Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:



If you would bother to read up thread, you would find that I posted an
article that referenced two studies of the imaginary thimerosal-Autism
link where the findings actually suggest that those kids who received
vaccinations which included Thimerosal were LESS LIKELY to develop a
whole host of developmental disorders, including autism.


Oh! In that case, sorry about the over-reaction.

I still think you are misguided though. There
are studies on both sides. The California
graphs shows an amazing correlation, similarly
strong correlation is not found in much other
accepted data. The Danish studies do not
include the right data, and yet are being
provided as refutation.

Bull****, wrt to Danish studies. They are not alone. For example, other
studies in other countries, Cananda being one, confirm the Danish
findings. Replication of findings in different populations in
epidemiology is one of the hallmarks of accuracy.


Maybe. Personally, if I see one bad apple, I am
inclined to check the whole bunch very thoroughly.


There is nothing wrong with the Danish study.


I am less trusting than you when money motives
come into play.

When you run out of facts, toss in a conspiracy theory.

Mark Probert wrote:
wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:



If you would bother to read up thread, you would find that I posted an
article that referenced two studies of the imaginary thimerosal-Autism
link where the findings actually suggest that those kids who received
vaccinations which included Thimerosal were LESS LIKELY to develop a
whole host of developmental disorders, including autism.


Oh! In that case, sorry about the over-reaction.

I still think you are misguided though. There
are studies on both sides. The California
graphs shows an amazing correlation, similarly
strong correlation is not found in much other
accepted data. The Danish studies do not
include the right data, and yet are being
provided as refutation.

Bull****, wrt to Danish studies. They are not alone. For example, other
studies in other countries, Cananda being one, confirm the Danish
findings. Replication of findings in different populations in
epidemiology is one of the hallmarks of accuracy.


Maybe. Personally, if I see one bad apple, I am
inclined to check the whole bunch very thoroughly.


There is nothing wrong with the Danish study.


I am less trusting than you when money motives
come into play.

When you run out of facts, toss in a conspiracy theory.

I got news for you. There was a thing called Enron,
that really happened while you slept through it.
(I am not making this up.)

Watergate happened too. Lot of other conspiracies happened.

People do consipre for money and other motives.

wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:



If you would bother to read up thread, you would find that I posted an
article that referenced two studies of the imaginary thimerosal-Autism
link where the findings actually suggest that those kids who received
vaccinations which included Thimerosal were LESS LIKELY to develop a
whole host of developmental disorders, including autism.


Oh! In that case, sorry about the over-reaction.

I still think you are misguided though. There
are studies on both sides. The California
graphs shows an amazing correlation, similarly
strong correlation is not found in much other
accepted data. The Danish studies do not
include the right data, and yet are being
provided as refutation.

Bull****, wrt to Danish studies. They are not alone. For example, other
studies in other countries, Cananda being one, confirm the Danish
findings. Replication of findings in different populations in
epidemiology is one of the hallmarks of accuracy.


Maybe. Personally, if I see one bad apple, I am
inclined to check the whole bunch very thoroughly.


There is nothing wrong with the Danish study.


I am less trusting than you when money motives
come into play.

When you run out of facts, toss in a conspiracy theory.

I got news for you. There was a thing called Enron,
that really happened while you slept through it.
(I am not making this up.)

Watergate happened too. Lot of other conspiracies happened.

People do consipre for money and other motives.

Indeed. Look at Hulda Clark.

However, the Danish study set out its limitations, and also clearly
stated that it may not hold where larger doses of thimerosal are
involved. The writers were also willing to subject their work to peer
review. Hardly the actions of conspirators.

Cathy

wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:


wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:




If you would bother to read up thread, you would find that I posted an
article that referenced two studies of the imaginary thimerosal-Autism
link where the findings actually suggest that those kids who received
vaccinations which included Thimerosal were LESS LIKELY to develop a
whole host of developmental disorders, including autism.


Oh! In that case, sorry about the over-reaction.

I still think you are misguided though. There
are studies on both sides. The California
graphs shows an amazing correlation, similarly
strong correlation is not found in much other
accepted data. The Danish studies do not
include the right data, and yet are being
provided as refutation.

Bull****, wrt to Danish studies. They are not alone. For example, other
studies in other countries, Cananda being one, confirm the Danish
findings. Replication of findings in different populations in
epidemiology is one of the hallmarks of accuracy.


Maybe. Personally, if I see one bad apple, I am
inclined to check the whole bunch very thoroughly.


There is nothing wrong with the Danish study.


I am less trusting than you when money motives
come into play.

When you run out of facts, toss in a conspiracy theory.


I got news for you. There was a thing called Enron,
that really happened while you slept through it.
(I am not making this up.)

I was far from asleep.

I see you own stock in Red Herring, Inc.

Watergate happened too. Lot of other conspiracies happened.

True. I recall the conspiracy between Andy Wakefield and the attorneys
who were paying him. I wonder if the Geiers are graduates of the Andy
Wakefield School?

People do consipre for money and other motives.

True. However, that is not a substitute for relevant facts.

In article . com,
wrote:
wrote:
cathyb wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

Makes you wonder why they removed Thimerosal if it seemed to have a
protective effect against all those disorders.

wt ???


Yup. The increased risk of a tic seems a small price to pay for
protection against the diseases and reduced risk of all those other
developmental disorders.

Are you folks for real? This is a rather strange
sense of humor.

Or, wait a minute... maybe you folks ARE serious.

Yup. That would explain most of your posts much better.

PS: Dear misguided morons,

Don't obtain and eat thimerosal.

It's hard to kill yourself with it, though. It's been tried.

Thimerosal is not part of the vaccines themselves, and is not a
medicine.

It's a PRESERVATIVE, and the issue is one of packaging and
manufacturing. Removing thimerosal will make the vaccines more
costly by a dollar or two, because the shots will have to be
individually packed.

Basically, you have been campaigning viciously to help maintain the
SHELF LIFE of vaccines, nothing else.

Wrong. In developed countries, like the US, you can avoid the need
for preservatives by refrigerating a vaccine.

But what do we do in some third-world country where the electricity
might be on for a few hours per day, if they even have any?
Thimerosal can keep vaccines preserved (and thus free of bacteria)
for quite some time, even at room temperature.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile."
-- Anon.

In article .com,
wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

If you would bother to read up thread, you would find that I posted an
article that referenced two studies of the imaginary thimerosal-Autism
link where the findings actually suggest that those kids who received
vaccinations which included Thimerosal were LESS LIKELY to develop a
whole host of developmental disorders, including autism.

Oh! In that case, sorry about the over-reaction.

I still think you are misguided though. There
are studies on both sides. The California
graphs shows an amazing correlation, similarly
strong correlation is not found in much other
accepted data. The Danish studies do not
include the right data, and yet are being
provided as refutation.

Bull****, wrt to Danish studies. They are not alone. For example, other
studies in other countries, Cananda being one, confirm the Danish
findings. Replication of findings in different populations in
epidemiology is one of the hallmarks of accuracy.

Maybe. Personally, if I see one bad apple, I am inclined to check
the whole bunch very thoroughly. I am less trusting than you when
money motives come into play.

Personally, I become untrusting of those who insist on inserting dark
hints about how the Evil Moneyed Powers are behind anything I think is
bad.

The Evil Thimerosal Konspiracy is an example. After all, the anti-vac
people would have us believe that the Evil Moneyed Powers want us all
to get a vaccination, which costs a few bucks, but will prevent a very
large amount of business for the doctors, when people don't get sick
and don't need expensive treatment. So exactly which way is the money
supposed to be flowing here?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile."
-- Anon.

David Wright wrote:

The Evil Thimerosal Konspiracy is an example. After all, the anti-vac
people would have us believe that the Evil Moneyed Powers want us all
to get a vaccination, which costs a few bucks, but will prevent a very

Everybody isn't exactly as stupid as you seem to think.

The reason for the conspiracy was supposed to the potential for
liability lawsuits, which could have bankrupted the
responsible company, and brought many others down.

This is no longer the case, as Bill Frist was bought
on board and worked verr hard to limit the liability
issues, so I am not sure why the conspiracy would
continue to exist. Personally it's hard to imagine
someone risking developmental damage to thousands
of innocent infants, just to make some sort of point.

But then again, in the modern world, many people
exist who are extremely loyal to the corporation.
A sort of "corporation as god" mentality, which
fills the vacuum as people no longer truly believe
in old time religions, cannot believe in humanity,
cannot believe in nature, cannot believe in science
that they see as only a tool, cannot believe in truth...
leaving not much else than the corporation.
Such corporate priests naturally would rise to
influential positions within their organizations, and
then would do anything to maintain the "good name"
of their organizations that exists in their minds.

David Wright wrote:


Basically, you have been campaigning viciously to help maintain the
SHELF LIFE of vaccines, nothing else.

Wrong. In developed countries, like the US, you can avoid the need
for preservatives by refrigerating a vaccine.

But what do we do in some third-world country where the electricity
might be on for a few hours per day, if they even have any?
Thimerosal can keep vaccines preserved (and thus free of bacteria)
for quite some time, even at room temperature.


What to do is easy to answer if you want to be honest about it.

You would research all sides in broad daylight,
and explain the potential risks/benefits to the third world
population, and let them make the choice of whether they
need the extended shelf life.

Btw, your example is not actually correct, single-shot
packaging technologies mean you don't have to
make this either/or choice. It does increase the
price a little, but even the poorest third world
governments (when given facts) won't like to risk
infants with great abandon just to avoid a 50% higher
price, or to help prove someone's point.

On 21 Aug 2005 16:55:30 -0700, wrote:

Such corporate priests naturally would rise to
influential positions within their organizations, and
then would do anything to maintain the "good name"
of their organizations that exists in their minds.


Well put!

Ilena Rose wrote:
On 21 Aug 2005 16:55:30 -0700, wrote:

Such corporate priests naturally would rise to
influential positions within their organizations, and
then would do anything to maintain the "good name"
of their organizations that exists in their minds.


Well put!


Did you see that movie on Enron? Daily corporate meetings
were like religous revivals! All hail Kenneth Lay, the great
energy chieftan!