Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
I have read studies on both sides of this issue. It appears to me (and
I
hope I wrong) that you instantly discount any studies or reports which
indicate that mercury MAY be the cause of autism. Am I wrong? I hope
so. Read my fingers....there are NO epidemiological studies showing a
link...eight studies on diverse populations all show that there is no
link....keep reading...
Replication of findings is one of the "checks and balances" in the world
of scientific research. You may recall the cold fusion debacle several
years ago...or the Korean scientist on cloning whose findings could not
be reproduced....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you had 10 blood tests
of 10 children that had autism in front of you and they all indicated
that
the children had dangerous levels of mercury. Would you discount those
blood tests or assume that autism MAY be caused by mercury?

Like I said, the epidemiological studies refute any possible connection
between mercury and autism. Eight studies, LARGE diverse populations, all
showing the same thing.

Furthermore, how do we know that 10 non-autistic kids don't have equally
high levels of mercury? If you want to use that model, all I need to do is
to bring one kid with the same levels who does not have autism.

I would assume that the autism MAY have been caused by mercury. Jason

You would assume wrong.

No. Your are wrong and posting misinformation.

One?epidemiological study is wrong. One of them states the main exposure is
coal and fish.

http://www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam

===

http://www.y2khealthanddetox.c*om/mercuryinfo.html

[several websites disappeared. NOT surprising.]




14. Both Health Canada (1996) and world Health Organization (1991) consider
dental amalgams to be the single largest source of mercury exposure for the
general public, with amalgam potentially contributing up to 84% (WHO, 1991)
or
total daily intake of all forms of mercury from all sources,


http://www.valleyadvocate.com/*articles/dental.html


Autopsy studies in Sweden, Germany and the United States have also
established
that people with amalgams have significantly more mercury in their brains
and
kidneys than those without, and the mercury concentration increases with the
number of amalgams. Furthermore, the World Health Organization has stated
that
amalgam fillings constitute the majority of mercury exposure for people with
amalgams -- more than every other mercury source combined. This finding has
been independently verified by the national insurance program Health Canada
and
by the National Institutes of Dental Research.


===

http://www.icnr.com/uam/hgcourse/M4/SciLit5.html

The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all
the other sources together.

==

http://www.ewg.org/reports/autism/execsumm.php

http://www.ewg.org/reports/autism/part4.php

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...adly_immunity/

http://www.drgreene.com/21_1904.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...-c_b_3184.html

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/index...erns&Q2=Autism

http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/1/autism_mercury.htm

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
I have read studies on both sides of this issue. It appears to me
(and I
hope I wrong) that you instantly discount any studies or reports
which
indicate that mercury MAY be the cause of autism. Am I wrong? I
hope so. Read my fingers....there are NO epidemiological studies
showing a link...eight studies on diverse populations all show that
there is no link....keep reading...
Replication of findings is one of the "checks and balances" in the
world of scientific research. You may recall the cold fusion debacle
several years ago...or the Korean scientist on cloning whose findings
could not be reproduced....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you had 10 blood
tests
of 10 children that had autism in front of you and they all indicated
that
the children had dangerous levels of mercury. Would you discount those
blood tests or assume that autism MAY be caused by mercury?
Like I said, the epidemiological studies refute any possible connection
between mercury and autism. Eight studies, LARGE diverse populations, all
showing the same thing.
Furthermore, how do we know that 10 non-autistic kids don't have equally
high levels of mercury? If you want to use that model, all I need to do
is to bring one kid with the same levels who does not have autism.
I would assume that the autism MAY have been caused by mercury.
Jason
You would assume wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
Good point. It appears to me that you have made up your mind that mercury
plays no role in regard to the cause of autism. Even if you saw data
indicating that every child that had autism also had high levels of
mercury--you still would not be convinced.

Try reading comprehension. What I said is that there is no evidence of
causation. None. It is nothing more than a theory, and that is why Boyd
Haley, et al, were excluded from testifying. All the evidence says
otherwise.

Two blatant lies. Evidence has been clearly posted over and over.



I hope that I am wrong. I hope
that mercury is not the cause of autism.

Since there is no evidence that it is, your hopes have been answered.

I have had lots of vaccines

That is unusual for someone your age, unless you traveled to some really
remote areas of the third world.

and
lots of dental fillings containing mercury. I hope that when the babies
of
the world are my age (55 years old) that the levels of mercury and other
heavy metals are much lower than the levels in the bodies of people that
are now 55 years old.

There has been a decades long effort to reduce environmental mercury.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. com...



Try reading comprehension. What I said is that there is no evidence of
causation. None. It is nothing more than a theory, and that is why Boyd
Haley, et al, were excluded from testifying. All the evidence says
otherwise.

Two blatant lies. Evidence has been clearly posted over and over.

Not lies, blatant or otherwise. The links you post from "Altcorp" and
"WhaleTo" and other anti-vac liar sites do not constitute evidence no matter
how warm and fuzzy they make you feel. As for lies, "I posted it with the
permission of the author" is a lie. YOU are the blatant liar here and that
has been irrefutably proven.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Jeff"
wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
(...)

Mark,
Good point. It appears to me that you have made up your mind that
mercury
plays no role in regard to the cause of autism. Even if you saw data
indicating that every child that had autism also had high levels of
mercury--you still would not be convinced. I hope that I am wrong. I
hope
that mercury is not the cause of autism. I have had lots of vaccines and
lots of dental fillings containing mercury. I hope that when the babies
of
the world are my age (55 years old) that the levels of mercury and other
heavy metals are much lower than the levels in the bodies of people that
are now 55 years old.

I wish thimerasol were the cause of autism. In that case, it would be
simple
to prevent new cases of autism.

But, unfortunately, autism is NOT cause by thimerasol, so preventing new
cases is something beyound our current abilities.

Jeff

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeff,
Scientists are still not still not 100 per cent sure related to the cause
of autism. If mercury is the cause of autism, children would continue to
develop autism even if thimerosal is banned. For example, there are high
levels of mercury in some fish and the type of mercury in fish is even
more dangerous than the type of mercury in vaccines. It's also possible
that various heavy metals can cause autism. I once read an article about a
elementary school that was located next to a large field. The farmer hired
a helecopter pilot to spray that field with insecticides. Some of that
spray ended up on the grass on the school yard and some of those children
inhaled those insecticides. They came down with various types of breathing
problems. I don't remember if any of them ended up with long term medical
problems. I suspect that dangerous chemicals could also be involved in the
development of autism.

Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

In the thirties and forties, mercury was a common plaything for children.
Coat pennies and other metals. Drop it on the table and see it bead. LOTS
of exposure. Put it on one's teeth. Hmmmm. almost NO autism. Does mercury
prevent autism?

In article , "vernon"
there@there wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Jeff"
wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
(...)

Mark,
Good point. It appears to me that you have made up your mind that
mercury
plays no role in regard to the cause of autism. Even if you saw data
indicating that every child that had autism also had high levels of
mercury--you still would not be convinced. I hope that I am wrong. I
hope
that mercury is not the cause of autism. I have had lots of vaccines and
lots of dental fillings containing mercury. I hope that when the babies
of
the world are my age (55 years old) that the levels of mercury and other
heavy metals are much lower than the levels in the bodies of people that
are now 55 years old.

I wish thimerasol were the cause of autism. In that case, it would be
simple
to prevent new cases of autism.

But, unfortunately, autism is NOT cause by thimerasol, so preventing new
cases is something beyound our current abilities.

Jeff

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeff,
Scientists are still not still not 100 per cent sure related to the cause
of autism. If mercury is the cause of autism, children would continue to
develop autism even if thimerosal is banned. For example, there are high
levels of mercury in some fish and the type of mercury in fish is even
more dangerous than the type of mercury in vaccines. It's also possible
that various heavy metals can cause autism. I once read an article about a
elementary school that was located next to a large field. The farmer hired
a helecopter pilot to spray that field with insecticides. Some of that
spray ended up on the grass on the school yard and some of those children
inhaled those insecticides. They came down with various types of breathing
problems. I don't remember if any of them ended up with long term medical
problems. I suspect that dangerous chemicals could also be involved in the
development of autism.

Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

In the thirties and forties, mercury was a common plaything for children.
Coat pennies and other metals. Drop it on the table and see it bead. LOTS
of exposure. Put it on one's teeth. Hmmmm. almost NO autism. Does mercury
prevent autism?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello,
We done the same thing in the 1950's. We coated our coins with it and
enjoyed playing with it. I do agree with the posters that indicated that
genetics may play a role. I saw this quote in one of the posts which made
sense to me and please let me know if it makes sense to you:

"It is our genetics that determines how we respond to various toxins and
poisons...some people are extremely sensitive to mercury."

That could explain why 10 children could take all of the required vaccines
(that contain thimerosal) and the result is that only one of those 10
children develops autism. Even if that theory is true, that child would
have probably developed autism even if he or she had never received any
vaccines containing thimerosal. The reason is that the child would eat
various meals that had fish that was contaminated with methylmercury which
is even more dangerous than the type of mercury used in vaccines. In
addition, the child would receive dental fillings that contain mercury. At
the very least, we should remove mercury from vaccines and dental
fillings.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
I have read studies on both sides of this issue. It appears to me
(and I
hope I wrong) that you instantly discount any studies or reports which
indicate that mercury MAY be the cause of autism. Am I wrong? I
hope so.

Read my fingers....there are NO epidemiological studies showing a
link...eight studies on diverse populations all show that there is no
link....keep reading...

Replication of findings is one of the "checks and balances" in the world
of scientific research. You may recall the cold fusion debacle several
years ago...or the Korean scientist on cloning whose findings could not
be reproduced....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you had 10 blood tests
of 10 children that had autism in front of you and they all indicated that
the children had dangerous levels of mercury. Would you discount those
blood tests or assume that autism MAY be caused by mercury?

Like I said, the epidemiological studies refute any possible connection
between mercury and autism. Eight studies, LARGE diverse populations,
all showing the same thing.

Furthermore, how do we know that 10 non-autistic kids don't have equally
high levels of mercury? If you want to use that model, all I need to do
is to bring one kid with the same levels who does not have autism.

I would assume that the autism MAY have been caused by mercury.
Jason

You would assume wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
Good point. It appears to me that you have made up your mind that mercury
plays no role in regard to the cause of autism. Even if you saw data
indicating that every child that had autism also had high levels of
mercury--you still would not be convinced.

Try reading comprehension. What I said is that there is no evidence of
causation. None. It is nothing more than a theory, and that is why Boyd
Haley, et al, were excluded from testifying. All the evidence says
otherwise.

I hope that I am wrong. I hope
that mercury is not the cause of autism.

Since there is no evidence that it is, your hopes have been answered.

I have had lots of vaccines

That is unusual for someone your age, unless you traveled to some really
remote areas of the third world.

and
lots of dental fillings containing mercury. I hope that when the babies of
the world are my age (55 years old) that the levels of mercury and other
heavy metals are much lower than the levels in the bodies of people that
are now 55 years old.

There has been a decades long effort to reduce environmental mercury.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It might be unsual but it does happen. I was attending grade school in one
county and received all of the required vaccinations. Several years later,
I transferred to a school in a different county.

You were in grade school in the late 50's early 60's and the number of
vaccines where what? Look it up.

The vaccine records could
not be found so they required me to get a new series of vaccinations
before I could attend that school. I understand that members of the
military also have to take vaccines. That's one of the reasons that
mercury should not be used in vaccines. One or two vaccines containing
thimerosal don't cause much harm but some people (like me and members of
the military) end up getting lots of vaccines containing thimerosal. Now
you know another reason why I want thimerosal to be banned.

When I was in the military, and being prepared to go to Southeast Asia,
we received several shots, and, no one had an adverse reaction. That is
not one out of 250 in my basic training unit.

Rich wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. com...

Try reading comprehension. What I said is that there is no evidence of
causation. None. It is nothing more than a theory, and that is why Boyd
Haley, et al, were excluded from testifying. All the evidence says
otherwise.
Two blatant lies. Evidence has been clearly posted over and over.

Not lies, blatant or otherwise. The links you post from "Altcorp" and
"WhaleTo" and other anti-vac liar sites do not constitute evidence no matter
how warm and fuzzy they make you feel. As for lies, "I posted it with the
permission of the author" is a lie. YOU are the blatant liar here and that
has been irrefutably proven.

Not only that...Haley was barred from testifying because the judge found
that he only has a theory, and no proof.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Rich wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. com...

Try reading comprehension. What I said is that there is no evidence of
causation. None. It is nothing more than a theory, and that is why Boyd
Haley, et al, were excluded from testifying. All the evidence says
otherwise.
Two blatant lies. Evidence has been clearly posted over and over.

Not lies, blatant or otherwise. The links you post from "Altcorp" and
"WhaleTo" and other anti-vac liar sites do not constitute evidence no
matter how warm and fuzzy they make you feel. As for lies, "I posted it
with the permission of the author" is a lie. YOU are the blatant liar
here and that has been irrefutably proven.

Not only that...Haley was barred from testifying because the judge found
that he only has a theory, and no proof.

Dr. Geier and Dr. Haley were not qualified because his cuasation theory was
filled with
speculation that is

*****directly contary to the **conclusions** reached in well
respected and numberous epidemiologicand medical studies********.

Period.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Rich wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. com...

Try reading comprehension. What I said is that there is no evidence of
causation. None. It is nothing more than a theory, and that is why Boyd
Haley, et al, were excluded from testifying. All the evidence says
otherwise.
Two blatant lies. Evidence has been clearly posted over and over.

Not lies, blatant or otherwise.

Rich is totally a liar. He can see no lies.

[there was no lump,lump head...is a fine example]


The links you post from "Altcorp" and
"WhaleTo" and other anti-vac liar sites do not constitute evidence no
matter

Yes, they do.


how warm and fuzzy they make you feel. As for lies, "I posted it with the
permission of the author" is a lie. YOU are the blatant liar here and
that has been irrefutably proven.

LOL!



Not only that...Haley was barred from testifying because the judge found
that he only has a theory, and no proof.

Mark Probert WAS disbarred. Still is.

He has lied for years.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:
Jason Johnson wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
I have read studies on both sides of this issue. It appears to
me
(and I
hope I wrong) that you instantly discount any studies or reports
which
indicate that mercury MAY be the cause of autism. Am I wrong? I
hope so. Read my fingers....there are NO epidemiological
studies showing a link...eight studies on diverse populations all
show that there is no link....keep reading...
Replication of findings is one of the "checks and balances"
in the world of scientific research. You may recall the cold fusion
debacle several years ago...or the Korean scientist on cloning
whose findings could not be reproduced....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you had 10 blood
tests
of 10 children that had autism in front of you and they all
indicated that
the children had dangerous levels of mercury. Would you discount
those
blood tests or assume that autism MAY be caused by mercury?
Like I said, the epidemiological studies refute any possible
connection between mercury and autism. Eight studies, LARGE diverse
populations, all showing the same thing.
Furthermore, how do we know that 10 non-autistic kids don't have
equally high levels of mercury? If you want to use that model, all I
need to do is to bring one kid with the same levels who does not have
autism.
I would assume that the autism MAY have been caused by mercury.
Jason
You would assume wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
Good point. It appears to me that you have made up your mind that
mercury
plays no role in regard to the cause of autism. Even if you saw data
indicating that every child that had autism also had high levels of
mercury--you still would not be convinced. Try reading comprehension.
What I said is that there is no evidence of causation. None. It is
nothing more than a theory, and that is why Boyd Haley, et al, were
excluded from testifying. All the evidence says otherwise.
I hope that I am wrong. I hope
that mercury is not the cause of autism. Since there is no evidence
that it is, your hopes have been answered.
I have had lots of vaccines That is unusual for someone your age,
unless you traveled to some really remote areas of the third world.
and
lots of dental fillings containing mercury. I hope that when the
babies of
the world are my age (55 years old) that the levels of mercury and
other
heavy metals are much lower than the levels in the bodies of people
that
are now 55 years old.
There has been a decades long effort to reduce environmental mercury.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It might be unsual but it does happen. I was attending grade school in
one
county and received all of the required vaccinations. Several years
later,
I transferred to a school in a different county.

You were in grade school in the late 50's early 60's and the number of
vaccines where what? Look it up.

The vaccine records could
not be found so they required me to get a new series of vaccinations
before I could attend that school. I understand that members of the
military also have to take vaccines. That's one of the reasons that
mercury should not be used in vaccines. One or two vaccines containing
thimerosal don't cause much harm but some people (like me and members of
the military) end up getting lots of vaccines containing thimerosal. Now
you know another reason why I want thimerosal to be banned.

When I was in the military, and being prepared to go to Southeast Asia, we
received several shots, and, no one had an adverse reaction. That is not
one out of 250 in my basic training unit.

In my unit, one big guy passed out (BEFORE he got the first injection). Two
guys got lacerations when they flinched under the needleless injectors. That
was out of 60 men. No actual adverse reactions that I was ever aware of. If
there were any long-term consequences, they were probably blamed on agent
orange. By the way, we were also run single-file naked through a long shed
where guys with gas masks beat us with pillows full of powdered DDT. No ill
effects from that either. No ukus survived, though.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/