr. Glavic, your word salad has no meaning. You keep going on about “communication”, but you only seem to write gibberish.

    If you wish to discuss vaccines, I would suggest that you bring out some actual evidence. And that goes for the rest of you. Because I have seen absolutely no evidence, but just random arguments from assertion.

    Now, again, I ask: If thimerosal was so prevalent in vaccines, why did Sallie Bernard have to ask for thimerosal containing DTaP in 2001? You read that right, that was about nine years ago.

    Adam, when the report comes out about the mumps outbreak, there will be a higher probability that the unvaccinated were more times more liable to come down with mumps than the vaccinated. As noted in several studies (including the one I quoted in #99), the unvaccinated are several times more likely to become infected than the vaccinated. The only reason it looks like more vaccinated are getting sick is because (and this is a hard concept for some of you): there are more of them!

    Come on, all you whiny anti-vaxers… bring out your data! Bring out your data! Show us what you have! It must be real actual scientific evidence in a journal that can be found in a medical school library. Not random websites (like the Bloom-whatever-alternative), press releases, and definitely not whale.to!

    Until then, remember: The science has been done, the link between vaccines and autism does not exist. It is a dead link… “It’s not pinin’! ‘It’s passed on! This link is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now ‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-LINK!! ” (hat-tip to Monty Python and the dead parrot sketch)

  142. Michael Glavic

    Toyota has to recall 8 or so million vehicles because of an acceleration glitch, and a handful of serious accidents, and we don’t have to do anything more about damaging vaccine events? (real ones, that have been fully documented) I realize that vaccinating people is that important, vs. getting around with alternatives, but? We could be better identifying people at risk? Hello? of Individualizing things is the essence of Justness? and this is the language that tells it like it is? (Unless you can find another one doing as much?) I Feel as Understand.. .

    I suspect that process could *save* us all? (Doing more individual research? given the benefits of herd immunity allowing us to do as much? not to mention the decency, as justness? of making such accomodation) where some might feel it would be better to go with “budgies in the mine shaft?” for that, as far as that would go for fairness, if not all of us, Thereof?

    Finessing my last message, with my, limited capacity if not waivering beliefs

    Regarding message #142, I meant less-sided “indeed,” not “indead,” (sheesh?) whatever symbolic connotation I didn’t mean by saying that, that you might have gotten from it otherwise?

    Corrected for a lesser mistake? .. . I do that where I Feel it’s necessary, as perhaps where I don’t have more to say

    Count on that being a temporary thing?!. I’m not about watching what I say so much, where It’s what I *feel* that *matters* most, in shaping all that I mean, Thereof (of Understanding More?

    Yeah, you could say I’m for *Individualizing* things for all there more meaningfully is, Thereof.. Perhaps I felt you needed, that. I don’t hear much from you otherwise?!.

    I feel there is a dynamic (politics? vs. real science?) where people don’t want to “individualize” things (of justness) because their conflict of interests rests with their not being so different and wanting to keep things that way, (of imitation to association of immersion, or extinction, otherwise?) for *themselves,* (of such selfishness?) otherwise of Justness, of individualizing things (as of and for a/the greater understanding? But what else? .. .

    I’m on to what is going on, Thereof, of being “what” I am?

    Understanding, would be my sense of It, and what I would recommend a science be *for,* for as much? (of as much?) of that process if not the primary process, of, fill in the blanks? .. .

    I do feel my “senses” are developing by as much (of trying to communicate, of Communication being about as much?) I wish as much for Us

    I suspect we’d need “me” (of as much?) for that. (Expanding our universe, if you will? Feel? for as much? .. . Here’s more than hoping so

    Not corrected for lesser mistakes

  143. Michael Glavic

    It’s “abusive” not to individualize the vaccine schedule, or anything else? (of Communication?) on account of at least “one” damaging, to an individual, vaccine event (where I say so, of feeling so, and my body and my children’s bodies are my responsibility and jurisdiction, the US Constitution aside? but I believe it is with me.;) I rest my case, *somewhat?* though I’m really never done? .. .

    It’s time to “act.” (Accordingly?) Identify those at risk of vaccine injury (and those who abuse, otherwise?) *before* vaccinating, (given herd immunity room?) weighing the pros and cons in every individual case for Justness, Thereof. That would be my recommendation.

    Sorry, I missed your post Chris, while I was submitting my last one.

    I do like salad. I haven’t found many I don’t like? Really! Maybe someone else can understand me, of, pick what you get out of it and leave the rest for others? of The choice is y/ours, Thereof? Intelligence, (Thereof) Chris, vs. abuse, otherwise? would be my sense of It, would be what this of me is about! I Feel as Understand, of Justness if you will, Feel, or not.. .

    I prefer to handle It this way, (Justness, of Understanding More) as I suspect you do, too.. . We’d be on the “same” page in that/this respect, (of getting where you’re going?) I Feel as Understand

    Not corrected for lesser mistakes.

  144. Michael Glavic

    Chris, message #148, where It isn’t here already, It should be here, shortly? .. .

    The help *you/we* need? In Reason we Trust?

    Where “Reason” trumps authority? (Where you make It so?) I suppose I’ll have to deal with your leader, instead (where I understand that it isn’t science, of as much, so much? .. .

    I’d like to hear from *others,* of what I represent, Thereof

    If not, *you win,* here, if that makes you happy, but it did seem like a limited audience to me, so far

    I didn’t mean to be insulting.

    BWT.

    Not corrected for lesser mistakes.

  145. Michael Glavic

    It may have been about how the saying goes, “canaries” in a mine shaft? (Chris?) where that would be what you would have preferred, for me to have said or been about, of *knowledge,* Thereof? I Feel “budgies” should also have been good enough.. . We may all need help with all the “structure” we expect of each other as far as communication and understanding more (for our selves?) goes? Where some of us are able to work with “so” little, perhaps

    I’m an analyst (of sorts.;) That’d be my job. I expect as much of you? (of our not only presenting to the lowest common denominator? of politics?

    You’re good for “some” knowledge I’ll grant you, one and All !

    That would be your cue, somewhat, some, one? .. .

    Mike

    Corrected for a lesser mistake, that some seem to need as much, that that would prove we understood very much, at All? .. . I’m not really laughing. I actually find it rather “sad,” but I don’t need help with that, thank-you? My life has never been better, where you really wanted to know, of understanding as much as I do? of getting myself this far? I Feel as Understand.. . What I wish for Us

  146. Chris

    Seriously, as a member of a family affected by mental illness… please get help. If you have children, do it for them. Please. Do it for those who love you.

    If those who think autism is scary and terrible, schizophrenia also happens in one out of hundred people. Our family has experienced both developmental disabilities and schizophrenia. Trust me, the schizophrenia is much worse.

    I would say there is treatment (there is), but I have a full rant on the treatment of mentally ill who do not have health insurance in the USA.

  147. Michael Glavic

    In fact, *you* might be a terrorist, as far as abusers go? What should we do about you then? of that? (Oh, yeah, I see the intimidation in what you’re doing, and who *you* think you are.. .;).

    I’d say *you’re* the one with the bigger problem, but if you’d like, I’ll talk it through with you (as I am?) since you don’t seem to have taken it (your abusiveness) to violent action, (yet?) but maybe we could deal with all that (get to the truth about that?) with further dialogue, so that doesn’t happen (Violence even like trying to censor people, and such, however violence goes? .. .

    [And] Chris, your ability to diagnose things leaves *much* to be desired, (so what are you doing here?) especially where you seem to get more offended about it, about individual communication? [That *structure* means so much to you?] that any other kind would be so, meaningful? Chris? Chris, I don’t think you can handle the truth, but here’s for trying

    Was it Hitler that said that where a little bit of abuse (of lies?) doesn’t work, try a bit if not a lot more, where the larger abuse (of lies?) works where the lesser abuse won’t? That really does seem to be the tact your talking, and I will call that out, of your abusiveness, particularly for the dishonest and hateful aspect of it, because that’s the way I feel about It! (of serving Justness.. . (ah, that we should be so free and not censoring.. .

    What else you’re wrong about (of your lot? not censoring?) I can only imagine, but if we talk through this enough, I’m sure we can bring that out, as of, who really has something to hide?

    I do as much for you.

    I’ve already identified you as an abuser (as why I don’t need to communicate with you anymore, where I don’t feel like it. (Of, I can take care of myself without you, better perhaps, Thereof?) And I wouldn’t blame others in that respect, either (but there’s more to be done about you of this place, I’d be “promoting”.. .

    Are you paying taxes (not getting more back than you pay) and a supportive member of, yourself? and your family? if not the community, of taxes, or maybe you really are just a child, (a juvenile, perhaps) of sorts? of the lowest common denominator of “politics?” ’cause, that’s what you’re coming across to me as, where you wanted to know, for your self?

    Get an honest job and/or support representation by taxation, would be my pill for you, if not for everyone here.. . Perhaps the rest of us have already met that standard

    Michael Glavic

    On Output/Value (where I’m not getting much from you? Chris? .. . (Hardly.. Abuse would be more like it, that doesn’t deserve its, allowance, subsidy, welfare? whatever, where I’m thinkin’, as feelin’, *necessity* is the mother of invention, and I wish as much for you (

    That you would need to smarten up

    BWT.

  148. ND

    dingdingding! Godwin’s law has been reached. this discussion is now over.

    Wow, in all the BA posts I’ve seen, I think this is the first time I’ve seen this. Not much to say. The anti-vaxxers ran out of steam anyway.

  149. Michael Glavic

    That’s censoring.

  150. Mark Hansen

    Michael Glavic, your posts are unreadable. Ease up on the braces, questions within questions within questions, and actually type something on topic. Phil doesn’t need to censor you; your rambling, incoherent style does that all by itself.

  151. Michael Glavic

    Mark Hansen, of message #156

    Why don’t you let others decide that (and speak?) for themselves? I’d be calling that the primary research, where you’d be about as much? of such objectivity? (or is this a language class? of such conditioning and bigotry? Like I need you telling me how to speak

    Sheesh?

    It appears I have no friends (or admirers, or supporters, or whatever) here, so I suppose you win on the consensus thing?

    I thought this discussion was over? I’m glad it’s not? (Or is it?) I’d like others to speak about it if they wish, but please not about me, and we’ll see who’s out of steam? That anyone would still want to contribute here, of the bullied feeling I get?

    Your not understanding me says more about you than me as far as I’m concerned.

    Censoring is worse than lying about it, things, is my sense of It. Thanks for keeping the communication going, where you do? though it makes it difficult for *me* to even want to be part of this blog/site, where I can have less lying and less censorship elsewhere (Really

    Yeah, you’d think I’d want to know what people are saying behind my back, that that should slow me down? Has it slowed me down ’til now? That I should know about everything

  152. Mark Hansen

    Michael:

    Why don’t you let others decide that (and speak?) for themselves? I’d be calling that the primary research, where you’d be about as much? of such objectivity? (or is this a language class? of such conditioning and bigotry? Like I need you telling me how to speak

    I presume by your primary research statement that you mean I should attempt to tease some sort of meaning out of your statements. Most people, if they wish to be understood, try to make their meaning plain by speaking, or in this case typing, plainly. It isn’t “bigotry” to ask for a clear statement. It appears that you can make clear statements when you wish to, as evidenced by post #155 and “Your not understanding me says more about you than me as far as I’m concerned.“.

    It appears I have no friends (or admirers, or supporters, or whatever) here, so I suppose you win on the consensus thing?

    I’m not trying to win a popularity contest. I’m trying to find out what it is you want to say about vaccines, if indeed you are saying anything about them.

  153. Michael Glavic

    Well, that’s being concilliatory, Mark, of message #158. I suppose you’re saying you only get credit for your justness and creativity (understanding?) when you are understood for as much (by a majority?) and people agree of as much, of how you put it, of language somewhat being the thing of as much, of what people are primarily about of their measure, of at least we must get (a) language right as a precondition for as much, to be understood and accepted and recognized for so much, of that thing, where language is so significant of the criteria for that, of a consensus in that respect if you will?

    But I’m promoting “objectivity” (the ability to analyze as much? if not more, if you Feel) towards language and communication, for justice and creativity, of understanding more any way that can be done, (understanding more any way that can be done?) for what would be available for the more advanced mind that can analyze and appreciate as much in that respect, of passing such a thing down to those with a lesser (or different, perhaps) understanding, if you will, that I could do all of that and still be on the edge where I am, where I feel I am?

    I’ll continue to communicate and take condemnation for the good I sense of that, (from the lower and/or different ranks, of analysis?) where you would have me so, thank-you? I’d not be winning a popularity contest by that, (especially?) that that would be a measure of intelligence, of my intelligence.

    I have to do what I feel I have to do, Thereof, Mark, of Understanding More, (of what is my way) for my self, which is my mission, for my self, primarily, sorry where that might seem to conflict with others and theirs, (of politics otherwise, perhaps?) but I wish to assure you it does not, primarily conflict, with your best interests, with respect to “our” primary purpose, I would be sensing of saying and doing as much as I do

    Thanks for your objectivity in that respect of Communication, being The thing, (let us more than hope? of your somewhat seeming to want to keep me on board) to be objective about, I mean, Thereof, of Understanding More for our selves, (Thereof) and the method and approach I recommend for everyone, disability, or otherwise

    From you I merely ask that you not bother trying to correct my language, (Please? of not making that the primary issue? God help us where you do?) and I will continue here as I have done, for whatever I get out of It, and perhaps like-minded folks, too, could connect as well, given such opportunity? Here would be more than just hoping for as much, where we could become more open to as much and all, (Thereof?) where we would be by as much, I Feel as understand.

    Agreed? or not

    Michael Glavic

  154. Michael Glavic

    Why *don’t* we individualize the vaccine schedule? (after all I’ve said and done?)

  155. @Michael Glavic

    In general, your posts are difficult or impossible to understand. However, your post at #160 is clear.

    The current vaccines are tested to ensure that they are safe and effective for the greatest number of individuals possible. That means that there will occasionally be individuals for whom the vaccine is either not effective or not safe. Unfortunately, we have no way of testing who will have a bad reaction beforehand because the knowledge of why they are having the reaction just isn’t available.

    Now, if we did have the knowledge possible, we would need to screen every individual. In some cases, that would mean screening possibly tens of thousands of individuals to prevent 1 adverse reaction, which may or may not be serious or life-threatening. That is a huge expense and burden on the health care system.

    But, let’s suppose that we went ahead with that: screened every individual for every possible AE related to every vaccine (for the number buffs, that’s 14 vaccines in the U.S., multiplied by the number of possible AEs multiplied by the total population receiving vaccines – getting into the billions, here). Let us also assume that we have the technology to actually customize the vaccine for the individual to make it either more effective or safer (we currently lack the tech, but let’s just suppose that we had it). The cost of that customization would run well into the hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. How many people would be willing to shell out that kind of money? If it gets covered by insurance, that burden is distributed to everyone else in the form of higher premiums and co-pays. Again, we have an additional increased burden on the public health system.

    From a cost-benefit approach, individualized vaccination is unfeasible. From a public health approach, it is unfeasible (the extra costs and lab time would likely mean decreases in provision of care for other diseases/conditions). Even if it has an ideal outcome when looking specifically at the health of the individual in regard to the vaccine and disease prevented, one cannot ignore the other health ramifications which would lead to greater potential worsening of individual health overall.

    If we look only at the schedule of the vaccines, and not at the vaccines themselves, that is a bit easier. The schedule is the recommendation for when a person should receive a vaccine, based on the age at which the vaccine is effective balanced against granting immunity as early as possible to prevent infection. If there are specific concerns that a parent has about the schedule, they can talk to their physician about it. But you should consider that the schedule as it stands is reviewed every year, based on science. Alternative schedules have no science to back up their safety or efficacy (e.g., if the vaccine boosters are spaced too far apart, then it is less likely that the individual will acquire immunity).

  156. JGH-4774

    I am a parent, and like all parents, of course I want to prevent my kids from contracting potentially serious infectious disease like diphtheria, pertussis, and measles. In addition, I believe if we stop vaccinating children, infectious disease rates will go up. In fact, I have fully vaccinated my now 7 and 5 year old children (though no Hep-B at birth -ridiculous). And, I’m lucky, both my kids were born after 2002, so I was able to make sure (ask for the package insert and keep a log of lot numbers) that my kids received only thimerosal-free vaccines. So, please don’y call me an “anti-vaxer.” I did vaccinate my kids. However, I am concerned about vaccine safety.

    Over the last eight years, as I have looked closer and closer at vaccines, I have become more and more concerned (mostly by the inclusion of potentially toxic ethyl mercury and aluminum compounds in the vaccines). What I am saying, and what concerned parents and physicians who are supporters of groups like NVIC, SAFE MINDS, Talk About Curing Autism (TACA), Generation Rescue, Defeat Autism Now! (DAN!), and Moms Against Mercury are saying; that is, what we are calling for is the removal of potentially neurotoxic mercury and aluminum compounds from ALL vaccines. Since there is no safety limit established (of any kind, by any agency) for injecting either ethyl mercury or aluminum compounds into the bodies of (a) neonates and young children or (b) adults; their presence in vaccines is a basic violation of the precautionary principal.

  157. Michael Glavic

    Thank-you for your answer and understanding Todd. I believe you have provided the groundwork for a more meaningful discussion of the matter.

  158. Michael Glavic

    Where we don’t know these things that can put us at terrible loss and hardship (with no assurance of compensation, that everything can be compensated for) it should be our individual choice to vaccinate or not, based on what we as individuals know and understand for ourselves, based on what you’ve said in message #161, Todd. That’s the position I take on that. That may be a legal matter, I grant you. The issue here is closed with me otherwise (Thereof).

    Thank-you for your consideration in that respect of communicating, for as much, of Understanding.

  159. @JGH-4774

    what we are calling for is the removal of potentially neurotoxic mercury and aluminum compounds from ALL vaccines.

    Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines. Even the flu vaccine (of which thimerosal-containing versions are out there) is available without thimerosal. As to aluminum compounds, please provide evidence that the aluminum salts found in vaccines are toxic in the amounts found in vaccines. Remember, the dose makes the poison. Another thing to note is that if aluminum salts are removed, then the required amount of antigen per shot will go up. That means a higher antigen load for the individual, as well as an overall reduction in the amount of vaccines available.

    Please take some time to read The Truth About the Evils of Vaccination. Follow the links there, as well. And before you credit groups like Generation Rescue, take a look at how their blog, Age of Autism works. You’ll notice that dissenting voices are few and far between, largely because dissent is silenced.

  160. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines.” That is not true. You are either uninformed or knowingly not telling people the truth.

    Several points about Thimerosal in vaccines:

    1) Thimerosal (ethyl mercury) is still used as a preservative in the vast majority of the flu vaccine available (both the ‘regular’ seasonal flu and the H1N1 flu vaccine) for administration into children and pregnant woman.

    Thus, hundreds of thousands of young children per year are receiving 12.5 mcg of injected ethyl mercury in their pediatric flu vaccines per shot (and unknown numbers of pregnant woman). In addition, several pediatric vaccines include the use of thimerosal in the production of the vaccine, leaving behind “trace” amounts of ethyl mercury (up to 1 mcg of ethyl mercury/shot). This additional source may be a significant amount of mercury for a six month old infant.

    2) By the way, thimerosal is also still added, full dose (25 mcg of ethyl mercury/shot), to the meningococcal vaccine -which is on the schedule for administration starting at 11-12 years old (and for children as young as 2-3 years old in “certain high-risk groups”). Thimerosal is also still added, full dose (25 mcg of ethyl mercury/shot) to the monovalent TT (tetanus) vaccine that is often given to older children.

    –So, no, it is not true that “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines.”

    (The 2010 recommended immunization schedule for children aged 0-6 and 7-18, and the current thimerosal content of vaccines can be found here: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm)

  161. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    You say, “Even the flu vaccine (of which thimerosal-containing versions are out there) is available without thimerosal.” Again, you are either uninformed or knowingly not telling people the truth. In theory, thimerosal-free vaccines are “available.” In practice, their availability is poor.

    If one desires to vaccinate their child for the flu, they are free -and I highly recommend that they do- ask for a thimerosal (mercury) free version. But good luck getting any. Only 10 to 20% of the production of either the ‘regular’ seasonal flu vaccine or the H1N1 flu vaccine were made in thimerosal-free versions.

    In other words, 80 to 90% of the flu vaccine supply contains 12.5 mcg of ethyl mercury in the pediatric-version of the flu vaccine (25 mcg in the adult). Thus, hundreds of thousands of young children per year are receiving 12.5 mcg of injected ethyl mercury in their pediatric flu vaccines per shot (and unknown numbers of pregnant woman). Since, the H1N1 is a two shot series (four weeks apart) and many of the flu vaccines are a two shot series if the child has not received a flu shot before; very young children could have received four thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs), or 50 mcg of ethyl mercury, in a four week period (per the CDC). So, no, your previous statement that “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines” is blatantly not true.

    In addition, some of the few thimerosal-free flu vaccines made like: GlaxoSmithKline’s “Fluarix” and Novatis’s single-dose TIP-LOK pre-filled syringe “Fluvirin” -are contraindicated for children under 3 years and 4 years of age, respectively. So if you want to vaccine your 6 month old or 1 or 2½ year old (as the CDC recommends) you are out of luck here. Also, the nasal flu mist (by Med Immune) is contraindicated for children under two years of age.

    Thus, for babies and toddlers, the practical availability of thimerosal (mercury) free flu vaccines is low.

    This is my larger point: Thimerosal is 50% ethyl mercury. And ethyl mercury, like all mercury compounds, is highly neurotoxic. Vaccines don’t need to be made with thimerosal at all. As a live virus vaccine, the MMR was never made with thimerosal. All vaccine manufacturers have to do is bottle vaccines in single-dose vials (which don’t need a preservative) as opposed to multi-dose vials. And, indeed, this is exactly what the vaccine manufacturers have been doing since 2000 and 2001 (after the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service issued a “joint statement” on July 7, 1999 calling for drug companies to stop using thimerosal as “soon as possible.”)

    Bottom line: There is no established safety limit (by the EPA or any agency) for injected ethyl mercury into (a) neonates or infants, or (b) adults. Yet, unbelievably, there ethyl mercury is TODAY in vaccines meant for infants and pregnant woman.

  162. @JGH-4774

    80 to 90% of the flu vaccine supply contains 12.5 mcg of ethyl mercury

    Got a citation for that percentage?

    So, no, your previous statement that “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines” is blatantly not true.

    Wrong. My statement is true. The fact is that the standard childhood vaccination schedule is thimerosal-free (flu being listed as optional). There are thimerosal-free flu vaccines available. They may be difficult to find, but they are available.

    And ethyl mercury, like all mercury compounds, is highly neurotoxic.

    This, as I mentioned before, depends on the dose. If you believe that any amount of thimerosal is toxic, then please present some scientific evidence that shows thimerosal to be toxic at or below the levels found in vaccines when administered in the same manner as vaccines.

    very young children could have received four thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs), or 50 mcg of ethyl mercury, in a four week period (per the CDC).

    Your number is misleading. While the total amount received would be around 50mcg (assuming they have never had a flu vaccine before and therefore require the two-dose series of both seasonal and H1N1), that does not take into account elimination from the body. Ethylmercury has a half-life in the body of a few days to about a week. It will not be in the body long enough to build up to a total level of 50mcg.

    Vaccines don’t need to be made with thimerosal at all. As a live virus vaccine, the MMR was never made with thimerosal. All vaccine manufacturers have to do is bottle vaccines in single-dose vials (which don’t need a preservative) as opposed to multi-dose vials.

    Agreed. However, you do realize that single-dose vials are more expensive than multi-dose vials, right? And that the storage requirements for single-dose vials are much more important than with multi-dose vials? Smaller health care facilities may have limited resources for both purchasing the vaccines, as well as limited storage capabilities.

    So, while I agree that vaccines can be produced without thimerosal in the final product, there are situations where it may not be feasible. Thus, with a lack of evidence showing clear harm from the preservative compared to the risks associated with not using it, and with an abundance of evidence showing that thimerosal, in the amounts found in the flu vaccine, is safe, I don’t see a reason to raise a hue and cry about it.

    In particular, if you are suggesting that thimerosal causes autism or other neurological disorders, then you definitely need to produce some evidence, instead of vague appeals to emotion.

    Bottom line: There is no established safety limit (by the EPA or any agency) for injected ethyl mercury into (a) neonates or infants, or (b) adults.

    There is also no established safety limit (by the EPA or any agency) for ingesting water, yet at sufficient amounts, it is toxic and can lead to death. There are some safety limits for thimerosal, but they are for industrial occupational exposure, amounting to .05mg/m3.

  163. Oily George

    I can’t believe the hate generated by this woman…Dr. Mom questioned authority and helped heal her child… now let’s burn her at the stake!

    I keed!

    We have a significant population of unvax’d children now so lets get moving and study this.What’s the big deal, let science show the difference in healthyness between the two groups.

    Let the chips fall…

  164. Oily George

    Michael Glavic

    Holy Crap dude!
    That word salad is toasted…. did you know more than 1/3 of schizophrenia patients show gluten tolerance.

    just sayin.

  165. JGH-4774

    Todd, you have made several statements that are untrue and/or misleading. And unlike me, you have provided zero sources for your opinions. I hardly know where to start. Let me start with the following.

    “However, you do realize that single-dose vials are more expensive than multi-dose vials, right?”

    Are they really? By how much? You imply that single-dose vials are prohibitively expensive. Are they really? (I will cite sources. Will you?) Todd, be careful making the assumption that others you are having a dialogue with are uninformed. My undergraduate work was in biochemistry. I have worked in the health care field at the MS level for 25 years. Because of the influence of my father (he was a family practice MD), I have read the Lancet, JAMA and NEJM, etc. since I was 15 years old. I have worked in, or been intimately exposed to, a family practice medical office for over 35 years.

    It costs the vaccine manufacturers a minimal amount to bottle vaccines in single dose vials as opposed to multi-dose vials. In fact, the most specific source I have seen states that, “It costs just 15 cents more to produce a multi-dose vial than a single dose vial of vaccine.” (Source: Bryan Jepson, MD. Changing the Course of Autism. Sentient 2007. Page 123). In addition, have vaccination charges by doctors gone up since 2000; that is, since the vaccines manufacturers started bottling in single-dose vials. No, they have not.

    Next, you state, “And that the storage requirements for single-dose vials are much more important than with multi-dose vials? Smaller health care facilities may have limited resources for both purchasing the vaccines, as well as limited storage capabilities.”

    Highly misleading. Again, you are implying something false. You are implying that there is some kind of practical difficulty for hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices in carrying single-dose vial vaccines. Ridiculous. Yes, of course, single-dose vial vaccines require refrigeration. So what? So do many injected biologics that we carry. No big deal. What is required in our clinical setting to store these biologics and pharmaceuticals is called a… refrigerator. Our is a Kenmore. It stands next to our autoclave.

    Like any large company, vaccine makers (Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Wyeth) like using thimerosal because it saves them money.

    “Using thimerosal and multi-dose vials makes vaccines cheaper to manufacture and distribute.” [Source: John Treanor, MD, a professor of medicine and immunology at the University of Rochester. http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=8206167&pid=26

  166. JGH-4774

    Next: “80 to 90% of the flu vaccine supply contains 12.5 mcg of ethyl mercury.” — “Got a citation for that percentage?”

    First, here you are implying that the percentage of the flu vaccine supply that contains thimerosal is something less than 80 to 90%. Todd, if you don’t know that the vast majority of the flu vaccine supply (both regular seasonal flu and H1N1) contains thimerosal, then you are more uninformed than I thought. Second, I work in a family practice, it is well known by medical care providers with first hand experience that the supply of thimerosal-free influenza vaccines is limited and, at times, they are difficult to obtain at all. If you want a “citation,” here is but one: Read the letter from Michael F. Wagnitz, chemist, as published in a letter in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/121/3/621#36839]. He states that 94% of the flu vaccine production contains thimerosal [I find it hard to believe that the American Academy of Pediatrics would publish this letter in their journal if they believed that number was far from accurate]. In addition, the National Vaccine Information Center describes the availability of thimerosal-free influenza vaccines as a “limited supply” in several places on their website, including here [http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/h1n1-swine-flu.aspx].

    Todd, do you honestly think that Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck or the CDC or the FDA are going to advertise the fact that a high percentage of their flu vaccine production that is being administered into hundreds of thousands of 6 month old infants and one year olds and two year olds (and unknown numbers of pregnant women) contains thimerisol? Especially after the FDA and the AAP and the Public Health Service ordered in 1999 that thimerosal be removed from pediatric vaccines “as soon as possible.” No instead, if you look deeply enough, you will find that even today, the FDA says on their website that the, “influenza vaccine for pediatric use is available in a thimerosal-preservative containing formulation and in formulations that contain either no thimerosal or only a trace of thimerosal, but the latter is in more limited supply.”
    [http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm096228.htm#t1]

    Lastly, Todd, do YOU have any source or citation for the claim that the 2009 US thimerosal-free influenza vaccine production was anything MORE than 10 to 20%? If so, come on, let’s see it.

  167. JGH-4774

    Next (from your post 168):

    “There are some safety limits for thimerosal, but they are for industrial occupational exposure, amounting to .05mg/m3.”

    1) Are you kidding? The “occupational exposure” safety limit that you allude to here (from an incomplete MSDS no less: “The information on this web page is…not a replacement for a full Material Safety Data Sheet.”) refers to maximum advisable exposures in an industrial occupational setting from MERCURY VAPOR (which is extremely toxic). That would, of course, be completely irrelevant to any safety standard established for the intramuscular or subcutaneous injection of ethyl mercury into (a) infants or (b) adults.

    2) “There is also no established safety limit (by the EPA or any agency) for ingesting water, yet at sufficient amounts, it is toxic and can lead to death.

    Of course, water intoxication can lead to hyponatremia and death. But comparing the consumption of massive amounts of water to being injected with a heavy metal and highly toxic compound like ethyl mercury (which is toxic in extremely low doses -exposure to only hundreds of milligrams is known to cause acute mercury poisoning,* including death) is a misleading and specious argument.

    Water is a substance that is quite necessary for life. Mercury, on the other hand, is not an essential element required for life. In fact, the body doesn’t need any amount of mercury for any life process. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

    *[Fagan DG, et al. Organ mercury levels in infants with omphaloceles treated with organic mercurial antiseptic. Arch Dis Child 52:962-964 (1977).

    Suzuki T, et al. Metabolic fate of ethylmercury salts in man and animal. In: Mercury, Mercurials and Mercaptans (Miller MW, Clarkson TW, eds). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1973;209-232.

    Matheson DS, et al. Mercury toxicity induced by long-term injection of gamma globulin. J Pediatr 97:153-155 (1980).]

  168. JGH-4774

    Next (from your post 165):

    “Remember, the dose makes the poison.”

    1) Yes, I am well aware that “the dose makes the poison.” It is, of course, a fundamental principal of medical toxicology. It is also a favorite quote of Thimerosal defenders, such as yourself. Yes, of course, dose makes the poison. And that is just THE point.

    >>>> What amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury (a heavy metal and a known neurotoxin) is safe to inject into human beings? And, critically, for our children, what amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury is safe to inject into including infants, whose neurological and immunological systems are still developing? <<<<

    The fact is NO ONE knows. No one has established any such safety standard; not the FDA, CDC, EPA, NIH, or IOM; not any health agency. And, a safety standard for injecting ethyl mercury into human beings (including infants) has not been established for precisely the reason that the necessary and requisite studies have not been conducted. This is amazing. Why the h*#! would I consent to the injection of 12.5, 25, or 65 mcg of ethyl mercury in a single day into the body of my infant if NO ONE has determined if this –dose– is safe?

    Indeed, despite the fact that US (regulatory) health agencies (FDA, CDC, EPA, HHS, NIH, IOM) allowed approximately 40 million infants under the age of 6 months in the United States to be routinely injected with 62.5 mcg of ethyl mercury on a SINGLE day (at their 2, 4, and 6 month “well visits“) over a decade (from 1990 to 2000); no studies on the pharmacokinetics and toxicology of injected thimerosal (ethyl mercury) had EVER been conducted. The first such studies did not commence until 2002.

    Unbelievable but true.

  169. JGH-4774

    Lastly, Todd, in response to your statement (in post 165), “As to aluminum compounds, please provide evidence that the aluminum salts found in vaccines are toxic in the amounts found in vaccines.”

    Under US criminal law, suspect citizens receive ‘a presumption of innocence.’ That is, they are ‘presumed innocent until proven guilty.’ (I believed this is based upon the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.) In any case…

    Toxic chemicals are not citizens. Toxic chemicals should not be afforded the rights of ‘presumed innocent until proven guilty.’ On the contrary, suspect toxic chemicals should be proven innocent (harmless) BEFORE they are released into our environment (or injected into our childrens’ bodies).

    I don’t know if you studied any of the biological sciences in college, but if one does, they do not get far before they are taught the rather profound importance of the Precautionary Principal. It is a fundamental tenant of Medicine and of the Scientific Method.

    In short, the Precautionary Principal establishes the imperative in medicine and in science that, “caution should be practiced in the context of uncertainty.” The Precautionary Principal can be interpreted as an evolution of the ancient medical principle of the Hippocratic Oath: “first, do no harm” (primum non nocere). The precautionary principle can also be viewed as an expansion of the English common law concept of ‘duty of care.’ In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union (EU), the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.

    All definitions of the Precautionary Principal contain two key elements:

    An expression of a need by decision-makers (scientists) to anticipate harm before it occurs. The establishment of an obligation for action to prevent such harm, including when the absence of scientific certainty makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of harm occurring.

    Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not result in significant harm.

    Routinely injecting 40 million infants under the age of 6 months over ten years (1990-2000) in the United States with 62.5 mcg of ethyl mercury on a single day (at their 2, 4, and 6 month “well visits); in complete absence of any established safety limit for injected ethyl mercury; was a clear and fundamental violation of the Precautionary Principal.

    Bottom line:

    It should NOT be the duty of concerned parents or concerned physicians and pediatricians (like Robert W. Sears MD, FAAP; Jon S. Poling, PhD, MD; Jerry Kartzinel, MD; Lauren Feder, MD; or Jay Gordon, MD, FAAP; etc.) … to PROVE that the injection of 65 mcg of ethyl mercury in a single day (in the past) or 12.5 or 25 mcg in of ethyl mercury a single day (today) into a six month old infant is SAFE .…

    Rather, it is the duty of the vaccine manufacturers, the people who manufacture and market vaccines, to prove that their product is safe. It is their responsibility to prove that the injection of 12.5 or 25 or 65 mcg of ethyl mercury (or hundreds of mcg of aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, or aluminum potassium sulfate) on a single day into INFANTS is safe. The burden, clearly, should be theirs.

  170. Chris

    I accuse JGH-4774 of cherry picking. Seriously, dude, has Jepson actually published in PubMed?

    Wow, he has. Along with Krigsman… in 5th rate journals in the past couple of years.

  171. JGH-4774

    Chris, is that all you have? Really? And, please, tell me which statement that I have made is untrue?

    Most importantly, will YOU answer the question: >>>> What amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury (a heavy metal and a known neurotoxin) is safe to inject into human beings? And, critically, for our children, what amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury is safe to inject into including infants, whose neurological and immunological systems are still developing? <<<<

    I'm waiting…

  172. Chris

    The statements you have made are untrue in the fact that they are cherry picked, and do not include the full accounts.

    Since you have only decided to post on a blog that is now on the 5th page or so, I will not repeat my sources. Just look up thread at the epidemiological I posted earlier. Essentially you are being stupid and anal about amounts of mercury in vaccines (trace amounts, if that, in pediatric vaccines in since 2001… unless you think Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds was lying about not being able to find DTaP of thimersal in 2001 for Burbacher’s study… I mentioned that earlier up thread… do try to keep up).

    If you have real evidence from real researchers, please present it on a current relevant blog post. We are not going to trust lawyer paid research from Wakefield and his friends, so please make sure it is replicated elsewhere.

    If you really feel your evidence is worthy for discussion, post on a current and relevant blog post. Since Barbara Low Fisher Arthur’s lawsuit against Paul Offit and Amy Wallace was dismissed today… I suggest you present your evidence in full on the ScienceBlogs Respectful Insolence blog now.

  173. JGH-4774

    LOL. I will say Chris, in looking back at some earlier posts (like 152); I agree with you. If M Glavic is not pulling our leg, yup, that is schizophrenia.

  174. @JGH-4774

    Prices of vaccines [www (dot) cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/cdc-vac-price-list.htm#flu]: Generally, per 10 doses, single vials are $1 more than multi-dose. That is a small difference when talking small stocks, but it can add up.

    Highly misleading. Again, you are implying something false. You are implying that there is some kind of practical difficulty for hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices in carrying single-dose vial vaccines.

    Hospitals will likely not have a problem with this, and I never implied such. Even clinics and doctors’ offices in well-populated areas will most likely be okay. What I had in mind was rural areas and clinics/offices that need to very carefully count expenses and assets and where the power grid may not be reliable. I apologize that I was not clearer.

    First, here you are implying that the percentage of the flu vaccine supply that contains thimerosal is something less than 80 to 90%.

    I implied no such thing. All I did was ask you for a source to back up your claim.

    Read the letter from Michael F. Wagnitz, chemist, as published in a letter in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics [link redacted]. He states that 94% of the flu vaccine production contains thimerosal

    Mr. Wagnitz’ letter is not valid support for your claim, since it is unclear where he is getting that number. He appears to merely be asserting that 94% of the supply contains thimerosal. Likewise, “limited availability” and “limited supply” do not substantiate your claim. If you can provide objective evidence to support your claim, then, of course, I will readily agree with you.

    I do not dispute that thimerosal-containing vials represent the majority of doses available. I only question the extreme percentage you claim.

    Lastly, Todd, do YOU have any source or citation for the claim that the 2009 US thimerosal-free influenza vaccine production was anything MORE than 10 to 20%?

    No, since I did not make any such claim.

  175. @JGH-4774 (continued)

    The “occupational exposure” safety limit that you allude to here (from an incomplete MSDS no less: “The information on this web page is…not a replacement for a full Material Safety Data Sheet.”) refers to maximum advisable exposures in an industrial occupational setting from MERCURY VAPOR (which is extremely toxic).

    Regarding the link I provided, fair enough. Here’s a complete MSDS. And I did specify that the amount was for industrial exposure, not for other forms of exposure.

    Of course, water intoxication can lead to hyponatremia and death. But comparing the consumption of massive amounts of water to being injected with a heavy metal and highly toxic compound like ethyl mercury (which is toxic in extremely low doses -exposure to only hundreds of milligrams is known to cause acute mercury poisoning,* including death) is a misleading and specious argument.

    You completely missed the point of my example. What I was pointing out, in an extreme manner, was that something which is not toxic at one level can be toxic at another level. But, if you want a substance that is not necessary for survival, is toxic at high doses but therapeutic at low doses and for which there are no EPA exposure limits: botulinum toxin. One of the most neurotoxic substances known to humans, possibly more so than mercury. And yet it is used therapeutically in small doses, not to mention used cosmetically, as proudly defended by such individuals as Jenny McCarthy.

    The Fagan study used levels of thimerosal well in excess of what is found in vaccines using a very different method of administration in infants not representative of the general population. It does not apply to thimerosal in vaccines as recommended for the general population.

    I was unable to find the text of neither the Suzuki nor the Matheson study. Could you provide a link to them?

    I also note that you only used papers that were more than 30 years old. In fact, the studies you cited are almost exclusively on sites that suggest thimerosal causes autism or that autism is nothing more than mercury poisoning. It is interesting to note, then, that despite reductions in thimerosal, autism rates have not declined.

    The fact is NO ONE knows [the safe limit].

    You seem to be implying that because we do not have guidelines on the upper limit of safe exposure that any exposure must therefore be unsafe. Just because we do not know the upper limit of safe exposure does not mean that we do not have any safety data on thimerosal. For example, here is just one study that Chris provided earlier:

    Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years
    Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team
    N Engl J Med, Sep 27, 2007; 357(13):1281-1292

    They concluded that their “study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years.”

    Why the h*#! would I consent to the injection of 12.5, 25, or 65 mcg of ethyl mercury in a single day into the body of my infant if NO ONE has determined if this –dose– is safe?

    Because studies have been done (see the Thompson study above)? Because the risk of injury from the disease is greater than the risk of injury from the vaccine?

    they do not get far before they are taught the rather profound importance of the Precautionary Principal

    In your lecture about the precautionary principle, you are forgetting the risk-benefit analysis looking at potential risks from thimerosal (which had been used without rampant development of neurological issues for decades) vs. the risks from the diseases being prevented by TCVs. There was no evidence that thimerosal caused harm, but there was known harm from the diseases. Exercising primum non nosere, the cautious and ethical approach is to use products with well-established clinical use to prevent known serious harms. Likewise for aluminum salts used as adjuvants.

    it is the duty of the vaccine manufacturers, the people who manufacture and market vaccines, to prove that their product is safe.

    Yeah. It would be nice if they did, y’know, clinical trials or something examining the safety of their products before the FDA could approve them. If only there were some regulation to do with that. Oh wait! There is!

    The burden, clearly, should be theirs.

    The burden of proof lies with the persons making the claim. If someone comes along and says “vaccines cause autism”, then they need to support that claim with evidence. I’m not simply going to take their word for it.

    Back in the late 90s, the antivaxers did bring up a pertinent question regarding thimerosal, which led to studies examining the neurologic safety of the preservative. That was a good thing. We now know a good deal more about the pharmacokinetics of thimerosal and have seen that there actually is no association between TCVs and neurological disorders. I do agree that, where possible, reliance on thimerosal should be minimized, as there are individuals who are allergic to it.

    Where the antivaxers have gone wrong, however, is in perseverating on thimerosal despite the evidence we now have. They have also just jumped to other ingredients due to nothing other than their religiously held belief that vaccines must be bad. They do not base their beliefs on evidence.

    Your argument amounts to “Mercury is toxic! Since the specific upper limit of safe exposure is not known, then no level is safe at all!” You have presented no evidence to support this stance.

    Let me try a different approach. What specific neurological damage do you believe thimerosal causes? What evidence examining thimerosal in the amounts found in pre-2001 vaccines or current flu vaccines supports that belief? The same questions apply to your beliefs regarding aluminum salts in vaccines. Please be specific in your answers and avoid appeals to emotion and ad hominems (as in pretty much the entirety of your post at 179).

  176. ND

    JGH-4774,

    You said: “Todd, you have made several statements that are untrue and/or misleading. And unlike me, you have provided zero sources for your opinions. I hardly know where to start. Let me start with the following.”

    In his first response to you, Todd linked to his web page densely packed with points and sources on the vaccine/autism topic. Maybe you missed it.

    You’re overreacting to the request for citations, simply saying what vaccine/autism websites you like to read is not sufficient. If you’re expecting people to take whatever info you write up at face value, that’s not going to happen.

    You say, “Even the flu vaccine (of which thimerosal-containing versions are out there) is available without thimerosal.” Again, you are either uninformed or knowingly not telling people the truth. In theory, thimerosal-free vaccines are “available.” In practice, their availability is poor.

    His statement is true, and no reason to overreact and accuse him of lying. The availability of the thimerosal-free vaccines may be a related but separate issue.

  177. JGH-4774

    Todd, thank you for your civil response to my posts. I hope we can continue a dialogue where we openly exchange ideas, information, and opinions. And I have no problem with participants vigorously arguing their various points with dispassionate passion. And yes, we should remain respectful and avoid the ad hominem.

    However, I completely stand by my description of [name redacted] in post 179. And, I think my description of him is accurate and entirely self-evident for all to see. (“Orac knows all. Orac sees all. Orac discovers all.” and “Fear the omniscience of Orac!”) I sincerely believe [name redacted] suffers from a DSM-IV borderline personality disorder. Certainly, he presents a distinctly intolerant, insolent (to use a word), and ‘exaggerated sense of self-importance’ personality and pattern of behavior when interacting with others. There is no use in attempting to have a civil exchange of views with him. His core psychological nature disallows it. He truly is the Rush Limbaugh of the vaccine-autism debate.

    Todd, though I disagree with you on some points, you do present thoughtful and rational arguments. Frankly, I suspect we agree more than we disagree on several issues of vaccine safety. But, let’s get to the disagreement. It’s more fun. And, anyway, who learns anything preaching (or listening) to the choir?

  178. @JGH-4774

    At the risk of going rather off-topic:

    (“Orac knows all. Orac sees all. Orac discovers all.” and “Fear the omniscience of Orac!”)

    Apparently you missed the sarcasm in the post you’re quoting from. This is just evidence that a “sarcasm” font is sorely needed on the internet.

  179. ND

    Speaking of doses, don’t forget the cyanide in apple seeds and other fruits. You can chew on and swallow 2 or 3 seeds but the body will get rid of them without any adverse affects. But in a large enough dose… I wonder how much cyanide ends up in apple cider?

  180. JGH-4774

    At the risk of going off-topic, indeed, but I’ll indulge for just a moment too.

    Todd, I think you miss the underlying core psychological features of the man. Yes, in addition to intolerance and self-importance, Dave Gorski also displays a strong propensity for biting sarcasm aimed at anyone who disagrees with his position(s). I don’t know any person -other than his acolytes- who find that endearing or productive.

  181. @ND

    You can chew on and swallow 2 or 3 seeds but the body will get rid of them without any adverse affects.

    You are lying. “without any adverse effects”…what about the apple trees that grow in your belly? Hmm??? Not so smart now, are we?

    (for the sarcasm- and satire-impaired, that’s sarcasm)

  182. Michael Glavic

    God is not so much an authority, (with me?) so whay should I be? of reason, as I am? So much for Orac? The choice is mine, Thereof? I thought we were over me? I didn’t know I was such a threat/challenge.. I’ll take it as a misguided compliment? I’m not aware I have any serious gluten tolerance? .. .

    Don’t worry about Orac? I’ll take care of that, whatever? As best I can

    I enjoyed listening to this if you were wondering where I went, JGH-4774? I still if not more especially feel it is a legal (justice) issue for us to decide and resolve for ourselves, by as much, where that helps, of our understanding more for our selves, if that isn’t also a part of The greater understanding (Sheesh?) where you could The analysis? so far?

    Going for now, but no, not so much of another identity, no (I’m actually a man of many hats, I especially like my porky) though I’m not sure about anyone elses?!. Except for their badges.. .

    Michael Glavic, and Freeform, if that sort of effort should concern you?

    Deal with It?!. The state is relatively abusive to me (NO DOUBT) and I wouldn’t/don’t subject to it as my referee, (HELL NO) where you wanted to know? as much? for as much? (school derived or whatever?) of the Primary process, of Course, and very much On course, I might Add, Indeed.. .

    Knowledge otherwise would be so irrelevent? (irrelevent, to me) Indeed. I’m on to more meaningful things, Thereof, where the right subject is self-moderating?!. (Fellas, Thereof?) I’ve exposed what I’ve wanted to expose here in this respect of as much, Thank-you

    It’s not all been bad, hardly.

    On serving Justice (of Understanding More, but what else) Where you were trying to figure that out, where you felt served, I mean, Thereof.. .

    If I didn’t enjoy your company, and wanted more, of justice, Thereof, I would have just said: I must be the real threat/challenge, and it was a pleasure hearing from you JGH-4774.. .

    But there’s really no need to be bringing me into it and changing the subject, (marginalizing it?) unless we have something to hide or avoid, or unless we are really so interested in me. I’m posted elsewhere, and honey will get you further than vinegar with me, with what I’ve got, that you should be interested in as much, yes, on the edge of everything (I Feel) that humanity would me so much, otherwise.. .

    Best wishes, Thereof

    Not corrected for lesser mistakes. (I’ve already given you the answer, my answer, and JGH-4774 has got the facts that we might be looking for for that sort of balance (with respect to science as it is?) where you should be mostly concerned about that, but don’t mistake anyone here for a shrink, or advanced philosopher/intellect, even? .. .

    If you want/ed to know where else I post that’d be a different question, but I would now have my doubts about us in that respect. That Orac couldn’t find me, or me, Orac? .. . (Orac of sorts? .. . Sheesh. It’s a legal/justice matter, Hello, I Feel as Understand, and understand what I do and have to do, Thereof, and I believe we have all been helped (served) in that respect.

    Not corrected for lesser mistakes in getting as far as I am (Feel I am) of trying to understand more for my self, so where I don’t continue here that should answer your question(s), where I feel it would be “abusive” for me not to be doing what I do, forgetting for a moment all the abuse there is otherwise, as if that shouldn’t matter in who we are and what we do, Thereof

    There’s real abuse going on people and I Feel it is our primary responsibility (for each other) to be dealing with that. I was hoping for a science, Thereof

    Where there isn’t I’d be It, but you already understand that, I Feel as understand, of what I do understand.. . Hello?

    Agreed? or not

    Om Being The Issue, or not

  183. JGH-4774

    Where is the moderator?

  184. @JGH-4774

    As long as comments are not overly rude or inappropriate (e.g., containing swearing), they are allowed to stand. I assume you’re asking due to Mr. Glavic’s posts, which, while largely incomprehensible, are pretty benign. They do not violate Phil’s commenting policy.

  185. JGH-4774

    ND,

    You said, “You’re overreacting to the request for citations, simply saying what vaccine/autism websites you like to read is not sufficient. If you’re expecting people to take whatever info you write up at face value, that’s not going to happen.”

    1) I did nothing but point out that Todd was providing zero sources for his assertions in his posts with me (which is true). I am asking Todd to provide some sources to support his assertions and opinions. I’ll let readers decide for themselves if that is an unreasonable request.

    2) I certainly do NOT expect others “to take whatever info [I] write up at face value.” That is why I did in fact provide multiple sources for my assertions including at least one for every one of my posts. In support of my assertions, I included references to well-known studies published in peer-reviewed journals. And when challenging Todd’s statement on post 165 that quote/unquote, “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines,” I backed-up my response that this is false with information gathered from the mainstream and (very) pro-vaccine Institute of Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (www.vaccinesaftey.edu). Hardly an “anti-vax” website.

    In further posts, I will continue to provide further sources and references for my assertions. And, let readers decide for themselves whose arguments are more compelling.

  186. Chris

    What? What do you think this is? Age of Autism or CureZone?

  187. JGH-4774

    Todd (re. 191),

    No, no, no. I was not referring to Mr. Glavic’s post (yes, I agree they are benign). I was sincerely thanking you for your civil response to my impassioned posts where I challenged you on several of your points. Not all would respond as you did; civilly. (Thank you.) And when I stated, “And yes, we should remain respectful and avoid the ad hominem.” -I was referring to myself (as well as everyone of course). Did that not come across?

  188. @JGH-4774

    “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines” is not a false statement, as I showed before, but go ahead and keep asserting that it’s a lie. Flu vaccine and meningococcal vaccine are available without thimerosal. And the monovalent TT vaccine is not part of the normal schedule of childhood vaccinations. (See here and here)

  189. @JGH-4774 (#194)

    You were a bit vague as to why you were wondering where the moderator was.

  190. JGH-4774

    Chris,

    “What do you think this is? Age of Autism or CureZone?” [I don't even know what the latter is.]

    Is this site only for the choir? Is that all you want to do is listen to your own voices? Are dissenting voices not welcome?

    I will always strive to present thoughtful, well-researched, cogent arguments. Evaluate the argument. Attack the argument if you think it is of poor quality. You should! But why would you discourage dialogue and a vigorous debate?

  191. @JGH-4774

    Chris’ point was that places like Age of Autism regularly censor dissenting opinions, making those sites little more than an echo chamber.

  192. JGH-4774

    Todd (re. 196),

    Oh, now I understand your comment in 191. Well, yes, as you have stated previously Mr. Glavic’s posts are generally benign; but as you have said they are also largely unintelligable. They are, perhaps, distracting from the issue at hand.

  193. Michael Glavic

    Well then, don’t make me the issue and get on with it? as I will get on with trying to make science for Justness the thing (where we would be so meaningful at All?) what law-enforcer you may be or thing you are? .. . Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

    That I can’t handle myself, of making justness my thing! I should be able to catch up with you in that respect, of trying to? is that what you’re concerned about

    Michael Glavic, oh, nameless of knowledgeable ones, otherwise, that you would be, not so much of me.. .

    My take on you now isn’t so favourable, but you won’t censor me as I believe you’re, ( ) looking for an outburst from me ( ) as I’ve gotten so many from you, (!) now already, for what that’s proving to be worth, as if I don’t have more meaningful things to be doing now, the small amount of abuse that you are, whatever that respresents or is trying to detract me from? .. .

    I suppose it isn’t the issue as you presented JGH-4774, which tell me “now” what you’re about (You think otherwise? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

    I’m an *Individual* “fellas,” which, if you could do the math, means I’m a man of many hats (an analyst even if not especially?) if not sovereign by as much, as recognize the socialist and followers (disabled?) in you somewhat otherwise.. . so I suspect that would be of “your” disorder, (of the political? not so much about our representing our selves?) though I realize a consensus (of abuse?) doesn’t like to be identified as such a thing, of justice somewhat being served, Thereof!

    My every wish for you, Us, Whatever (You were pretty good actors, but, so much for that now.. . Acting still isn’t worse than censorship, I’ll grant you. Keep up the good work. Be sure I’ll be around in that respect.. .

  194. Michael Glavic

    Something I wrote, in, In the Pipeline, (linked from the Discover Mag blog) questioning the vaccine issue going to court, and someone there characterizing autistics, (or whoever? as a sovereign, autonomous, independent, self-supporting, somewhat more objective, Individual?) as being primarily self-serving (and not about justness, Thereof? that I wouldn’t rather defer to nature in that respect where I had the choice, of not asking “you” to pay for me or “keep” me, or stuff a needle up my ass, or in my arm, of in “my” space, and Constitutional Jurisdiction (where I deem It so) and where those who are paying things (how they do?) have the final say (over everything else?) of representation by taxation, whatever, that a consensus, democracy or politics (of science?) would have any meaning otherwise, those of you who think you’re up to the primary facts and analysis in that respect, (where *I’ve* marginalized irrelevent knowledge in that respect? if not you?) where I’m suggesting you’re somewhat, ignorant? if not phonies in this respect of, my kind of science, (of the more meaningful, internal facts, of the Individual?) where there would be any other science at All?

    To wit:

    I don’t see autistics as any more “self-serving” than anyone else, how well they do serve themselves? Structured, (of interests?) and reliant on structure, yes, but I see that in so much of everyone, some more than others, like, with me, conclusions are, oh, so, “over-rated?”.. .

    I figure that that’s the right spirit, of objectivity, if not science itself? where you examine the record? of history? (and structured folks, well, they’re not so much about that? but I’m not *really* being conclusive about that) It also seems that autistics (some of “us,” of sorts? No, not me, gads!?.) can’t lie or handle lies (incongruities?) very well (limited intellectual capacity, perhaps) as documented as that is, if not in the diagnostic manual, so they get “abused” rather “easily,” so dependent (and limited) of the “structure” of the truth as they are, and that can’t help their cause much (political cause?) I wouldn’t think

    Maybe that’s why so many of them are techies and engineers or “whatever” (but never philosophers, right?) the more higher functioning ones, I mean. Would that also include lovers of Shakespeare and language-files generally? Well, that does tend to be about structure, for whatever that’s worth? [.. .]

    Let’s call autistics as defined (if not limited, if not disordered?) by “structure,” (rather than self-serving) shall we? and question ourselves, Thereof? This is a hit-and-run, (or sorts?) I have so little authority, otherwise.. .

    Demeaning autistics folks is not, intelligent? helpful? understanding? (humane?)(conscionable, with me) especially where there wouldn’t be any around to answer for themselves or defend themselves, I would say, of, my speaking for “us” of “all” of us, of our integrity and structure, by as much, for one and All, Thereof

    Peace be with you, where The choice is y/ours, Thereof, and not so much otherwise.. .

    Michael Glavic

    More like the *real* isse where I have something to say about It, and I will, as I do.. . until you stop me, I suppose, where you can, which very well could be here (!

    Go for It (Do It. Do what you “Feel,” as Understand, for More, Thereof, I’m recommending for you

    Best wishes, Thereof.

  195. JGH-4774

    Michael Glavic,

    Good to see you. Of course your contributions are welcome.

  196. JGH-4774

    Todd, ND,

    Regarding ND’s statement, “His statement is true” [that “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines.”] On my post 166, I challenged Todd’s assertion on post 165 that quote/unquote,

    “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines.”

    That statement, as stated, is simply NOT true. And the official websites of the CDC and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (see below) prove that it is untrue. If Todd would like to add several qualifications and change the statement significantly, then he could make it true. But as it is stated, it is NOT true. I can only respond to the actual statements that Todd makes and the actual words that he uses.

    Gentlemen, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Here are the facts, per the CDC and Johns Hopkins School of Public Health:

    1) Recommended for all children over 6 months of age, the “regular” seasonal flu vaccine (12.5 mcg of ethyl mercury/shot) is given to “children.” -It is a two shot series for first time recipients, including children. This flu shot is not “optional.” It is on the official “recommended immunization schedule” just like all the other typical pediatric vaccines like DTaP and MMR. [See here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/spec-grps/infants/rec-iz-babies.htm or here: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/2010-schedule.htm

    2) Also recommended for all children over 6 months of age, the H1N1 flu vaccine (12.5 mcg of ethyl mercury/shot) is given to “children.” -The H1N1 flu vaccine is always a two shot series (four weeks apart).The H1N1 flu shot is not “optional.” It is on the official “recommended immunization schedule” just like all the other typical pediatric vaccines like DTaP and MMR. [See here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/spec-grps/infants/rec-iz-babies.htm or here: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/2010-schedule.htm Yes, please, actually look.

    3) The meningococcal vaccine (25 mcg of ethyl mercury/shot) -which is on the official “recommended immunization schedule” for children starting at 11-12 years old (and for children as young as 2-3 years old in “certain high-risk groups”)- is obviously given to “children.”
    [See here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/child-schedule.htm#printable or here: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/2010-schedule.htm

    >>>Therefore, the statement that “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines” is obviously and demonstrably FALSE. Look at your own words, Todd, and be honest. You say “Thimerosal has been removed from –all– childhood vaccines.” That is simply not true.

    If you want to change your statement to something truthful, you would have to say that ‘Thimerosal has been removed from childhood vaccines except for the regular seasonal flu vaccine, and the H1N1 flu vaccine, and the meningococcal vaccine.’ Or you could say, ‘Thimerosal has been removed from the majority of the childhood vaccines on the official recommended immunization schedule.’

    But, if you say (as you have several times) that, “Thimerosal has been removed from all childhood vaccines.” That is simply not true. And I sincerely submit to you that words matter. And the truth matters. And you expect no less from me.

  197. JGH-4774

    Really, if we can’t tell the truth, how is a meaningful dialogue possible?

  198. JGH-4774

    I am not anti-vaccine. I have two young kids. I did vaccinate them (though, no Hep-B at birth). And, I don’t even have a kid with an ASD. So, I have no ‘horse in this race’ so to speak. I’m an independent looking at both sides of the argument (leaning obviously toward vaccination, but I see some persuasive arguments made on both sides of the debate). However, I am unapologetically concerned about vaccine safety. As a parent, various issues of vaccine safety are obviously a direct source of concern to me. Personally, I think it is unwise to put any amount of a toxic heavy metal such as ethyl mercury into ANY pediatric vaccines. As I discussed in detail in an earlier post, vaccines don’t need to made with thimerosal at all. As we saw in 2000 and 2001, it was quite easy for the vaccine manufacturers to simply bottle the vaccines in single-dose vials (at 15 cents more cost/bottle or $1.00 more cost/package of ten, per Todd).

    Inaddition, I’m not happy about the hundreds of mcg of aluminum compounds used in pediatric vaccines as adjuvant (more on that later). Don’t get me wrong though. I am a parent, and like all parents, of course I want to prevent my kids from contracting potentially serious pediatric infectious disease like diphtheria, pertussis, and measles. In addition, I believe if we stop vaccinating children, infectious disease rates will go up. So, I did vaccinate my kids.

    Separately, I am extremely concerned -as everyone should be- about the alarming prevalence of Autism in America today (among other neurological disorders and learning delays). In America: 1 in 100 children overall with autism! 1 in 60 boys with autism! Autism is now more common than childhood cancer, juvenile diabetes and pediatric AIDS combined. Why are people not more upset and vigorously expressing concern about this? And this includes the federal health agencies. They should be doing more, much more, to fund research into the etiology of autism (both genetic and environmental factors) and into developing effective treatments for autism. Funding for autism research (of all kinds) has been pathetic.

    Back to vaccines, these are the two concerns that I have:

    (1) Ethyl Mercury.

    (2) Aluminum compounds (e.g., aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, or aluminum potassium sulfate).

    More, hopefully tonight.

  199. Chris

    One out of a hundred persons will be diagnosed with schizophrenia. That one in sixty for boys is from one paper in one area, it is not the preponderance of data. Also note, that the diagnosis of autism has changed over the past fifteen years.

    Aluminum facts:

    # Virtually all food, water, air, and soil contain some aluminum.
    # The average adult in the U.S. eats about 7-9 mg aluminum per day in their food.

    When you figure out how to remove aluminum, the most abundant element in the earth’s crust, so that the plants you eat are not grown in soil with aluminum compounds… then you can worry about the teeny tiny bits in vaccines.

    By the way, pickles are made using alum, which is aluminum hydroxide. Rubies and sapphires are another aluminum compound. Aluminum is ubiquitous.

    Thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines almost ten years ago (and a reminder, again, influenza vaccines are also available without thimersal, even the recommended H1N1 vaccine!). I posted a link a few days where Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds was asking for help in locating DTaP vaccines that still contained thimerosal. None was located.

    Autism is diagnosed long before a child is ten years old. So why bring up vaccines later in the schedule? What you need to do is actually access what the risks are from the vaccine versus the disease.

    Remember the dose is the poison. If you fear aluminum, then find another planet to live on. You should also be snatching every aluminum can out of the hands of anyone you see drinking juice, soda, beer, etc. (though I fear that may cause you more harm than the aluminum!).

    If you fear the trace amount of thimerosal left over from the production of the tetanus vaccine, you are not accessing risk properly (the toxins produced by a tetanus infection will maim and kill you more painfully and faster than multiple micrograms of thimerosal). As an adult you should get a tetanus booster every ten years, sorry those may have thimersal (but as an adult you should not become autistic!).

    Also, one guy did try to commit suicide by ingesting lots of thimerosal (83 mg/kg). He failed:
    J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1996;34(4):453-60.
    Clinical course of severe poisoning with thiomersal.

    Also, the MMR vaccine is often mentioned. Never in the almost forty years of use in the USA did it ever contain thimerosal or aluminum.

    Again, your questions have been answered here and on other threads several times over. Just go up thread to the list of papers I posted, go to PubMed and find them. Many are available to be read free (many have been released over the years). Go look at the papers I listed. Plus here is some reading material (and you should really read Todd’s website):

    Unstrange Minds by Roy Richard Grinker (the book’s website has the changes of diagnostic standards over the years, that should explain the increase in diagnoses… my 21 year old son was born too soon to get an official diagnosis of autism, though he did have a seizure disorder and was possibly permanently disabled by the seizures he had with a now vaccine preventable disease)

    Vaccine by Arthur Allen

    Autism’s False Prophets by Paul Offit, this book as a good description of epidemiological test and why Kirby is wrong (his biography of Maurice Hilleman explains much about the development of vaccines).

    This thread is over. Your questions have been answered multiple times in multiple places. I saw the same stuff touted ten years ago on Usenet, so you are asking nothing new (the aluminum gambit is just moving goalposts). You just have to be willing to open your mind to information not filtered through certain sites (like the one claiming H1N1 vaccines all contain thimerosal, or that aluminum is deadly). Avoid places like Barbara Loe Fisher’s NVIC. Even with the change of vaccines she still has not updated the information for the pertussis vaccine (she still claims it causes SIDS, when there are studies that actually shows it prevents SIDS). Familiarize yourself with PubMed and the CDC Pink Book on vaccines.

  200. JGH-4774

    Chris,

    Your post was a hostile rant. Obviously a open dialogue is not welcome by you on this site.

    In addition, you made several unfounded assumptions about me in your post. I am not uniformed about either side of the vaccine-autism debate. And, obviously I lean distinctly toward pro-vaccination (I vaccinated both my 5 and 7 year old children!) But, what is wrong with examining the various issues of vaccine safety, like any pharmaceutical?

    I have worked in the health care field at the MS level for 25 years. My BS was in biochemistry. Because of the influence of my father, I have read the Lancet, JAMA and NEJM, etc. since I was 15 years old. I know well how to read and critically evaluate peer-reviewed studies. I’ve been doing it for 30 years. And, I am intimately familiar (of course!) with PubMed/Medline. And I am well aware of who Dr. Offit is and, of course, his benchmark book Autism’s False Prophets -which I have of course read. I read EVERYTHING on autism (not just one side). For example, I have also read British physician Dr. Ben Goldacre’s book “Bad Science.” Superb. Indeed, in the course of my work, I regularly examine the FDA and CDC and AAP websites. And I have read every issue of Pediatrics for 20 years. Your post was insulting.

    1) If you want to dismiss the CDC’s figures for autism prevalence, that is your privilege. I will let readers decide for themselves if that is reasonable.

    2) Yes aluminum is ubiquitous. But ingested aluminum is largely excreted with the stools. Injected aluminum in vaccines obviously by-passes the GI tract and is injected IM or SQ directly into the body. The toxicokinetics of injected aluminum are poorly understood. The DTaP vaccine, for example, depending on the manufacturer, contains 170-625 mcg of aluminum. That may be a significant quantity of aluminum for a two month old infant. Further study is indicated.

    3) Your point on not being able to find a thimerosal-containing DTaP is a specious argument and a complete red herring. Of course, one can not find a DTaP vaccine with thimerosal in it today! They have not been made for the US schedule since the year 2000 or 2001.

    The pediatric vaccines on the official “recommended immunization schedule” that contain thimerosal today are (the majority of the production of): the regular seasonal flu vaccine, the H1N1 flu vaccine, and the meningococcal vaccine -as I described in detail in post 202 just above (these are the facts and they can be found easily on the official CDC and FDA website).

    4) “Autism is diagnosed long before a child is ten years old. So why bring up vaccines later in the schedule?” Because cumulative exposures to various mercury compounds (and other heavy metals and toxins) even in “small” subacute doses may well cause negative neurological changes in children. I certainly do not think that one meningococcal vaccine at age 10 is going to cause autism. But medical toxicologists are concerned about total (cumulative) toxic heavy-metal body burden. With more time, I could certainly cite several papers that address this concern. You really don’t have to look too far. See: Thomas W. Clarkson, MD, PhD (professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York.) ….And: Irva Hertz-Picciotto PhD, MPH (of the UC Davis MIND institute).

    5) “This thread is over. Your questions have been answered multiple times in multiple places.” In fact, that’s not true. In fact, you keep NOT answering the one question I ask you.

    >>>> What amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury (a heavy metal and a known neurotoxin) is safe to inject into human beings? And, critically, for our children, what amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury is safe to inject into including infants, whose neurological and immunological systems are still developing? <<<<

    I’m (still) waiting…

  201. JGH-4774

    Hi Todd,

    (re. 181) You said:

    “I was unable to find the text of neither the Suzuki nor the Matheson study. Could you provide a link to them? …. I also note that you only used papers that were more than 30 years old. In fact, the studies you cited are almost exclusively on sites that suggest thimerosal causes autism or that autism is nothing more than mercury poisoning. It is interesting to note, then, that despite reductions in thimerosal, autism rates have not declined.”

    1) Can I provide a link? I’m happy to.

    I found a brief discussion of those three studies (Fagan 1997; Suzuki 1973; and Matheson 1980) within the following paper: Clarkson TW, et al. (2002). “The Three Modern Faces of Mercury.” Environ Health Perspect 110 (S1): 11–23. [See footnotes 57, 58, and 59.]

    I hope you can link to it at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/suppl-1/11-23clarkson/clarkson-full.html

    2) You said, “I also note that you only used papers that were more than 30 years old.” That is an interesting accusation. Case reports on acute mercury poisoning from thimerosal are rare. These are the famous cited papers that describe and investigate these incidents. Acute mercury poisoning from thimerosal injection or ingestion is rare because it only happens, of course, by tragic accident (and in one case, by attempted suicide!) BTW, it is the subacute exposure to ethyl mercury in infants via injection that I am concerned about in relation to pediatric vaccines.

    3) You said, “In fact, the studies you cited are almost exclusively on sites that suggest thimerosal causes autism or that autism is nothing more than mercury poisoning.”

    That is not true. Not at all. I have never seen (Fagan 1997; Suzuki 1973; and Matheson 1980) on any “sites that suggest causes autism or that autism is nothing more than mercury poisoning.” Though, I suppose they could be on some such sites. Indeed, I don’t think Fagan 1997, Suzuki 1973, and Matheson 1980 are studies that anti-vaccine people would cite.

    Anyway, the truth is that I found these studies in a fascinating paper authored by noted mercury researcher, Thomas W. Clarkson, MD, PhD (professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York.) Clarkson’s 2002 paper “The Three Modern Faces of Mercury” is the same as cited above.

    Clarkson was one of the first to address what was known about the pharmacokinetics in humans specifically of thimerosal and ethyl mercury circa 2002 (much was known about ingestion of methyl mercury, almost nothing about ethyl mercury). This paper was generated, in part, in response to the aftermath of the landmark AAP/PHS “joint statement” on July 9, 1999 (which was highly influenced by the famous internal review that had occurred within the FDA earlier that same year) that called for the removal of thimerosal from pediatric vaccines “as soon as possible.” “The Three Modern Faces of Mercury” is extremely insightful, as are all of Clarkson’s papers on mercury (2002, 2006, 2007). Clarkson provides much food for thought for the debate about how toxic subacute doses of injected ethyl mercury are in humans (much more study is needed, he notes).

    From Clarkson (2007), the abstract states, “Today the most widespread human exposures to mercury are to mercury vapor emitted from amalgam tooth fillings, to ethylmercury as a preservative in vaccines, and to methylmercury in edible tissues of fish. This review will focus on the mechanisms of transport of these three species of mercury. All three species are freely moveable throughout the body. Inhaled vapor in view of its physical properties as an uncharged atomic gas is believed to be transported by passive diffusion. Methylmercury and ethylmercury also move freely in the body. Methylmercury, and presumably its closely related chemical cousin ethylmercury, cross cell membranes as complexes with small molecular weight thiol compounds, entering the cell in part as a cysteine complex on the large neutral amino acid carriers and exiting the cell in part as a complex with reduced glutathione on endogenous carriers. ”

    Dr. Clarkson concludes, revealingly, in his 2006 paper that, “mercury is still an element of mystery.”

    ——————————————————–

    Sources:

    Clarkson TW, et al. (2002). “The Three Modern Faces of Mercury.” Environ Health Perspect 110 (S1): 11–23.

    Clarkson TW, Magos, L. (2006). “The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds”. Crit Rev Toxicol 36 (8): 609–62.

    Clarkson TW, et al. (2007). “Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body”. Am J Ind Med 50 (10): 757–64.

  202. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    (re. 181) Part II

    You said, “It is interesting to note, then, that despite reductions in thimerosal, autism rates have not declined.”

    Excellent point. And this will prove fascinating, no doubt, over the next 10 years. But for now, the very latest CDC autism prevalence figures (which were released on December 18, 2009)* were based on comparing the rate (prevalence) of autism of children born in 1994 vs. children born in 1998. This obviously involves children who were still receiving peak exposures to thimerosal containing vaccines (TVCs). This occurred from 1990 to 2000. The use of thimerosal did not begin to be reduced in pediatric vaccines until 2000.

    *The December 2009 CDC report can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5810a1.htm

  203. Michael Glavic

    A diagnosis or preconception of a diagnosis (of a label, in the political vernacular, if not of the political?) should have nothing to do with the merits of a case (a reasonable case?) and the merits tell me that you, Chris, (the moderator of this venue, by whatever power and authority, I don’t really know or care) intend to censor those who wish to continue this discussion, or are lying about doing so, which is the very nature of your problem I would say of the merits.

    I have also been here with you before about this, as easy as it seems for you to be blaming everyone but yourself for lying and censoring, of misrepresentation, perhaps. Your allusions to me only serve to indicate to me that what I’ve presented is the real threat and challenge buttressed by JGH-4774′s case (of substantial factual merit, I’d say) toward sufficient reasonable doubt that an “individual” would excerise caution and due diligence in protecting themselves, of what is theirs to protect, from what has proven to have harmed others, with no assurance (as Todd has fairly clearly pointed out in message #161, I grant) that such situation does not still exist, whatever else you were trying to prove with your disparaging remarks but to deny such concern and guidance I must assume.

    We can easily suggest the other is nuts (or with mental defect, what qualifies anyone to say as much remains to be seen) in cultivating towards as much, perhaps (which phenomena should be clearly described in the psychological literature? in mental path of least resistance, perhaps, [flight?] or should be there where the literature would be worth a dam?) such state where we say it enough, becomes more accepted, unless one does what one truly understands, of such faith and determination, (cognitive, even if not especially?) to defend oneself from such onslaught of hostility and abuse, where the attributes are not weighted and balanced, as to the merits, unless you’re not aware of how nature and true science balances and moderates perhaps?

    You have tarnished your merits (in my estimation) by suggesting what you have about me (an individual, in the anti-political sense?) and by your being so strident with respect to a/the political line and not open-minded enough with respect to science towards our individual concerns about vaccines and for our selves and rights, Thereof, I Feel as understand, on my verdict with respect to where I’m at with respect to you and your not wanting to go further this discussion, whatever other conflicts of interests you might have in that respect, remains to be seen

    You do use the English language well, perhaps not getting your priorities right with respect to what communication is all about, (as far as I’m concerned?) but with respect to spelling, grammar and punctuation, and perhaps allocating credits, of your thing if not of a political thing? which veracity I will not be requiring with respect to what I already understand “more directly.”

    Presenting this towards understanding more, of as much, of what I get out of it, of what I’ve established is the way to be more reasonable (less political and other-minded?) and get the most that is more meaningful out of “everything,” Thereof, where you’re interested in as much? of what’s in control? .. . (Don’t sweat the small stuff? I understand where I fit in with you in that respect?!.

    Best wishes, Thereof

  204. Chris

    Cherry picking clueless person said that “Your post was a hostile rant.”

    Read it again and take note of this bit (with added emphasis): my 21 year old son was born too soon to get an official diagnosis of autism, though he did have a seizure disorder and was possibly permanently disabled by the seizures he had with a now vaccine preventable disease

    I have been dealing with you idiots for almost fifteen years. Obviously hitting you over the head with a clue stick does nothing. You are now heading into troll territory.

  205. Michael Glavic

    Hi Chris and All,

    Actually, I think everyone here has added to the data, if not the unreasonable doubt, in their own way, so I’d like to give credit where credit is due, and to you too, Chris (if not so especially? …).

    Chris, to teach people (cognitively, and behaviorally) you have to “bond” (pair) with them, (of taking their feelings, of the primary facts, more seriously, I Feel, where you can’t be bothered with nurturing/satiating them?) unless your intention is to beat and scare it out of them (Old school? for those who would keep livestock, and/or pets, perhaps) I’ve had to teach/train my PDD-NOS son and I doubt there would be anything more difficult to teach/train, except someone who doesn’t want to learn, no doubt. Take a more considerate tact Chris and I’m sure they’d (your beckoning audience?) would do that with you, with all the knowledge you seem to have under your belt.

    Learn? Communicate with love and understanding, for the student, and/or your correspondent, (of the give and take of sharing and caring) because true communication of understanding entails as much (of the others interests, in the political speak? as if that wouldn’t ultimately be about their feelings and senses, sheesh) as simple and fundamental and objective as our feelings and senses are, (to Understanding, the “throne” feeling?) that they would lie or are censored from those who have them, (!) that pushes them like you feel “you” should, instead, perhaps? Better to acknowledge them in controlling them, I would say, of how to get our attention

    Maybe you don’t have them, what I’m talking about, (of what many if not most of us out here are more about?) if not the particular ones I’m talking about, that objective reality could be about anything else, of our shaping if not its shaping as much? where you can make that connection? of what’s all about and for?

    Here’s more than hoping so. Thanks for being here for that, Chris, and All (Of you had a taste? of what you’re really like? of putting authority not so much of reason aside, I’d say, where I can, and do) You have fast thinking especially going for you Chris, (yes, very fast) of what you have to connect with in that respect of, (your goal? other than understanding more for your self as an Individual first, I’d be thinking, if not worrying about if I were you) as limited as you would be otherwise of Us who would care for you, Thereof

    Us, Understanding specialists, but what else.. . (of as much? .. .

    Michael Glavic

    On teaching and trolls and pets, or pick your death, as you would pick your life, (as you would pick your language?) where you would have any control at All? (My hope for Us, leader of *my* world.. . It just popped into my head (That I should be afraid of as much? .. . Not, of being, “beyond” that, of as much.. .

    Best wishes, Thereof (of Communication, now that you better understand what It is, of it now being clearer for you [let us more than hope? of as much?] but would still require “your analysis” [as simple as I've/we've made it? of simplicity being the thing, to Understanding More, even More, of Reason, Hello?] for you to be all that “you” can be, incorporates Us being all that “we” can be, of a thing, Thereof (Justness if you Feel?

    On *Sweet* Justice/Justness (for Individuals, All Individuals, no doubt) I wish as much for Us (Thereof

    Where there is “one” Individual that remains violated (outside The loop?) our work is still “not” done, I Feel as Understand

    I was just trying to bring “science” into The loop, would be another way of looking at this

  206. JGH-4774

    Chris,

    I am merely attempting to have a respectful exchange of ideas, information, and opinions with you and all participants on this site. What is wrong with that? And, how does that make me a troll? I have and will always strive to offer civil, well-researched, and cogent arguments. I honestly suspect that we agree on much more than we disagree (I am certainly no an anti-vax extremist). However, some of my opinions or arguments may be different than yours. What is wrong with that?

    Self evidently, an open dialogue is not welcome by you. Interesting. That is exactly what you accuse the “anti-vaxers” of doing (192 and 196).

    Due to your inability to field an opposing argument, you resort to insulting to me personally (“clueless person” and “you idiots”). I will let readers decide if your behavior is reasonable.

  207. ND

    JGH-4774,

    I was looking at the meningococcal vaccine on the link you provided and there appear to be three version and only the multi-dose version of one of them contains the thimerisol. It’s not clear to me if that’s the one that’s given to the 2-10 year olds or if so what percentage of the meningococcal vaccines that are administered have any thimerisol in them.

    Also, since you say you read Lancet and other sources of research, what is your opinion on Wakefield’s MMR study of the 12 kids and the investigation oh him?

  208. JGH-4774

    Jeff,

    Where did you go?

    I have responded to all your questions (e.g., “I was unable to find the text of neither the Suzuki nor the Matheson study. Could you provide a link to them?”). And I did so thoughtfully, I think.

    Well, let’s go. Let’s discuss Clarkson’s papers on “the toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds” (2002, 2006, 2007). Or do you refuse to do that; have an open dialogue about emerging science? You have it all figured out?

    You submit that that vaccines can not cause autism (or apparently any other form of negative neurological changes in children like developmental/language delay or ADHD, ADD, tics, etc.). Fair enough.

    Ok then. Let’s discuss the subacute exposure of injected ethyl mercury in 0, 2, 4, and 6 year old infants.

  209. JGH-4774

    ND,

    I like you. Excellent, relevent questions. And asked in a civil voice.

    My response is coming.

  210. @JGH-4774

    I assume your post at 214 was intended for me. Not sure who “Jeff” is. Apologies for the delay in responding. It’s been a busy day (and going to be a busy next several).

    Thank you for the Clarkson link. It wasn’t exactly what I asked for, but it was an interesting read that basically amounted to “we don’t know much about it and further research is needed”. It still would have been nice to read the actual studies, but, c’est la vie.

    I will correct myself. I said that the studies were found almost exclusively on antivax-type sites. Upon searching for them again, I found them cited on several non-antivax sites (mostly just citations in other papers), such as SpringerLink, Elsevier, etc. But they did appear more often as citations on antivax sites and those claiming autism is just a form of mercury poisoning, like this one.

    I have not had an opportunity, yet, to read the other Clarkson papers you cited.

    You submit that that vaccines can not cause autism (or apparently any other form of negative neurological changes in children like developmental/language delay or ADHD, ADD, tics, etc.)

    I did not make any such claim. Once more, you appear to be making up claims for me where I did not make any. I submit that it is highly improbable that vaccines cause autism, in light of the scientific studies that have examined vaccines and the lack of quality studies showing a causal connection, as well as the studies surrounding potential genetic and epigenetic causes.

    I notice, however, that you didn’t answer the questions that I asked you earlier. Namely:

    * What specific neurological damage do you believe thimerosal causes?
    * What evidence examining thimerosal in the amounts found in pre-2001 vaccines or current flu vaccines [edited to add: and using similar methods of administration] supports that belief?
    * The same questions apply to your beliefs regarding aluminum salts in vaccines.

  211. JGH-4774

    Todd W,

    Re. 214: Yes, I meant to write Todd. I apologize!

  212. JGH-4774

    Hi ND,

    1) The website of the FDA verifies that thimerosal-free versions of both the pediatric ‘regular’ seasonal flu vaccine and the pediatric H1N1 flu vaccine are in “limited supply.” [1] In addition, the pediatric flu shot is not “optional.” It is on the official US “recommended immunization schedule” just like all the other typical pediatric vaccines like DTaP and MMR.

    2) The official US “recommended immunization schedule” for children can be found at the website of the CDC and the website of the Institute of Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public -run by veteran immunization expert Neal A Halsey, MD. [2] [3]

    As I’m sure you know, but not all do, there are two immunization schedules for children. One is for children, age 0 to 6 years. And another for children and teens, age of 7 to 18.

    (There are also catch-up immunization schedules for children and immunization schedules for (a) adults and (b) “adults with medical or other indications.”)

    3) As you can see viewing the immunization schedule for children age 7 to 18 from either the CDC site or the Institute of Vaccine Safety site; the meningococcal vaccine is recommended for children starting at age 11-12 (and for children as young as 2-3 years old in “certain high-risk groups”). The multi-dose vial version of the Menomune meningococcal vaccine made by Sanofi Pasteur contains 25 mcg of ethyl mercury/shot.

    4) I believe there are 4 versions of the meningococcal vaccines (made by two different companies) currently licensed for use in the US by the FDA. I can find no mention of how much of the production of the meningococcal vaccine is thimerosal-free vs. thimerosal-containing. Pharmaceutical companies do not like to talk about thimerosal, understandably.

    5) I believe all the meningococcal vaccines made by Sanofi Pasteur (including the multi-dose vial thimerosal containing version) are licensed by the FDA for administration for children above the age of 2 (per the manufacture data sheets and the package inserts). The Novartis Menveo meningococcal vaccine seems to be licensed for use administration for those above the age of 11.

    ———————–
    [1] http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm096228.htm#t

    [2] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/child-schedule.htm#printable

    [3] http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/2010-schedule.htm

  213. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    You said:

    “I notice, however, that you didn’t answer the questions that I asked you earlier. Namely:
    * What specific neurological damage do you believe thimerosal causes?
    * What evidence examining thimerosal in the amounts found in pre-2001 vaccines or current flu vaccines [edited to add: and using similar methods of administration] supports that belief?
    * The same questions apply to your beliefs regarding aluminum salts in vaccines.”
    ————————-

    I’m dancing as fast as I can in answering your and ND’s (excellent) questions.

    I will respond to them all. And, I hope you will return the favor.

  214. JGH-4774

    ND,

    What is my take on Dr. Andrew Wakefield, MB BS FRCS FRCPath.?

    That is an excellent question. There is no short , easy answer to the question. The events are in fact complex. Except where I am stating my personal opinion (clearly noted), these are the facts:

    ———————————————————————

    1) Dr. Wakefield is (was!) a research gastroenterologist from England.

    2) Dr. Wakefield is a husband, a father; and interestingly the son of two physicians himself. His mother was a GP and his father was a neurologist.

    3) His training as a medical scientist was solid.

    Wakefield graduated in 1981 with a degree in Medicine from St. Mary’s Hospital (part of the University of London). He pursued a career in gastrointestinal surgery with a particular interest in inflammatory bowel disease. He qualified as Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1985. At the prominent Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London, Wakefield was a Senior Lecturer in Medicine and Histopathology and served as a key member on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group, University Departments of Medicine and Histopathology. Approximately two years after the 1998 Lancet paper, Wakefield was awarded the Fellowship of the Royal College of Pathologists in 2001 in recognition of his published research.

    4) Dr. Wakefield is, of course, (in)famously the lead author of an “early case report” (not a study) published in The Lancet in 1988 that reported that Lymphoid Nodular Hyperplasia (LNH) and enterocolitis were found in 12 ASD children.[1]

    5) There were two key co-authors of the 1998 Lancet paper. Dr. John Walker-Smith and Dr. Simon Murch.

    6) Neither Dr. Walker-Smith nor Dr. Murch “retracted” from the 1998 Lancet study. Both support Dr. Wakefield. (As do –all– of the parents who participated in the study).

    7) Simon Murch was at the time of the 1998 Lancet study, Senior Lecturer in Pediatric Gastroenterology at the Royal Free and University College School of Medicine. Dr. Murch is now Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health at Warwick Medical School.

    (8) John Walker-Smith served as “Senior Clinical Investigator” on the 1998 Lancet paper. His reputation is even more impressive. Dr. Walker-Smith is a Professor Emeritus of Pediatric Gastroenterology; and is, in fact, the preeminent pediatric gastroenterologists in the UK (with an international reputation as one of the pioneers in pediatric gastroenterology). Go ahead. Google this guy.

    9) Professors Walker-Smith and Murch are obviously eminently qualified pediatric gastroenterologists. Personally, I find it unlikely that they participated in malfeasance during the generation of this case report. In addition, personally, I find it unlikely that Professor Walker-Smith, as Senior Clinical Investigator, would permit Dr. Wakefield (ranking well junior to him) to engage in egregious misconduct or malfeasance during the execution of this case report. If Wakefield did (and anything’s possible) he hid it well from Professors Walker-Smith and Murch.

    10) Dr. Wakefield never claimed in his early case report published by The Lancet in 1998 that the MMR vaccine causes autism (as the major news outlets have reported repeatedly and mistakenly). Dr. Wakefield did not even claim that the MMR jab causes colitis. Neither hypothesis was ever tested by Wakefield in his paper. Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch merely reported that they found LNH and enterocolitis in twelve ASD children.

    –Demonstrating a causal relationship between the MMR jab and colitis or between the MMR jab and autism would, of course, be impossible in a case report, by definition.–

    11) Again, the 1998 case report by Dr. Wakefield, Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch published in The Lancet did NOT state or claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The 1998 Lancet paper reads, quote, “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome (autistic enterocolitis) described.” …. “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”

    In other words, Wakefield et al. were in he early stages of proposing a hypothesis to test: “Can the MMR jab cause an insult or injury to the GI tract (observable as LNR or chronic enterocolitis)?” That is what they did. And that is a reasonable hypothesis to test.

    12) Did Wakefield violate protocols surrounding funding disclosures or commit other research misconduct or malfeasance? The GMC says he did. Wakefield says he did not. I don’t know. I was not there with Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch. None of us were. None of us know for sure what happened. Importantly, no one has seen a transcript of the GMC proceedings yet. Until it is released, and we can see the testimony and detailed explanation of Drs. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch; it is all speculation.

    13) Did Wakefield obtain blood samples from non-ASD children (to serve as a control) during a birthday party for boys, while receiving permission from their parents, and paying the children approx. $15 each? Yes. Is that odd? Yes. (Though if you hang around research PhDs, you will find that a lot of them are odd). Nevertheless, was this a violation of ethical standards. Yes. Absolutely. Do I personally think what Wakefield did here was appropriate? Certainly not. Would I do it? No. Yet, do I personally think this was an egregious crime? No.

    14) I believe the Feb 28, 1998 press conference to announce the publication of The Lancet paper was a BIG mistake. And this may be the fault of several individuals, not only Wakefield. Apparently, the infamous press conference was orchestrated by Wakefield’s boss, Professor Arie Zuckerman, the Dean of the Royal Free and University College School of Medicine. Zuckerman wanted to bring fame to the College. [2] This is where, when asked, Wakefield infamously stated he thought monovalent MMR vaccines were more safe than the combination MMR vaccine. With that, the UK media circus took off. Which, one could argue, is the fault of the British scandal-loving media as much as Wakefield’s imprudent remarks at the press conference (I agree Wakefield’s personal opinions on the MMR should have been kept to himself without A LOT more evidence. This is where Wakefield’s impatience shows.)

    15) When adjudicating any dispute, or allegation of misconduct, or crime; doesn’t the “judge” have to consider ALL the evidence? Don’t we have to hear from both the prosecution and the defendant?

    If anyone wants to hear Wakefield’s side of the story, here it is. [2] [3] In the form of two documents.

    I will let readers decide for themselves if these two documents are persuasive or not.

    Personally, I have very mixed feelings, myself. But these two documents DO provide tremendous insight into what happened, even if they do not entirely exonerate the man. Yet, I do not think that Dr. Wakefield is a “monster” as many of his detractors have portrayed him. But that is just my personal opinion. I invite you read the documents and decide for yourself.

    ——————————————-

    Bottom line:

    16) Do I believe that the controversy surrounding Dr. Wakefield will prove to be a significant chapter in the narrative of the vaccine-autism debate? Yes.

    17) Do I believe that Dr. Wakefield is in BIG trouble. YES. He will never be granted a medical license in the USA. He may well be “struck” from the register in the UK. He is gone from the Thoughtful House in Austin Texas, where he was Executive Director of medical research for the past number of years. Due to the extreme controversy surrounding him, and the findings of the GMC, I don’t not believe he will ever get another job in mainstream medicine again.

    18) Do I believe that any research paper with Wakefield’s name on it will ever be taken seriously again? No. He is done. His research career is over.

    19) Do I personally believe that Wakefield is a fraud or a quack or a scumbag (or worse) as many detractors have called him? Well, it is impossible for me to know, or for any of us to know, with certainty. It is possible, either way. But, personally, and this is just my intuitive feeling; it seems to me after taking a detailed look at Wakefield’s background, that it is more likely that he is a good man, a well trained research gastroenterologist, and a highly empathetic physician (this really comes out if you read the testimony of the parents), who was well intentioned but got impatient. Yes, “the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.” Wakefield does seem guilty of impatience in pursuing his “does the MMR jab cause autistic enterocolitis” hypothesis, I agree.

    But I invite you read the fascinating, detailed account of what happened in “On Second Looking into The Case of Andrew Wakefield” by William Long, PhD, JD.[2]

    You decide.

    And Wakefield’s side of the story is provided in “That Paper.” [3]

    —————————————————————-

    [1] Wakefield, A. et al., Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, nonspecific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet 1998;351:637-641.

    [2]
    On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield
    William Long, MDiv, PhD, JD

    [3]

    “That Paper”
    Andrew J. Wakefield, FRCS FRCPath

  215. JGH-4774

    OK. The links above appear not to be working. Try this web page.

    http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/

    It is shamefully pro-Wakefield, but the links to the PDF documents [2] and [3] can be found near the top, center.

    [2] On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield
    William Long, MDiv, PhD, JD

    [3] “That Paper”
    Andrew J. Wakefield, FRCS FRCPath

    ——————————

  216. JGH-4774

    BREAKING NEWS

    I’m sure everyone has seen the breaking news. If not:

    Washington (CNN) — “A federal court ruled Friday that the evidence supporting an alleged causal link between autism and a mercury-containing preservative in vaccines is unpersuasive, and that the families of children diagnosed with autism are not entitled to compensation.
    Special masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims released more than 600 pages of findings after reviewing three test cases and finding all the claims wanting.
    “Petitioners’ theory of vaccine-related causation is scientifically unsupportable,” wrote Special Master Patricia Campbell-Smith in her conclusion about William P. Mead, whose parents, George and Victoria Mead, had brought one of the suits.
    “In the absence of a sound medical theory causally connecting William’s received vaccines to his autistic condition, the undersigned cannot find the proposed sequence of cause and effect to be logical or temporally appropriate. Having failed to satisfy their burden of proof under the articulated legal standard, petitioners cannot prevail on their claim of vaccine-related causation.”

  217. JGH-4774

    My reaction? As a person who stands solidly in the middle of the vaccine-autism debate, observing both sides:

    It was predictable and inevitable. Of course, the fact is (as of 2010), there is no definitive evidence that pediatric vaccines (or the ethyl mercury contained within, primarily from 1990-2000) cause Autism.

    While there are many individual studies published in peer reviewed journals (and indexed on PubMed) that indicate that the subacute exposure of injected ethyl mercury may cause negative neurological changes in infants (and the inhibition of important biochemical processes) [1]; there certainly is no definitive evidence that vaccines can cause Autism.

    As a health care professional, while I am significantly concerned about ALL sources of mercury exposure (and other toxic heavy metal exposure) in children (see Clarkson [2][3][4] and Burbacher[5]); it is true, as the IOM stated in 2004, the bulk of evidence “favors rejection of a causal relationship” between thimerosal and autism. [6]

    Too bad for the families. Without more compelling evidence that vaccines can contribute to the cause of autism (for example, in a small ~1% subset of the pediatric population that may be genetically susceptible); they are never going to get compensation from the government via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Nor should they.

    ——————————————————————-
    [1]
    http://www.talkaboutcuringautism.org/medical/studies-about-vaccine-autism-link.htm
    On the preceding web page, click on “Autism Studies and related Medical Conditions” located at the upper left margin.

    [2] Clarkson TW, et al. (2002). “The Three Modern Faces of Mercury.” Environ Health Perspect 110 (S1): 11–23.

    [3] Clarkson TW, Magos, L. (2006). “The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds”. Crit Rev Toxicol 36 (8): 609–62.

    [4]Clarkson TW, et al. (2007). “Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body”. Am J Ind Med 50 (10): 757–64.

    [5] Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Clarkson T. “Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal.” Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113 (8):1015 –1021

    [6] Institute of Medicine (IOM), Committee on Immunization Safety, “Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. Executive Summary.” (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004).

  218. Michael Glavic

    JGH-4774? Chris? (What the

    Should we have a political state? of groups for the group over the Individual? that wouldn’t be so much about justice? about furthering that matter as for the Individual in question of justness, Thereof? Probably not that either, would be my verdict on that, from “my” world, I mean, that you would catch me in a political court of law, that I would need (or respect?) such referee? of authority? over reason? (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha?)

    My call

    I really would like to speak with your leader(s) in that respect, (if not you?) of our being the states that we are? by practicing as much, Thereof?

    Hello.

    I have “such” disdain for our system, of justice (that any other system would matter?) and establishing justice (that legal/political judges could judge as much? .. . Oh, my?)

    The research continues, as far as “I’m” concerned… (of The “primary” research, of The “primary” process!) as smart as “we” are, otherwise, or not!

    Good-day gentlemen, and ladies! I’ll see you where I’ll see you

  219. Mark Hansen

    Michael Glavic? (Barney the purple dinosaur? Howdy Doody? Howard Hughes?)
    It is so nice to see? (observe? take note? pogo stick?) that you (ewe? U? yew?) have enjoyed? (taken pleasure in? sojourned?) your time here? (hear? hair? heir?) and I, in the sense that I am I and no-one else (or am I? Eye? aye?) thereof, look forward, in the sense (cents?) that I am not looking back, unless it is to check my rear view mirror? (mirrour?), to seeing you (ewe? U? U turn?) in future (Futurama?) discussions (discourses? dicusses? discuses? discii?) soon, without thereof, removing your (yore? yaw?) choice to do so (sow? sew? knit? wit?).

  220. Michael Glavic

    That says more about you and this board (and by association, Discover Mag? for what that’s worth?) than it does about me, while you’re changing the subject? (I should wonder why? Who do you think agrees with you Mark? Let me guess?) And I feel no one is calling you (and your lot?) a language bigot (red-neck? academic style, perhaps) because they’re intimidated by you, as a bully no less (and/or perhaps they think I can handle you and that sort of thing all by myself? where I really shouldn’t have to, right? or the bigotry is more pervasive than I thought. That might be it

    What I get next should clue me on that? of how limited and limiting this blog really is? Test? (but not so much of you Mark, no, as I believe that question has already been answered. Folks

    Perhaps the bigger issue is that American dictatorship (of covert vested interests, perhaps? think politics?) is going too far with enforcing its official speak, (informal, official speak?) with all the problems you/we are running into in that respect and not finding solutions to all our problems I mean, with respect to “injustice” being our primary problem? Folks? That would be about us too, if not especially, right?

    We could work on that and not be so concerned about vaccines and the epidemic of autism (etc.) being the primary issue, sure! Let’s go for that, of enforcing “justice” is the way to getting “all” our problems resolved, of understanding more for ourselves, I’m sure, that that would be the thing

    Best wishes, Thereof, and thanks for moving the real (primary) subject into the forefront, Mark!

    You are some “name-caller,” I must say (The truth aside?) Thanks for helping move me along, (unwittingly or not?) as you have, Thereof

    On the real issue, “now,” also thanks to Mark, Hansen.

  221. JGH-4774

    Mark,

    I don’t think mocking Mr. Glavic is kind, nor does it accomplish anything productive.

  222. JGH-4774

    ND,

    You asked me for my opinion about the Wakefield controversy. I answered. What is your response to my post?

    Would anyone else care to respond (Todd, Mark)? What do you gentlemen think?

  223. Mark Hansen

    JGH-4774
    Perhaps mocking wasn’t correct. But as I pointed out earlier, when Mr. Glavic wants to, he can communicate his ideas without resorting to obfuscation. If he can do it when he wants to be clear, he can do it all the time. Incidentally, I wasn’t calling him Barney, or Howdy Doody, or Howard Hughes. Those were three random names, much as his throwing in the name Chris when he seemed perturbed by one of your responses.

  224. ND

    Hello and appologies, I was quite busy this weekend. Away from the net more than usual.

    1) Dr. Wakefield is (was!) a research gastroenterologist from England.
    2) Dr. Wakefield is a husband, a father; and interestingly the son of two physicians himself. His mother was a GP and his father was a neurologist.

    # Ok. His family background does not factor into the research but thanks for the background. Being a family person does not factor into the scientific merits of research one does.

    3) His training as a medical scientist was solid. [ other info on Wakefield's credential ... ]

    # One can be solid and good and respected but all this can be undone with subsequent dishonesty and unethical acts.

    4) Dr. Wakefield is, of course, (in)famously the lead author of an “early case report” (not a study) published in The Lancet in 1988 that reported that Lymphoid Nodular Hyperplasia (LNH) and enterocolitis were found in 12 ASD children.[1]

    # Yes.

    5) There were two key co-authors of the 1998 Lancet paper. Dr. John Walker-Smith and Dr. Simon Murch.
    6) Neither Dr. Walker-Smith nor Dr. Murch “retracted” from the 1998 Lancet study. Both support Dr. Wakefield. (As do –all– of the parents who participated in the study).

    # Yes but 10 others associated with the paper retracted themselves from the paper.

    7) Simon Murch was at the time of the 1998 Lancet study, Senior Lecturer in Pediatric Gastroenterology at the Royal Free and University College School of Medicine. Dr. Murch is now Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health at Warwick Medical School.
    (8) John Walker-Smith served as “Senior Clinical Investigator” on the 1998 Lancet paper. His reputation is even more impressive. Dr. Walker-Smith is a Professor Emeritus of Pediatric Gastroenterology; and is, in fact, the preeminent pediatric gastroenterologists in the UK (with an international reputation as one of the pioneers in pediatric gastroenterology). Go ahead. Google this guy.

    # Yes, but again, nobody is above unethical and dishonest behvavior in research and everyone must be held accountable.

    9) Professors Walker-Smith and Murch are obviously eminently qualified pediatric gastroenterologists. Personally, I find it unlikely that they participated in malfeasance during the generation of this case report. In addition, personally, I find it unlikely that Professor Walker-Smith, as Senior Clinical Investigator, would permit Dr. Wakefield (ranking well junior to him) to engage in egregious misconduct or malfeasance during the execution of this case report. If Wakefield did (and anything’s possible) he hid it well from Professors Walker-Smith and Murch.

    # One can’t wave off facts and evidence in an investigation with the assumption that a respectable and eminintly qualified people could not and would not act improperly. I believe the investigation has been on Wakefield only.

    10) Dr. Wakefield never claimed in his early case report published by The Lancet in 1998 that the MMR vaccine causes autism (as the major news outlets have reported repeatedly and mistakenly). Dr. Wakefield did not even claim that the MMR jab causes colitis. Neither hypothesis was ever tested by Wakefield in his paper. Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch merely reported that they found LNH and enterocolitis in twelve ASD children.
    –Demonstrating a causal relationship between the MMR jab and colitis or between the MMR jab and autism would, of course, be impossible in a case report, by definition.–

    11) Again, the 1998 case report by Dr. Wakefield, Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch published in The Lancet did NOT state or claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The 1998 Lancet paper reads, quote, “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome (autistic enterocolitis) described.” …. “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”

    In other words, Wakefield et al. were in he early stages of proposing a hypothesis to test: “Can the MMR jab cause an insult or injury to the GI tract (observable as LNR or chronic enterocolitis)?” That is what they did. And that is a reasonable hypothesis to test.

    # That’s my understanding as well and the paper claimed a connection between GI disorders and autism. But Wakefield in public interviews connected MMR with autism.

    12) Did Wakefield violate protocols surrounding funding disclosures or commit other research misconduct or malfeasance? The GMC says he did. Wakefield says he did not. I don’t know. I was not there with Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch. None of us were. None of us know for sure what happened. Importantly, no one has seen a transcript of the GMC proceedings yet. Until it is released, and we can see the testimony and detailed explanation of Drs. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch; it is all speculation.

    # “I was not there with Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch. None of us were.” Is this not the case with any research? Is this not why there are investigations by ethics boards such as the one conducted by the GMC to discover any wrongdoing? Your statement is ridiculous. You just hand waved away a 2 year investigation that analized evidence and facts. Wakefield received over £400K from lawyers suing MMR producers and had applied for a measles vaccine patent months before the paper was published. Very strong conflict of interest that puts the paper in complete doubt. If you go to http://www.gmc-uk.org/ and type ‘wakefield’ in the search field you’ll find the results of the GMC investigation and read for yourself.

    13) Did Wakefield obtain blood samples from non-ASD children (to serve as a control) during a birthday party for boys, while receiving permission from their parents, and paying the children approx. $15 each? Yes. Is that odd? Yes. (Though if you hang around research PhDs, you will find that a lot of them are odd). Nevertheless, was this a violation of ethical standards. Yes. Absolutely. Do I personally think what Wakefield did here was appropriate? Certainly not. Would I do it? No. Yet, do I personally think this was an egregious crime? No.

    # Who said it was an aggregious crime (crime in the legal sense)? It was an unethical act and wrong.
    “Yes. Is that odd? Yes. (Though if you hang around research PhDs, you will find that a lot of them are odd).”
    Huh?! One can be odd without acting unethically. What he did was not odd, it was wrong. You’re condeming what he did yet also trying to excuse it as “odd”. What you wrote is rather contradictory.

  225. Michael Glavic

    I Feel that our not trying to better understand each other and everything else, of how everything communicates, for how to communicate? (of Communication? of what you get out of It and of acknowledging as much?) is somewhat unethical and abusive, to better explain my behavior, perhaps. Here’s more than hoping so?!.

    Here’s for “trying,” (of as much, I Feel) on The phenomena/phenomenal.. . (Sure, put measures to it and call it The data, of your objective, why don’t you, as you do? as I Feel you do, which isn’t good enough as far as I’m concerned

    In that respect I Feel that “enforcing” a language (over other considerations? if not of and for everything else? of what you do understand of understanding more, Thereof? or what is it that you are having a problem with and complaining about (all?) ‘cept your own confusion and/or ignorance? where I suspect it’s really for your own way/language, “whatever,” that you’re being about here, with respect to the way you really are.. .

    On The phenomena. It’s “communicating” (of Communication, as far as I’m concerned, of as much) but you don’t seem to understand that (as much) It seems to me, for your not “trying” so much and making that your purpose, (of analysis is also an essential part of Communication, for your self) I might Add? .. . Thereof? of being The analyst that *I* am, (and you, not so much, Thereof) that I *Feel* I am, Thereof.

    I go with that.. . The power and the glory, if you Will, Feel, or not, of how and what I communicate, of as much.. .

    Best wishes, Thereof, that I would need you otherwise

    I was (and still am) just trying to help, as I Feel I Do!

    Michael Glavic

    On The phenomena. (You might want to look at It that way.. . (But what other reasonable choice do your really have is not so much a question for me, to want to answer, for you? so otherwise? as so inconsiderate? of education? where punishment and justness (exposure?) would be concerned?

    No. That’s not a threat. That’s It (I Feel as Understand) Be considerate of that here or find me elsewhere, where The choice is y/ours, Thereof. I Feel that’s as off-topic as “you” asked for and needed, of It, of your being so off-topic… yourself, of The phenomena and what It’s all about. (Einstein?!. I believe he was looking for as much!) You seemed to have needed the big picture in that respect, of me pointing out your abusiveness in that respect, of, my getting The job done (I Feel as Understand

    Your language is going down?!. (relative to as much, I Feel as Understand

    BWT.

  226. Michael Glavic

    All I’m trying to say (in my own way?) is, if it isn’t individual justice of our individual way of expressing ourselves, (of such language?) it isn’t justice, nor is it communication, nor is it science in that respect, of all that science can be, doing, as much about, in that respect of all that it can achieve for one and All, Thereof, is my sense of It. (Of differentiating if not individualizing things for the individual?)

    Sorry, where you don’t understand that. Consider it the phenomena worthy of analysis, then, (though?) in that respect? of what I ask? where you “can” understand that, (from as much?) of, here’s more than hoping so? of me trying in that respect, where otherwise, all would be lost? (or at least, unknown? by Definition?) I Feel as Understand, Thereof.

    I’m trying to get science involved with, and of, and for, the individual and justice and understanding more, thereof, as if that could be achieved any other way, than without our trying to say so, as best we can? that anyone else should be the judge of that? or reinforcing Communication? Sorry, but I’m very sure It doesn’t work that way.. . but rather I have found it “does” worth this way, where you would be willing to do the analysis, for your self

    The consensus here is not speaking for the individual and science of justice and knowledge (and the Constitutional) of Understanding More, (of the Intelligent choice/s?) Thereof, where you’re not, of that, is my sense of It.

    Some Individuals are adversely affected by vaccines and mercury and until you/we are representative and concerned about and encompassing of as much (or absolutely sure of as much, otherwise?) you’re/we’re not really representative of the “Constitutional and individual justice” is what I’m trying to say, of my expressing my right (and responsiblity?) to say so, of as much, of how misrepresentative or abusive we would be otherwise, I Feel as understand (where you’d be interested in as much, as I Feel you should be of my saying so? Do you see any other agenda here, except was is so plainly obvious?

    Ccommunication can’t be more, advanced perhaps, than your simple take on it, or at least worthy of analysis in that respect of the phenomena? OK, I’m presenting it as the phenomena, if that makes you feel better, (of it not being so sensible to you otherwise) but you haven’t understood it for what I meant (I Feel) if that’s what you were wondering, so give it another try? where you would be that objective?

    I hope (and expect) as much from Us, (science, actually) where where we are not about justice (Thereof? for one and All) I couldn’t really care about us so much, (of the alternative?) and if you don’t feel justice is an issue (facet?) that science should be involved with, I’d say you have a problem if not are of the problem in that respect, of justness.

    There’s more injustice (abuse, against freedom of expression? individual expression?) than you may have a clue about, (of a failure to want to understand as much and do something about it? of whatever hobby aspect of science might be your thing) and why should we be concerned about science where science isn’t concerned about that, justness, is a rhetorical question, if not so much for me

    I’d say vaccines and mercury are a contributing factor in neurological issues if not autism for “some” if not more than we are willing to admit and it is imperative (as far as I’m concerned) that we continue our research in that/this respect of what is best for the individual, of one and All, Thereof. Todd suggested that might not be economically feasible that what is economically feasible and practical would concern me otherwise. No one should have to give their life (or even suffer) for the common good (that doesn’t want to, for themselves) is the basis of my priority in saying what I do and in being what I am.

    If you can convince people to commit suicide (or whatever) otherwise, (for the common good, or whatever) without violating them of lies and abuse, all the power to you, but you haven’t convinced me that there is anything more meaningful than investing in individuals, for justness, and all there could be, Thereof

    That’s Just The Way I Feel.

    I’ve gathered what your priority is, somewhat (the one’s still hanging around, mostly) and if it hasn’t come closer to me of mine don’t bother with me? (and I won’t with you) because, I do believe I have made myself rather clear, (clearer than most if not more than you might want to admit? of all I’m saying? and sensing?) of my requesting that you more intelligently and considerately respond to “what you do understand,” (vs. anything else) for as much? if not for more, (Thereof) and not so much for your preconceived notions, hidden agenda, (job?) or any interests, conflicted, or otherwise

    If you don’t hear from me anymore here it’s because I believe you don’t want to individualize the matter (further the research?) for “justice,” (for the individual, Etc.) and from that I hope you have gathered that I believe you are part of the “problem” in that respect, of how I am to treat that problem, othewise, of having better (more meaningful) things to be doing.

    Good day ladies and gentlemen.

  227. ND

    “Honk if you love justice!” – The Tick

  228. JGH-4774

    ND,

    You said, “Hello and apologies, I was quite busy this weekend. Away from the net more than usual.”

    No worries. We all have families, lives, day jobs….

    Thank you for your reply. It was was provocative (in a good way). My response coming…

  229. Michael Glavic

    Where you really mean what you say, or you don’t, even, if not especially?!. Thanks for having me in that respect, where you do (There’s a plan to this madness? what madness? I see the madness, “otherwise”.. . (of the full circle? (of Communication.. . (Take It or leave It? I’ll know you either way, from as much, Thereof.. .

    All I’m trying to say (in my own way?) is, if it isn’t individual justice of our
    individual way of expressing ourselves, (of such language?) it isn’t justice,
    nor is it communication, nor is it science in that respect, of all that science
    can be, doing, as much about, in that respect of all that it can achieve for one
    and All, Thereof, is my sense of It. (Of differentiating if not individualizing
    things for the individual?)

    Sorry, where you don’t understand that. Consider it the phenomena worthy of
    analysis, then, (though?) in that respect? of what I ask? where you “can”
    understand that, (from as much?) of, here’s more than hoping so, of me trying in
    that respect, where otherwise all would be lost? (or at least, unknown, by
    Definition?) I Feel as Understand, Thereof

    I’m trying to get science involved with, as of, and for, the individual and
    justice and understanding more, thereof, as if that could be achieved any other
    way, than without our trying to, say so, as best we can? that anyone else should
    be the judge of that? (so much?) of not reinforcing Communication? Sorry, but I’m very sure
    It doesn’t work that way.. . but rather I have found it “does” work this way,
    where you would be willing to do the analysis, for your self?

    The consensus here is not speaking for the individual and science of justice and
    knowledge (and the Constitutional) of Understanding More, (of the Intelligent
    choice/s?) Thereof, where you’re (mostly) not, of that, is my sense of It (if not some of Us.. .

    Some Individuals are adversely affected by vaccines and mercury and until you/we
    are representative and concerned about and encompassing of as much (or
    absolutely sure of as much, otherwise?) you’re/we’re not really representative
    of the “Constitutional and Individual justice,” (that there would be any other kind) is what I’m trying to say, of my expressing my right (and responsiblity?) to say so, of as much, of how
    misrepresentative or abusive we would be otherwise, I Feel as understand (where
    you’d be interested in as much, as I Feel you should be, of my saying so. Do you
    see any other agenda here, except what is so plainly obvious?

    Communication can’t be more, advanced, perhaps, than your simple take on it, or
    at least worthy of further analysis in that respect of the phenomena? OK, I’m
    presenting it as the phenomena, if that makes you feel better, (scientist?) (of it not being
    so sensible to you otherwise) but you haven’t understood it for what I meant (I
    Feel) if that’s what you were wondering, so give it another try? where you would
    be that, objective?

    I hope (and expect) as much from Us, (science, actually) where, where we are not
    about justice (Thereof? for one and All?) I couldn’t really care about us so
    much, (of the alternative?) and if you don’t feel justice is an issue (as a
    facet of everything?) that science should be involved with, I’d say you have a
    problem if not are of the problem in that respect of true justness.

    There’s more injustice (abuse, against freedom of expression? Individual
    expression?) than you may have a clue about, (of a failure to want to understand
    as much and do something about it? of whatever hobby/niche aspect of science
    might be your thing?) and why should we be concerned about science (your talents?) where science
    isn’t concerned about that, justness, (us) is a rhetorical question, if not so
    much for me

    I’d say vaccines and mercury are a contributing factor in neurological issues if
    not autism for “some” if not more than we are willing to admit, and it is
    imperative (as far as I’m concerned) that we continue our research in that
    respect of what is best for the individual, of one and All, Thereof. (Some are getting more than their fair share?)

    Todd suggested that might not be economically feasible, that what is economically
    feasible and practical would concern me otherwise? (Don’t be doing it if doing
    it fairly wouldn’t be feasible?) No one should have to give their life (or even
    suffer?) for the common good (that doesn’t want to, for themselves) is the basis
    of my priority in saying what I do and in being what I am, that I Feel I am

    If you can convince people to commit suicide (or whatever) otherwise, (for the
    common good, or whatever) without violating them of lies and abuse, all the
    power to you, but you haven’t convinced me, that there is anything more
    meaningful than investing in individuals, for justness, and for all there could
    be, Thereof

    That’s Just The Way I Feel! (Where you really wanted to know, about that?

    I’ve gathered what your priority is, somewhat (some of you? the one’s still
    hanging around, mostly) and if it hasn’t come closer around to me of mine don’t
    bother with me? (and I won’t with you) because, I do believe I have made myself
    rather clear, (clearer than most if not more than you might want to admit? of
    all I’m saying and sensing and trying to be clear about?) of my requesting that
    you more intelligently and considerately respond to “what you do understand?”
    (vs. anything else?) for as much, if not for more, (Thereof) and not so much for
    your preconceived notions, hidden agenda, (job?) or any interests, conflicted or
    otherwise

    If you don’t hear from me anymore here it’s because I believe you don’t want to
    “individualize” the matter (further the research? of serving justness? of Communication) for Justice, (for the individual, Etc.) and from that I hope you have gathered that
    I believe “you” are part of the “problem” in that respect, of how I am to treat
    that problem, othewise, of having better (more meaningful) things to be doing.

    Good-day ladies and gentlemen.

    P. S. Individualising things (for you? your health and education and knowledge, Etc., of Understanding More) starts with “justice,” more surely? .. . (Thereof?) Consider that a “honk,” (of taking you at your word, or otherwise…) for what reinforces Communication, of The phenomena, would be my sense of It, of this. Take your time with It where you have to, on what more reasonable develops the world? Hello? I’m working my way down to those who can’t do the analysis, for themselves? (by cleaning this up, where I now Feel It might now be worth it for me! here, with Us, Thereof) so well as I Feel I have?!. relative to my self (Thereof) more surely.. .

    If not here than somewhere else, (surely) also thanks to you, Thereof (ND?!.)

    Best wishes. Honk for “justice,” is taking you at your word.. .

    Thanks for getting It (And delivering It (and analyzing It, as much you have? (It would be “censorship,” censorship of Communication, othewise, not so much for the Individual, of Justness, of Understanding More, I Feel as Understand

    Thanks for presenting The phenomena, as I Feel I Do, as I Feel It Is.. .

    What’s Up JGH-4774?

    [I'm talking about The objectivity, that you either have or don't of and for as much, to answer your question/s? Thanks for having me in that respect]

  230. JGH-4774

    ND,

    RE. ANDREW WAKEFIELD:

    1) I completely agree with your statement, “Yes, but again, nobody is above unethical and dishonest behavior in research and everyone must be held accountable.” Of course, of course, that is true.

    2) ND said, “I believe the investigation has been on Wakefield only.” That is factually incorrect. Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch were also charged with misconduct in the GMC proceeding.

    3) ND said “Wakefield received over £400K from lawyers suing MMR producers and had applied for a measles vaccine patent months before the paper was published.” I’m not sure those statements reflect the full truth. Do you know the details (and, God is in the details) surrounding those two accusations by conservative journalist Brian Deer? Those allegations are vigorously disputed by Wakefield and Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch (prominent, veteran medical experts in their field in the UK). Now, I don’t know who is correct, one way or the other, but (a) Wakefield claims that he was paid to conduct a separate study. He claims he informed the Dean of the Medical School before he started on the case report that was eventually published in The Lancet. I don’t know? (b) On the other allegation, I think Wakefield has a solid defense. Dr. Wakefield was never working on “his own” vaccine. He was working on a nutritional supplement, a transfer factor, that he thought might help to clear up the chronic measles infection that was in the gut of some vaccinated kids. The patent was in his hospital’s name, not his. (BTW, this is quite something different from Dr. Offit, who has made millions as co-inventor of the RotaTeq vaccine. And who, in addition, sat on the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices while his vaccine RotaTeq was going through licensure.) Certainly, Wakefield never made millions on any vaccine. And had Wakefield engaged in the preceding, you would have sharply critizized him. Be honest with yourself.

    4) Personally, I don’t think we can judge Andrew Wakefield fully until the transcripts of the testimony are released by the GMC. I want to hear his side of the story and the testimony of Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch. That should be very interesting. Wakefield’s testimony may be persuasive. –It may not be.– I want to hear it.

    5) I do believe that some of the charges made against Wakefield by Brian Deer (who clearly has a strong bias himself) mischaracterize what actually happened. And, I don’t think it is very fair for us to judge a man on allegations this serious without hearing from both sides. As I said in my previous post on Wakefield: when adjudicating any dispute, or allegation of misconduct, or crime; doesn’t the “judge” have to consider ALL the evidence? Don’t we have to hear from both the prosecution and the defendant? And so, I ask you again, did you read “On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield” by William Long, MDiv, PhD, JD. I genuinely believe that you (and Todd) -as intellectually adventurous and intellectually curious fellows- will find it interesting and (very) provocative. It takes about 45 minutes to read. And, I sincerely want to hear your feedback on it. It is found at the following web page.

    http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/

  231. ND

    JGH-4774,

    It’s my understanding that Dr. Offit and his co-inventor created a vaccine that did not compete with an existing one. Wakefield applied for a patent on a measles vaccine which competed with an existing and successful one. He published a paper casting doubt on the MMR vaccine and then went to the press advising splitting the MMR vaccine into separate shots. The patent application did not come to light until a few years later. Here’s the quote from the GMC findings:

    “‘38. a. On or before 5 June 1997 you instructed agents to file with the
    UK Patent Office a patent application with the short title
    “Pharmaceutical Composition for Treatment of IBD and RBD”, naming
    the applicants as the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine and
    Neuroimmuno Therapeutics Research Foundation (“the Patent”),
    Admitted and found proved
    b. The invention which was the subject of the patent, and of which
    you were one of the inventors, related to a new vaccine for the
    elimination of MMR and measles virus and to a pharmaceutical or
    therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (Inflammatory Bowel
    Disease); particularly Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis and
    regressive behavioural disease (RBD);
    Admitted and found proved
    ‘39. a. Your,
    i. involvement in the MMR litigation,
    ii. receipt of funding for part of Project 172-96 from the
    Legal Aid Board,
    iii. involvement in the Patent,
    constituted a disclosable interest which included matters which could
    legitimately give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest in relation
    to your role as a co-author of the Lancet paper which you did not
    disclose to the Editor of The Lancet,
    Found proved”

    The issue is that he did not reveal the patent application. If we should know what happened at the GMC hearings through the release of transcripts, we should most definitely know that the person publishing the paper on MMR issues also applied for a competing vaccine. It’s the conflict of interest that was not revealed that is of concern.

    There have been too many ethical failures on the part of Wakefield to take him seriously.

    I’m sure I can also make emotional and sympathetic arguments using the family life and the career credentials of those who sat on the GMC board. But that would be cheap.

    “And, I don’t think it is very fair for us to judge a man on allegations this serious without hearing from both sides.”
    The GMC spent over 2 years investigating Wakefield and his co-authors. They came to a conclusion. It was their job to do so and not something up to the court of public opinion. You’re treating the GMC precedings as if it should not count and easily dismissed.

    “And had Wakefield engaged in the preceding, you would have sharply critizized him. Be honest with yourself.”
    What do you mean by this?

  232. JGH-4774

    Hi ND,

    Andrew Wakefield is only one man. And he is completely irrelevant now because, as I acknowledged in my main post on Wakefield (#220), “No research paper with Wakefield’s name on it will ever be taken seriously again. His research career is over.” Andy Wakefield is irrelevant to the larger picture. (However, I will respond to your last post and answer the question you asked me, later today.)

    THIS is the Big Picture:

    1) What is the cause(s) of autism and ASD?

    2) What is causing the prevalence of autism and ASD to rise? (And it is, indeed, rising. [1][2])

    3) What are effective treatments for autism and ASD?

    4) How can we generate more funding dollars to fund scientific studies investigating the etiology of autism -both genetic and environmental factors. We can not reduce the prevalence of autism, if we don’t understand the etiology of autism.

    5) How can we generate more funding to develop effective treatments for autism and ASD?

    As you know, autism/ASD is now more common than childhood cancer, juvenile diabetes and pediatric AIDS combined.

    After the very latest CDC autism prevalence figures were released in December 2009 [3]; the CDC report stated, “These results … underscore the need to regard ASDs as an urgent public health concern.” [4]

    ——————————————————————————–

    [1] Hertz-Picciotto I, et al. Epidemiology. 2009;20(1):84–90.

    [2] Grether JK, et al. J Autism Dev Disord. 2009;39(10):1412–9.

    [3] http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/features/counting-autism.html

    [4] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5810a1.htm

  233. JGH-4774

    ND … Todd W … Mark,

    Did any of you read “That Paper” by Andrew Wakefield; or “On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield” by William Long?

    How can we have an informed dialogue about the allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch if you won’t read even one analysis of Wakefield’s, Professor Walker-Smith’s, and Professor Murch’s position?

    Listen, I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the two documents above AND I’ve read the allegations of conservative journalist Brian Deer. And I’ve read the findings of the GMC. (They are dense and cryptic. Even Orac complained about this.) Speaking of Orac, I regularly read his blog and others such as Prometheus. And I’ve read Dr. Paul Offit’s book “Autism’s False Prophets” and Dr. Ben Goldacre’s book “Bad Science.” As a health care professional, I read EVERYTHING on autism. And, I read both sides of a controversy before I make judgments. (Which reminds me of the dinosaur extinction debate roaring between UC Berkeley and Princeton: [1] [2].)

    It is impossible for me, in my posts, to provide a detailed explanation of what happened during the production of the Wakefield et al. paper published in The Lancet in 1998. My posts are already sometimes too long (for this venue).

    ND, Todd W, Mark; I invite you again to read “On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield” by William Long. Please read it critically (you should!). It is 16 pages long. It was written by a rather interesting retired professor [3] who taught religion, sociology, history and law. This is not exactly Jenny McCarthy.

    If you are not open to considering the position and testimony of both sides of these serious allegations (Wakefield/Walker-Smith/Murch vs. Brian Deer and the GMC), then how can you say that you have done your homework?

    How can you say that you are fully informed?

    ————————————————————————–

    [1] http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-12-16/news/17130927_1_gerta-keller-chicxulub-mass-extinction/3

    [2] http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-03-05/news/18376824_1_asteroid-impact-chicxulub-violent-volcanic-eruptions/2

    [3] Dr. Long holds a BA (honors) and PhD (Religion) from Brown University; and a JD from Willamette University College of Law (# 1 in the Class of 1999); and a MDiv from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA (summa cum laude). Fascinating fellow. [ http://www.drbilllong.com/About.html ].

  234. Michael Glavic

    I am aware of censoring from the others, (if not all of humanity? of political humanity) so on that, I do believe we here have made at least one point, that point, on Objectivity, Thereof (

    Keep up the good work where you can in that respect? You folks also seem to have a kind of humour (sense of humor) I can appreciate, perhaps in that respect.. .

    Michael Glavic

    Where “with me,” the means justifies the end, of an end, of sorts.. . (

    Of a very meaningful thing, we here (most of Us? some of Us) have been true to our words, Thereof, I Feel as Understand, though I don’t really have the time to read everyone’s BS, in and of the other/s, matter? .. .

    Hello

    On The Help I Feel We Need.

    Call me when you need me and do so in that respect? .. . On my hope for Us.

  235. Michael Glavic

    I am aware of censoring from the others, (if not all of humanity? of political humanity) so on that, I do believe we here have made at least one point, that point, on Objectivity, Thereof (

    Keep up the good work where you can in that respect? You folks also seem to have a kind of humour (sense of humor) I can appreciate, perhaps in that respect.. .

    Michael Glavic

    Where “with me,” the means justifies the end, of an end, of sorts.. . (

    Of a very meaningful thing, we here (most of Us? some of Us) have been true to our words, Thereof, I Feel as Understand, though I don’t really have the time to read everyone’s BS, in and of the other/s, matter? .. .

    Hello

    On The Help I Feel We Need.

    Call me when you need me and do so in that respect? .. . On my hope for Us.

    My mistake (Test?) of “we” (you) might be part of that problem too if not especially, I Feel as Understand.. .

  236. Michael Glavic

    Good job. It did get posted. I thought I’d have to follow with my piece on the “dope show”.. . (otherwise? .. . (That I have any use for politics

    Michael Glavic

    On The phenomena/l.

  237. Michael Glavic

    I’m not the one thwarting communication and understanding more here, of as much?!. (as I do

    There’s more (of Course?) but be that way if that’s what you feel you want

    I feel I better understand you and All in that/this respect, of helping Us, as I Feel I Do

    Best Whatever Thereof

    Something I wrote elsewhere where you might be interested in as much:

    Everything not so much for me of this I find relatively “abusive” of as much, of bringing our worlds (ourselves?) together for Understanding More, Thereof.

    Are you feeling a bit more autistic now, of how that must feel like of understanding as much, for your self, relative to what not being so autistic might feel like, perhaps? given the diagnositic criteria, I mean, where this has to be considered, social, not limted in scope, and very much in your face, of communication? No? or might that be your problem, of abusiveness otherwise, (as with the political?) I mean

    Some, if not many if not most of us have these feelings but can’t express them, perhaps, (of our abusiveness otherwise?) but I wouldn’t be one of them (right?) of as much.. . I Feel as Understand, of Feeling as Understanding, of Course, of The course, Thereof

    Of being so brave? of being so faithful of Objectivity, of Understanding More, (of The feeling/s) I’d be thinking as feeling, of as much.. .

    Best Whatever, Thereof

    Michael Glavic

    Niche master, that words and language should matter otherwise, of what everything is for, I’d be Feeling, For, Thereof, of Communication!

    What you may not *really* be about, Hello

  238. JGH-4774

    ND … Todd W … Mark,

    Did any of you read “On Second Looking into the Case of Dr Andrew J. Wakefield” by William Long?

  239. Michael Glavic

    Good question, JGH-4774.

    Our Feeling/s (Understanding?) leave/s something to be desired?!.

    My sense of It..

    Mike Glavic

    Where Objectivity comes to mind?!.

  240. JGH-4774

    ND … Todd W … Mark,

    Nothing to say? So much for an open dialogue….

  241. JGH-4774

    Todd W or ND,

    What is your position on the rise of the incidence of autism over the last 30 years? Real or not real?

  242. Chris

    Did you notice that discussions go to more recent postings?

    It does not really matter what a lawyer thinks of Wakefield’s treatment. What matters is that Wakefield did a case study on only a dozen children, and did not even make a case for MMR causing autism. Also, the study has never been replicated.

    The science supporting the contention that autism is related to vaccines does not exist.

    Get over it. Move on.

  243. Michael Glavic

    Researching it makes it science, of all the facts we get of as much? Hello? It’s my language, or you won’t get me.. . (I assure you, of as much. You’re “abusive” otherwise. End of story

    Michael Glavic

    Self-described and describing, like it or not? .. . I’ve other places to be scientific where you don’t want to be, of as much? .. . oh so oblique one

    Your position (moderators of this board?) is a”political” (consensus) position “I’m” sayin’.. . (In serving justness by as much?!. The justness of science no less, Thereof

    You’re somewhat unworthy of science as far as I’m concerned, by what you’re saying and leaving it at that? .. .

    And why are folks like you (some of us, here, of politics?) and the New York Times (and such BS otherwise of me) making correcting language the issue when there is “so much” crime and abuse and disorder isn’t so much a question for me, of such diversion, and abuse

    You might want to get your priorities straight, to be “so” scientific I mean.. . as if I’m afraid of you

    There’s nothing to fear, but only to be understood.. . M. Curie (or someone like that? .. . (That you could understand so much any other way.. I’m feeling the right folks havn’t got their just credit/due for what real science is and is about, of The phenomena/l, Thereof ! (Where it isn’t language to you?!.

    We’d still be at peace, Thereof (if not Especially so.. .

    BWT.

  244. Michael Glavic

    Researching it makes it science, of all the facts we get of as much? Hello? It’s my language, or you won’t get me.. . (I assure you, of as much. You’re “abusive” otherwise. End of story

    Michael Glavic

    Self-described and describing, like it or not? .. . I’ve other places to be scientific where you don’t want to be, of as much? .. . oh so oblique one

    Your position (moderators of this board?) is a”political” (consensus) position “I’m” sayin’.. . (In serving justness by as much?!. The justness of science no less, Thereof

    You’re somewhat unworthy of science as far as I’m concerned, by what you’re saying and leaving it at that? .. .

    And why are folks like you (some of us, here, of politics?) and the New York Times (and such BS otherwise of me) making correcting language the issue when there is “so much” crime and abuse and disorder isn’t so much a question for me, of such diversion, and abuse

    You might want to get your priorities straight, to be “so” scientific I mean.. . as if I’m afraid of you

    There’s nothing to fear, but only to be understood.. . M. Curie (or someone like that? .. . (That you could understand so much any other way.. I’m feeling the right folks havn’t got their just credit/due for what real science is and is about, of The phenomena/l, Thereof ! (Where it isn’t language to you?!.

    We’d still be at peace, Thereof (if not Especially so.. .

    BWT.

    The machine seems to want me to cancel my first entry? in this respect, of my presenting this one without such distraction.. . !?. For whatever It’s worth

    Enforcer of The truth? .. . of as much, Thereof, of Understanding More?!. (But what else

    Michael Glavic,

    Thereof

    That you could do so much –so reasonably– about It? .. .

    Go for It. I understand what you are already, for what that’s worth.. .

    Science is a work in progess (especially relative to the Individual?) or it isn’t science at All.. .

    You could call that the Glavic rule if you want, that *I* need rules? .. .

    I need them as much as I do, but I’m trying to go beyond them for what I understand, Thereof

    I wish as much for Us?!.

    BWT.

  245. @JGH-4774

    As I mentioned before, I had a little stint where I was a bit busy. And yet, in all that time, you still did not address the questions I asked before:

    * What specific neurological damage do you believe thimerosal causes?
    * What evidence examining thimerosal in the amounts found in pre-2001 vaccines or current flu vaccines, and using similar methods of administration, supports that belief?
    * The same questions apply to your beliefs regarding aluminum salts in vaccines.

    As to rise in incidence over the past 30 years, it is difficult to determine how much reflects an actual increase and how much is an artifact of greater awareness, increased reporting, expansion of the diagnostic criteria, more sensitive diagnostic tools, increases in misdiagnosis and seeking of an incorrect diagnosis in order to gain additional state-sponsored support funding. It should be noted that, in the UK at least, the rate of autism in adults was found to be about 1 in 100, which roughly mirrors the current rate in children in the U.S. For some interesting reading on thoughts about the apparent increase, see here.

  246. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    Good to hear from you. I’ll get back to you later today (tomorrow at the latest). I’m in the middle of resposnse to Chris at #248.

  247. Chris

    Do you have trouble reading?

    Wakefield’s study was a big nothing. It is not at all relevant in the case of vaccine safety. It has never been replicated. If you do respond with any of the studies listed in the following link I will laugh at you even louder:
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html

  248. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    OK. Quick response to your post above.

    Todd wrote, “It should be noted that, in the UK at least, the rate of autism in adults was found to be about 1 in 100, which roughly mirrors the current rate in children in the U.S. For some interesting reading on thoughts about the apparent increase, see here.”

    Yes, I am familiar with the UK study on the rate of autism in adults and I already read the essay relating to this subject in Science Based Medicine by Dr. Novella (I read SBM regularly). As I stated in post # 239, I read everything I can on both sides of the autism controversy including the prevalence questions. I think it is important to carefully examine both sides of a medical/scientific controversy before rendering a judgment. (BTW, any opinion on the dinosaur extinction debate going on between UC Berkeley and Princeton?) Anyway, what do you think of the following?

    If anyone is interested in reading the actual UK study report, it is here:

    http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/mental%20health/mental%20health%20surveys/APMS_Autism_report_standard_20_OCT_09.pdf

    If anyone is interested in reading about the methodological flaws in the report, which can then be verified by reading the report, here are some discussions:

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/10/1-in-100-how-the-uk-government-arrived-at-the-adult-autism-figures.html

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/uk-government-farce-over-new-adult-autism-study-.html

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/uks-nhs-report-suggests-autism-increase-due-to-oversight.html

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/autism-not-really-on-the-rise-967-impossible.html

  249. JGH-4774

    Chris said (at 248), “The science supporting the contention that autism is related to vaccines does not exist.”

    1) That simply is not true. Many recent peer-reviewed studies DO exist that indicate that the subacute exposure of injected ethyl mercury may cause negative neurological/immunological effects (and the inhibition of important biochemical processes on the cellular level such as the methylation cycle) in infants. And here they are:

    http://www.talkaboutcuringautism.org/medical/studies-about-vaccine-autism-link.htm

    On the preceding web page, click on “Autism Studies and related Medical Conditions” located at the upper left margin.

    2) Chris, I get the feeling that you want the Vaccine-Autism/NDD relationship (if any) to be simple. That is, you want “proof” that vaccines either cause or absolutely do not cause autism. It isn’t that simple. Autism isn’t that simple. Physiology isn’t that simple. The etiology of more subtle forms of neurodevelopmental disorders/delays/injury aren’t that simple. And the developing CNS of a fetus, neonate and infant isn’t that simple.

    Chris, you may not like this, but the etiology of autism (and, separately, more subtle forms of neurodevelopmental disorders) is a complex subject. Much is not known. The jury is still out on the cause(s) of autism and these other neurologic syndromes. The fact is that we have a lot to learn about the pharmacokinetics of various vaccine components in the 21st century.

  250. JGH-4774

    Chris,

    I’m not sure you understand my position.

    1) Yes, the national immunization program is very important. I am a parent. I want my kids (and everyone’s kids) to be protected from vaccine preventable disease. Yes, if we stop vaccinating children, rates of potentially serious pediatric infectious disease like diphtheria, pertussis, and measles will go up. That is, obviously, unacceptable. Yes, I believe parents should vaccinate their children. I believe that personally and professionally.

    2) Yes, there are lots of ‘anti-vaxer’ loons out there on the internet. And some/many of the things they say are false, sometimes to a laughable degree.

    3) Yes, anything that Jenny McCarthy says should be taken with a very large grain of salt, if it is considered at all (bringing us to the actual subject of this web page).

    4) Yes, Andrew Wakefield’s hypothesis that the administration of the MMR jab when combined with other vaccines on a full immunization schedule may cause “autistic enterocolitis” in some genetically vulnerable children is unproven. And, while I believe that Wakefield genuinely wanted to help autistic kids with GI distress and that he genuinely believed in his hypothesis; yes, I believe that Wakefield allowed his passion for his hypothesis to get in the way of conducting dispassionate science (a big no-no). As I mentioned on a previous post, Wakefield’s autism research career is over.

    5) However, I am concerned that US regulatory and advisory health agencies (e.g., the FDA, CDC, AAP) allowed untold numbers of pregnant women (and thus fetuses whose weight can be measured in ounces) to be injected with ethylmercury-containing RhoGAM shots (up until 2003) and influenza shots (still).

    Secondly, I am concerned that US health agencies allowed approximately 40 million infants under the age of 6 months in the US to be injected with between 50 mcg to 62.5 mcg of ethyl mercury on a single day at their 2, 4, and 6 month well visits and 12.5 mcg on the date of birth for a decade (1990 to 2000). And this was done despite the fact that there was (and still is) no known or established safety limit for injected ethyl mercury exposure for either (a) neonates or infants, or (b) adults.

    I, and many in the health care field, believe this was incredibly unwise.

  251. Michael Glavic

    But not criminally negligent? A political socialist might feel that way, no doubt, on how little political socialists compensate for abuse

    It violates the individual to force oneself inside one, (as without their understanding and agreement) for whatever purpose. I suppose me pointing out criminal behavior and that out isn’t going to be enough to deal with it.

    You didn’t want to be reasonable (enough) with me as far as I’m concerned

    Michael Glavic

    An official language is an abomination of all that I believe. I’ll be moving on to that next, be sure, socialists otherwise of justice? Justice socialist, self-described, I am, I Feel I am.. . The charismatic leader part has yet to come, that it ever will? .. . that I should care, about what most will be happening to you too if not especially.. .

    Land o’ million mini-Hitlers? What’s worse, a million mini-Hitlers or one real bad-ass one? I know, it depends

    The suicide rate is *much* higher than you think, (suicide being diametrically proportionate to the will to live? knowing what that is? That you do.. .) and probably can think, ( ) as you ain’t looking for such things, or to tell them, I can tell!

    It’s been a pleasure ladies and gentlemen.

    I’ll have to find another venue to deal with more crime and abuse, as I feel I’ve already served you as best I can, Thereof

    BWT.

  252. JGH-4774

    Chris,

    1) You said, “Do you have trouble reading?” Your rudeness appears interminable. Do you have the capacity for civil dialogue?

    2) This is what is important:

    *What is the cause(s) of autism?

    *What is causing the prevalence of autism to rise? (And it is, indeed, rising.)

    *What are effective treatments for autism?

    * How can we generate more funding dollars to fund scientific studies investigating the etiology of autism -both genetic and environmental factors. We can not reduce the prevalence of autism, if we don’t understand the etiology of autism.

    *How can we generate more funding to develop effective treatments for autism?

    *As you know, autism/ASD is now more common than childhood cancer, juvenile diabetes and pediatric AIDS combined. As the CDC stated in December 2009, “These results … underscore the need to regard ASDs as an urgent public health concern.”

    3) Finally, where did I state that the findings of Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet case report had been replicated? What are you talking about?

  253. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    At #251, you state, “And yet, in all that time, you still did not address the questions I asked before…” The questions you refer to are excellent ones. I would be happy to respond to them. The reason I did not before is that you disappeared for some time (which you explain at 251). In order to provide you with a thoughtful and substantiated response, it will take me a few days (I too have a ‘day job’ and significant family responsibilities). So, if you would be so gracious, give me a couple of days. In particular, the question of the toxicity of subacute doses of injected aluminum is interesting. I want to give you a meaningful response.

    In the meantime, I will note that I have sincerely tried to respond to every one of your questions on this web page and in a civil, thoughtful and substantial way; while you have not responded to many of my questions and posts. A dialogue is a two-way process. As I said at 219, “I hope you will return the favor.” But, you never responded to my posts at 174, 214, 239, 244, 247, or 257. For example, at 214, I said, “Let’s discuss the subacute exposure of injected ethyl mercury in 0, 2, 4, and 6 month old infants.” You never responded.

    Lastly, I have never received a response to a question that I have asked you (and Chris) several times >>>> “What amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury (a heavy metal and a known neurotoxin) is safe to inject into human beings? And, what amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury is safe to inject into 0, 2, 4, and 6 month old infants, whose neurological and immunological systems are still developing?

  254. @JGH-4774

    Lastly, I have never received a response to a question that I have asked you (and Chris) several times >>>> “What amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury (a heavy metal and a known neurotoxin) is safe to inject into human beings? And, what amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury is safe to inject into 0, 2, 4, and 6 month old infants, whose neurological and immunological systems are still developing?

    I already addressed this; for example see my post at 181. You never really responded to that.

    But, you never responded to my posts at 174, 214, 239, 244, 247, or 257.

    Post 181 addressed post 174. Post 216 addressed post 214. 239 did not seem to require a response, since you were only asking if we read some documents. Same for 244, which was a shorter repeat of 239. And, 251 addressed 247. 257 was not your post, and I really don’t feel like engaging in conversation with Mr. Glavic, as he is incredibly difficult to understand. If you meant, instead, 256 or 258, neither was addressed to me, so I feel no need to reply to them.

    Work on your reading before you accuse people of not engaging in the “two-way process” of dialogue.

  255. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    I meant 254, not 257. I apologize for my transcribing error. (I’m trying to juggle many responsibilities at once.) No, I certainly don’t expect you to respond to any of Mr. Glavic’s posts.

    More coming…

  256. JGH-4774

    Everyone have a good Easter. I’ll be back on Monday with a post for Todd W.

  257. Michael Glavic
  258. barb

    The current vaccine/autism research has been like this obese lady.

    She eats pies, cakes, cookies, ice cream, and candies. She give us eating peanut-butter fudge. Then she moans and groans. She has proven over and over and over again every time that she gives up one food that sweets do not cause obesity. She gave up the fudge for a year and didn’t lose an ounce!

    Dr. Andrew Moulden has done the research that connects vaccines and autism. You can watch his videos on youtube or his website brainguardmd. All vaccines cause ministrokes.

    Also many autistic children have severe food allergies which is also caused by vaccinations! There is a new book out “The History of the Peanut Allergy Epidemic” by Heather Fraser. She found some interesting facts:

    The WHO and FDA decided that refined peanut oil is GRAS and does not have to be listed on the package insert of pharmaceuticals. If you want to know if peanut oil is an ingredient in a vaccine, you are not entitled to know because it is a protected trade secret.

    Peanut allergy is epidemic among our vaccinated children. 1 in 125 have a SEVERE peanut allergy which means they could die if they smell peanuts.

    I want full disclosure of all ingredients on all pharmaceutical products… how about you?

  259. @barb

    Do you have a link to papers published by Dr. Moulden? I did a search on PubMed and could find nothing. His video does not constitute valid scientific evidence.

    Also many autistic children have severe food allergies which is also caused by vaccinations!

    Citation please.

    The WHO and FDA decided that refined peanut oil is GRAS and does not have to be listed on the package insert of pharmaceuticals. If you want to know if peanut oil is an ingredient in a vaccine, you are not entitled to know because it is a protected trade secret.

    First off, please provide a link to an FDA document declaring refined peanut oil as GRAS. I was unable to find any. Further, the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 requires labeling to include known major allergens, which include peanuts. Finally, you are wrong about the labeling. The package label must contain, according to 21 CFR 610.61:

    (l) Known sensitizing substances, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information;

    (n) The inactive ingredients when a safety factor, or reference to an enclosed circular containing appropriate information

    Finally, this post is extraordinarily old. Please post on more recent threads.

  260. JGH-4774

    Todd (re. #259 & 260),

    Again, I apologize for my transcribing error (I meant 254, not 257). And, no, I certainly don’t expect you to respond to any of Mr. Glavic’s posts. However, I think I am accurate in my description that you have not responded to several of my posts in a substantial way, and in several instances, at all.

    174- Your response at 181 does not directly answer the question posed. [A]
    214- Your response at 216 was insubstantial. [B]
    239- No response. [C]
    244- No response. [C]
    247- Your response at 251 was minimal/vague. [D]
    254- No response.

    [A] At 174, the question posed was, “>>>> What amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury (a heavy metal and a known neurotoxin) is safe to inject into human beings? And, critically, for our children, what amount –what dose– of ethyl mercury is safe to inject into including infants, whose neurological and immunological systems are still developing? <<<<“ …. You did not directly answer this question. Instead, you alluded to one study [1] and provided one sentence of the conclusion from that study. Not a very substantial or persuasive response.

    BTW, the one study you cited possessed several weaknesses. First, there were several self-admitted limitations. [2] In addition, there was selection bias; relevant populations were excluded; and, “Less than 11% of children were exposed to thimerosal prenatally through maternal vaccination or receipt of immune globulins.” Second, the study did not examine the possible association between autism and exposure to mercury from vaccines. [3] …. Third, the study conclusion was neutral: “Our study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years.” That is, this study did not prove (nor disprove) a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and deficits in neuropsychological functioning. … Fourth, this study was conducted by individuals with strong [and declared] pharmaceutical ties [4]. I love studies that are conducted to determine the safety of vaccines that are conducted by individuals who were previously employed by vaccine companies and/or have close relationships with the vaccine companies. …. Finally and most of all, the study was distinctly underpowered (n=1,147). If subacute exposures to injected ethylmercury are causing negative neurological/immunological effects in a small subset of the pediatric population who are genetically vulnerable due to inhibited glutathione/methylation cycle function; they would not be identified in this study.

    [B] At 214, I asked you, “Let’s discuss Clarkson’s papers on “the toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds” (2002, 2006, 2007). … Let’s discuss the subacute exposure of injected ethyl mercury in 0, 2, 4, and 6 year old infants.” …. Your response comprised three sentences: “Thank you for the Clarkson link. It wasn’t exactly what I asked for, but it was an interesting read that basically amounted to ‘we don’t know much about it and further research is needed’ …. and “I have not had an opportunity, yet, to read the other Clarkson papers you cited.” That was it.

    [C] At 239 & 244, I asked if you had read, “On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield” by William Long.” I was genuinely curious if you had read the essay. It certainly does not fully exonerate Andy Wakefield, but it was a thoughtful and specific analysis of the events surrounding the generation of the 1998 Lancet case report. As I said at 239, “Please read it critically (you should!).” And,… “If you are not open to considering the position and testimony of both sides of these serious allegations (Brian Deer and the GMC vs. Dr. Wakefield, Professors Walker-Smith and Murch), then how can you say that you are fully informed?” …….. No response of any kind to either.

    [D] At 247, I asked “What is your position on the rise of the incidence of autism over the last 30 years? Real or not real?” This is a major ongoing autism debate. Several leading autism epidemiologists investigating the prevalence of autism believe a significant increase is real. [5] While others involved in the debate are arguing that the increase is not real. Your answer was vague.

    You stated, “As to rise in incidence over the past 30 years, it is difficult to determine how much reflects an actual increase and how much is an artifact of greater awareness, [etc.]” Then you alluded to a UK study of very poor quality (which I responded to at 254), and then you passed the baton to Dr. Novella to argue your position for you.

    With regard to Dr. Novella, I have a lot of respect for him. I’ve read his essays at SBM for years. However, first, he is not an epidemiologist (he is a well-trained neurologist). Second, he is a vigorous pro-immunization advocate. That’s fine. That’s absolutely fine. But, lets all be clear about Dr. Novella’s point of view. Lastly, Todd, you and I are having the dialogue and exchange here. May I sincerely request that you to provide your own argument(s).

    Listen, Todd, I’m happy to move on and argue the substance of the very important issue at hand. But first, in response to your post at #260, I believe I am accurate in my description that you have not responded to several of my posts in a substantial way, and in some instances, at all. In addition, derisive (and inaccurate) remarks such as “Work on your reading before you…” are inappropriate, unnecessary; and not productive to an open dialogue and debate. Yes, I know how to read.

    ——————————————————–

    [1] Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years
    Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team
    N Engl J Med, Sep 27, 2007; 357(13):1281-1292

    [2] “Our study had several limitations. A majority of the selected families declined to participate or could not be located, and we were able to enroll only 30% of the subjects included for recruitment.”

    [3] “Our study did not examine the possible association between autism and exposure to mercury from vaccines and immune globulins.”

    [4] “Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.”

    [5]
    Robert Byrd MPH, PhD; UC Davis MIND Institute.
    Irva Hertz-Picciotto, MPH, PhD; UC Berkeley; UC Davis MIND Institute.
    Craig Newschaffer, MD; Harvard; Johns Hopkins.
    W. Ian Lipkin, MD; John Snow Professor of Epidemiology, Columbia University.

  261. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    Can you cite any studies that demonstrate the safety of subacute exposures of injected ethyl mercury to the fetus and to infants at the age of 0, 2, 4, and 6 months -that were conducted by independent medical researchers? Can you cite any studies that were NOT conducted, sponsored or paid for by the vaccine manufacturers themselves or by agencies that have been profoundly involved in the promotion of vaccination for decades? And my concern here is genuine. And I am not alone in this concern. I know many mainstream MDs, personally, and others in the health care field who are sincerely concerned by this.

  262. JGH-4774

    Todd, one other point. I believe one should read the leading voices of both sides of any medical or scientific debate in order to be fully informed. In fact, I read Dr. Novella’s essays precisely to learn about some of the latest pro-vaccination arguments/positions. And many are highly compelling, of course. That’s why I support immunization personally and professionally. My only concern with regard to immunization is the wisdom of purposely injecting subacute doses of Hg and Al into pregnant woman and infants – thus exposing the profoundly developing CNS and brain of the fetus and young infant to potent and known neurodevelopmental toxins, even in “small” doses. In addition, I am concerned about the exposure of Hg and Al (via IM or SQ injection) to subsets of the pediatric population who are geneticaly more vulnerable to neurotoxic insult from metals. I admit, I do feel that thimerosal should not be used in -any- vaccines. And I don’t apologize for that position. And I don’t find it incompatible with being a pro-vaccination parent and professional.

  263. JGH-4774

    Todd,

    Yet, no response again. Your pattern of behavior betrays the defense you offer in #260. I’ve attempted to engage you (and others on this page) in a civil, informed, and productive exchange, but you seem less interested in an open-minded dialogue than an automatic, reflexive defense of a dug-in position. Frankly, that is unscientific. In science and in medicine, we always examine and reexamine our beliefs. That is how progress is attained.

  264. Michael Glavic

    In *real* science (as far as I’m concerned, of what control I have in this respect?) you communicate, (with whatever is trying to communicate with you? of being so intelligent) and not so much suck up to political authority of individual abuse for license to do science projects and earn a living by as much, whatever a peer for review would be in that respect?

    As long as there are abuses on the table (charges of abuse? especially as related to what science should be addressing of its complicity to as much, otherwise?) science otherwise is fundamentally irrelevant if not party to such abuse, for what it really is (of aiding and abetting such abuse) I Feel as Understand, to whatever would communicate to as much of as much, of everything being for “Justness” (of and for the Individual) is what *my* scienctific research has revealed to me for me, of The power, Thereof

    That would be my sense of It, as much as JGH-4774 would be witness to It if not be party to as much, otherwise? .. . (I understand what science is, for, where you don’t? .. . (I Feel as Understand, by as much, where you don’t.. .

    Of telling people what I Feel, of The facts, Thereof, of what is Primary to what even science must be about for a dressing, (addressing?) where it be anything at *All,* so meaningful, I mean, of Feeling as Understanding and how to develop The sense/s of Communication, if not everything more meaningful, Thereof (That the universe has anything on me, otherwise

    Where Justness trumps science, where science isn’t primary to Justness, Thereof

    Best wishes, Thereof

    Michael Glavic

    It’s been my pleasure in this respect of as much.

    If it’s not the science of Understanding (of the Individual?) it’s not science, (perhaps? or perhaps I don’t need your idea of science) nor would it be Just, and the proof would be in the pudding in this respect of as much, I Feel as Understand. Understanding Connects, [to a greater understanding, of More..] where science would be about as much would depend on what you mean by science, of your rather senseless language, otherwise. Sure, do something *reasonable* about that, why don’t you, where you can? .. .

    On taking science to what It’s For

    Best wishes, Thereof.

  265. mocaso

    ok, everyone seems to fighting on this blog about what causes Autism.
    No one knows, not doctors, not biologist, not chemist and not you either. So for you people to be calling “Anti-vaxer” irresponsible and plain out “ignorant” is something that makes you “irresponsible and ignorant” as well.
    Most people that have become anti-vax are either parents of Autistic Children and/or close friends , relatives of ones .
    When I had my first child, I never even doubted any doctors and just went for everything they told me.
    My child was vaccinated over and over and over for 2 years. Time after time he was getting sicker and sicker and I kept going back to the doctor and leaving with no answers.
    This child looked sick and was always sick.
    At 2.5 years old , he was diagnosed with Autism.
    Jenny McCarthy helped me a lot and whether you are a fan of her or not..everything she says has helped my child.
    I don’t know what to believe about the MMR vaccines.
    What I do know is that my child has a compromised methylation cycle that enables him to get rid of viruses and toxins.
    I know that my child’s vaccine titers are waaaay of the charts 2 years after being vaccinated. That the lead inside his body is way too high for such a young child. That his GI is dysfunctional and needs continuous support.
    We have noone in our family with Autism and his brother (born two years later) was not vaccinated and not Autistic either.
    My son is not a case of “over -diagnoses” of Autism and a living prove that yes, genetic predisposition plays a role but something is triggering the responses that makes a child Autistic.
    That something , I am a believer , is vaccines.
    When you have a child yourself a you see what damage has been done to him and how many vaccine viruses, intestinal damage and toxins are inside his tiny little body then that’s when you can come back and write on blogs how vaccines are not causing damage to all children.
    Why is noone offering to check vaccine titers prior to re-vaccinating children? Why is noone checking children methylation cycles prior to shooting up kids with 30 vaccines? Why does noone care?
    Everyone makes Autistic parents sound like we are way off because science has not been able to prove or link the cause of Autism. You keep throwing studies in each other’s faces like that is going to change the cause.

  266. Jason

    This is the worst website. The people here are tools, they have no beleif…this site is a bad habbit for me, I often come here to see what the other side is up too…VACCINES with mercury causes AUTISM….get it through your thick skulls, you think all 6000 families are wrong?? There’s a reason why Europe and Russia banned the use of mercury in vaccines for children since 1977…every fool on this message board needs to wake up. BTW there is a God and he is far superior to any science your little mind can comprehend.

  267. Not Anybody Special

    6,000 families to hundreds of millions protected from a debilitating or lethal disease? You don’t suppose 6K families could be well within the normal range of people who get autism as a natural occurrence? You anti-vax folks are starting to sound like flat earthers, except less funny.

  268. Jenny McCarthy believes that she is an “Indigo” mother and her son is a “Crystal” child, which basically means that she’s completely insane.

    http://thingsjennymccarthybelievesaboutautism.com/index.php?url=244

  269. John Fryer

    Not Anybody Special Says

    6 000 families with autism is normal.

    This is a bit like saying 6 000 flipper babies were normal in the 1960′s.

    Thalidomide by the way was responsible and today it makes more money than ever for its manufacturers who try to use it carefully so that only a few hundred flipper babies get caught out and the pharmaceuticals can pick up the tab except they blame the families and give them nothing as usual.

    As a chemist I can confirm thimerosal was got rid of after the Japan mercury poisoning incident. It was also got rid of again in 2000 by the CDC who did not admit it was harmful but got rid of it to alleviate a theoretical risk.

    Today it is in many vaccines at full strength and if people did the research they would almost certainly find mercury vaccines for H1N1 caused more harm and deaths than H1N1 illness.

    Today in French territories 30 000 have got dengue with many dying but NO VACCINE.

    Why? Why? Why? Probably because vaccines for REAL illnesses dont work.

    Polio is an illness that everyone got and most did not know. in conjunction with DDT exposure they got VERY ill.

    We are told eating GMO is harmless as it gets broken down to amino acids. So how come a sugar cube stops polio? It doesnt make sense except that as the polio vaccine campaign rolled out they got rid of DDT at the same time.

    Today ONLY countries with heavy use of DDT have polio.

    Going to Lead and development problems, smoking and cancer, leukemia and uranium you find at every turn DENIAL of facts.

    Thimerosal is a known toxic chemical that destroys brain cells. No amount of LYING can avoid this SIMPLE TRUTH.

    Cover up all the way to the high courts.

    Who can pay for millions of vaccine harmed infants?

    NOONE.

  270. Matt

    But Jenny’s just HOT. People listen to hotties. Hotties who talk science (even if it’s crap science) are even HOTTER.

  271. Roberto

    What a load of bull this note is!!! Go Jenny, we love you!!!
    From Argentina,Roberto,parent of an autistic child, after vaccination.

  272. BlueCollarCritic

    @PatK

    I realize and understand how important it is for humans to feel like they are part of the in-crowd or the winning team (where the majority seem to be coming from) and that its equally important to ridicule/name call those in opposition so as to reinforce your stance of being in favor of what the majority are however in the case of vaccines the term “dead wrong” has more then a figurative meaning.

    The facts are:

    1) Autism is NOT some disease that’s been commonly found for most of civilization or even a majority of the past century but something that’s relatively new and that has seen a mind staggering increase in diagnosis as of the past few decades.

    2) Something has caused or at a minimum influenced the increase in Autism the past few decades.

    3) Science is science and that means what science claims today it just may discredit tomorrow and vice versa.

    4) Only a few do the work while most simply read the results (without analysis ) and accept it as undeniable fact and propagate it as such taking great strides to ridicule any who have an opposing opinion.

    5) Research costs money and more and more often that money is getting harder and harder to come by. Therefore if your asked/told that in order to continue getting funding for your work that is critical to mankind we need for you to work with us on something then its easy to justify the lie because you convince yourself itsnot important and besides your work is critical and it takes priority over a littel white lie.

    6) Corporations, in particular Pharmaceuticals, have been caught falsifying drug test results and selling a product know to be harmful.

    The above does not mean that all or even a good number of those in the science community are lying or that all drug companies willing sell bad product because the bean counters say the profits will exceed the fines incurred, but that these are enough to warrant caution and to not just accept as gospel what someone or entity claims especially if they have something to-gain (directly or indirectly) from it.

    Anyone who dismisses an opposing opinion that is presented sincerely and passionately is undeserving of recognition and has discredited themselves.

    I’m not saying vaccines do or do not cause problems. I am saying that there’s enough credible criticism of vaccines by persons in the medical and scientific community to warrant a proper review/study/investigation of them and by someone not dependent on the government or a government grant/loan to fund their research or provide for their basic needs because if they do then their ability to do this study/review/investigation honestly and fully has already been skewed to a desired outcome by those standing to make or lose a large sum of money.

    It is the fool, the liar and [especially] the politician who speak first, last and most often.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More