Study "Disproving" Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial Ties to Vaccine Manufacturers

"Skeptic" wrote in
Nothing worth bandwidth.

"t" wrote in message
news

"Skeptic" wrote in
Nothing worth bandwidth.

So I repeat,

"Question - I heard, but don't know for sure - that England banned thimersol
from its vaccines for a period of time in the 80's and during that time, the
incidence of autism continued to rise. Anyone know if this is true? If so,
anyone with details? Thx."

It's not like comparisons to European nations are anything new here...

On Mar 22, 5:43*pm, "Skeptic" wrote:
"t" wrote in message

news


"Skeptic" wrote in
Nothing worth bandwidth.

So I repeat,

"Question - I heard, but don't know for sure - that England banned thimersol
from its vaccines for a period of time in the 80's and during that time, the
incidence of autism continued to rise. *Anyone know if this is true? *If so,
anyone with details? *Thx."

It's not like comparisons to European nations are anything new here...

I forwarded you question to someone who would know the answer.

Patience.

On Mar 22, 2:13*pm, "Skeptic" wrote:
Question - I heard, but don't know for sure - that England banned thimersol
from its vaccines for a period of time in the 80's and during that time, the
incidence of autism continued to rise. *Anyone know if this is true? *If so,
anyone with details? *Thx.

Does this help?

http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/co...imerosal.htm#4
Could thimerosal have been a factor in Great Britain's rise in rates
of autism in children born in 1980s and early 1990s?
It is unlikely that the rapid increase in autism cases in the UK was
due to thimerosal. The only vaccine in the UK's childhood immunization
program that contains thimerosal is DTP. All other vaccines (OPV, BCG,
MMR, Hib, menC) added to the program since the 1950's are and have
always been thimerosal free. In addition, if thimerosal in vaccines
were causing autism, we would expect to see a simultaneous increase in
both thimerosal exposure and autism cases. However, from the 1950s on,
there was no increase in the amount of thimerosal UK children were
receiving from vaccines, yet there was a jump in autism cases in the
1980s.

A significant change in the UKs program did occur in 1990, when they
accelerated their immunization schedule so vaccines would be given
earlier (changed from 3, 5, and 8 months to 2, 3 and 4 months).
However, the rate of autism was rising long before this change
occurred (Fombonne, 2001).

Yes, thanks. I find it exceedingly odd that this is not promptly discussed
during these interview sessions we have all seen or heard of on TV.

Strike that - it's predictably pathetic of mainstream American media going
for shock and awe with junk and pseudoscience.

As parents start to pull their kids off the vaccination schedules we'll be
in danger of losing herd immunity. There will be a harsh backlash after the
first few deaths from previously virtually historic illnesses in kids who
had their vaccinations held because of the scare mongerers out there... in
here.


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 2:13 pm, "Skeptic" wrote:
Question - I heard, but don't know for sure - that England banned
thimersol
from its vaccines for a period of time in the 80's and during that time,
the
incidence of autism continued to rise. Anyone know if this is true? If so,
anyone with details? Thx.

Does this help?

http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/co...imerosal.htm#4
Could thimerosal have been a factor in Great Britain's rise in rates
of autism in children born in 1980s and early 1990s?
It is unlikely that the rapid increase in autism cases in the UK was
due to thimerosal. The only vaccine in the UK's childhood immunization
program that contains thimerosal is DTP. All other vaccines (OPV, BCG,
MMR, Hib, menC) added to the program since the 1950's are and have
always been thimerosal free. In addition, if thimerosal in vaccines
were causing autism, we would expect to see a simultaneous increase in
both thimerosal exposure and autism cases. However, from the 1950s on,
there was no increase in the amount of thimerosal UK children were
receiving from vaccines, yet there was a jump in autism cases in the
1980s.

A significant change in the UKs program did occur in 1990, when they
accelerated their immunization schedule so vaccines would be given
earlier (changed from 3, 5, and 8 months to 2, 3 and 4 months).
However, the rate of autism was rising long before this change
occurred (Fombonne, 2001).

In message pWjFj.87813$yE1.80024@attbi_s21, Skeptic wrote:

As parents start to pull their kids off the vaccination schedules we'll be
in danger of losing herd immunity. *There will be a harsh backlash after the
first few deaths from previously virtually historic illnesses in kids who
had their vaccinations held because of the scare mongerers out there... in
here.

As even Cee points out, the San Diego measles outbreak
would have been much worse without a high immunization
rate. Index case comes in from Switzerland and there
are only 12 cases total.

Put a kid in preschool for four days prodromal period
without massive herd immunity and what do you expect
to happen? (I discount Cee, who would put his eyes
out rather than see any evidence of communicable
disease.) Measles is *extremely* communicable and
back in the day was more feared than smallpox [1].

With a modern case mortality of 5/10000 you'd have
bodies piling up all over the USA in no time (the
current case mortality is higher, but that's biased
towards the immunocompromised and other exceptionally
vulnerable people.)

[1] This was in an area that practiced Asian variolation,
so smallpox was at least something that they could
protect against to some degree. Measles? Nope.

--
| The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" |
| The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" |
+---------- D. C. Sessions ----------+

On Mar 21, 1:49 am, Peter Bowditch wrote:
wrote:
Ethylmercury is at least 3x as
toxic as methyl mercury.

Do you ever get tired of lying, not-Dr Cee?

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Well well well... Peter Bowditch!!!!
Are YOU the chap who REFUSES to read the
Homeopathic journals because the research
might be "BIASED"???

And yet, you seem to accept WITHOUT QUESTION
the research published in the journal mentioned
in Drew's post despite numerous ads
from the companies MAKING THE VACCINES.

How very trusting of you Bowditch...

NO DOUBLE STANDARD THERE, EH BOWDITCH?

Citizen Jimserac

On Mar 23, 8:09*am, Citizen Jimserac wrote:
On Mar 21, 1:49 am, Peter Bowditch wrote:

wrote:
Ethylmercury is at least 3x as
toxic as methyl mercury.

Do you ever get tired of lying, not-Dr Cee?

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Well well well... Peter Bowditch!!!!
Are YOU the chap who REFUSES to read the
Homeopathic journals because the research
might be "BIASED"???

And yet, you seem to accept WITHOUT QUESTION
the research published in the journal mentioned
in Drew's post despite numerous ads
from the companies MAKING THE VACCINES.

How very trusting of you Bowditch...

NO DOUBLE STANDARD THERE, EH BOWDITCH?

None. Since homeoquackery is based on a non-existenct science, why
bother?

First prove the basic science.

Unless you do that, all research based on it is a waste.

"Mark Probert" wrote:
Does this help?

http://www.cdc.gov/

Umm, NO.

CDC=Organized medicine.

Gov=TRust the gov.
(Fombonne, 2001).

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c...nes-folly.html

Fombonne's Folly
Eric Fombonne has released a study that he does not seem qualified to do
that tells us nothing about the important question that he is supposedly
addressing: Do autistic children have higher mercury levels than typical
children.

I believe that this was completely disingenuous on his part. He HAS to know
that mercury does not stay in the blood stream and that taking blood mercury
levels only shows recent exposure. No one in the autism community uses blood
mercury levels to determine how much mercury might be in a child's body and
his brain.

But that does not stop it from getting a headline on Yahoo News.

But enough of my take on things. Let's hear from an actual chemist:



The Mercury, Autism Debacle: How Stupid Do They Think We Are?
Michael Wagnitz
May 7, 2007

Last weekend the Sixth International Meeting for Autism Research took place
in Seattle. The meeting claimed to draw the top 900 autism researchers and
scientists from around the world. One of the key participants was Dr. Eric
Fombonne of Montreal Children's Hospital at McGill University. Dr. Fombonne,
a psychiatrist, presented his research on mercury. His work involved testing
the blood and hair of 147 children. Roughly half of his subjects were
diagnosed with autism and half were considered neurologically typical
controls. He found no difference in mercury levels in the patients hair or
blood.

The first question one might ask is why a psychiatrist is considered
qualified to do toxicological work. Most parents are concerned about the
mercury exposure that their children received as newborns and infants from
mandatory vaccines. The vaccine schedule in Canada, where Dr. Fombonnes
study was done, and the United States were quite different in the 1990's.
Dr. Fombonne,s patients were not tested after vaccination. If he had talked
to any reputable toxicologist, they would have told him that the
ethylmercury from vaccines clears the blood in about seven days.
Ethylmercury, a short-chain alkyl mercury compound, is rapidly distributed
to the brain, kidneys and other tissue. The hair tested would need to be
from a first haircut to show this mercury exposure. Even if this was the
case, research has shown that autistic kids do not excrete mercury
efficiently. The hair would not contain any measurable amounts of mercury.
It's to bad that McGill University does not have any toxicologists who could
have explained to Dr. Fombonne that his work was a waste of time and money.

If one was really interested in determining the body burden of mercury they
would perform the urinary porphyrin profile analysis (UPPA). Porphyrins are
precursors to heme, the oxygen carrying component of blood. Mercury inhibits
the conversion of specific porphyrins to heme. This test is backed by
decades of published research. Recently it was shown in two published,
peer-reviewed studies, that mercury inhibited porphyrins were significantly
higher in autistic patients when compared to age matched controls (1)(2).
The other way to test for mercury in the body is by using a provoking agent
and measuring mercury in the urine.


The organizers of this meeting did not reveal that when Dr. Fombonne isn't
conducting epidemiological studies or doing heavy metal analysis, he is
appearing on behalf of vaccine manufacturers defending the safety of
mercury. Dr. Fombonne refers to the amount of mercury in vaccines as
"trace". Again, if he were a toxicologist or chemist, he would realize that
the concentration of mercury in a multi-dose vaccine vial is 250 times
higher than what the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
classifies as hazardous waste.

References:

(1) Nataf R, Lam A, Lathe R, Skorupka, C. 2006. Porphyrinurea in Childhood
Autistic Disorders: Implications for Environmental Toxicity. Toxicol. Appl.
Pramacol. 214(2):99-108

(2) Geier M, Geier D, 2006. A prospective assessment of porphyrins in
autistic disorders: a potential marker for heavy metal exposure. Neurotox
Res. Aug;10(1):57-64

About the Author: Michael Wagnitz has over 20 years experience evaluating
materials for toxic metals. He currently works as a chemist in the
toxicology section of a public health lab evaluating biological samples for
lead and mercury.

http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/p...ne-6-30-06.pdf

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/VaccinationsPart1.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/64733.php

"Mark Probert" wrote:

*where no one, under any circumstances, respond to any of their messages,
for any reason. If they post something that needs to be refuted,
commencing a new thread without reference to them, would be proper.*

OOps, there went the lying UDP...AGAIN.

NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published January 9 2008
Study "Disproving" Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial
Ties to Vaccine Manufacturers
by Mike Adams

(NewsTarget) While the mainstream press is widely reporting a new study
"disproving" any link between autism and mercury-containing thimerosal in
vaccines, no one has bothered to point out that the study was published in a
medical journal stacked full of ads from the very same drug companies that
manufacture and market vaccines. The Journal, the Archives of General
Psychiatry, is the pro-drug psychiatric arm of the American Medical
Association, a pill-pushing organization tarnished by a history of
conspiracy against alternative medicine and the promotion of toxic
substances like cigarettes with full-page ads in its flagship publication,
JAMA.


From the outset, the fact that this study appears in a pro-drug,
pro-psychiatry journal should bring pause to any scientific-minded person.
There is obviously a serious conflict of interest here, especially if this
study is to be taken as "fact" and applied to public health policy. There
also need to be a close look at any financial links between the researchers
involved in this study and various vaccine manufacturers, as virtually all
pro-drug "science" (if you can call it that) being published these days is
influenced by Big Pharma money.


The only truly honest, independent, peer-reviewed medical journal operating
today is PLoS Medicine, an open-source journal that takes no money from drug
companies. Notice that the autism/mercury link study did not appear in PLoS
Medicine? No, it had to be published with a home field advantage in a
pro-drug publication that maintains a strong bias in favor of
pharmaceuticals and chemicals.


Junk science and faulty conclusions
Aside from these obvious and worrisome conflicts of interest, the
conclusions being made about autism and vaccines in the mainstream media are
simply not supported by the study. The (distorted) logic we're hearing goes
like this:


Yes, vaccines used to contain mercury. And yes, all those little kids were
injected with mercury. And yes, autism rates skyrocketed. But then when the
mercury was taken out of the vaccines, the autism rates didn't come back
down. Therefore, the logic goes, vaccines are safe!


This is such sloppy cause/effect logic that it makes the idiot CNN Health
editors who published a story about "junk foods being good for your waist"
look like sheer geniuses!


What's wrong with the logic? Consider the use of mercury in the vaccines: It
was used as a preservative chemical to prevent vaccine spoilage. When the
mercury was removed, it was replaced with other preservative chemicals that
are also toxic to the human nervous system. Thus, the continuing increase in
autism rates following vaccination may be due to the toxic chemicals that
replaced thimerosal. While mercury injections probably initiated the
increase in autism, the toxic substance has been replaced with other
dangerous chemicals that are continuing to increase the risk of autism.


Here's an example to explain this a bit mo


We all know that sodium nitrite in processed meat causes cancer, right?
Well, let's say that for ten years, somebody feeds all the kids sodium
nitrite and cancer rates skyrocket. Then, they take all the sodium nitrite
out of the food and replace it with a different cancer-causing chemical that
they keep feeding the kids. Guess what? The cancer rates don't come down.
Therefore, the logic goes, sodium nitrite didn't cause cancer in the first
place!


Notice that when mercury was removed from vaccines (which is not entirely
true, by the way, bringing into question yet more details about this study),
the rates of autism did not drop? This means the vaccines remain dangerous
to children. Autism continued to climb right alongside vaccination rates,
indicating the possibility that something in the vaccines (or a combination
of various chemicals) may very well be responsible for the increase. Based
on the fact that thimerosal was replaced with other toxic chemicals in the
vaccines, there is absolutely no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any
harmful effects. There are too many variables operating now, and no study
can isolate one variable (thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be
harmless.


The truth is that scientists have no idea what's causing autism. They
acknowledge the alarming increase in the rates of autism now being observed
in the population, but with this new study, they claim, "Mercury is safe!"


Let me add this study to the enormous stack of other B.S. studies from
modern medical researchers. Let's see, I have a study here that declares
aspartame to be safe. A second study in my database says that Vioxx is safe.
Another study says Teflon is safe. And yet another study claims that
cigarette smoke doesn't cause lung cancer or heart disease! In fact, for
virtually every toxic chemical created by industry, there's a B.S. study
proclaiming its safety! The history of science is full of such nonsense, all
funded or influenced by the corporations that manufacture and sell these
toxic chemicals or drugs.


The fact that industry has managed to create yet another study declaring a
toxic substance (thimerosal) to be safe when injected into children is
certainly not surprising. This is an industry that is not bound by the rules
of logic, ethics or common scientific sense. It simply finds ways to
influence researchers, cherry pick studies and distort science to get
whatever results it wants. That's how we're now hearing things like,
"Mercury is safe to inject into children!" -- an idea that's utterly absurd
at any dose.


What the mercury / vaccine study actually proves
Even if you believe the results of this study, it only demonstrates that
removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce vaccine toxicity to children.
Autism rates are still on the rise, right along with vaccination rates.
Multiple toxic chemicals and substances are contained in vaccines, and the
mercury in thimerosal may have simply been one factor among many.


The only reasonable, scientifically-minded conclusion we can draw from the
study is that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce autism in
children. If removing thimerosal from vaccines made them safer, we should
have seen autism rates go down, but we did not! Autism rates continued to
climb in direct correlation to vaccination rates, indicating that mercury is
not the only toxic substance causing neurological problems in children.


Notice, carefully, that this is nothing close to what's being reported in
the mainstream media, where headlines are blaring junk science nonsense
like, "Vaccines pose no risk for autism" (San Jose Mercury News) and
"Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism" (Slashdot, which should know better).
Even WIRED News got it wrong with: "California Study Finds No Link Between
Vaccines, Autism."


The correct headline should be, "Removal of Mercury From Vaccines Fails to
Halt Rise in Autism."


Or, "Removing Mercury From Vaccines Does Not Make Them Safer."


Nobody reported that. Apparently, telling the truth about research involving
vaccines is not a popular option in the mainstream media (MSM).
Businessweek, publishing a HealthDay report by Randy Dotinga, invokes
particularly bad logic with this opening statement, "Adding to a growing
body of evidence that rejects the idea that immunizations boost autism
rates, a new study finds no proof that incidences of the disorder dropped
after makers of most childhood vaccines stopped using a mercury-based
preservative in their products."


Huh? How does a study focused only on mercury "reject the idea that
immunizations boost autism rates?" Did the author of that report not notice
that autism rates continue to increase as vaccination rates go up?
Eliminating one chemical from the causative factors does not in any way
clear the safety of all the other chemicals or ingredients used in vaccines.


The mainstream media, which repeatedly demonstrates astonishing ignorance on
issues of nutrition and health, also seems to have very little ability to
interpret scientific studies and reach reasoned conclusions about what those
studies do or do not prove.


Was the vaccine study another example of corrupt science?
Besides, this entire discussion is based on the idea that we can trust the
research in the first place. If there's one thing we've learned about modern
medicine since watching all the Vioxx scandals, Avandia cover-ups and
scientific corruption in research circles, it's that drug companies can help
create whatever research conclusions they want.


And let's face it: Big Pharma will always produce science that protects its
profits. Gee, Big Tobacco came up with all sorts of research that said
tobacco smoke wasn't harmful and nicotine wasn't addictive. Some of that
research appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, too. Does that mean the
research was scientifically accurate and "conclusive?" Of course not. It was
just plain old junk science, hijacked by a powerful corporation with a clear
profit motive.


If all that sounds familiar, it's because drug companies are playing the
same game with science today that Big Tobacco played decades ago: Influence
the science, bury the bad news and propagandize the good news. It's the
oldest play in the spin book, and Big Pharma has patterned it perfectly from
Big Tobacco.


You see, the relevant question in this discussion is not simply whether
mercury-containing vaccines cause autism. The question at hand is whether we
can even trust the "science" being conducted on this subject. Do the
researchers who conducted this study have any financial ties to the
manufacturers of those vaccines? Have they received any speaking fees? Do
they own stock in those companies? If so, this completely discredits their
research due to obvious conflicts of interest.


Now, I don't have any direct evidence that the researchers in this
particular mercury vaccine study were corrupted or influenced by Big Pharma,
but as an honest, independent think who knows the truth about drug
companies, the mainstream media and the profit motive behind much of the
science appearing in the press today, I maintain a default position of
skepticism when it comes to reading these studies.


By default, I distrust the drug companies and any so-called "research" that
claims injecting mercury into the bodies of children is harmless. That
should be the default position held by any rational person who understands
basic human biochemistry. Toxic chemicals and heavy metals must be
distrusted from the outset.


The drug and chemical industries, notably, take precisely the opposite
approach. To them, all chemicals and drugs are safe until proven dangerous.
This is how dangerous drugs get released into the marketplace and only
recalled after tens of millions of prescriptions have been written and many
thousands of people have died. The drug companies routinely treat the
population as drug testing guinea pigs, and the used of vaccines on children
is no different.


I find it interesting that genuine scientific skepticism seems to vanish
when the topic shifts to pharmaceuticals. Sure, all the skeptics and quack
critics will go to town on topics like acupuncture, mind-body medicine or
even the efficacy of botanical medicines, but when the discussion turns to
things like mercury in vaccines or amphetamine drugs for kids with ADHD, all
such skepticism immediately vanishes. They accept the safety and efficacy of
such treatments without question. Rational thought is rapidly discarded.
Vaccines simply must be safe. Why? Because everybody else in the medical
industry says so!


Were the journalists injected with mercury, too?
With this whole charade about a study "disproving" any link between mercury
and vaccines, the modern medical industry has once again shown its infantile
intellect and its utter lack or scientific integrity or clear-headed
skepticism. Is this study really the best they can come up with? A study
that shows absolutely no drop in autism rates when ingredients are
reformulated in vaccines? A study that didn't even attempt to take into
account the other toxic ingredients in vaccines?


This is the new standard of "conclusive" science in medicine today?


Give me a break. The only thing that can be conclusively derived from
observing all this is that mainstream media journalists continue to function
at a very low level of scientific literacy, lacking any skills of mental
reason by which scientific studies might be assessed. There is no thought
that has gone into the media's reporting of this story; only bandwagon
parroting of each other's bad conclusions of a study that, in reality,
proves nothing. It's yet another hilarious mainstream media circle jerk, and
the fact that so many people keep buying this dim-witted reporting just
proves that this nation remains woefully deficient in basic science
education.


One point worth mentioning here is that there is absolutely no requirement
to have any real understanding of science, medicine, chemistry or physics to
graduate from a top-notch journalism school. And when journalists have no
idea what they're talking about, they go the default route and simply
rewrite whatever was e-mailed to them in the corporate press release! Thus,
modern skills of journalism do not require any independent thought
whatsoever. They only require the ability to rephrase something already told
to them by the spinmeisters at Corporation X.


Correct me if I'm wrong: Is there a single mainstream reporter -- even
one? -- that reported the correct conclusion from this vaccine research?


I challenge you to find one. I've looked. There isn't one.


The dumbing down of the mainstream media is now complete. I can't wait to
see what headlines will come next:


"Prescription Drugs That Killed Patients Found Innocent Since Patients Did
Not Come Back to Life After the Drugs Were Removed"


Or:


"Radiation From Mammograms Found Harmless Because Death Rates Continued to
Climb Even After Mammography was Halted"


Or my favorite: "Ephedra Herb Banned After Ten Deaths; Drugs Are Safer
Because They Only Kill 100,000 Americans a Year"


I'm beginning to wonder if all the journalists have been injected with
mercury.


http://www.newstarget.com/z022479.html