# Autism scare a hoax



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

On the radio tonight, a british investigaive reporter is stating that a British investigative panel has found that the Doctor linkin autism to innoculations fabricated everything. The reporter said he did it for money. I just caught the report, there should be more coming tomorrow.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/05/autism-vaccine.html?ref=rss


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

http://www.670kboi.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=116&itemid=29617756



> (LONDON) &#8211; An article in the British Medical Journal has declared that a study that linked the MMR vaccine to autism was &#8220;an elaborate fraud&#8221; that may have led to the preventable disease and death of children.


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

Wow, if a doctor would do something that awful for money, imagine if that were to happen in the debate on global warming...oh, too late.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> http://www.670kboi.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=116&itemid=29617756


I hope Jenny McCarthy feels as stupid as she is.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 5, 2011)

?? Dude, This is old news, he lost his medical license ages ago, lawsuits have been in the work for years.

The CBC??? You realize that you can't find a more leftwing Canadian source of information....right?


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> ?? Dude, This is old news, he lost his medical license ages ago, lawsuits have been in the work for years.
> 
> The CBC??? You realize that you can't find a more leftwing Canadian source of information....right?



shhhh, don't tell him! He thinks it's the ultra far right!!!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> ?? Dude, This is old news, he lost his medical license ages ago, lawsuits have been in the work for years.
> 
> The CBC??? You realize that you can't find a more leftwing Canadian source of information....right?


 
This is indeed a very old story.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 6, 2011)

Its possible Bill. Fact is nobody knows for sure what 'causes' autism.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

To be fair to the doctors supporters supporters and those who trusted his results, he was aresearchdoctor and had published his result in a respected journal. It's he shame not his supporters who I guess are left very upset and looking for answers.
It may have also set back research into any link between the vaccines and autism by severals years, because of him there could be a link and now we'll not know it. He's done a lot of harm.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 6, 2011)

You don't stop vaccinating children, a long known disease preventative, because they MIGHT..possibly...who knows...cause autism. Especially when the idea was propagated by a quack.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> You don't stop vaccinating children, a long known disease preventative, because they MIGHT..possibly...who knows...cause autism. Especially when the idea was propagated by a quack.


 

Trouble is they didn't find out until it was too late that he wasn't telling the truth.
Long before this and we are talking over 30 years ago, I was told not to give my children the whooping cough vaccine because their father had hayfever, this was by the doctors. the vaccine didn't stop children getting whooping cough though, they still got it though just not quite as seriously. I hope things have moved on a bit since.
It was the triple vaccine that caused concern and which he was blaming, you could have the vaccinations done separately even he didn't claim anything wrong with them, it was the mixing of the vaccines that he said were the problem.


----------



## crushing (Jan 6, 2011)

This is huge news in the USA media right now. If it is old news, why did this story blow up yesterday? Was there a press release by Big Pharma to the networks to get the word out?

EDIT:
An interview with the "quack".
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/smith-scott8.1.1.html
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]


> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*Dr. Andrew Wakefield:* The Autism study was a simple case series of 12 children and all it did was to tell the parents story of what they told us. It was to document the pinnacle findings in the children. Further research was needed into causes of autism.[/FONT]


 
It looks like the media and others have been reading more in to this simple case study than the Doctor wrote and they are claiming he came to conclusions that he never did.  In the same article he says he is not anti-vaccine and that his own children were vaccinated.  This quack is concerned that vaccines aren't properly vetted and they are pushed through without enough study.



> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*Daily Bell*: We've already touched on it, but explain please in detail why the initial paper was disavowed by the Lancet?[/FONT]
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*Dr. Andrew Wakefield*: In the first instance, the Editor of the Lancet asked us to retract an interpretation of the paper. And that interpretation was that MMR vaccine was the cause of autism.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*Daily Bell*: But you didn't make this claim did you?[/FONT]
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*Dr. Andrew Wakefield*: No, the paper did not make that claim. It did not provide the interpretation that MMR vaccine is the cause of autism. However, it did raise the possibility that vaccines may be associated with autism. But you cannot retract a possibility. A possibility exists. It remains a possibility and therefore to retract it is illogical and was done purely as a political expedient.[/FONT]


 
Again and again he simply asks for further study.  Apparently, based on comments on a CNN show last evening, there have been studies comparing the autism rates of vaccinated children with smaller levels of mercury to vacinated children with larger levels of mercury, but ZERO studies comparing the rates of autism rates among children that have not been vaccinated with children that have.  To ask for further research seems to be all Dr. Wakefield is asking for.  That is controversial?  That gets a person marginalized?
[/FONT]


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

crushing said:


> This is huge news in the USA media right now. If it is old news, why did this story blow up yesterday? Was there a press release by Big Pharma to the networks to get the word out?


 
To be honest I've no idea, it's not on the news here. The article was written in 1998 and the controversy began in 2001, in 2004 the journalists reported on the hoax and discovered he wasdoing it for the money. In 2006 the GMC announced an inquiry into the doctor this took place early 2007. The doctor was struck off.

I think a book or article has been published about how the fraud was busted which may account for the publicity.


----------



## cdunn (Jan 6, 2011)

In better news, we are getting closer, slowly closer to an understanding of autism. From memory, the essential understanding that we are reaching is that there is a complex series of events that have to occur in the brain at the cellular level for the mind to reach optimal function. There are a very large number of links in the chain of events, and any number of failures along the length of the chain can lead to symptoms along the autism spectrum. The vast variety of failure points leads to the spectrum nature of the disorder, rather than single discrete diseases. Unfortunately, at this time, treatments based on this knowledge would have to be individually tailored, and therefore inordinately difficult to create - but there is still the seed of hope inside it. 

This should be the findings of the GMC in the Wakefield case - I can't check it right now, the company bars scribd, since not everything they host is happy with the filters. 

And, a doctor's blog as he deconstructs the thing; links to the British Medical Journal articles are provided, along with many other links to both his own articles and other's articles following the scandal. While his primary specialty is cancer research and related surgery, his hobby is deconstructing 'alternative' medicine, and he brings the full of his experience at thorough research to the table. Read it with your own grain of salt, but I find him one of the better reads available.


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> You don't stop vaccinating children, a long known disease preventative, because they MIGHT..possibly...who knows...cause autism. Especially when the idea was propagated by a quack.



That's a perfect example of 20/20 hindsight.


----------



## cdunn (Jan 6, 2011)

crushing said:


> This is huge news in the USA media right now. If it is old news, why did this story blow up yesterday? Was there a press release by Big Pharma to the networks to get the word out?
> 
> EDIT:
> An interview with the "quack".
> ...


 
Double post, but - Dr. Wakefield performed painful medical procedures on children without leading evidence of benefit, in order to make a personal monetary profit. New evidence has surfaced that he not only performed the experiments in flagrant violation of medical ethics, at least some of the data included in his paper is presented in distorted fashion or is an outright lie. His lies have led to literally thousands of people becoming infected with trivially prevented diseases, which can be lethal. He deserves marginalization, and more.


----------



## crushing (Jan 6, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Double post, but - Dr. Wakefield performed painful medical procedures on children without leading evidence of benefit, in order to make a personal monetary profit. New evidence has surfaced that he not only performed the experiments in flagrant violation of medical ethics, *at least some of the data included in his paper is presented in distorted fashion or is an outright lie. His lies have led to* literally thousands of people becoming infected with trivially prevented diseases, which can be lethal. He deserves marginalization, and more.


 
Who is distorting it and why?  Aren't those that distorted his paper the ones that have lied?  When the media says that his reasearch claims that autism is linked to a vaccine, when it actually doesn't say that, who is to blame?

Here is a copy of the retracted study:  http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm  It's fairly short, so feel free to read it and find that it clearly states that studies should be done to see if there is a link, not that there is actually a link.

Who has the most to gain from building the straw man to be burned?  Will anyone else that suggests that new vaccines or combinations of vaccines should undergo more rigourous studies and testing be written off as just another Dr. Wakefield?

I'm not really that interested in defending Dr. Wakefield, I'm more interested in how easily people can be manipulated by sensational journalism and the possible reasons behind the big push to make this a huge media story this week.  Maybe it's a distraction from another newsworthy event, or to get more people to be part of the vaccine consumer herd.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 6, 2011)

He distorted the data in his own reports..thats the news.


----------



## crushing (Jan 6, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> He distorted the data in his own reports..thats the news.


 
His report said he couldn't rule out a link and that more studies need to be done.  That has been distorted to *THERE IS A LINK! *


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

This is why it's hit the news. The journalist who did the expose has published all the details this week in the British Medical Journal. I imagine as it's old news here it hasn't been picked up by our press again but I'm assuming it's not been carried by the press before in the States. Here's the article.


http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full


----------



## cdunn (Jan 6, 2011)

crushing said:


> His report said he couldn't rule out a link and that more studies need to be done.


 
Once again, Mr. Wakefield faked a portion of his data, and threw away any data in his study that did not lead to his conclusion. Any reasonable interpretation of the full data set collected: That a number of children develop signs of autism before vaccination, and that there is an essentially random time, stretching to an average of 56 days, between vaccination and the first signs of autism, support that there is nothing worth deeper investigation. The 'big push' comes from the exposure of parental testimony that the data presented relative to his child was fabricated. While doing so, he took an amout of money very close to a million US dollars from trial lawyers for a study they hoped would support vaccine injury cases against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.

A situation has been created where Mr. Wakefield has made of himself a publicity lightning rod for the cause of non-vaccination, and since he's been exposed as a fraud and a liar, he's blowing on his little dog whistle of 'I just suggested an investigation' for all his supporters to come to his aid. 

The 'media sensation' that you refer to is the decade old lunging of thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousand of parents of autistic children at a chance to blame someone, anyone, for a disorder that they believe had made their child something other than human. They are wrong. The vaccines are not to blame, and their child is still a person, a full human being. But for every one of these, there are ten parents of autistic children to just want the best for their child. Therefore, the media has a moral duty to expose the truth of the matter - while there are miniscule risks of vaccine injury, they are many orders of magnitude smaller than the risks of the diseases they prevent, and autism is not among the potential risks. If nothing else, parents who do not yet know if they should or should not vaccinate their children deserve to know that the study that the anti-vaccine ideologues like to wave around in support of their cause is a baldfaced lie - That a link cannot be reasonably ruled out on Wakefield's dataset is a lie. That a link is there is a lie - but it is a lie that is being waved around by desperate parents who don't know any better - or in many cases refuse to know any better. 

Autism has become worth millions of dollars as frightened parents run around trying to do anything to make their children 'whole and right' again. They are going so far as to chemically castrate them in hopes of 'curing' them. They are flushing drugs for heavy metal poisoning through their children, exposing them to the full side effects to no benefit. They are feeding them industrial bleach. THAT is why there is a sensation, because this is near and dear enough to many people to get them to do very, very stupid things, a significant portion of which is based on a lie stating that maybe there might be a link between autism and vaccine.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Once again, Mr. Wakefield faked a portion of his data, and threw away any data in his study that did not lead to his conclusion. Any reasonable interpretation of the full data set collected: That a number of children develop signs of autism before vaccination, and that there is an essentially random time, stretching to an average of 56 days, between vaccination and the first signs of autism, support that there is nothing worth deeper investigation. The 'big push' comes from the exposure of parental testimony that the data presented relative to his child was fabricated. While doing so, he took an amout of money very close to a million US dollars from trial lawyers for a study they hoped would support vaccine injury cases against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.
> 
> A situation has been created where Mr. Wakefield has made of himself a publicity lightning rod for the cause of non-vaccination, and since he's been exposed as a fraud and a liar, he's blowing on his little dog whistle of 'I just suggested an investigation' for all his supporters to come to his aid.
> 
> ...


 

An extremely good post, thank you. The last paragraph is horrifying though. I can't imagine what parents are going through trying to find a cure for their children, it makes them so easily a target for those looking either to make money or for 'renown'. 
In your first link in that paragraph, Professor Baron-Cohen is mentioned as saying the treatment is irresponsible, he's the cousin of actor Sasha Baron-Cohen overwise known as Ali G, Bruno and Borat. It's an extremely talented family with several well respected doctors  (I know friends of friends) and Professor Baron-Cohen is one of the best in his field, if he says it doesn't work, it doesn't.


----------



## crushing (Jan 6, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Once again, Mr. Wakefield faked a portion of his data...


 
Yes, I understand that.  At the same time his report is being misrepresented in the media.  His report specifically states that he didn't find a link between vaccines and autism.  In interviews he said he didn't find a link.  Yet the media says keeps saying that he and his study claims to link autism with the MMR vaccine.  I'm just asking why are the media doing that?

The title of the thread is "Autism scare a hoax".  I'm interested in who took Wakefield's study (however flawed and fradulent it may be) and turned it in to something it never was. And, for what purpose?


----------



## cdunn (Jan 6, 2011)

crushing said:


> Yes, I understand that.  At the same time his report is being misrepresented in the media.  His report specifically states that he didn't find a link between vaccines and autism.  In interviews he said he didn't find a link.  Yet the media says keeps saying that he and his study claims to link autism with the MMR vaccine.  I'm just asking why are the media doing that?
> 
> The title of the thread is "Autism scare a hoax".  I'm interested in who took Wakefield's study (however flawed and fradulent it may be) and turned it in to something it never was. And, for what purpose?



Who? Advocacy groups such as Age of Autism. "News" sites like Huffington Post, after the 'quick strike against the establishment'. Alt-Med practitioners who may honestly believe that they have a 'cure', or those who are willing to commit fraud against the innocent and desperate for a quick buck. These people keep pushing the idea that vaccines cause autism, and are bad in general. Semi-celebrities like McCarthy, Carey, and RFK shill for them, often in honest belief.

The increase in autism diagnosis has created a large number of desperate and confused people, looking to latch on to any hope. There has been precious little hope for them in science-based medicine. Autism is incurable. Dealing with the developmental issues is not trivial. Certain therapies can make it easier on the people who show the symptoms, but there are limits, and the therapies are long and tiring. As above, there are a lot of people who look at this situation and honestly, but wrongly, think they can help. There are also a lot of people who look at the situation and think "prey".


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 6, 2011)

crushing said:


> At the same time his report is being misrepresented in the media.  His report specifically states that he didn't find a link between vaccines and autism.



He said his report did not "prove" such a link, and went on to discuss other potential causes in good scientific fashion.  However, by reference and by data he links antigen induced inflammation in the gut to autism development, and further links vaccine administration to autism development.  His study taken at face value supports the hypothesis, which is what all the hoopla is about.  It is disingenuous to say that Wakefield did not attempt to link the two in his study.  

As for the media, "correlation does not equal causation" is very difficult for journalists (and most of the public) to grasp.  If any journalist claimed this study "proved" such a link, then they are hardly alone even on reporting non-controversial studies - and I doubt it was done deliberately.  Again, his study taken at face value supported the hypothesis, and it would not be illegitimate to report it as such.



crushing said:


> In interviews he said he didn't find a link.  Yet the media says keeps saying that he and his study claims to link autism with the MMR vaccine.  I'm just asking why are the media doing that?



Because his data supported it, and his career after that study was aimed at vaccine induced neurological damage?  Because he claims that the vaccines are not properly tested and may be causing neurological problems?  It's basically crazy for Wakefield to pretend that he has no idea why people would think he thinks that vaccines, MMR or otherwise, would cause neurological problems.  His whole career post-1988 is devoted to that very hypothesis!  He even said as much in the interview you pulled some quotes from.

So not only is Wakefield a scientific fraud, he's a personal fraud as well.


----------



## crushing (Jan 6, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Who? Advocacy groups such as Age of Autism. "News" sites like Huffington Post, after the 'quick strike against the establishment'. Alt-Med practitioners who may honestly believe that they have a 'cure', or those who are willing to commit fraud against the innocent and desperate for a quick buck. These people keep pushing the idea that vaccines cause autism, and are bad in general. Semi-celebrities like McCarthy, Carey, and RFK shill for them, often in honest belief.


 
Thank you much for your patience and responses. Major news organizations such as CNN and ABC are saying that Wakefield and his report link autism with the MMR vaccine. Doesn't it seem like these news organizations would have the means to actually read and understand the report? Do they have a motivation to propagate the autism link that never was, or do they just suck at reporting?

EDIT:
Empty Hands:  I was composing the above when you posted your message.  Thank you for your response too.



> As for the media, "correlation does not equal causation" is very difficult for journalists (and most of the public) to grasp. If any journalist claimed this study "proved" such a link, then they are hardly alone even on reporting non-controversial studies - and I doubt it was done deliberately. Again, his study taken at face value supported the hypothesis, and it would not be illegitimate to report it as such.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2011)

Autism rates are skyrocketing across the western world.  That is no hoax.  1 child in 60 in the UK suffers from a form of autism.  Meanwhile, when vaccinated children are studied, the rate of autism is astonishingly low.  A large Amish community was studied and the rate was less then 1 in 10,000.  Chinese studies replicate this statistic.  

Even if you know nothing about statistics, THAT difference is clearly significant.  Something is happening to children in the Western world that are being vaccinated.  A raft of studies exist that show how heavy metal exposure is directly linked to incidences of autism.  There are a lot of sources of heavy metal exposure in the modern world and one of them is a mercury based preservative that is used in many vaccines, including the MMR and Flu shots.

You can brush off Wakefield's study, but you can't brush off the rest of this work.  I suspect that he is being demonized in order to associate the rest of these studies with the strawman.  Who knows...

Conspiracy theories aside, I vaccinated my children, but I did it slowly, one at a time, over a long period of time, AND demanded that they did not take the preservative or other adjuvants with their vaccines.  They make vaccines without those things for people with special conditions, but they are more expensive.  This information was enough to make me decide that I didn't want to risk my childrens health.  

It's interesting to note that the high-ups in the German government also demanded preservative and adjuvant free vaccines for their families.  That's very interesting, isn't it...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 6, 2011)

crushing said:


> Major news organizations such as CNN and ABC are saying that Wakefield and his report link autism with the MMR vaccine. Doesn't it seem like these news organizations would have the means to actually read and understand the report?



Because the report does exactly that! Taken at face value anyways, which as we now know we should not do.  Check out Table 2.  Also look at these passages from the results:

"In eight children,                 the *onset of behavioural problems had been                 linked*, either by the parents or by the child's                 physician, *with measles, mumps, and rubella                 vaccination*. Five had had an early adverse                 reaction to immunisation (rash, fever, delirium;                 and, in three cases, convulsions). *In these eight                 children the average interval from exposure to                 first behavioural symptoms was 6·3 days* (range                 1-14). Parents were less clear about the timing                 of onset of abdominal symptoms because children                 were not toilet trained at the time or because                 behavioural features made children unable to                 communicate symptoms.                  

*One child (child                 four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at                 15 months, after which his development slowed*                 (confirmed by professional assessors). No                 association was made with the vaccine at this                 time. *He received a dose of measles, mumps, and                 rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after                 which his mother described a striking                 deterioration in his behaviour* that she did link                 with the immunisation. Child nine *received                 measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at 16 months.                 At 18 months he developed recurrent                 antibiotic-resistant otitis media and the first                 behavioural symptoms*, including disinterest in                 his sibling and lack of play." 



Who can read that and say that Wakefield's report did not link vaccines with autism?  "Link" is a correlative word, and it's perfectly correct to describe his report that way.  "Prove" is a causative word, and while Wakefield disclaimed that word in his report, his report clearly linked vaccines with autism.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Autism rates are skyrocketing across the western world.  That is no hoax....Even if you know nothing about statistics, THAT difference is clearly significant.



Not necessarily.  The way that autism is defined and appreciated now is vastly different from before.  If you had difficulty understanding social cues and preferred logical constructs to feelings 30 years ago, well you were just a little weird.  Now, you would be diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and placed on the autism spectrum.  What autism is has rapidly expanded, and diagnosis has radically changed as well.  You can't fairly compare diagnosis rates now and years ago.

Same thing with ADD/ADHD.  When I was a hyper kid and didn't want to pay attention, well I was exactly that.  Now I would be diagnosed with ADHD.  That doesn't mean I would have a disorder now but not 30 years ago, the way we define and diagnose the disease has changed.

That doesn't mean that autism hasn't increased, but it doesn't necessarily mean it has either.



maunakumu said:


> There are a lot of sources of heavy metal exposure in the modern world and one of them is a mercury based preservative that is used in many vaccines, including the MMR and Flu shots.



Thimerosal (the mercury preservative) has been absent from nearly all vaccines (maybe all by now) since 2001.  Yet autism rates continue to rise.


----------



## crushing (Jan 6, 2011)

From the report.



> We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.


 
What is the difference between "link" and "association", or are they synonmous?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Not necessarily.  The way that autism is defined and appreciated now is vastly different from before.  If you had difficulty understanding social cues and preferred logical constructs to feelings 30 years ago, well you were just a little weird.  Now, you would be diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and placed on the autism spectrum.  What autism is has rapidly expanded, and diagnosis has radically changed as well.  You can't fairly compare diagnosis rates now and years ago.
> 
> Same thing with ADD/ADHD.  When I was a hyper kid and didn't want to pay attention, well I was exactly that.  Now I would be diagnosed with ADHD.  That doesn't mean I would have a disorder now but not 30 years ago, the way we define and diagnose the disease has changed.
> 
> That doesn't mean that autism hasn't increased, but it doesn't necessarily mean it has either.



The studies above used modern definitions of ASD.  The increase is anywhere between 300% and 500%.  Previous work on this matter never compared groups who were vaccinated.



Empty Hands said:


> Thimerosal (the mercury preservative) has been absent from nearly all vaccines (maybe all by now) since 2001.  Yet autism rates continue to rise.



Plenty of vaccines still use Thimerosal.  The Swine Flu jab is laced with it.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 6, 2011)

Some of the most relevant parts of this revelation, to me at least are:



> An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.



and most tellingly:



> Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose.





> According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds ($674,000) from the lawyers. Godlee said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism.



So we have someone with an undisclosed massive conflict of interest slanting results to give the lawyers what they wanted to sue vaccine manufacturers.  As a result of which, many parents have chosen not to immunize their children against highly contagious and in some cases potentially fatal diseases, cases of which are now becoming more prevalent.  

In addition, this has diverted millions of research dollars into attempting to confirm or refute results of what is basically a fraudulent study instead of using these resources to research the true causes of this devastating disease.  The doctor in question has had the article retracted by the Journal which published it (controversial studies are generally not retracted, only those which have been proven to be fraudulent), and he's also been stripped of his medical license for violating just about every ethical standard of being a physician, starting and ending with "do no harm".


----------



## cdunn (Jan 6, 2011)

Amish Autism - 1 in 257 by standard diagnostic tools. It is noted that cultural factors may have lead to underreporting. 

Chinese Autism - While Chinese news sources are always questionable, 1.8 million autistic children are reported. If we generalize to ~250 million children under 19 in China, that gives us an autism rate of about 1 in 140. 

That 'raft of studies' are all from the gentlemen, the Geiers, who have pioneered the fine art of castrating children with autism. Their stake in the matter is $5000 per month per child. In 2004, Medicare standard reimbursement for the treatment when applied on-label for prostate cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty was $611 per injection - with injections scheduled every 4 months.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2011)

I wonder how many cases of Autism are really cases of autism.  In America we seem to always be looking for the quick fix the quick answer.  My youngest son was diagnosed with Autism about 8 months ago.  We noticed slight differences in his development as compared to our other kids and when we brought it to the attention of his Doc she immediately said Autism before she even really looked at other possible causes.  He was then taken to experts who had confirmed this but I think 20 years ago we would have been told he was fine hes just slower then other kids but he will catch up on his own time.  I honestly believe in time he will catch up to his brothers and sisters with attention and working with him, no Meds, or crazy treatments. 

Its like Hyper kids in schools now days seem to all have ADHD and are put on meds where 20 years ago the parents would have been told oh hes just a boy he is supposed to be hyper let him burn off some energy he will be fine.  Today I dont think parents want to hear that.  I think they look for any other excuse as to why there kids misbehave and now they have that excuse so that they can say "oh Im not a bad parent my kid has ADHD." 

Or every time someone gets a runny nose they run to the doc and are put on antibiotics.  Back in the day Doc would say oh you just got a cold it will go away in a few days now if you dont get meds your doc is no good.  Its causing all these antibiotic resistant germs out there from over use of medications.

Im not saying all cases are fake Im just saying I dont think the numbers are as accurate as they put them out.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Autism rates are skyrocketing across the western world.  That is no hoax.  1 child in 60 in the UK suffers from a form of autism.  Meanwhile, when vaccinated children are studied, the rate of autism is astonishingly low.  A large Amish community was studied and the rate was less then 1 in 10,000.  Chinese studies replicate this statistic.
> 
> Even if you know nothing about statistics, THAT difference is clearly significant.  Something is happening to children in the Western world that are being vaccinated.  A raft of studies exist that show how heavy metal exposure is directly linked to incidences of autism.  There are a lot of sources of heavy metal exposure in the modern world and one of them is a mercury based preservative that is used in many vaccines, including the MMR and Flu shots.



The question here is (assuming the figures are at all accurate; from the article, they appeared closer to anecdotal, which definitely has less meaning in this context), what else is different between the populations being studied?  The vaccination itself could easily be coincidental and be providing the red herring that everyone is/was chasing while the real cause(s) are still undetected.  Differences in food/water, exposure to various environmental or industrial pollutants, other medications routinely given to either the children or the expectant mothers, and so on.  The list of potential culprits is huge, if there's a culprit involved at all.

For example:


> A 2007 study by the California Department of Public Health found that women in the first eight weeks of pregnancy who live near farm fields sprayed with the organochlorine pesticides dicofol and endosulfan are several times more likely to give birth to children with autism. The association appeared to increase with dose and decrease with distance from field site to residence. The study's findings suggest that on the order of 7% of autism cases in the California Central Valley might have been connected to exposure to the insecticides drifting off fields into residential areas. These results are highly preliminary due to the small number of women and children involved and lack of evidence from other studies.[32] It is not known whether these pesticides are human teratogens, though endosulfan has significant teratogenic effects in laboratory rats.[33]
> A 2005 study showed indirect evidence that prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides such as diazinon and chlorpyrifos may contribute to autism in genetically vulnerable children.[34] Several other studies demonstrate the neurodevelopmental toxicity of these agents at relatively low exposure levels



The differences in populations could also simply be due to different genetic variances (early studies of twins indicated that autism is 90% heritable, though this may be an overestimate).  We know that different racial groups, for example, are more or less prone to different diseases based solely on their genetic makeup.  This certainly could be the case with the Amish community investigated, which tends to be a fairly isolated, closed group of people (who also don't use the pesticides mentioned above, coincidentally).

The MMR vaccination was initially believed to be a potential cause of autism because of the timing; the age when autism normally starts to show clinical signs is right around the same time that this vaccine is given.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 6, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I wonder how many cases of Autism are really cases of autism.  In America we seem to always be looking for the quick fix the quick answer.  My youngest son was diagnosed with Autism about 8 months ago.  We noticed slight differences in his development as compared to our other kids and when we brought it to the attention of his Doc she immediately said Autism before she even really looked at other possible causes.  He was then taken to experts who had confirmed this but I think 20 years ago we would have been told he was fine he&#8217;s just slower then other kids but he will catch up on his own time.  I honestly believe in time he will catch up to his brothers and sisters with attention and working with him, no Meds, or crazy treatments.
> 
> Its like Hyper kids in schools now days seem to all have ADHD and are put on meds where 20 years ago the parents would have been told oh he&#8217;s just a boy he is supposed to be hyper let him burn off some energy he will be fine.  Today I don&#8217;t think parents want to hear that.  I think they look for any other excuse as to why there kids misbehave and now they have that excuse so that they can say "oh I&#8217;m not a bad parent my kid has ADHD."
> 
> ...



I agree with this. I was called autistic by doctors when I was in my twenties.  Whereas when i was a child in the early 80's, no one called me anything. Just different. (well at first they thought i had cry of the cat syndrome but that was ruled out with a test of my chromosomes or whatever they do) But I really think those docs were half a gin short of a martini.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cri_du_chat

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12062


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 6, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> But I really think those docs were half a gin short of a martini.



I would say they were missing more than that!  Cri du chat is characterized by profound mental retardation, developmental defects, huge physical handicaps, blindness, and sundry others.  They must have been high as kites!


----------



## Nomad (Jan 6, 2011)

From WebMD:



> Here are some of the major problems with the study, as laid out by Deer in BMJ:
> 
> The children in the study were not randomly selected. None of them lived anywhere near the hospital where Wakefield's team examined them. One came from as far away as California. All were recruited through anti-MMR-vaccine campaigners.
> 
> ...



and in an aside on the mercury/thimerosol claim for vaccines; it was apparently never an issue with the MMR vaccine:



> Does this have anything to do with thimerosal or mercury in vaccines?
> 
> No. Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative. It cannot be used in live-virus vaccines such as the MMR.
> 
> There has never been thimerosal in MMR vaccines.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 6, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I would say they were missing more than that!  Cri du chat is characterized by profound mental retardation, developmental defects, huge physical handicaps, blindness, and sundry others.  They must have been high as kites!



For sure! All they went on was the fact that I had a cry that sounded like a cute little kitten. But as was shown with me, I suppose a infant's cry can sound like a little cat without having cat cry syndrome. And the motor skill and verbal problems I had were due to the small cerebellum, found in my brain via MRI when I was in my 20's. Scoliosis didnt help either.

Man that must be a long time of being high as a kite though. Cause they tested me again for cats cry syndrome when I was 5! By then I had started kindergarten at that year and by then I was reading every single book in the class and was reading long chapter books by grade  1. But the fact I was intellectually normal didnt matter to them. Like you said, high as kites.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2011)

I think the OP title is misleading, it wasn't a hoax, it was fraud and a serious one at that.

The GMC has a reputation of not striking off doctors lightly, it's a serious organisation with a solid reputation. I doubt that there is any conspiracy to the case, it wouldn't be the first time a scientist has altered results for his own benefit whether money or scientific 'fame'. 

Nomad, good work on your posts. Well written common sense, thank you.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 6, 2011)

I posted this a while ago.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1231859&postcount=11

It was a part of THIS thread. Which May be interesting to link up here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2011)

cdunn - assuming those studies are accurate and they are not the "smoking is not bad for you" variety, we still see rates several times higher for unvaccinated populations. Also, the focus on vaccines may be misleading as we may be dealing with a product of heavy metal exposure. If the population of unvaccinated people came from areas with high heavy metal exposure, we may see an increase in those populations because of that.

Lastly, I'm curious how people can be skeptical about vested interests and not point the finger of disbelief at the corporate whores in DC. If they claim something is safe, do we accept that reflexively and only apply skepticism to claims that challenge to this authority?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Lastly, I'm curious how people can be skeptical about vested interests and not point the finger of disbelief at the corporate whores in DC. If they claim something is safe, do we accept that reflexively and only apply skepticism to claims that challenge to this authority?


 I dont I refused to give my kids or I the Swine Flu vac. last year after it was rushed into production and forced on kids at public schools.  They made you send in a form if you didnt want your kids to have it not permission to give it to your kids.  They were getting it unless you said no.


----------



## Ramirez (Jan 6, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Amish Autism - 1 in 257 by standard diagnostic tools. It is noted that cultural factors may have lead to underreporting.
> 
> Chinese Autism - While Chinese news sources are always questionable, 1.8 million autistic children are reported. If we generalize to ~250 million children under 19 in China, that gives us an autism rate of about 1 in 140.
> 
> That 'raft of studies' are all from the gentlemen, the Geiers, who have pioneered the fine art of castrating children with autism. Their stake in the matter is $5000 per month per child. In 2004, Medicare standard reimbursement for the treatment when applied on-label for prostate cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty was $611 per injection - with injections scheduled every 4 months.



What is the Amish study concluding?  I assume the Amish have less exposure to vaccines, environmental toxins but they also have small genetic variation ....so environmental or genetic?


----------



## cdunn (Jan 7, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> What is the Amish study concluding?  I assume the Amish have less exposure to vaccines, environmental toxins but they also have small genetic variation ....so environmental or genetic?



The conclusions of the Amish study are this: "The Amish have autistic children. Amish culture is such that the Amish are less likely to self-report autistic symptoms, which may or may not confound our ability to establish a good number for the rate of autism within the Amish community." 

That conclusion should lead us to infer that the Amish lifestyle does not provide adequate protection against the developmental errors that result in autism, and without further study, we cannot state that it provides any protection at all.  

We do not currently have a proper understanding of the causes of autism. We do not have a proper understanding of the relationship between the mind and the physical structure that creates it.  

We do have, however, correlations. There is a very strong heredity factor. We find that there is a genetic pathway that is involved in assembling the brain, and that there is a higher global number of variations that may result in poor effectiveness of that assembly in autistic people.

Now, since I'm not going to pay $32 for access to the whole article, I am linking through to a blog discussion of the article. While the blogger has his biases, and takes his shots at groups he (and I) believe are exploiting autistic children and their parents for their personal gain and egos, his science is consistent with all previous exposure to genetics I have seen. 

Now, can the hereditary factors interact with the environment? Certainly. Do we have a proper understanding of the interaction between ourselves and our pollutants? It is incomplete. Observation of the appearance of autism symptoms indicates that it is not within any sensible dose-response timeline with vaccination, what with the symptoms often observable before vaccination. Could there be a prenatal response to maternal exposure? It's possible, and I am unaware of any studies on the matter. However, at this time, there is no evidence outside of anecdote that chelation of a child is a valid treatment for autism. Can a mercury response be evoked with a chelation agent? Certainly. If I had a time machine, I could go back in time, feed a member of _Homo habilis_ DMSA and find mercury in his urine.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 8, 2011)

*Medical Journal Exposes Study Linking Vaccines to Autism as Con Job: Your Move, Jenny McCarthy*

by*  Dana Commandatore  BigHollywood.com EXCERPT:
* We all know that celebrities love to get behind a cause.  Jenny  McCarthy is no different.  When her son was diagnosed with autism she  made it her lifes work.  On the surface, it would seem that McCarthy  was doing nothing but good by spreading autism awareness.   Unfortunately, this is not the case.  Instead, she formed an alliance  with Andrew Wakefield based on a paper he published in the British  medical journal, The Lancet, claiming a link between the MMR vaccine,  inflammatory bowel disease and autism.  McCarthy made sure she spread  the word, loud and clear, that vaccines are not safe and cause autism.   Unfortunately for her and everyone who listened, The Lancet retracted  the study they published in 1998 in February 2010.  Then, just this  week, it was announced that Andrew Wakefield was not only wrong; he has  been found guilty of elaborate fraud.  Will McCarthy continue to support this charlatan or will she admit that she has been duped?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2011)

Autism is a complicated disease, however, I think we can point an arrow in a general direction toward heavy metal poisoning.  This isn't the only cause, but a substantial body of research supports this conclusion.

Here's an article that I found interesting and links to some of the research.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller14.html



> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Elemental mercury  when released by a dental amalgam is inhaled and (80 percent of it)  absorbed by the lungs and retained in the body. Vaccine makers add  thimerosal (which is half ethyl mercury) to vaccines to prevent  bacterial contamination. This injected organic form of mercury is  readily taken up by brain and heart muscle cells. Fish harbor another  organic form of mercury &#8212; methyl mercury, which is obtained from  plankton that synthesize it from inorganic mercury extracted from the  sea.[/FONT]











> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Investigators have shown  that there is a direct relationship between increasing doses of mercury  in vaccines and autism. In the 1950s, with an immunization schedule  limited to four vaccines (against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and  smallpox), 1 in 10,000 children developed this disease. As vaccines for  other diseases were added, health care providers began injecting  increasingly larger doses of mercury into children. Those born in 1981  were given 135 micrograms of mercury (on average), and one case of  autism occurred in every 2,600 children born that year. With the  addition of hepatitis B vaccine (injected on the day of birth) and one  for _Haemophilus influenzae _Type b, providers injected 246  micrograms of mercury into children born in 1996. Autism occurred in one  out of every 350 of these children. Today, providers follow an immunization schedule,  prepared by the CDC and approved by the AAP and AAFP, that includes 13  vaccines given, with variable numbers of booster shots, 33 times before a  child reaches the age of 2 (when the development of the brain is  completed). Autism now afflicts 1 in 100 boys and 1 in 400 girls, and  physicians diagnose 100,000 new cases of this disease every year in the  U.S (using diagnostic criteria, in the DSM-IV, that is more restrictive  than the previous DSM-IIIR). Over the last 30 years more than one  million children have come down with this disease, and currently one in  every 68 families in America has an autistic child.
> [/FONT]


http://icmr.nic.in/ijmr/ijmr.htm

In 2008, the Indian Journal of Medical Research published a comprehensive study of Mercury exposure and they found that there is a direct link between low levels of mercury exposure and autism.



> &#8220;emerging evidence supports the theory that some autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) may result from a combination of genetic/biochemical susceptibility, specifically a reduced ability to excrete mercury (Hg), and exposure to Hg at critical developmental periods&#8221;


If this isn't enough to convince you to at least demand vaccines without mercury in them, I don't know what will.  Even if I wasn't totally convinced (which I am), I still would do this for my children in order to limit the risks.  In the end, you decide what is best and you live with that decision.  Don't come crying to society for a handout because you didn't know the risks that might be involved.  

Even the CDC, a captured government agency, totally beholden to the interests of the multinational corporations says that mercury levels in vaccines need to be lowered as a precaution.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html



> However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American  Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that *thimerosal  should be reduced or eliminated* in vaccines as a precautionary measure.


They knew that there might be problems back then.  Now, ten years later, we have the evidence.  I suspect what we are seeing in the opposition is a fear of litigation on behalf of the parents whose children were damaged by vaccines.  IMO, all of the agencies who previously supported mercury in fillings and vaccines are critically contaminated with this bias.


----------



## granfire (Jan 8, 2011)

My question in this deal would rather be why on earth is a heavy metal in a vaccine to begin with...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> My question in this deal would rather be why on earth is a heavy metal in a vaccine to begin with...



The heavy metals kill bacteria that would grow in the inventory allowing the company to hold onto it longer.  It's a question of money.  It always is.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 8, 2011)

And for hospitals and medical organizations to be able to maintain stockpiles for emergency deployment...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2011)

This landmark case could overturn congresses law that protects vaccine manufacturers from litigation.  That they would lobby and pass such a law indicates that the corporations knew of these risks in advance.  25 years in advance.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030028_vaccines_lawsuits.html



> Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National  Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from  being liable for damages caused by their vaccines.  The Act established an entirely new "legal" system to deal specifically  with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special "vaccine  court" that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted.
> 
> The  Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be  exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was  enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies  to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the  medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines  and autism, for instance, the "vaccine courts" can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated.
> 
> ...



"Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is _long_ but it  bends _toward justice." Martin Luther King
_


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 8, 2011)

Thats all about money vs "justice" too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> And for hospitals and medical organizations to be able to maintain stockpiles for emergency deployment...



If your child is the "broken egg" do you give a damn about this?  Are we creative enough as a people to come up with another solution?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Thats all about money vs "justice" too.



Are you implying that parents who have children injured by heavy metals in pharmaceuticals are only suing for money?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 8, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Are you implying that parents who have children injured by heavy metals in pharmaceuticals are only suing for money?



A number of them..yes. And a number will look for a doctor to diagnose so that they can get in on the money train. And lawyers will start "business models" to rake in the cash.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> A number of them..yes. And a number will look for a doctor to diagnose so that they can get in on the money train. And lawyers will start "business models" to rake in the cash.



Good point.  :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2011)

When mothers give birth to a disabled or sick child, the guilt is enormous. Despite all the evidence to the contrary and assurance that the mother had done nothing wrong during the pregnancy it won't make any difference. The condition could be due to genetics or could be completely random but the mother still feels it's her fault. she feels she should have done something to change or stop it, that it's her fault.

So apart from the natural wish for the best possible treatment for that child there is also the driving force of the mother's guilt grasping at every straw she can to cure her child. However outlandish, expensive or however much against her better judgement a treatment may be, the mere promise of a cure can convince. This leads parents open to every con or quack going or even those who genuinely believe they have found a cure. Sometimes too, the money is important, if awarded a huge amount in court against a company, it proves to everyone in the mothers mind that she isn't to blame, that she can say 'look it wasn't my fault' it was company X. Another reason the money may be the gaol is that parents are convinced that they can 'buy' the cure for their child, that if only they had enough money they would find the thing that makes their child right.


----------



## granfire (Jan 8, 2011)

Not to mention the care for a disabled child can be enormously expensive. 
It certainly helps to be able to afford it without having to live off of Ramen noodles for the rest of your life, not to mention that provisions have to be made for when the primary care givers can no longer fulfill this duty.


----------



## billc (Jan 8, 2011)

Maybe they should extend the age for abortion to 5 years.


----------



## billc (Jan 8, 2011)

Dr, Peter Singer,

Peter Singer- Introduction 
In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons; therefore, the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.1


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Maybe they should extend the age for abortion to 5 years.


 

Nasty and distasteful. Also physiologically impossible, you are merely trolling now and in a hurtful way.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Nasty and distasteful. Also physiologically impossible, you are merely trolling now and in a hurtful way.


If a fetus is a partially grown adult human, and a 5 year old is a partially grown adult human, why is it OK to kill one with no qualms but, even discussing killing the other is trolling and hurtful? You realize, of course, that some see abortion as being exactly as unconscionable as killing a 5 year old. But, they are intolerant, or ignorant for their view?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2011)

Big Don said:


> If a fetus is a partially grown adult human, and a 5 year old is a partially grown adult human, why is it OK to kill one with no qualms but, even discussing killing the other is trolling and hurtful? You realize, of course, that some see abortion as being exactly as unconscionable as killing a 5 year old. But, they are intolerant, or ignorant for their view?


 
I'm not getting into the abortion argument again, for a number of reasons not least that it is sidetracking the thread. 
Don, I know yours is a genuine question that deserves an answer just not here, but I'm afraid that Billichik's posts are getting closer and closer to crossing the line between serious posts and trolling. I'm not convinced anymore that what he says is actually meant as a discusson point or whether it's mean to push buttons to enable a flame war on here.
The comment _'maybe they should extend the abortion age to 5 years'_ was a single sentence, there was no explanation, no comment such as you made which is a reasonable one in my mind, it was just posted and left at that, if it was meant to be amusing it wasn't, if it was meant to convey a serious issue, it didn't. As I said it was distasteful in that form.


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

I was making the point from the other thread, that you were involved in, that you, granfire and others supported abortion on the grounds that an unwanted child may grow up in the foster system or have a bad life.  Granfire, here, pointed out how expensive it is to raise a child with a disability and how difficult it could be.  I simply extended your argument about a bad life outcome here.  It was late and I didn't feel like spending time elaborating for everyone else out there about the " death sentence t.v." thread.  

That word "troll" seems to get tossed out pretty easily by some people who disagree with other people, either what they post or how they decide to post.  If you do not like how I post my threads or replys, please, be an adult and do not read them.  It is fairly easy to do.  Thanks.


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

I have heard Dr. singer interviewed, there is a Nazi death camp missing its doctor.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I was making the point from the other thread, that you were involved in, that you, granfire and others supported abortion on the grounds that an unwanted child may grow up in the foster system or have a bad life. Granfire, here, pointed out how expensive it is to raise a child with a disability and how difficult it could be. I simply extended your argument about a bad life outcome here. It was late and I didn't feel like spending time elaborating for everyone else out there about the " death sentence t.v." thread.
> 
> That word "troll" seems to get tossed out pretty easily by some people who disagree with other people, either what they post or how they decide to post. If you do not like how I post my threads or replys, please, be an adult and do not read them. It is fairly easy to do. Thanks.


 
That was another thread, not this one. If you wish to continue the abortion argument either return to that thead or start another.


I don't mind people disagreeing with me in the least, it's interesting to be able to argue my case against another's point of view. However you are constantly posting links from media sites and constantly telling us we are wrong, sometimes you seem to post, as you have done here, sonething to trying and spark an argument off that doesn't belong on here.


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

So you say Tez.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 9, 2011)

*Attention all users:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.  Please return to the original topic.

jks9199
Super Moderator

*Everybody -- this is easily another hot topic, but it too can be discussed civilly.  Leave the abortion stuff in it's own thread, and let's talk about autism here, OK?


----------



## Nomad (Jan 10, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Are you implying that parents who have children injured by heavy metals in pharmaceuticals are only suing for money?



Multiple studies have looked at the toxicity of thimerosol; the W.H.O. concluded that there was no inherent danger caused by thimerosol in the doses used by vaccine makers.  Thimerosol was never in the MMR vaccine (the subject of Wakefield's original research), since it is incompatible with live-virus vaccines.

Nonetheless, US vaccines for children have been thimerosol-free since 1999.  If this is the culprit in autism, we should be seeing a drop in autism rates now, not a continued increase.

So where are the "Children injured by heavy metals in pharmaceuticals"?  There is no causal connection here, nor even a plausible link.

I am definitely not implying that parents with autistic children are only suing for the money; I think that they're desperately looking for answers of why their children did not turn out like so many others they see around them everyday.  Answers which may or may not exist, depending on exactly how big the genetic component turns out to be.  There have always been children who were born with a variety of physical and/or mental birth defects, and the only way to prevent this would be to develop better prenatal genetic testing and then *choose* to intervene and abort the fetus; something many would choose not to do for their own reasons.

I do think that the pharmaceutical companies make attractive targets with deep pockets for lawyers, especially when the burden of proof is not really scientific.  You don't have to have sound scientific evidence backing up your claims; you just have to convince a jury that it's true (not the same thing at all, really).


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 10, 2011)

Mercury was a common ingredient to most vaccines prior to 1999 and it still is an ingredient in many vaccines that people take.  Please check the insert to the Swine Flu jab I posted above.  The ingredients clearly say thimerosol.  

After reading the studies and listening to researchers on the matter, the difference between the studies that show it is harmful vs the ones that are not harmful is the time that the various tissues are being tested.  For example, one of the studies that looked at the excretion of Hg looked at subjects for four days and noted that mercury levels dropped in the system for four days.  The conclusion was that it was all excreted out of the system.  

The studies that show that it is unsafe, check the subjects after four days and they test other tissues.  They find that the mercury is NOT excreted and that it has accumulated in the brain tissues.  Over time and several vaccines later, that mercury bio-accumulates with any other mercury that is coming into the system.  The result is poisoning and with individuals who are intolerant to even small amounts of mercury, the brain goes haywire.

IMHO, I think we need to be very careful with pharmaceuticals.  The FDA, the WHO, and the NIH are captured agencies.  They have revolving doors for Big Pharma and Big Agra execs in high places throughout the agencies.  They have billions of dollars riding on making sure these products are marketed and if they can cherry pick the science that supports their product, they will.  And if this gambling goes bad, the same people who put in the Revolving Door, make sure to have laws crafted that protect them and to make sure the Justice Dept. looks the other way.  This is the level of corruption we are dealing with and I don't know if people can accept that.  It's really scary.  However, the problem will only get worse until we see this for what it is.

I'm not anti-vaccine or anti-science.  I vaccinated my children according to the best information that I could find, because I know these drugs protect humanity from all sorts of terrible diseases.  I want safe products, however.  I want to have truly independent regulatory agencies that will study these products and have have no vested interests slanting the results.  I believe that we need to have a Ralph Nader of Big Pharma, "Unsafe at Any Dose."  Americans need to learn about and pay attention to what is happening inside their government and act accordingly.  

In the end, I think it comes down to one question.  How much do you trust the government?  Do you really think they are going to give you a fair assessment of safety even if it eats into the profits of their bosses?


----------



## Carol (Jan 10, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Nonetheless, US vaccines for children have been thimerosol-free since 1999.  If this is the culprit in autism, we should be seeing a drop in autism rates now, not a continued increase.



There has also been a lot more autism diagnoses based on what has been learned about the disorder and the spectrum.   In order to see a statistical causation since 1999 we would have to be using the same criteria that was used in 1999.  I don't think that is possible.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2011)

And yet, through all the bull ****, there remain children who react to vaccinations, are never the same and we're supposed to just believe their high fevers, their seizures, their extended projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea lasting years just appeared on its own.

The biggest point Wakefield and McCarthy and any parent who has watched their child wither post-vax can make regarding vaccination and autism is this:

Something is going on. We don't know what and neither do doctors. And to turn a deaf ear to people reporting symptoms immediately following a vaccination is unforgivable.

When scientists refute correlation while patients insist correlation, something has to be done. Someone has to research something.

I've had this argument so many times, it's just bizarre to read the same old crap over and over again.

As for hospital data:  My son reacted to his first two rounds of vaccinations - none of which, btw, contained the MMR vaccine.  We visited the ER four times - none of these visits exist in his medical records.  I wonder if this would change if I found a lawyer or joined a class-action suit?  

Keep judging, armchair quarterbacks.  Unless you've lived it, you ain't got ****.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 11, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Keep judging, armchair quarterbacks.  Unless you've lived it, you ain't got ****.



No, we got a raft of scientific evidence and reasoning.  This isn't a "my opinion vs. your opinion" thing, this is about the facts.  The best evidence to date indicates with some confidence that vaccines do not cause autism.  Like all scientific statements, it is value-free.  No judgments involved.

Which is not to say that vaccinations are harmless.  Vaccinations have a defined adverse reaction profile, which in some rare cases can even be deadly.  According to the CDC for instance, the anaphylaxis (which can be deadly) rate with the MMR vaccine is 1 in 600,000.  Like all medical treatments, the risk (there are always risks) must be weighed against the benefit.  A child's chance of getting M, M or R and being damaged or killed must be weighed against the chances that the vaccine will be harmful and that the harmful effects will match or outweigh the disease.  For society at large, the calculus clearly favors vaccination.

Which is cold comfort for those who react adversely to the vaccine, I understand.  But getting the disease could have been worse.  Or maybe it would never have happened.  It's all about probability and random chances, there are no guarantees.


----------



## Slipper (Jan 11, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> And yet, through all the bull ****, there remain children who react to vaccinations, are never the same and we're supposed to just believe their high fevers, their seizures, their extended projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea lasting years just appeared on its own.


 
I don't think anyone is stating that vaccine reactions should be overlooked. Nor is anyone saying that vaccine reactions do not occur. Most (if not all) parents are given a sheet to sign that they are aware of potential reactions, including death and that they should report reactions. 

I cannot quote offhand the studies, but I know there are some searching for the relation between kids with autism and 'gut' issues. (Not a vaccine related study, simply a gastroenterology type one). I think it's possible that while kids with autism can have diarrhea/constipation/reflux, etc. without it being a vaccine reaction.



> The biggest point Wakefield and McCarthy and any parent who has watched their child wither post-vax can make regarding vaccination and autism is this:
> 
> Something is going on. We don't know what and neither do doctors. And to turn a deaf ear to people reporting symptoms immediately following a vaccination is unforgivable.


 
I completely agree.



> When scientists refute correlation while patients insist correlation, something has to be done. Someone has to research something.


 
I agree. I will say that parent observation has flaws. And sometimes parents, while well-meaning and possibly believing every word they say is true, sometimes re-create the past. They listen to other parents and chime in to agree. However, if you track back their posts, blogs, etc far enough, they are proven wrong in their own words. The sad fact is that sometimes parents listen to hype and believe it. 

I think Wakefield has done more harm TO the autism community than any medical establishment could ever do. He had significant financial gain with his findings and stood to gain a lot more if the stories are true of his patent on single jab measles (or was it rubella?) went through. He is the person we should be mad at, not each other and not 'Big Pharma'.



> I've had this argument so many times, it's just bizarre to read the same old crap over and over again.


 
No kidding. This is part of the harm I think Wakefield has caused. There is no other disability related community that is so outspoken and divided as Autism. We have the most god-awful treatments for our kids all for the sake of 'curing' them and bringing back our star football player or our head cheerleader. We have clean rooms, chelation, electric parasite zappers, numerous vitamin/supplement protocols, hbot, the list goes on.



> As for hospital data: My son reacted to his first two rounds of vaccinations - none of which, btw, contained the MMR vaccine. We visited the ER four times - none of these visits exist in his medical records. I wonder if this would change if I found a lawyer or joined a class-action suit?


 
There is a specific phone line to contact if you have reactions. Did you ever call it? I do think it's important that reactions are documented. Depending on the age of your child (I believe there is a 3 yr cut off after the date), you may still be able to report it. You can absolutely insist that your pediatrician put this in your child's medical records. I've found that most doctors do not correspond with each other unless the parent initiates it. For us, we have all doctors and hospitals send a copy of everything to our pediatrician. He is the 'hub' so to speak. Every medical facility we go to, I ask if they are going to send it and there is usually a form I have to fill out. Sometimes, I call our pediatrician's office and leave a note for the nurse to document in our file that my daughter had to go to this or that facility for treatment, illness or whatever. 

I'm sorry that your son had such a bad reaction. If i were in your shoes, I would be worried (and angry) about them as well. Just as a side note, if you haven't tested for allergies, you may want to look into that. I know that some kids with allergies (I think eggs?) react to vaccinations.  



> Keep judging, armchair quarterbacks. Unless you've lived it, you ain't got ****.


 
I don't think anyone is judging. I do think that the topic is a sensitive one for many people. 

All the best to you and yours...


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2011)

http://autismvancouver.blogspot.com/2011/01/vaccines-do-not-cause-autism-something.html



> For those that prefer research over hype and emotion, here are some useful references:
> 
> California study: "The DDS data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during childhood is a primary cause of autism." Click here:
> http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/1/19
> ...


 
The signs of autism often begin to appear around the same time that children are vaccinated, it is just a coincidence, not a cause.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 11, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> IMHO, I think we need to be very careful with pharmaceuticals.  The FDA, the WHO, and the NIH are captured agencies.  They have revolving doors for Big Pharma and Big Agra execs in high places throughout the agencies.  They have billions of dollars riding on making sure these products are marketed and if they can cherry pick the science that supports their product, they will.  And if this gambling goes bad, the same people who put in the Revolving Door, make sure to have laws crafted that protect them and to make sure the Justice Dept. looks the other way.  This is the level of corruption we are dealing with and I don't know if people can accept that.  It's really scary.  However, the problem will only get worse until we see this for what it is.



Um, sorry, I'm not buying this.  As a researcher who works in the Pharmaceutical Industry, I can definitively state that the job of the FDA has absolutely nothing to do with helping the pharmaceutical industry.  They are there to protect the public, and do so vigorously.  They are the biggest hurdle (with the possible exception of Japanese regulatory bodies, but that's another story) in the world to introducing a new medication. 

In fact, rather than the revolving door you're suggesting, the FDA has been constantly raising the bar for new medications for the last few decades; requiring longer and more expensive Phase III (safety) trials, and looking into ANY adverse effects very carefully before allowing new drugs on the market.  In some areas, they have in fact stifled research into certain targets (for example PPAR agonists as anti-diabetes drugs) by making the hurdles too high and expensive for any potential new drug to clear them.

They do not cherry pick the data; *all data* related to any potential new drug is very carefully evaluated, and the FDA often requires further testing to follow-up anomalous data (for example, an adverse effect seen in rats that doesn't translate into the higher species like dogs or monkeys (whose genome is much closer to ours).

Companies who have failed to disclose results or who have misrepresented their results (not the same thing) have been severely punished, and often face shareholder lawsuits like the ones that recently hit Sequenom (an interesting case study in mis-representing how their data was collected).

It is MUCH more difficult to get a new compound to market with FDA approval than it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago.  Many drugs which have been marketed for decades, like Tylenol for instance, would never make it today.

There have been a number of medications withdrawn from the market years after release; in the vast majority of these cases, it was based on data of adverse responses which only became apparent after many years of dosing in very large populations.  The FDA is then the organization which usually initiates the withdrawal, although many times the "evil pharmaceutical company" voluntarily withdraws a multi-billion dollar drug when the science indicates that it is causing harm beyond what's acceptable for the class of drug (different toxicity or adverse effect profiles are acceptable for different drugs; ie the acceptable profile for an efficacious drug against a virulent form of cancer is far different from one for diabetes, where the patient is expected to be on the medication for a very prolonged period).

I know less about the NIH and WHO other than their stated missions, so won't comment on them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Um, sorry, I'm not buying this.



Well, if you want to see this from another perspective, here are some resources.

1.  Seeds of Deception - This book is about GMO, but it details the FDA Revolving Door better then anything I've seen and is a great topic for another thread.  This book relates to this thread, however, because it details how the FDA cherry picks studies in order to approve products that Revolving Door execs want approved.

2.  The Risks of Prescription Drugs is a tome that details two decades of research from 1985 to 2005.  It shows how the Revolving Door has compromised the FDA's regulatory power to a point where anything can get through if you have the right connections.



> Few people realize that prescription drugs have become a leading cause  of death, disease, and disability. Adverse reactions to widely used  drugs, such as psychotropics and birth control pills, as well as  biologicals, result in FDA warnings against adverse reactions.
> 
> _The Risks of Prescription Drugs_  describes how most drugs approved by the FDA are under-tested for  adverse drug reactions, yet offer few new benefits. Drugs cause more  than 2.2 million hospitalizations and 110,000 hospital-based deaths a  year. Serious drug reactions at home or in nursing homes would  significantly raise the total. Women, older people, and people with  disabilities are least used in clinical trials and most affected.
> 
> ...


In the end, believe what you want.  Give your children injections with thimerosal if you wish.  You are responsible for it.  I have seen enough evidence that suggests that this is a bad idea.  The revolving door in government agencies is clearly documented.  The negative impact on public health of rushing all of these products through is heavily detailed.  And the justice system in this country is heavily skewed in their favor.  

If you take these drugs and are hurt by them, you will find no justice.  From what I have read and experienced, I have drawn the conclusion that the regulatory agencies in government are compromised, that the Justice department is compromised, and that Congress is bought and paid for.  I don't know how bad it has to get before some people finally accept this, but I'm hoping it doesn't take too long.

The longer we wait and twiddle our thumbs and pretend like everything is OK, the more people are going to get hurt.  Also, the longer we wait, the more laws are passed that protect the real culprits from accountability.  It's a perfect storm of corruption and we are standing in a hurricane of pills, needles, and processed food.  If you don't have even a mild skepticism on this matter, you are playing Russian Roulette and you don't even know that their are bullets in the gun.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 11, 2011)

All drugs have risks.  

Any time you're putting a foreign substance into your body (or artificially manipulating levels of endogenous chemicals, hormones, etc), there is an inherent risk involved.  This risk arises partially from the fact that we're not all clones of one another, and have different dose requirements, different gene sequences and genetic predispositions.

Making a new drug that can intervene in human disease is an incredibly difficult process.  Finding one that can do so with perfect selectivity is nearly impossible, since often the same drug targets in different tissues may serve different functions, since many drug targets are VERY closely related to many other receptors or proteins we'd rather not cross-react with, and since the full mechanisms of biofeedback, receptor agonism and antagonism, and protein-protein interactions are often not fully understood.

In short, manipulating people's health is an extremely complex job.  With any medication, there are inherent risks involved.  Part of the job of the drug company and the FDA are to have as clear an understanding as possible of the risks, and to weigh them against the benefits associated with that drug.

Personally, I prefer to avoid medications unless absolutely necessary, and take a prophylactic approach to health; I try to eat right, exercise, and minimize my need for drugs.  Still, when I've had a life-threatening pneumonia in the past, I was awfully glad that the greedy pharmaceutical companies had several varieties of penicillin for sale to fix it.

Characterizing pharmaceutical companies as evil is simply false.  Collectively, they have done more to increase human lifespan, health, and quality of life than any other industry.  Period.  

The vilification of this industry to me is quite sad; the vast majority of the scientists, researchers, and physicians I know in pharmaceuticals are not here to make a quick buck (trust me, I'm in the wrong job for that!), but are here to help intervene and make a positive difference in world health through the application of solid science.  Yet somehow many people view the industry worse than Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Gun Manufacturers, and maybe a little higher than child pornographers.

This is based on a few fairly isolated incidents where there was clear wrongdoing or outright greed that led an individual or a company to some bad decisions, and gives the entire industry a black eye.  Isolated incidents where researchers have knowingly falsified data have led to severe punishments within the scientific community and frequently also large lawsuits against the company he/she worked for at the time.  Case in point, and somewhat relevant to the OP, would be Dr. Wakefield himself.

If you have worked at the FDA and have observed the corruption you described, or have managed to get a drug to market through this revolving door, then I'll stand corrected, and will go find another line of work.  If not, it's hearsay from people that may simply have their own axe to grind, and it does not match with my experience at one of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies in the world at all.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 11, 2011)

I think the problem is that autism is a very broad disorder, diagnosed by its symptoms rather than by cause.  Autism also begins to be evident around the same time as various vaccinations take place.  There are anecdotes of "overnight" changes at the time of vaccinations; it's hard to refute an anecdote, though perhaps with the vast increase in video records over the last few years, we may have some better evidence in the future to support the anecdotes.

We also have more behaviors diagnosed as autistic or autism spectrum disorders -- just like we have ADHD because in the past, the same behavior would have been called boys being boys.  We're more sensitized and so we diagnose autism or Asperger's or something similar in cases where, a few years ago, we would have simply labeled the kid as "a little odd" or being "a shy one" or "reserved."

There's no easy answer, and there's no quick way to solve this.  I suspect that, in time, what we label as autism and autism spectrum disorders will be further broken down, and that some of the causes will be identified.  Much like we've come to recognize different forms of depression, we'll probably identify different forms of autism.  Some will be caused by structures within the brain or nervous system, some will be developmental, and some will be triggered by outside factors in a person with predispositions.  Some will be treatable; some won't.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 11, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> There's no easy answer, and there's no quick way to solve this.  I suspect that, in time, what we label as autism and autism spectrum disorders will be further broken down, and that some of the causes will be identified.  Much like we've come to recognize different forms of depression, we'll probably identify different forms of autism.  Some will be caused by structures within the brain or nervous system, some will be developmental, and some will be triggered by outside factors in a person with predispositions.  Some will be treatable; some won't.



This has already started to happen, and some of the genetic culprits of some forms of autism at least are starting to come to light.  Intervention in these is tricky, but possible, and I know of groups working on the problem as we write this.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2011)

Nomad said:


> If not, it's hearsay from people that may simply have their own axe to grind, and it does not match with my experience at one of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies in the world at all.



Dude...your just part of the conspiracy man!!!


----------



## Slipper (Jan 11, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> ...
> There's no easy answer, and there's no quick way to solve this. I suspect that, in time, what we label as autism and autism spectrum disorders will be further broken down, and that some of the causes will be identified. Much like we've come to recognize different forms of depression, we'll probably identify different forms of autism. Some will be caused by structures within the brain or nervous system, some will be developmental, and some will be triggered by outside factors in a person with predispositions. Some will be treatable; some won't.


 
I think you are correct. Currently there appear to be two forms of autism (though the differences are not discussed often). There are children who seem to have been autistic from birth - classic autism. And there are children who developed to a point and then regressed - still autism, but more of a regressive type. I've always wondered if autism rates haven't changed for classic autism, but are affected by those who regressed, leading to a falsely inflated rate.

I've also wondered if those who regressed did so because of an insult of some type from environmental, etc factors (including vaccinations). However, there are plenty of parents who did not vaccinate their kids and still had a child diagnosed with autism.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

Nomad said:


> This is based on a few fairly isolated incidents where there was clear wrongdoing or outright greed that led an individual or a company to some bad decisions, and gives the entire industry a black eye.



It's always a few isolated incidents until you pay attention.  Read the books I suggested and then you'll realize that its far from few or isolated.  It's endemic.



Nomad said:


> If you have worked at the FDA and have observed the corruption you described, or have managed to get a drug to market through this revolving door, then I'll stand corrected, and will go find another line of work.  If not, it's hearsay from people that may simply have their own axe to grind, and it does not match with my experience at one of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies in the world at all.



I have friends who are medical doctors, top professionals in public health, and researchers in the drug industry.  When they have looked at the information, they have come to the opposite conclusion you have.  You have to look or you'll remain ignorant.

That said, no one is saying that the whole industry is evil (and by association that you are evil).  It can be scary and disheartening to wake up to the people you serve and realize that they don't have the best intentions in their hearts.  I've experienced that personally in my career when I worked for the government (this is a long story, so I'll save it for another day).  All I can tell you is that the good that *you *(or I) do and that the bad that others do is also real.  

Have courage and learn about it.  Don't ignore it because you don't want to believe it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

Nomad said:


> This has already started to happen, and some of the genetic culprits of some forms of autism at least are starting to come to light.  Intervention in these is tricky, but possible, and I know of groups working on the problem as we write this.



There is also good researching coming out indicating several environmental factors that cause autism.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Dude...your just part of the conspiracy man!!!



Some people are going to go to their graves being right.  Enjoy!


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Have courage and learn about it.  Don't ignore it because you don't want to believe it.



The truth is OUT THERE. :boing1:


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> It's always a few isolated incidents until you pay attention.  Read the books I suggested and then you'll realize that its far from few or isolated.  It's endemic.



Because it's in type its the truth? really??

Any evidence opposite your point of view is wrong (like medical studies) because the sources are part of the conspiracy, but your little lists of books are "truth"? Really??


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2011)

Ill see your books and raise you these studies:



> California study: "The DDS data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during childhood is a primary cause of autism." Click here:
> http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/1/19
> 
> Independent testing of Wakefield's MMR/autism hypothesis - test failed to support Wakefield's conclusions. Has links to several other supporting studies: Click here:
> ...



Have courage and learn about it. Don't ignore it because you don't want to believe it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Have courage and learn about it. Don't ignore it because you don't want to believe it.



How about we do this.  Lets have real competition and lots of different companies producing products for sale.  If you want to buy a cheap Wal-Mart Vaccine with all of the mercury, aborted fetuses and animal parts, because you think that is safe.  Go ahead.  If I want to waste my money on my stupid Granola Crunching Birkenstock Wearing Organic Vaccine that doesn't have all of those things, then I should be able to do that.

We both look at each others choices, we both call each other stupid, we walk away and we both get what we want.

:angel:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Because it's in type its the truth? really??
> 
> Any evidence opposite your point of view is wrong (like medical studies) because the sources are part of the conspiracy, but your little lists of books are "truth"? Really??



A wise man once said to me, "next time you feel like judging someone, judge yourself, and maybe you'll learn something."

99.9% of what I know is bovine fecal matter. Pass the salt.


----------



## granfire (Jan 11, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> A wise man once said to me, "next time you feel like judging someone, judge yourself, and maybe you'll learn something."
> 
> 99.9% of what I know is bovine fecal matter. Pass the salt.



You spend way too much time in the barn....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The truth is OUT THERE. :boing1:



Yeah, you betcha!







Need a light?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Ill see your books and raise you these studies:



I'll raise your 9 link and add 76 studies on the adverse effects of thimerosal on the brain to the mix.  

Funny how the internet skews the search for truth so that people think they can "win" by piling links on one side or another.  Hmmmmmmm!  Lol!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> Yeah, you betcha!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tobacco Science and the Thimerosal Scandal



> Thimerosal has been used in vaccines since the 1930s, and internal company documents indicate that the pharmaceutical industry was always aware of the chemical&#8217;s potential danger.5 The Eli Lilly Company, which first developed and manufactured thimerosal and owned the patent, knew from the start that thimerosal was unsafe&#8212;its testing consisted of administering the serum to 22 terminal meningitis patients, all of whom died within weeks of being injected&#8212;a fact not reported in Lilly&#8217;s study. For decades, Lilly portrayed this incident as proof of thimerosal&#8217;s safety.6
> 
> As early as July 1935, Lilly was warned by the Director of Biological Laboratories at the
> Pitman-Moore Company that Lilly&#8217;s claims about thimerosal&#8217;s safety &#8220;did not check with ours.&#8221; Pitman warned that half the dogs it had injected with thimerosal-containing vaccines becamesick and concluded, &#8220;[T]himerosal is unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.&#8221;7
> ...


After all of that history, the FDA approves vaccines laced with mercury.  Captured agency anyone?



> Despite his professed efforts to manipulate the data to reduce the effect, Verstraeten&#8217;s
> confidential report of February 2000 concluded that there was a ten-fold increased risk of autism and related neurodevelopmental problems, resulting from the mercury in the vaccines.
> 
> By June 2000, Verstraeten had prepared his study for publication showing thimerosal&#8217;s causative relationship to neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.48 Instead of publishing the article, however, he shared his findings that month at a secret meeting with sixty pharmaceutical industry representatives and public health officials at the Simpsonwood Retreat center in Norcross, Georgia. The meeting was held with no public notice and apparently convened at Simpsonwood to avoid the reach of the Freedom of Information laws which public health officials interpreted to cover only meetings at government offices. Attendees included numerous high ranking CDC and FDA representatives, vaccine officials from WHO (World Health Organization), and representatives of vaccine makers GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth, and Aventis, all of whom are named defendants in lawsuits by the parents of autistic children.49
> ...



Collusion between government agencies and industry?  Say it isn't so!



> *Indeed, the link between ethyl mercury and neurological disorders is as well-documented in medical and scientific literature as the link between tobacco and cancer*.55 And the totality of the evidence is overwhelming. Scores of animal, DNA, epidemiological, clinical, cadaver and other studies point to mercury as a prime culprit in America&#8217;s epidemic of neurological disorders.56



Are these laced vaccines the new cigarettes?



> Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado, *who has done paid research for thimerosal distributor SmithKline Beecham, was concerned enough to worry about his own family members*. &#8220;My gut feeling?&#8221; he said. &#8220;Forgive this personal comment, but I &#8230; do not want [my] grandson to get a Thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on&#8230;In the meantime &#8230; *I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.*&#8221;73



I share the good doctor's concern.  

Please feel free to read the rest of this 66 page article.  It's well sourced and argued much better then I can state posting on the internet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 12, 2011)

As many of you know RFK Jr. took up the cause and published an article in Rolling Stone and Salon called Deadly Immunity.  Much of the information above can also be found in this article.

I found this recent story on the article interesting.

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/rfk-jr-on-cdc-and-vaccine-autism-link/



> What is most striking is the lengths to which major media outlets  have gone to disparage the story and to calm public fears  even in the  face of the questionable science on the subject. In a segment on _World News Tonight_  titled A Closer Look, ABC pointed out that Kennedy is not a  scientist or a doctor and dismissed his extensive evidence as nothing  more than a few scientific studies. The network also trotted out its  medical editor, Dr. Timothy Johnson, to praise the impeccably impartial  Institute of Medicine and to again state that Kennedy is not a  scientist.




This is what happens when the major networks are owned by the corporations.  Hit pieces that are passed off as journalism in order to protect the interests of their owners/advertisers.  It reminds me of the movie The Network.











> The _New York Times_, in a front-page story on the subject,  devoted only one line to Kennedys article, which it said accused  public-health officials and drugmakers of conspiring to hide the data  on autism  a word that our story neither used nor implied. (The _Wall Street Journal_, in an op-ed attacking the article, was even more misleading, using the word *conspiracy* four times.) The _Times_  then went on, for more than a full page, to portray concerns over  vaccines as nothing more than the misguided fears of parents who suffer  from scientific illiteracy, unable to understand the medical studies  that prove immunizations to be safe. It depicted studies reviewed by the  Institute of Medicine as definitive without even bothering to address  the host of serious questions raised about their validity: conflicting  diagnoses of autism, mixed-up data from HMOs and research skewed to  exclude many sick kids.



One thing this shows explicitly is that the NYT is a corporate whore.  They publish all kinds of bogus stories and people eat them up because they assume that this paper has a good reputation.  Remember, they are the ones that told us that Iraq had WMDs.  :barf:

Also, I find it interesting that they opted on using the word "conspiracy" as a demonization strategy.  For some reason, people have been taught to turn off their brains when it comes to that word.  I understand why people are skeptical, there certainly is a lot of crazy stuff on the internet, however, that is still not a reason to hit the off switch and move on.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 12, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I have friends who are medical doctors, top professionals in public health, and researchers in the drug industry.  When they have looked at the information, they have come to the opposite conclusion you have.  You have to look or you'll remain ignorant.
> 
> That said, no one is saying that the whole industry is evil (and by association that you are evil).  It can be scary and disheartening to wake up to the people you serve and realize that they don't have the best intentions in their hearts.  I've experienced that personally in my career when I worked for the government (this is a long story, so I'll save it for another day).  All I can tell you is that the good that *you *(or I) do and that the bad that others do is also real.
> 
> Have courage and learn about it.  Don't ignore it because you don't want to believe it.



I'm not ignoring it because I don't want to believe it.  I'm ignoring it because it's a mixture of bad science, pseudo-science, made-up statistics, partial truths, and lies.

I am all for people making up their own minds in regards to their health choices and those of their children.  I'd just like them to do so empowered with knowledge based on real science rather than myth.

Hey, look.  Another massive conflict of interest and evidence of an extreme breach of ethics by Dr. Wakefield.



> Andrew Wakefield, MD, the disgraced doctor who claimed there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease, planned to make a vast amount of money as a result of the health scare, according to a new report in the journal BMJ.





> The BMJ report says that Wakefield met medical school managers to discuss a joint business even while the first child to be fully investigated in his research was still in the hospital; and how just days after publication of his Lancet article, he brought business associates to his place of work at the Royal Free Medical School in London to continue negotiations.





> Would-be investors were told that the initial market for the diagnostic will be litigation-driven testing of patients with AE [autistic enterocolitis, an unproven condition concocted by Wakefield] from both the UK and the USA.



The man is a scumbag, who has caused untold damage to people all over the world.  I am hopeful that criminal charges will follow.

And with that, I'm tired of banging my head against the wall (or against the vast shadowy conspiracy theories), and will respectfully depart this thread.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 12, 2011)

How can you call it a myth when I've posted over 150 scientific studies showing a direct relationship?  How can you call it a "vast shadowy conspiracy" when I post documents about a real meeting between government officials and industry execs where they discuss how they are going to cover up and protect themselves against this information?  Maybe some conspiracies are real?  Why do you continue to insist that there is no scientific relationship?  Why do you keep turning back to the discredited Dr. Wakefield in order to justify your position?

The least you can do is accept that there might be something to this and act accordingly.  Believe what you want, but NEVER say that someone who believes in this is unjustified.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> How can you call it a myth when I've posted over 150 scientific studies showing a direct relationship?



How many studies show no relationship?  Have you looked at one or more meta-analyses?  That is a very important question that scientists must address in their fields - conclusions are decided by the weight of the evidence, not on a selected group of studies.

I mean, what would you say if there were 2000 studies (I'm just making up numbers to make a point) that showed no relationship?  Would you still believe based on the 150?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 12, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> How many studies show no relationship?



Quite a few.  I haven't made an effort to count them up, but I've easily looked at dozens.



Empty Hands said:


> Have you looked at one or more meta-analyses?



Yes.  Some show a link and some do not.  Some of the meta-analysis' done by various government agencies showed a direct link.  This is what the Simpsonwood Retreat was supposed to address.



Empty Hands said:


> That is a very important question that scientists must address in their fields - conclusions are decided by the weight of the evidence, not on a selected group of studies.



When heads of the five major vaccine manufacturers secretly meet with heads of the governmental agencies in charge of regulation and they collude cover up evidence of the link and protect themselves from litigation, wouldn't any study that is connected with these groups in any way be tainted?  How can anyone calculate the weight of evidence in that environment?  The well is poisoned.



Empty Hands said:


> I mean, what would you say if there were 2000 studies (I'm just making up numbers to make a point) that showed no relationship?  Would you still believe based on the 150?



I don't know for sure if there is a link.  The point that I am making is that people are adamantly saying there is NO relationship and that it's just silly psuedoscience and conspiracy theory to say that there is.  From what I've posted, I think one can draw the conclusion that this is NOT the case and that people are justifiably concerned.  

I'm concerned enough to NOT want my children to be injected with any forms of mercury.  If I have to flip a coin where one side is no effect and the other side is a negative effect when I give my family some medicine, I'm simply going to opt out of giving that medicine.  Any reasonable and educated parent would do that, IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 12, 2011)

RFK Jr. on the Poisoned Well I mentioned above.


----------

