Vaccine Question

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

I just did a wiki search on thimerosal and found the following statement.

In 1999, a new FDA analysis concluded that infants could receive as much as 187.5 mg of ethylmercury during the first six months; lacking any standard for ethylmercury it used methylmercury-based standards to recommend that thiomersal be removed from routine childhood vaccines in the U.S., which was done by 2001.

If this is true, then we should have seen a dramatic reduction in new cases of autism since 2001. Has there been a dramatic reduction in new cases? If not, what can we conclude?

David

[Warpy]

1. We haven't seen a reduction in autism cases

which is something medical professionals have known all along since there has never been an epidemiological link between vaccine and autism.

Don't expect that to stop the antivax crowd from screeching about the evils inherent in preventing dangerous childhood diseases.

[hoosier_lefty]

3. you can believe whatever you want.

My son was normal. He walked early, started talking early was
bright and happy and very aware.

He had a bad cold, while still recovering
the county gave him his shots.

He's now 16 years old and will never , ever be normal.

Threads like this pop up every so often and piss me off to no end.

I would give my own f'ing life if my son could be even normal
enough to be a functioning part of society.
Maybe it wasn't the thimersol, maybe it was Jesus or the flying spaghetti
monster that saw fit to make him this way. I only know that in the course of
six months he changed. Seem like an amazing coincidence.

[mahina]

4. So, so sorry HL.

I'm worried about my little nephew, so bright and so dear to me, who is doing the strangest repetitive behavior things. Not a little repetitive, like obsessively, constantly, for months, and then moves on to another behavior. Praying he is ok.

When you said you would give your life, it really touched me. Wishing all the best for your family.

[varkam]

6. You have my sympathies.

I've worked with people with autism in the past, and I am familiar with some of the unique challenges that it presents.

It is worth noting, though, that ASDs most often present during the same time-frame as vaccination. As a consequence, it is intuitively appealing for many parents to fault vaccines with the onset of ASDs. However, merely because something occurs prior to another event does not mean that the first event is the causal factor. Research indicates that the etiology of autism relies heavily on genetic factors (IIRC, MZ twins have a 90% concordance rate with ASDs), though there are likely environmental factors as well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Sorry for your situation.

I asked a simple question it wasn't meant to be offensive. I don't feel as well educated as some here appear to be which is why I asked the question. My current job involves quite a lot of planning in the public health sector and I thought it would be best to get a wide range of opinions. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your son.

David

[TZ]

19. Umm you do know

that autism is more and more linked to genes? Why have autism rates continued to rise without thimerosol? Why does every reputable biologist/chemist/psychologist say there is no link? Its really easy to place blame. Its just as likely that the "cold" your kid had "caused your autism".
Sorry you have a sick child but placing blame without any scientific evidence is pretty annoying to scientists.

[bvve]

30. What genes?

As you admit autism is on the rise, tell us what genetic shift would cause such increases? What, all of the sudden so many children have presented genetic defects that are undable to be identified? All of the genetic studies to date have found NO GENE, or SET OF GENES that are causing autism. There are an increasing number of toxicologists and pharmacologists who would disagree with you on the "no link". There are even greater numbers of scientists who would neither agree nor disagree as to "no link". They just don't know.

[TZ]

40. What toxicologists?

I've worked with a great deal of toxicologists AND for toxicology programs..so tell me..which ones? Cause I've NEVER heard it.
Actually they do know. Take a peek at NIH, NIAID, and WHO studies..they are pretty damn conclusive

[truedelphi]

42. You are right to question this aspect of "it is in the genes"

The science industry is wanting to set us up for expensive gene therpies.

But when you question statistics, you start to realize the truth in this charade.

For instance, in Japan in the early 1900's, only one in 65 women ever got breast cancer. Then they lived on a diet of dried fish, seaweeds, vegetables, and lots of fiber like rice.

After WWII, if you examined the statistics of the Japanese wopmen who moved to this country and began to live according to the American lifestyle, you begin to see that breast cancer occurs in one out of eight women.

Now in terms of genes in autism, when Senator Dan Burton held his Oversight COmmittee on vaccines in 1999, he was very careful about including a set of twins. One of the two boys had been sick during the first set of immunizations that the children received, back when they were infants.

Later on, this same boy had the MMR vaccine and immediately experienced diarrhea and high fever (with much screaming and crying.) His sickness began appearing to be autistic in nature a week or so after the vaccination.

Now since these were identical twin boys, if the "gene " theory of autism was true in this case, then BOTH of these two boys should have had autism. But the gene theory is not true in that the "authorities" are making out that all disease is related to genetics.

It is a cover up for the introduction of illness, including chronic auto-immune and neurological diseases that are brought about by introducing toxins into our lifestyles and thus our bodies. We are such a screwed up society that many families pay good money for things like Glade - which the World Health Organization will tell you contain benzene, formaldehydes, and other toxins, most of which should be taken to a Super Fund. Instead people in our consumer society BUY them.

[trotsky]

44. Yes, because I trust Republican Dan Burton to understand science

better than those dweebs who, I dunno, actually studied it and do it for a living.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical&sc=atbr

Scientists have long used twins to study the roles of nature and nurture in human genetics and how each affects disease, behavior, and conditions, such as obesity. But Bruder's findings suggest a new way to study the genetic and environmental roots of disease.

For example, one twin in Bruder's study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not.

I don't know what it is about vaccination in particular that makes lay people think they somehow know far, far more than incredibly educated and experienced individuals in the field simply because they use TEH GOOGLE!!!1!

[truedelphi]

45. Thank you for this information on identical twins.

That is a very interesting article.

But let me defend Burton for a moment. (In terms of his vaccination oversight panel)

First of all, I didn't google Burton. I spent six hours watching a Cspan video conference of his panel.

And Burton did not pontificate on the issue as much as showcase the work of Dr Andrew Wakefield.

That is how I became familiar with Dr Andrew Wakefield.

Now people who use the "google" will tell you what a pariah Wakefield is.

Just as people who google Dr. Pusztai's research on GMO and leptin in potatoes will tell you he was a quack (Funny thing, the week before he told the GMO industry in Britain that his findings on potatoes with genetically modified leptin in their structure was presenting some problems, including the fact that these potatoes were causing the rats' stomachs' to have precancerous growths, Pusztai was considered the top researcher in the world by the GMO crowd.
But like other scientists before him, he was quickly blacklisted when his findings were not the rosy picture the industry crowd needed.)

My friends have included Marc Lappe who was told by Stanford Research Institute to alter his findings on malathion. He too became a pariah. I also discuss things with Warren Porter PhD of Univ of Wisconsin.

Announce scientific findings the industry does not like and you as a top notch research scientist will be blacklisted. A lot of the time industry will say "the study was too small to be significant. Which begs the question, "Then why can't you F*&^ers with the money and the science labs replicate the study using larger numbers of subjects?"

maybe they can't handle the truth!

[trotsky]

47. Thank you for the red herrings.

If you have real evidence to back up any of your "pariahs" please present it and you (and they) will win a Nobel prize.

Or you can just strap on that tinfoil hat a little tighter and ignore everyone. Your choice.

[varkam]

48. Ya got nothin'.

Wakefield's work was retracted from Lancet, and for a bonus, Wakefield is currently the subject of a revocation hearing on his medical license. I'm sure that has to do with the vast, silent conspiracy you seem to believe in and nothing to do with Wakefield's fraudulent research methods or his own enormous conflicts of interest. Pariah, indeed.

Just as people who google Dr. Pusztai's research on GMO and leptin in potatoes will tell you he was a quack (Funny thing, the week before he told the GMO industry in Britain that his findings on potatoes with genetically modified leptin in their structure was presenting some problems, including the fact that these potatoes were causing the rats' stomachs' to have precancerous growths, Pusztai was considered the top researcher in the world by the GMO crowd.
But like other scientists before him, he was quickly blacklisted when his findings were not the rosy picture the industry crowd needed.)

That has nothing to do with anything.

My friends have included Marc Lappe who was told by Stanford Research Institute to alter his findings on malathion. He too became a pariah. I also discuss things with Warren Porter PhD of Univ of Wisconsin.

Why, this also has nothing to do with anything.

Announce scientific findings the industry does not like and you as a top notch research scientist will be blacklisted. A lot of the time industry will say "the study was too small to be significant. Which begs the question, "Then why can't you F*&^ers with the money and the science labs replicate the study using larger numbers of subjects?"

:tinfoilhat:

[LeftishBrit]

53. Well, both twins also had the vaccines; so a vaccine theory would also mean that both should be

autistic.

If one IS going to use this single case, isn't the main difference between the twins that one was sick on the two occasions and one wasn't? Perhaps it was the illness, not the vaccinations, that triggered the autism. Or perhaps this twin was of lower birthweight, which made him get illnesses more frequently, *and* directly led to the autism.

[OKthatsIT]

37. Annoying to scientists? Compared to a lifetime of pain?

That's really an amazingly cruel statement. Mothers are annoying scientists because the lives of their are snuffed out by vaccine additives.

I can only hope the same happens to the scientists. I suppose that's the only thing that MIGHT wake them up.

[Orrex]

38. You're mischaracterizing Turtlensue's point

That's really an amazingly cruel statement. Mothers are annoying scientists because the lives of their are snuffed out by vaccine additives.

I'm sure you realize that this is not the case. Mothers are not annoying scientists because their lives are snuffed by vaccine additives; anti-vaccination zealots are annoying scientists (and critical thinkers) because the anti-vaxers do not substantiate their claims with data, they rely entirely on pseudoscience and post hoc reasoning, and they pose a real danger to society in that they can, in fact, goad people into refusing to vaccinate their children, which is frankly stupid.

It is emotionally dishonest of you to attack a scientist's position due to the great hardships endured by people with autism (and their families). It is also hideously exploitive of you to use those families' pain as a weapon with which to bludgeon science and scientists.

I can only hope the same happens to the scientists. I suppose that's the only thing that MIGHT wake them up.

Now that's an amazingly cruel statement!

[TZ]

41. Link please on "lives snuffed out?"

You get MORE toxins just from walking around everyday than you would in a vaccine..preservatives are about.001% of a vaccine. But since you obviously don't know basic chemistry you don't understand the concept of LD50. Even things like botulinum toxin are safe in small amounts. Somehow, even though me and my family have had all our vaccines, NO ONE has autism...funny how that works

[truedelphi]

43. Please see my post which is somewhat of an answer to you

http://tinyurl.com/579lkz


And great sorrow for your situation. People on this board will even defend the Hepatitis vaccine for infants - which has been proven to kill more middle income infants than would ever get the disease if left to chance!

[truedelphi]

46. One thing that industry controlled scientists wil never tell you

About Edward Jenner, the father of vaccines, is that his notion of using smallpox vaccine came about after his observing of FEWER than forty five cowmaids.


Perhaps as many as ten thousand parents have explained
and detailed how their kids were normal and healthy even in the moment before the MMR shot, and then in the moment after the shot the child was altered.

Theworld of industry controlled scientists call these observations, again numbering in the thousands, aneceotal, yet Jenner's observations of less than fifty, are scientific brilliance.

So which is it??

[cosmik debris]

49. That's a silly comparison

Jenner had an almost 100% correlation between cowpox survivors and resistance to smallpox.

The anti-vaccination fear mongers can't even brag about a 1% correlation between vaccines and autism.

But I realize that facts don't matter when fear is the real issue, so, carry on.

[truedelphi]

50. That's not true.

[Book Lover]

51. Which part? (nm)

[truedelphi]

54. You are right on this - our discussion needs to be divided into two parts.

First of all, there is an advantage to anyone speaking about Jenner's accomplishments.

It is a given that one and only one thing causes smallpox and that "thing" would be the smallpox virus.

However as far as autism: If you listen to the experts, who are influenced as Dr Offit is by the industry and ties to Merck and resulting $ 350,000 grant monies, our society does not know what causes autism.

Even if you are more willing that Dr Offit to stick your neck out and propose a theory about what is causing autism, the data remains in the hands of the governmetn. many parents who believe that a vaccine triggered their child's autism may not have the resources to bring froward their particular case, which the government is not going to bring forward and cite for them, on account of the fact that the government and the scientific industry are in bed together.

And the source of autism is probably more than one source. SO it makes the discussion of autism more difficult.

For instance, let's say it does turn out that heavy metals play a role in allowing for a child to have autism. SO a child who is not vaccinated might be impacted by heavy metal contamination of their environment, while the vaccinated child may suffer from both. Ho wmany children are exposed to environmental toxins versus the heavy mertals in the vaccine, I can't say. Thus Andy W., who is brought home as a baby to a household where the physical surroundings are sprayed with heavy mercury, or copper, containing wood preservatives, that child might end up with autism - even if not vaccinated - but from the same source ie heavy metals. This would be especially the case of Andy W's mother had measles exposure while pregnant.

If you listen to someone like Dr Andrew Wakefield addressing the issue of the child with the autistic tendencies presenting immediately after vaccination, he would say something along the lines of this (though he would say it far more brilliantly)

"In children whose bodies have been afflicted with high levels of heavy metals, the body assumes a tendency to be infected by the viral disease of whatever matter the child has been vaccinated for, inside their gut. Then due to the afflicted child having a body in crisis, the blood brain barrier is breeched. The viral material resulting from the vaccine would then make its way into the brain. This combination of disturbances creates the syndrom that our scientific community labels autism."

At this point Wakefield would let health practitioners who deal with de-tox and also with knocking out the infectious gutmaterial, these practitioners would further point out that in clearing up the measles infection in the gut, and de-toxing the child from heavy metals, then some and perhaps even most of the autism can be alleviated.


(Note: the MMR vaccine and its resulting measles viral material are only one possible source of gut antagonists. Children who have had polio shots, DPT/DTaP, hepatitis B, and who then spun out into autism would have the gut antagonist relative to whatever virus the vaccine contained.)

Now it is also true that some chelation and de-tox therapies have proven to be either done incorrectly or have been designed badly, but that does not mean that de-tox is the wrong thing to do. (Analogy: if I am driving in a car going 90 mph, and I wait till the last minute to hit the brakes for the red light, I might be thrown through the windshield -but that does not mean that stopping at a red light is undesirable.)

Students of Jenner (and I should point out that I am one myself) know that from the limited pool of observed participants in his study there is a statistical one to one match: all cow maids who had cow pox did not go on to have small pox.

He had only to match the 40 or so participants with the 40 or so results.

People addressing the situation of autism can't do that one to one match. Autism cases now include one out of every one hundred and fifty children. For instance, if just for the point of discussion, we accept the hypothesis that there is a connection with heavy metals contamination and with autism, there are children who would be exposed to heavy metals, our data base should include all children who have been vaccinated and all children who haven't - the numbers on that are staggering.

Those of us accepting a theory of autism somewhat along the lines of Wakefield's theories on the disease simply don't have the time and money and resources to collect the data. (Perhaps Belkin has - when his new born daughter was killed by the Hepatitis B vaccine, he used his world class statistical background to run the numbers on benefit to risk of the Hepatitis B vaccine and he concluded that although there were plenty of risks there was no benefit for the pool of middle income and above children, now Whether or not he has run numbers on autism cases relating to the impact of vaccination I do not know.)

[truedelphi]

55. Okay part two of this discussion is this:

Modern day science allows for total respect of Jenner's observations.

No one calls his 40 some observations of cow maids anecdotal.

But when Wakefield uses a similar number of children to attempt to form hypotheses and conclusions regarding autism, he is shamed for having such a small study.

That seems rather hypocritical on the part of science. (Especially given that if the Big Pharma science community wanted to, they could replicate Wakefield's study with the requisite numbers - after all, Big Pharma has plenty of laboratories in which to accomplish such testing.)

In the old days, scientific observation was observation relating to the cause and the effect of someone witnessing the activities of an event. For instance, even today, a decent doctor working the emergency room will gently interrogate a family who has brought their somewhat demented father into the emergency room because he seems to be paralyzed, is drooling, and complains of being nauseous. This could be a poisoning, or it could be a stroke, and the doctor will ask for the observations of someone close to the man to try and determine what is going on (While of course running all the usual medical tests.) That decent doctor considers the fact that among the family's striken ramblings might be a scientific observation that is highly relevant - for isntance "we noticed that a bottle of cleaning fluid similar in appeareance to dad's sports drink was out on the kitchen counter, half empty."

But in the cases of autistic children whose parents have made critically important observations, "my healthy child was brought into the doctors office, smiling and talking, clutching her teddy bear, making eye contact with the receptionist and the nurse, and only after the vaccination did my child undergo a massive personality alteration - she began to moan and scream, she arched her back and convulsed, she ran a high fever and had massive diarrhea that went on for days, and then just as we thought she was better, we realized she no longer made eye contact, or used any of the words in her vocabulary, not even calling the teddy bear, Teddy. Nor did she gobble her breakfast, or run to hug her dad when he came home from work. Instead she sat on the floor of her room and hit her head repeatedly. While insisting by using violent outbursts of body language that all the shades be drawn," those parents are sadly labeled as lacking any intelligent judgment and not having any decent observations on what they saw and experienced.

These people are denigrated for their observations. This horrid thing of calling these 10's of thousands of witness statements "anecdotal" has become the norm. Except for people like Wakefield, who still held to true scientific principles.

But the parental protests and observations have had an effect on the scientific industry of Big Pharam. They have resulted in this: The decision to make it mandatory for newborns to have the Hepatitis B shot within one day of their birth - thus ensuring that no longer will any parent be able to say, "My child was healthy and normal, but after having the vaccine, they deteriorated."

One day olds have no history - industry can now calim - "perhaps they were not paralyzed by a shot, but simply born unable to move, perhaps they scream all the time not because of migraines that are vaccine induced but because of being an upset baby," etc.

So in a sense, the fact that this mandate is in place shows that the industry was in fact scared of the parents and their observations. (though they wisely never would admit it, even as somewhere the secret memos are filed away from the light of scrutiny.)

Nope. Contaminate the child within twenty four hours of it s birth, and then if the child has migraines, or paralysis, or asthma or outright dies, there are no videos of a one year old at a birthday party, no neighbors to account how the eighteen months old arranged her blocks in a row, no day care center director who will testify that the two year old knew almost the entire alphabet.

The liability issue is thus resolved. And we the consumers are put on the back shelf, told to accept illogic and non-reasonable arguments, and to shut the FRIGGI' F^&K up, while we are then asked to applaud Offit's $ 350,000 Big Phrama award.

Because far better to let industry go unopposed thatn to take into account even for a moment Wakefield's honest and studied response - that is, no more mercury in vaccines, no more heavy metal contamination, no more combinations of shots. (Wakefield never came out and said that children not be vaccianted - he just asked for these simple precautions.)

And for this his reputation has been destroyed.

[cosmik debris]

56. You were asked a simple question

In response to your unequivocal statement that my post is untrue.

My post only had two relevant sentences. Which one was untrue?

Sentence one or sentence two?

[truedelphi]

57. First of all the dichotomy that you are setting up is not acceptable

And using such a misleading dichotomy brings about a non-truthful mindset in which to discuss the matter.
And this dichotomy, that you wish to maintain as the basis for the discussion, needs to be expanded
in order for the discussion of vaccines/autism to have any merit.

I am reminded of the blind men and the elephant - you can point to the animal's rear end and say "look at the tail - that is definitive of the animal. An elephant is like a rope!"

Or you can point to the animal's big flaps of ears and say "Here is the grist of the elephant. The elephant is like a tree with large leaves." And if you point to the torso you can asay, "The elephant is a wall, nothing more or less."

But the elephant is the sum of its parts, not one aspect overriding any other.

So in order to EXPAND the issue so that it has relevance, I am trying to point out that the two statements selected by you and by which you form the dichotomy are too non-inclusive of various factors. And leaving you with only this dichotomy as the mindset, the sum of the issue is ignored, and we end up, like the blind men, deciding on "rope" or "Wall" when various other important elements are left out.

[cosmik debris]

58. You're are the one who brought up true and false.

It is your dichotomy. You claimed that I spoke falsely. But you decline to say which statement is false. A simple answer is enough. Statement one or statement two?

[truedelphi]

59. What is not true is the fact that you choose to limit the discussion

Ibelieve it is false that you choose to take a vastly complex issue and pretend that it is simple and can be boiled down to only two statements.

So the dichotomy created by those two statements framing the issue is not true.

Now on its own statement one is true. But by today's standards, wherein Big Science always needs a huge study with a control group as well, Jenner would be left out in the cold. I tried in my responses to address that hypocrisy.

As to statement two, I don't know the statistics of autism from vaccine in relation to percentages.

So whether it would 1% to 10% or higher, I have no way of knowing.

It might be that it is not a percentage based situation. For instance, if children who are healthy receive the immunization, they may prove less likely to develop a severe bad reaction to the vaccine. While children who are sick at the moment of vaccination, they would be more likely to have a bad reaction.

So if doctors started following the simple wisdom of my local rural area veterinarian to not vaccinate just because a subject is in the office with some health problem, perhaps a large number of children would no longer be impaired with autism.

[cosmik debris]

60. You got caught up in your own bullshit

You said I spoke falsely, but I didn't. You just don't like the way I framed the issue.

But in fact, I spoke truthfully.

You are the one who did not tell the truth because the truth looks bad for your POV.

I've really enjoyed watching you try to back up your lies.

It's been fun.

Next time think before you type.

:rofl:

[truedelphi]

62. Show me a human being who accepts a "When did you stop beating your wife"

Style of framing a question, and I'll concede you have a point.

[cosmik debris]

63. Why should I care if you concede my point?

You have already shown that you were wrong when you said that my statements were not true.

All your squirming and beating around the bush makes no difference at all.

You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, but you failed to prove that.

You started your mouth before your brain was engaged. Your own posts prove it.

Now you are just being funny!

:)

And I appreciate the humor here.

[LeftishBrit]

65. You are wrong about Wakefield's main point

Wakefield's 'research' had nothing to do with mercury or heavy metal contaminants. It was about the MMR vaccine, which, at least in the UK, has never contained mercury. He claimed that the vaccine *itself* (not any adjuvant) leads to an increased risk of autism. This was based on finding that some children, already selected for having both autism and bowel problems, had measles virus in the gut. There were serious flaws in the study (very small sample; no control group) and Wakefield failed to disclose that he was being paid by lawyers acting for parents making a claim for vaccine damage. Later studies have not replicated the findings. In any case, his claims were about the MMR itself, not mercury.

[varkam]

2. No, but that doesn't stop the true believers.

They say that thimerosal is still in vaccines, though they fail to note that we're talking trace amounts that are leftovers from the manufacturing process. Also note that the half-life of ethylmercury is much shorter than that of methylmercury, and that the dose of thimerosal in vaccines was at the mcg level. Of course, none of that matters when you already know the truth.

And no, there hasn't been a dramatic reduction of autism cases - that being the case the true believers look for why that is the case in the context of thimerosal causing autism (since they already know that is the case).

If you just look at the numbers and the data, though, you'll conclude that autism has been increasing due to a wide variety of things such as substitution of diagnostic categories. The science, however, has failed to bear out the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism.

[bvve]

32. here are the numbers on "trace amounts"

It does not sound good, even with the warm fuzzy that comes with the word "trace". This came from Pediatrics and was written by Dr. Kenneth Stoller.


Vaccines with “trace” amounts of Thimerosal are supposed to contain less than 1 microgram of mercury (Hg) per 0.5 ml dose (1 microgram <µg> of Hg per 0.5 mL is the same as 2 µg of Hg per mL which is the same as 2000 µg/liter; micrograms per liter is parts per billion <2>)



0.5 parts per billion (ppb) mercury = Kills human neuroblas-toma cells (Parran et al., Toxicol Sci 2005; 86: 132-140).

2 ppb mercury = U.S. EPA limit for drinking water (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls).

20 ppb mercury = Neurite membrane structure destroyed (Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).

200 ppb mercury = level in liquid the EPA classifies as hazardous waste (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/ regs.htm#hazwaste)

[mzmolly]

5. David Kirby posted about this last July on Huffpo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/is-autism-declining_b_55869.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. If it's the flu shots wouldn't we see lower incidences.

No all kids get the flu shot, some flu shots don't contain thimerosal. The argument has always been that it was the stacked doses of different vaccines that caused thimerosal in large doses into the body. So if his article is correct then thimerosal at most caused 10% of autism cases. I guess I would try to find the cause of the other 90%.

David

[mzmolly]

9. We are seeing lower incidences according to some.

I thought the article mentioned that? Also, it's not true that the flu-jab is the only vaccine that contains mercury, today.

As to your math above, I have no idea how you've drawn the 10% conclusion? However no one says we should end any examination of autism "contributions" with the discussion of vaccination.

I'm out. :hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. The 10% came out of your article.

No one said that the flu shot was the only one that contained thimerosal. I said that thimerosal had been removed from all routine pediatric vaccines.

David

[mzmolly]

12. But it hasn't.

eom

[Orrex]

13. In which pediatric vaccines in the USA is thimerosal still present?

You can't just make that claim and then cap it off with "eom." You've got to support it with a citation.

[Sophia_Karina]

16. In which pediatric vaccines in the USA is thimerosal still present?

a few states have banned them: California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New York, and Washington.

[trotsky]

17. That's not an answer at all.

The question is:

In which pediatric vaccines in the USA is thimerosal still present?

The answer to the question would be a list of VACCINES, not a list of states.

[Sophia_Karina]

23. then you have to look them all up by the manufacturer

I've seen old data on that, but the only way to find out for sure is to call the manufacturer of the particular vaccine with the vial serial number straight from the doctor's office. NO easy answers here.

[trotsky]

26. So you can't answer the question.

Thanks for saying so.

[TZ]

20. The answer is also ONLY flu vaccines

AND thimersol free vaccines are EASILY found and oh yeah FLU MIST HAS NO PRESERVATIVES.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Also most children in the UK don't get flu shots

Here they are mainly reserved for people in risk groups (older people; those with immune disorders; health workers with a particularly high risk of exposure).

And yet the incidence of autism in the UK is at least as high as in the UK.

[LeftishBrit]

64. self-delete; dupe

[trotsky]

10. Don't worry, anti-vaxers have already moved the goalposts.

Because it never really was about thimerosal anyway. It's about vaccines and their ignorant, luddite fear of them. Several anti-vaxers have already dropped the thimerosal angle and have moved on to blaming generic "toxins" in vaccines. They learned a lesson in the thimerosal hoax - never allow your hypothesis to be pinned down and tested. By shifting to "toxins," well by golly that'll never be disproven because even the inactivated virus in a vaccine is a "toxin" of sorts!

[bvve]

14. No date for removal

In July of 1999, the FDA requested that mercury exsposure from vaccines be reduced. There was never a recall of the vaccines that contained mercury, and the manufacturers continued to produce vaccines with mercury through 2002, with expiration dates well into the future. There is no definitive point in time where anyone can point to the complete removal of mercury. There simply is none. Trace amounts remain in some and other vaccines that have been suggested for use in the pediatric and pregnant populations still contain more than a trace of mercury.

[Sophia_Karina]

15. it's more complicated

|||If this is true, then we should have seen a dramatic reduction in new cases of autism since 2001. Has there been a dramatic reduction in new cases? If not, what can we conclude?|||


no, there has not been a dramatic reduction, although there is some indication that there is a slight decrease.

Most likely it means that the picture is more complicated. It is time to start talking not about a single vaccine, e.g. MMR, or about a single toxin like thimerosal, but about the combined load of vaccines and environmental toxins on the developing immune system and the brain.

Here is an interesting article:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-next-big-autism-bomb_b_93627.html

[trotsky]

18. Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point in post #10. n/t

[TZ]

21. Also did you see that anivax woos also blame MMR

for autism when MMR has NEVER had thimersol in it.

[Sophia_Karina]

24. that was a different theory

MMR was suspected to have an active virus that invaded the intestinal membranes and compromised them. Also effects on brain myelinization.

[trotsky]

25. Except that the "research" showing such a conclusion

was ridiculously flawed. Wakefield et al.

[bvve]

28. Back it up

How was Wakefield's study flawed? Please cite the flaw. Wakefield found what he found, and made no statement as to causation from the MMR and autism.

[trotsky]

31. Read all about it.

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dispatches-blurb.htm

This writeup in particular explains exactly why Wakefield's research was hopelessly flawed:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/the_autism_omnibus_the_difference_betwee.php

Q So you have to use the RT step to amplify?

A So you must use an RT step to detect the measles virus RNA. If you detect a target that is apparently measles virus in the absence of an RT step by definition it can't be measles virus because it has to be DNA. It's a very simple concept. At least it is to me. It's not to everyone else.

Using this principle and other observations, Bustin demonstrated that it was indeed DNA contamination that O'Leary and Uhlman were reporting, not a real signal from the RNA of the measles virus. He concludes:

So I could speculate all day, and I really don't want to speculate. It doesn't actually matter.

The fact is that I'm showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we're getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we're not detecting measles virus.

[bvve]

33. Thank you for the nice read, but,

None of Dr. Wakefield's findings have been disproved. And Dr. Wakefield's trial is taking place as we exchange postings, so thanks for the reminder. No, your posting looks impressive, but terribly irrelevant to your position that Dr. Wakefield's research was "rediculously flawed". This looks like testimony in a vaccine court back in June. It is not a scientific study refuting Wakefield's findings. Nice try.

[trotsky]

34. You didn't read anything.

The third link specifically addresses the conditions in the lab that produced the results Wakefield touted.

They don't have to publish scientific studies refuting research that is shown to be flawed. There's no point! Do you understand?

[varkam]

35. Wakefield's study has been retracted from Lancet, and Wakefield is probably going...

to have his license stripped from him. :shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

52. For example, he had no control group..

which is an essential part of any such scientific study. He claimed that the autistic children he studied had measles virus in the gut; but he didn't test NON-autistic children to see what viruses they might have in their gut.

And there were only 11 children in the sample - too small for any real conclusions, especially without controls.

[truedelphi]

61. Thanks Sophia. Ya know the pro-vaccine crowd

Wants to frame this in a way that is over simplified, and they become rather harsh with us if we object to the "How long has it been since you have quit beating your spouse?" aspect of their reasoning.

[varkam]

67. Pot? There's a kettle on the phone for you...

[TZ]

22. Don't EVER trust wiki for scientifc info

Particularly on vaccines where anti-vax woos are always putting up misinformation.
Thimerosol was removed from 99% of vaccines in 1997. How do I know? I have been a vaccine researcher.

[bvve]

29. From where do you get this information?

I have never heard that one. Please cite your source. Having been involved since the early 90s in vaccine research, it is quite surprising to hear this new bit of information. Are you talking about removal from vaccines in the US?

[cosmik debris]

39. Thimerosal in Vaccines FAQ

http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimfaq.htm

[uppityperson]

27. 2 things. Has what is needed for diagnosis changed, and time lapse

Have guidelines for diagnosis changed?
It has been only 7 years since 2001, perhaps people not diagnosed yet?

[LeftishBrit]

66. As regards the first question..

the criteria for diagnosis for autism have indeed changed over the years; but in the OPPOSITE direction from the one that you're suggesting. Doctors and psychologists have become more ready to diagnose autism; and studies suggest that many children who are diagnosed with autism now, would in the past have been diagnosed with language impairment, emotional disorders, mental retardation alone, or had no diagnosis but just have been considered 'odd'.