Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines,Lack of Consistent Evidencefor an Association

Clinton wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:



I would readily go through the same series, adjusted for weight, as a
newborn, assuming that I would take the shots at the same rate of the
newborn and that I would clear the ethyl mercury at the same rate.


The weight and rate I am sure would be no problem to researchers.

The "clear the ethyl mercury at the same rate" is not clear.

Do you believe that all infants are equally good at clearing
the ehyl mercury?

I do know that infants rapidly clear ethyl mercury. In fact, there was
one study where the researchers underestimated the clearance rate so
much that the rapidity of clearance nearly blew the study.



I'd like to see how they measured that!

Chemical analysis of feces.

YOu make it sound like
Hg is vitamen C!

Please read for comprehension. And, it is not elemental mercury.

Even so what is more important is where the ethyl Hg
that wasn't cleared ended up!

What makes you think that there was any left behind and not cleared in
the stools?

And of course some infants could have an
immune reaction which wouldn't even depend on the amount absorbed in
the brain. Who is more likely to have an immune system
inflammatory reaction to a toxin, an infant or an adult?

Good question. I am allegic to things today that I never had a problem
with before. Based on that, I would *guess* an adult. However, one
person is not a basis for reaching such a conclusion.

As for Sweden and Denmark I assume they have not used thimersol
for years so I would ask what their autisim rates are right
now.

As they were when used. Add Canada.

Mark Probert wrote:
Clinton wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:





I'd like to see how they measured that!

Chemical analysis of feces.


Sounds problematic. 100% ends up in feces? Wasn't it quackwatch
itself that also said Hg fecal testing is unreliable or am I mistaken?
How do you know the concentration is uniform, etc.. And of course there
would be no way to know if 1 in 100 absorbed less even if these tests
were accurate.

YOu make it sound like
Hg is vitamen C!

Please read for comprehension. And, it is not elemental mercury.

Even so what is more important is where the ethyl Hg
that wasn't cleared ended up!

What makes you think that there was any left behind and not cleared in
the stools?

For one thing other studies posted here indicating absorbtion
in the brain. For another the nature of Hg. I've seen no
evidence that ethyl Hg is like vitamen C


And of course some infants could have an
immune reaction which wouldn't even depend on the amount absorbed in
the brain. Who is more likely to have an immune system
inflammatory reaction to a toxin, an infant or an adult?

Good question. I am allegic to things today that I never had a problem
with before. Based on that, I would *guess* an adult.

If you have an allergic reaction reaction to something you
sneeze. If a small amount of a chemical is given to a pregnant
woment at the right time the baby might be born without arms.
Anyone can see that any type of immune reaction in a developing
nervous system is more harmful, EVEN if the frequency was less.


However, one
person is not a basis for reaching such a conclusion.

As for Sweden and Denmark I assume they have not used thimersol
for years so I would ask what their autisim rates are right
now.

As they were when used. Add Canada.

That does not answer the question. What are the absolute rates
of Autism in Denmark and Sweden right now compared to the US.

Mark Probert wrote:

I am not *insisting* it is safe. I am saying that the amounts used are
safe.

Is that all the difference?

People vary in their chemical makeup.

Obviously, the amounts are safe to 166 out
of 167 children.

If the difference between safe and non-safe is
a factor of 20, it's way too close for normal
individual variation, because a normal bell
curve would put some infants in danger range.

So you should have been willing to take 20 times
(relatively) the infant dosage, if you wanted to
do a fair comparison.

Also, cleanup abilities among different infants
would be different, so you should have been
willing to not worry about your cleanup ability.

Instead, you have all these hedges. Of course,
it would be very safe (166/167) to you to
try out the infant dosage. At least 20 times
that would be a realistic trial dosage for
soneone insisting the *dosage* was safe.

Mark Probert wrote:

http://weldon.house.gov/UploadedFile...donMDonIOM.pdf

It covers the ground from a reasonable perspective.
Note that in his personal past career as a doctor,
Weldon has vaccinated thousands.

Was Weldon aware of the protective effect? I doubt it.

Let me quote from Weldon:

"It appears to me, not only as a member of Congress but
also as a physician, that some officials within the CDC's
National Immunization Program, the NIP, may be more
interested in a public relations campaign than
getting to the truth about Thimerosal."

"All of these studies were conducted by researchers
with an interest in not finding an association."

"They did find associations, but they changed
the study and most of the associations disappeared."

"the lead coauthor was forced to admit that many
children in the study were too young to have
received an autism diagnosis. He went on to
admit that the study also likely mislabeled
young autistic children as having other disabilities,
thus masking the number of children with autism."

"The news media to a large degree took the CDC's spin
hook, line and sinker. Largely they chose not to read
the study itself."

"The numbers in Hviid's study were skewed..."

Does it sound like he is the uncritically trusting or
biased type, to just swallow the "protective effect"
thing, hook, line and sinker?

Just don't vaccinate at all, mercury-based preservative or not. Keep
yourself and your children healthy. Look into natural health methods. It
can be done!

Majusmaximum wrote:
Just don't vaccinate at all, mercury-based preservative or not. Keep
yourself and your children healthy. Look into natural health methods. It
can be done!

I am willing to believe it may be possible that immune
systems could be made stronger without vaccinations.

However, I don't see why vaccination itself is not
"natural". A basic vaccination is no different from
accidentally getting cut and rubbing against an
infected tree or leaf or animal or something.

Over a long period of time and trial and error,
we have developed a very effective method of
health called vaccination.

There is no reason to throw away the whole method
just because the system has become overly
money driven and corrupt, and mistakes are
covered up instead of admitted and fixed.

Not that I am against alternative research -- if
someone develops an effective method of making
the immune system stronger, that would
certainly be a very good thing.

"Majusmaximum" wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
Just don't vaccinate at all, mercury-based preservative or not. Keep
yourself and your children healthy. Look into natural health methods. It
can be done!


Prove it.

In the mean time:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...l/12317585.htm

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detail...820.D06&irec=5

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewAr...icleID=1120980

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/aug/12whoop.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...TL&type=health

wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:


I am not *insisting* it is safe. I am saying that the amounts used are
safe.


Is that all the difference?

Actually, yes. When discussing toxic substances, there is a level which
is inherently toxic to all, and a level which is not toxic to anyone. In
between these levels there exists a level which *may* have a therapuetic
effect and not be toxic.

People vary in their chemical makeup.

To an extent. However, not to the extent that it would make a difference
when discussing toxicity.

Obviously, the amounts are safe to 166 out
of 167 children.

If the difference between safe and non-safe is
a factor of 20, it's way too close for normal
individual variation, because a normal bell
curve would put some infants in danger range.

So you should have been willing to take 20 times
(relatively) the infant dosage, if you wanted to
do a fair comparison.

Can you provide a basis for your claim of a factor of 20?

Also, cleanup abilities among different infants
would be different, so you should have been
willing to not worry about your cleanup ability.

Wrong. I am looking to eliminate all confounders.

Instead, you have all these hedges. Of course,
it would be very safe (166/167) to you to
try out the infant dosage. At least 20 times
that would be a realistic trial dosage for
soneone insisting the *dosage* was safe.

You obviously do not understand how to construct a reasearch model. One
of the things a good model considers, and tries to eliminate as much as
possible is confounders. If they cannot be eliminated, then they must be
accounted for.

Majusmaximum wrote:
Just don't vaccinate at all, mercury-based preservative or not. Keep
yourself and your children healthy. Look into natural health methods. It
can be done!



Got proof?

Clinton wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

Clinton wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:





I'd like to see how they measured that!

Chemical analysis of feces.



Sounds problematic. 100% ends up in feces? Wasn't it quackwatch
itself that also said Hg fecal testing is unreliable or am I mistaken?

Mistaken. You are thinking about the quackery known as hair analysis.

How do you know the concentration is uniform, etc.. And of course there
would be no way to know if 1 in 100 absorbed less even if these tests
were accurate.

The tests are quite accurate, and all children in the group were tested.

YOu make it sound like

Hg is vitamen C!

Please read for comprehension. And, it is not elemental mercury.

Even so what is more important is where the ethyl Hg

that wasn't cleared ended up!

What makes you think that there was any left behind and not cleared in
the stools?

For one thing other studies posted here indicating absorbtion
in the brain. For another the nature of Hg.

HgE. And, I have seen studies which show that HgE is cleared so rapidly
it does not have time to cross the blookd brain barrier.

I've seen no
evidence that ethyl Hg is like vitamen C

Strawman.

And of course some infants could have an

immune reaction which wouldn't even depend on the amount absorbed in
the brain. Who is more likely to have an immune system
inflammatory reaction to a toxin, an infant or an adult?

Good question. I am allegic to things today that I never had a problem
with before. Based on that, I would *guess* an adult.

If you have an allergic reaction reaction to something you
sneeze.

Not all the time. If I eat mangoes, I get hives. When I was a kid,
mangoes were a staple fruit for me.

If a small amount of a chemical is given to a pregnant
woment at the right time the baby might be born without arms.

Depends on the chemical.

Anyone can see that any type of immune reaction in a developing
nervous system is more harmful, EVEN if the frequency was less.

You are confusing an immune reaction with other forms of reactions.

However, one
person is not a basis for reaching such a conclusion.


As for Sweden and Denmark I assume they have not used thimersol
for years so I would ask what their autisim rates are right
now.

As they were when used. Add Canada.


That does not answer the question. What are the absolute rates
of Autism in Denmark and Sweden right now compared to the US.

Look that up, and then explain why it makes a difference.

The fact is, the rates in Sweden, Denmark and Canada did not go down
after thimerosal was removed. That is the important fact.