Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD
john
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Rimland
I was the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I pointed
out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause of the
epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory research
(as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated since that
time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the vaccines
contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967 from the
mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had during
their pregnancy.) The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the
misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. The
(Pretending to) Combat Autism Act By Bernard Rimland
Jeff
"john" <s...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5Y6dnQ_i3O7...@bt.com...
Yet medical experts who actually understand medicine, vaccines, the brain
and immunology have looked at the data and determined that it is very
unlikely that autism is caused by vaccines. These experts include people
from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, FDA and Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.
Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
claims with peer-reviewed research.
Jeff
john
"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T5Trg.5524$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the
>> misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
>> American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. ------
>> Bernard Rimland
>
>These experts include people from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
>CDC, FDA and Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.
>
LOL.
john
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause autism.
There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a 2003 U.S.
Congressional Committee. This debate is not scientific but is political. I
am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled by nothing less
than spin and propaganda to review the extensive scientific evidence for
themselves showing the vaccine-autism link, even though "experts"
disagree.. --- [July 9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering the causes, treatment
of autism ----David Ayoub, MD
Jeff
Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
caused by mercury in vaccines.
That conclusion is made by people who are not practicing science, like 2003
Congressional committee and the idiot "doctor" in Florida.
Jeff
David Wright
>
>
>http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
>
> I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause autism.
>There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a 2003 U.S.
>Congressional Committee.
Let me guess. That's be the committee chaired by Dan Burton, who is
already convinced that vaccines cause autism. He then commissioned
the Geiers, who also believe it, to find evidence to support their
belief. Golly gee, they found it. What a surprise.
If evidence this biased came from the "vaccines don't cause autism"
researchers, the anti-vaxers would be screaming the house down. But
bias is only bad when they think their opponents are showing it.
>This debate is not scientific but is political.
True. There's no real scientific debate about the worthlessness of
the typical anti-vaxer "evidence."
>I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled by
>nothing less than spin and propaganda
Put forth by organizations like "Defeat Autism Now!" for which Ayoub
is a shill.
>to review the extensive scientific evidence for themselves showing
>the vaccine-autism link, even though "experts" disagree.. --- [July
>9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering the causes, treatment
>of autism ----David Ayoub, MD
I assume the word "experts" is in quotations because someone like
Ayoub would mean, say, Bernard Rimland.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Jan Drew
>
> "john" <s...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:LfmdnTRjDuP...@bt.com...
>>
>>
>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
>>
>> I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause
>> autism. There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a
>> 2003 U.S. Congressional Committee. This debate is not scientific but is
>> political. I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled
>> by nothing less than spin and propaganda to review the extensive
>> scientific evidence for themselves showing the vaccine-autism link, even
>> though "experts" disagree.. --- [July 9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering
>> the causes, treatment of autism ----David Ayoub, MD
>
> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
> caused by mercury in vaccines.
ACTually, you have!
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
Jan Drew
"David Wright" <wri...@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:csfsg.168403$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <LfmdnTRjDuP...@bt.com>, john <s...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
>>
>> I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause
>> autism.
>>There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a 2003
>>U.S.
>>Congressional Committee.
>
> Let me guess. That's be the committee chaired by Dan Burton, who is
> already convinced that vaccines cause autism. He then commissioned
> the Geiers, who also believe it, to find evidence to support their
> belief. Golly gee, they found it. What a surprise.
http://www.house.gov/burton/dan.htm
Dan Burton is currently serving his twelfth term as a United States
Representative from
Indiana's Fifth Congressional District. His first term in Congress began in
January of 1983. The Fifth District lies in the heart of central Indiana
and includes all of Tipton, Grant, Miami, Wabash, Huntington, Hamilton, and
Hancock Counties, as well as parts of Marion, Shelby, Howard and Johnson
Counties.
When Congressman Burton assumed the Chairmanship of the House Committee on
Government Reform in the 105th Congress, he became the first Hoosier
Republican to Chair a full House Committee in more than sixty years. The
last was Congressman William Robert Wood, who chaired the Committee on
Appropriations during the 71st Congress (1929-1931). Congressman Burton
currently serves as Chairman of the House International Relations
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Dan Burton was born on June 21, 1938, in Indianapolis, Indiana. He graduated
from Shortridge High School in 1957, and attended Indiana University and the
Cincinnati Bible Seminary. Congressman Burton received the Honorary Degree
of Doctor of Humanities from Capitol University of Integrative Medicine on
December 17, 2000. As a proud veteran of our Armed Forces, Dan served in the
U.S. Army and the U.S. Army Reserves (1957-1962). Before his election to
Congress, Mr. Burton held office in the Indiana State Senate (1969-70 and
1981-82), as well as in the Indiana House of Representatives (1967-68 and
1977-80). The Burton family resides in Indianapolis, Indiana.
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (www.house.gov/international_relations)
Senior Member
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Chairman
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Vice Chairman
GOVERNMENT REFORM (www.reform.house.gov)
Former Chairman (1997 - 2002)
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International
Relations
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
VETERAN'S AFFAIRS (veterans.house.gov/)
CAUCUS MEMBERSHIPS:
a.. Autism
b.. Automotive
c.. Bipartisan Disabilities
d.. Biotechnology
e.. Coalition for Autism Research and education (CARE)
f.. Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM) - Co-Chairman*
g.. Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM) - Co-Chairman*
h.. Congressional Bipartisan Cerebral Palsy - Founder & Chairman
i.. Congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force
j.. Congressional Caucus on the European Union
k.. Congressional Diabetes
l.. Congressional Fire Services
m.. Congressional Cuban Democracy
n.. Congressional Taskforce Against Anti-Semitism
o.. Distributed Energy
p.. Farmer Cooperative
q.. French
r.. Friends of Denmark
s.. Friends of New Zealand Congressional
t.. Friends of Norway
u.. House Republican Israel
v.. Human Rights
w.. Hungary
x.. Immigration Reform
y.. Indonesia - Co-Founder and Co-Chairman*
z.. Insurance - Chairman
aa.. International Conservation
ab.. I-69
ac.. Malaysia Trade, Security, and Economic Cooperation
ad.. Manufacturing
ae.. Medical Malpractice Crisis Task Force
af.. Methamphetamine
ag.. Missing and Exploited Children's
ah.. National Guard & Reserve Components
ai.. National Republican Congressional Committee
aj.. National Retail Sales Tax
ak.. Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition
al.. Public Service
am.. Real Estate
an.. Republican Study Committee (RSC) - Co-Founder*
ao.. Serbia - Co-Founder and Co-Chairman*
ap.. Singapore
aq.. Spina Bifida
ar.. Taiwan
as.. Textile
at.. US-Israel Security
au.. Victim's Rights
av.. Zoo
AWARDS:
Congressman Burton has received special recognition from several
organizations for his voting record and leadership in Congress. His honors
include:
a.. 2005 National Foundation for Women Legislators (NFWL) Leadership Award
on behalf of the NFWL for Congressman Burton's tireless work on health care
issues.
b.. 2004 True Blue Award presented by the Family Research Council for
Congressman Burton's 100% voting record on behalf of American families.
c.. 2004 Benjamin Franklin Award from the 60 Plus Association for efforts
to permanently repeal the estate tax, more commonly referred to as the death
tax.
d.. 2004 Friend of the Farm Bureau Award from the American Farm Bureau
Federation for voting to protect the interests of our nation's farmers.
e.. 2004 Small Business Advocate Award from the Small Business Survival
Committee for voting to help keep small businesses stay strong thru
continued innovation, improved investments, and creating new jobs.
f.. 2004 Friend of the Shareholder Award from American Shareholders
Association for demonstrating an avid commitment to protecting Indiana
shareholders and enhancing economic growth in America.
g.. 2004 Hero of the Taxpayer Award from Americans for Tax Reform for
siding with taxpayers on crucial tax and economic issues in the 108th
Congress.
h.. Twenty Spirit of Enterprise Awards, including for 2004, from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce for voting in support of free enterprise and a strong
economy.
i.. Twelve Golden Bulldog Awards from the Watchdogs of the Treasury for
voting to cut wasteful Federal spending and reduce taxes.
j.. Twelve Taxpayers' Friend Awards from the National Taxpayers Union for
fiscal responsibility.
k.. Ten National Security Leadership Awards for supporting a policy of
peace through strength. The American Security Council, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, and the Reserve Officer Association give the awards jointly.
l.. Eight Guardian of Small Business Awards from the National Federation
of Independent Business for supporting small business.
>
> If evidence this biased came from the "vaccines don't cause autism"
> researchers, the anti-vaxers would be screaming the house down. But
> bias is only bad when they think their opponents are showing it.
>
>>This debate is not scientific but is political.
>
> True. There's no real scientific debate about the worthlessness of
> the typical anti-vaxer "evidence."
>
>>I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled by
>>nothing less than spin and propaganda
>
> Put forth by organizations like "Defeat Autism Now!" for which Ayoub
> is a shill.
That's a lie.
Specialties
Diagnostic Radiology, Vascular and Interventional Radiology
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=23480
Jeff
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
(...)
>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>
> ACTually, you have!
>
> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
Wrong on two counts:
1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
doesn't mean they are.
Jeff
HCN
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> (...)
>
>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>
>> ACTually, you have!
>>
>
> Wrong on two counts:
>
> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>
> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
> doesn't mean they are.
>
> Jeff
>
Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
people!
Jan Drew
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> (...)
>
>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>
>> ACTually, you have!
>>
>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>
> Wrong on two counts:
>
> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc.
>
> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
> doesn't mean they are.
>
> Jeff
Not a matter of what I think. Facts are facts.
Jan Drew
"HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l9udnTOBD_T9WSzZ...@comcast.com...
>
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>
>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/BUYfromUS.htm
>>
>> Wrong on two counts:
>>
>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>>
>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>> doesn't mean they are.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
> Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
> people!
Liar.
Peter Bowditch
>
>"HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:l9udnTOBD_T9WSzZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>>
>>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/BUYfromUS.htm
>>>
>>> Wrong on two counts:
>>>
>>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>>>
>>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>>> doesn't mean they are.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>
>> Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
>> people!
>
>Liar.
What does Dr Haley do for a living, Jan? What is the web site where he
sells what provides that living, Jan?
Oh, that's right, Dr Haley sells testing and treatments, and he does
it through the Altcorp site.
Now, who's doing the lying ... ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That conclusion is made by people who are not practicing science, like
>>>>> 2003 Congressional committee and the idiot "doctor" in Florida.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>
>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>>
>> Wrong on two counts:
>>
>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>
>Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc.
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site
might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to
adjust your browser settings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled correctly.
To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then
click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The
settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN)
administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
See if your Internet connection settings are being detected. You can
set Microsoft Windows to examine your network and automatically
discover network connection settings (if your network administrator
has enabled this setting).
Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options.
On the Connections tab, click LAN Settings.
Select Automatically detect settings, and then click OK.
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu
and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength
security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security
settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet
Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check
settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer
Are you familiar with the expression "Shove it up your arse, Jan"?
>>
>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>> doesn't mean they are.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>Not a matter of what I think. Facts are facts.
What has the word "facts" go to do with Dr Haley's commercial web
site?
john
Open Letter to Gov. Linda Lingle
By Richard C. Deth, PhD, 7/3/2006 11:45:51 AM
I am a neuropharmacologist and Full Professor at Northeastern University in
Boston who has been investigating the molecular origins of
neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders. For the past few years
much of my lab's work has focused on autism, including an evaluation of the
possible contribution of thimerosal, the ethylmercury-containing vaccine
preservative. Based upon my expertise in this area I have testified to
Congress on several occasions, appeared on NBC Nightly News and in several
documentaries and presented our findings at numerous scientific conferences.
I understand that you are currently evaluating legislation to removal
thimerosal from vaccines used in Hawaii. Let me state unequivocally that
there is strong scientific evidence linking thimerosal to autism, so taking
steps to remove it from vaccines is a true "no-brainer". Moreover, it is
vital that states indicate their expectation of thimerosal-free vaccines in
order to shift the pharmaceutical industry to this safer form. Public
confidence in the vaccination program will be greatly increased when mercury
is removed, allowing the full public health benefits without the unnecessary
mercury burden.
Our research has shown that very low concentrations of thimerosal, typical
of those found in the blood following vaccination, cause strong inhibition
of metabolic processes that are crucial to neuronal cell well-being and
survival. The most sensitive of these processes involves sulfur metabolism,
including the anti-oxidant defense mechanism that is critical to all cells.
The effect of thimerosal is to significantly lower levels of glutathione,
the primary cellular antioxidant. Studies of autistic children clearly show
that they are suffering from oxidative stress and their glutathione levels
are reduced by 40-50%. Thus the toxic metabolic actions of thimerosal are
paralleled in clinical studies of autistic children.
In further studies we showed that thimerosal inhibits a key cellular process
called "methylation", in which various activities, including gene
expression, are controlled by the transfer of a single carbon atom.
Methylation is closely linked to oxidative stress, and when thimerosal
induces oxidative stress, it also causes impaired methylation. Again, blood
tests in autistic children show that they have impaired methylation.
Furthermore, metabolic therapies that help restore methylation have been
able to improve the clinical symptoms of many autistic children, strongly
indicating that this metabolic dysfunction plays a central role. Genetic
studies have also revealed a higher frequency of risk-inducing polymorphisms
and mutations affecting methylation and sulfur metabolism. Our most recent
research indicates that the brain has a particularly higher vulnerability to
oxidative stress, which helps explain why neurological problems occur with
low doses of thimerosal.
The point of all this scientific background is to reinforce the common sense
logic of reducing mercury exposure by all possible routes, including
vaccine-related. It is illogical to inject mercury into anyone, at any age,
and you will be doing a service to all Hawaiians by helping to restrict
their exposure by signing SB2133 part II.
If I can help provide any further background, please feel to contact me. I
am eager to assist.
Richard C. Deth, PhD is a Professor of Pharmacology for Northeastern
University in Boston, Massachusetts
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6262fd9c-3e87-4331-90d3-8439e50ac607
Jeff
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:pkv3b2p4bhg7q4huh...@4ax.com...
There is an old saying; "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute
to stupidity."
I will let the reader determine if it applies here.
Jeff
Jeff
>
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>
>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>>
>> Wrong on two counts:
>>
>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>
> Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc.
My computer works just fine. For some reason, the ISP doesn't connect to the
site. I can't ping the URL, either. I can ping google.com, so it is not a
problem with my computer.
>>
>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>> doesn't mean they are.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Not a matter of what I think. Facts are facts.
And the fact is that they are not "experts." They/re Idiots or shills.
Jeff
Jeff
I read Deth's one paper in the peer -reviwed literature on autism.
Appparently, the comments above came from this research. Unfortunately, the
research he talks about is in a cancer cell line. It is not applicable to
developing human brain cells in humans. It is fatally flawed:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v9/n7/pdf/4001522a.pdf
Jeff
Mark Probert
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/BUYfromUS.htm
>> Wrong on two counts:
>>
>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>>
>> 2) Even if you think the people mentioned on the page are experts, that
>> doesn't mean they are.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
> Even worse she shilling for a company that sells quack meds to desperate
> people!
Altcorp is owned by Boyd Haley, and with the recent court decision on
Haley's usefulness as an "expert" witness, I hope that Haley has a day
job somewhere. Both he and Geier were seriously criticized by a very
learned judge.
Mark Probert
The best choice is "idiots" since this decision by a US District Court
Judge:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf
Both Haley and Geier were given the old heave ho out of court. I suspect
that their days as "expert" witnesses are numbered.
Mark Probert
Bryan Heit
> Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
> claims with peer-reviewed research.
>
> Jeff
He can't. Any any time he is challenged he just posts stuff like his
reply to your e-mail. Or he'll attack you personally. Or he'll link
you to material unrelated to the topic in question.
Simple reality is he cannot support his position with any medical or
scientific literature produced in the last decade. All he has in
science from the 1960's, his webpage (whale.to), and his imaginary friends.
We're still waiting for him to explain away the results of a recent
study which showed that a decade after mercury was removed from all
childhood vaccines in Quebec, autism rates have remained unchanged
(they've actually increased, but not to a statistically significant
level). His response so far was to slander the authors of the study and
cite unrelated material.
Bryan
Mark Probert
That report is being discussed in the Blogosphere and the vicious
attacks of the anti-vac liars are being destroyed.
Jan Drew
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Sgjsg.5338$PE1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gpisg.63404$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>>>
>>>> ACTually, you have!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>>>
>>> Wrong on two counts:
>>>
>>> 1) The link doesn't work, at least not from my computer.
>>
>>Get you one that works...NOT kidsdoc.
Boom. Right there IMMEDIATELY.
The Medical Experts Speak Out on the Dangers of Thimerosal and the Possible
Link Between Administration of Multiple Thimerosal Containing Vaccines and
Autism
Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, MD, FAAFP
Director
International Child Development Resource Center
1663 Georgia Street
Suite # 700
Palm Bay, Florida 32907
Tel: (321) 953-0278
pdf Slide Show
New Evidence Points to an Link Between Environmental Poisons and
Learning Disabilities
Written Supplement to Dr. Bradstreet's Oral Testimony at the Hearing
of the Government Reform Committee, Congress of the United States, US House
of Representatives
pdf file
Dr. Neal A. Halsey, MD
Director
Institute for Vaccine Safety
Johns Hopkins University
Suite # 700
Palm Bay, Florida 32907
Tel: (321) 953-0278
pdf Slide Show
Commentary on Potential Risk from Thimerosal for Infants
Dr. Jane Maroney El-Dahr
Chief, Section of Pediatric Allergy/Immunology/Rheumatology
Tulane University Health Sciences Center
New Orleans, Louisiana
pdf Slide Show
Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes
Dr. David S. Baskin, MD
Professor of Neurosurgery and Anesthesiology
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, Texas
pdf Slide Show
Neuropathological, Neurochemical and Clinical Considerations
Jan Drew
>>
>>
>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub_h.html
>>
>> I am no longer "trying to dig up evidence to prove" vaccines cause
>> autism. There is already abundant evidence, the same conclusion made by a
>> political. I am trying to encourage physicians who have been badly misled
>> by nothing less than spin and propaganda to review the extensive
>> scientific evidence for themselves showing the vaccine-autism link, even
>> though "experts" disagree.. --- [July 9, 2006 Blog/letter] Discovering
>> the causes, treatment of autism ----David Ayoub, MD
>
> caused by mercury in vaccines.
ACTually, you have!
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
The website with RESEARCH.
Unlike..Peter Bowditch's sicko websites.
Jan Drew
The Medical Experts Speak Out on the Dangers of Thimerosal and the Possible
Jan Drew
"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:mftsg.15$3u...@fe08.lga...
Dr. Geier was not qualified becuase his cuasation theory was filled with
*speculation the is directly contary to the conclusions reached in well
respected and numberous epidemiologicand medical studies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Same goes for Dr. Haley.
speaking of heave ho.
In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.
92-02731
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747
November 9, 1992, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.
DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,
HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings
Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.
COUNSEL:
Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.
JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.
Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.
OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.
OPINION: [*282]
[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.
[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.
The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.
The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.
Source:
NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT
Currency Status:
ARCHIVE RECORD
NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION
Name:
MARK PROBERT
Date Of Birth:
11/XX/1946
Gender:
MALE
Address:
1698 WEBSTER AVE
MERRICK, NY 11566
County:
NASSAU
Phone:
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
Employer:
MARK S PROBERT ESQ
Organization:
PERSON
LICENSING INFORMATION
Licensing Agency:
NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION
License/Certification Type:
ATTORNEY
License Number:
1253889
Issue Date:
00/00/1978
License Status:
DISBARRED
License State:
NY
Jeff
>
(...)
>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>
> ACTually, you have!
>
> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>
> The website with RESEARCH.
>
> Unlike..Peter Bowditch's sicko websites.
Actually, I am unable to load the page you indicate. So I haven't see it. If
you think I have seen it because you think you can read minds, you better go
back to the hocus-pocus school of magic and take the mind-reading course
again.
Jeff
Peter Bowditch
The next time you are checking out the length of Dr Haley's "CV", Jan,
please ask him to fix his web site. That's the commercial web site
where he sells things. (And no, he's not blocking my IP address. The
anonymous proxy at The Cloak can't get to it either.)
A question about the length of Dr Haley's "CV". Is the "CV" related to
the French expression "coq vital"? I assume that if he is using French
he is measuring it in centimetres rather than inches. This can lead to
disappointment for those unfamiliar with the metric system, as they
hear a number which is two and a half times greater than what their
usual measuring system would give.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
HCN
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:LTzsg.118523$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>
> (...)
>
>>> Actually, I have not seen any medical experts who think that autism is
>>> caused by mercury in vaccines.
>>
>> ACTually, you have!
>>
>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
>>
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site
might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your
browser settings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.................................................................................................
By the way, she is doing a very poor job of shilling for Boyd Haley's
business. His business being to give "the business" to folks who think they
have some mysterious disease... or worse selling sham cures to desperate
parents of children he claims are have "Mad Child" disease. What a
despicable person he is, and only a truly evil person would try to spam his
business for business:
http://www.neurodiversity.com/haley_reply.html
Jan Drew
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/246ca8d273ec01cb
Jeff" <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
Jul,
2005http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.health/msg/fda41faad3a1b945
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/SlideShows/Thimerosal/sld023...
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/SlideShows/Thimerosal/sld037...
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/SlideShows/Thimerosal/sld028...
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
Furthermore, the amount of mercury
> that is used in vaccines is not harmful.
ZZzz.
http://www.flu.org.cn/news/2004986362.htm
FACT: You replied.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/3222e9c05c50170d
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.health/msg/fda41faad3a1b945
Oct 2005
Posted again.
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
FACT: You posted in the thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.health/msg/493f8d58883d25d7
Aug 2005
Posted AGAIN.
FACT: You posted in the thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/95a8f40ceae8df5e
Aug 23 2005
Posted..YET again.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/c9e9dbdc8f2f1972
FACT: You not only posted..you showed the butt again.
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:aIROe.273767$x96.267482@attbi_s72...
(...)
Want more, Jeff?
Lie exposed.
Jan Drew
Rich
>
"I posted it with the permission of the author."
>
> Lie exposed.
>
>
--
--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/
Jan Drew
"Bryan Heit" <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
<snip>
> Jeff wrote:
>> Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
>> claims with peer-reviewed research.
>>
>> Jeff
http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm
Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
by David F. Horrobin
Abstract
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review
system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific
research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking
the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the issues of the
acceptability and reliability of scientific evidence. In its judgement in
the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow, the court attempted to set guidelines
for U.S. judges to follow when listening to scientific experts. Whether or
not findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided one
important criterion. But in a key caveat, the court emphasized that peer
review might sometimes be flawed, and that therefore this criterion was not
unequivocal evidence of validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of peer
review adds to this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of
correlation between reviewers' recommendations.
The Supreme Court questioned the authority of peer review.
Many scientists and lawyers are unhappy about the admission by the top legal
authority in the United States that peer review might in some circumstances
be flawed [1]. David Goodstein, writing in the Guide to the Federal Rules of
Evidence - one of whose functions is to interpret the judgement in the case
of Daubert - states that "Peer review is one of the sacred pillars of the
scientific edifice" [2]. In public, at least, almost all scientists would
agree. Those who disagree are almost always dismissed in pejorative terms
such as "maverick," "failure," and "driven by bitterness."
Peer review is central to the organization of modern science. The
peer-review process for submitted manuscripts is a crucial determinant of
what sees the light of day in a particular journal. Fortunately, it is less
effective in blocking publication completely; there are so many journals
that most even modestly competent studies will be published provided that
the authors are determined enough. The publication might not be in a
prestigious journal, but at least it will get into print. However, peer
review is also the process that controls access to funding, and here the
situation becomes much more serious. There might often be only two or three
realistic sources of funding for a project, and the networks of reviewers
for these sources are often interacting and interlocking. Failure to pass
the peer-review process might well mean that a project is never funded.
Science bases its presumed authority in the world on the reliability and
objectivity of the evidence that is produced. If the pronouncements of
science are to be greeted with public confidence - and there is plenty of
evidence to suggest that such confidence is low and eroding - it should be
able to demonstrate that peer review, "one of the sacred pillars of the
scientific edifice," is a process that has been validated objectively as a
reliable process for putting a stamp of approval on work that has been done.
Peer review should also have been validated as a reliable method for making
appropriate choices as to what work should be done. Yet when one looks for
that evidence it is simply not there.
Why not apply scientific methods to the peer review process?
For 30 years or so, I and others have been pointing out the fallibility of
peer review and have been calling for much more openness and objective
evaluation of its procedures [3-5]. For the most part, the scientific
establishment, its journals, and its grant-giving bodies have resisted such
open evaluation. They fail to understand that if a process that is as
central to the scientific endeavor as peer review has no validated
experimental base, and if it consistently refuses open scrutiny, it is not
surprising that the public is increasingly skeptical about the agenda and
the conclusions of science.
Largely because of this antagonism to openness and evaluation, there is a
great lack of good evidence either way concerning the objectivity and
validity of peer review. What evidence there is does not give confidence but
is open to many criticisms. Now, Peter Rothwell and Christopher Martyn have
thrown a bombshell [6]. Their conclusions are measured and cautious, but
there is little doubt that they have provided solid evidence of something
truly rotten at the core of science.
Forget the reviewers. Just flip a coin.
Rothwell and Martyn performed a detailed evaluation of the reviews of papers
submitted to two neuroscience journals. Each journal normally sent papers
out to two reviewers. Reviews of abstracts and oral presentations sent to
two neuroscience meetings were also evaluated. One meeting sent its
abstracts to 16 reviewers and the other to 14 reviewers, which provides a
good opportunity for statistical evaluation. Rothwell and Martyn analyzed
the correlations among reviewers' recommendations by analysis of variance.
Their report should be read in full; however, the conclusions are alarmingly
clear. For one journal, the relationships among the reviewers' opinions were
no better than that obtained by chance. For the other journal, the
relationship was only fractionally better. For the meeting abstracts, the
content of the abstract accounted for only about 10 to 20 percent of the
variance in opinion of referees, and other factors accounted for 80 to 90
percent of the variance.
These appalling figures will not be surprising to critics of peer review,
but they give solid substance to what these critics have been saying. The
core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in terms of
oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major journals) and
funding is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little
better than does chance. Given the fact that most reviewers are likely to be
mainstream and broadly supportive of the existing organization of the
scientific enterprise, it would not be surprising if the likelihood of
support for truly innovative research was considerably less than that
provided by chance.
Objective evaluation of grant proposals is a high priority.
Scientists frequently become very angry about the public's rejection of the
conclusions of the scientific process. However, the Rothwell and Martyn
findings, coming on top of so much other evidence, suggest that the public
might be right in groping its way to a conclusion that there is something
rotten in the state of science. Public support can only erode further if
science does not put its house in order and begin a real attempt to develop
validated processes for the distribution of publication rights, credit for
completed work, and funds for new work. Funding is the most important issue
that most urgently requires opening up to rigorous research and objective
evaluation.
What relevance does this have for pharmacology and pharmaceuticals? Despite
enormous amounts of hype and optimistic puffery, pharmaceutical research is
actually failing [7]. The annual number of new chemical entities submitted
for approval is steadily falling in spite of the enthusiasm for techniques
such as combinatorial chemistry, high-throughput screening, and
pharmacogenomics. The drive to merge pharmaceutical companies is driven by
failure, and not by success.
The peer review process may be stifling innovation.
Could the peer-review processes in both academia and industry have destroyed
rather than promoted innovation? In my own field of psychopharmacology,
could it be that peer review has ensured that in depression and
schizophrenia, we are still largely pursuing themes that were initiated in
the 1950s? Could peer review explain the fact that in both diseases the
efficacy of modern drugs is no better than those compounds developed in
1950? Even in terms of side-effects, where the differences between old and
new drugs are much hyped, modern research has failed substantially. Is it
really a success that 27 of every 100 patients taking the selective 5-HT
reuptake inhibitors stop treatment within six weeks compared with the 30 of
every 100 who take a 1950s tricyclic antidepressant compound? The
Rothwell-Martyn bombshell is a wake-up call to the cozy establishments who
run science. If science is to have any credibility - and also if it is to be
successful - the peer-review process must be put on a much sounder and
properly validated basis or scrapped altogether.
David F. Horrobin, a longtime critic of anonymous peer review. heads Laxdale
Ltd., which develops novel treatments for psychiatric disorders. In 1972 he
founded Medical Hypotheses, the only journal fully devoted to discussion of
ideas in medicine.
References
1. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993), 509, 579.
2. Goodstein, D. 2000. How Science Works. In U.S. Federal Judiciary
Reference Manual on Evidence, pp. 66-72.
3. Horrobin, D.F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the
suppression of innovation. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263:1438-1441.
4. Horrobin, D.F. 1996. Peer review of grant applications: A harbinger for
mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet 348:1293-1295.
5. Horrobin, D.F. 1981-1982. Peer review: Is the good the enemy of the best?
J. Res. Commun. Stud. 3:327-334.
6. Rothwell, P.M. and Martyn, C.N. 2000. Reproducibility of peer review in
clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would
be expected by chance alone? Brain 123:1964-1969.
7. Horrobin, D.F. 2000. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J. R.
Soc. Med. 93:341-345.
Llinks
International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Scientific
Publication - articles and abstracts from the third congress, held in 1997.
The fourth congress will be held in September 2001.
Peer-Review Practices at EPA - a section of the 2000 NAS report
Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Research-Management and Peer-Review Practices, which discusses the strengths
and limitations of the process.
Can Peer Review Help Resolve Natural Resource Conflicts? - suggests that a
modified form of peer review could be useful in policy-related decisions.
Evidence and Expert Testimony - includes many online references for
scientific evidence.
Peer Review Articles - an annotated bibliography covering scientific peer
review and its relevance to judicial proceedings.
Related HMS Beagle Articles:
Top Ten Reasons Against Peer Review and Top Ten Reasons For Peer Review -
arguments both humorous and serious.
Anatomy of a Rejection - strategies for improving the outcome of the peer
review process.
[All emphasis added]
Bryan Heit
> "Bryan Heit" <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>>>Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
>>>claims with peer-reviewed research.
>>>
>>>Jeff
>
>
> http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm
>
> Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
> by David F. Horrobin
>
>
>
> Abstract
>
> A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review
> system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific
> research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking
> the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.
And this is relevant how? Do you even know what peer-review is? I
actually agree with much of what was written here; having published
several scientific papers I'm well familiar with the peer review system.
And there is no question that some (not all) researchers use their
powers as reviewers to try and achieve their own ends.
In my experience, about 2/3rds of the reviewers provide valid critism
and useful suggestions. These people make the system as valuable as it
is - a second, new mind to find your holes and make the study better.
The other third uses their reviewer powers to slow your work, to try and
force you to make conclusions more to their liking, and to try and force
your study into their world view.
Thank god the good ones are still in the majority.
Bryan
Jason Johnson
<bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryan,
One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
points of view from the mainstream. Sharon Hope recently posted a report
indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
of the dangerous side effects of statins. Please don't ask for proof since
I don't make hard copies of every post that I read. Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? If so, can you see
that there is a conflict of interest. If you wrote a well researched
article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
article would be printed in JAMA?
I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cathyb
Nor does anyone else, Jason. They are, however, archived and
searchable.
> Does JAMA run ads in
> their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? If so, can you see
> that there is a conflict of interest. If you wrote a well researched
> article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
> article would be printed in JAMA?
> I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.
Jason, did you never hear of the article purporting to show a link
between MMR and autism printed in the Lancet?
Of course, it was disavowed by most of its authors in the end, and it
was of course a tad embarrassing for the Lancet when they discovered
that the main author, Andrew Wakefield, was receiving money from
lawyers for parents trying to sue a vaccine company. And that eight of
the 12 kids involved in the study were childrn of those parents.
But here's the thing. They printed it.
> Jason
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason Johnson
"cathyb" <cathyb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cathy,
I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
advocates of creation science. Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
was an advocate of evolution.
It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins. The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cathyb
It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.
> It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
> advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
> JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins.
I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.
> The peer review
> process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.
It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.
But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.
> Jason
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Bowditch
>Cathy,
>I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
>interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
>that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
>out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
>advocates of creation science.
As they should.
>Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
>magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
>was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
>article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
>was an advocate of evolution.
No article advocating creation "science" could ever pass peer review
by real scientists, regardless of their opinions about evolution,
simply because it would not contain any science.
Why should a magazine devoted to science give any credibility to
something which is so obviously not scientific? Similarly, do you
think that MacWorld magazine should carry articles extolling the
wonders of Windows XP, or Biker Chicks carry articles by separation
feminists, or golfing magazines carry articles saying how good it is
to spend the weekends gardening, or gardening magazines carry articles
saying that golf is more important than aphid control, or Catholic
Weekly carry reviews of pornographic films?
Any publication has the right to refuse to publish material which
contradicts or disagrees with its charter or editorial policy. That's
what "editorial policy" means. The Smithsonian is a scientific
organisation, so you would expect to see only science in its
publications. JAMA is a medical journal, so you would only expect to
see properly conducted medical science reported in its pages. The fact
that The Lancet published Wakefield's crap shows that it is possible
for bad science to fall through the cracks at times, and JAMA (or was
it NEJM?) published the ludicrous "108,000 deaths" rubbish that the
quacks keep regurgitating.
>It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
>advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
>JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins. The peer review
>process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
>Jason
JAMA's funding comes from a lot of subscriptions by a lot of doctors,
hospitals, universities and public libraries, plus some advertising.
The peer review panels are not employees of JAMA, so what would be the
advantage to the members to favour JAMA's advertisers?
Bryan Heit
> Bryan,
> One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
> way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
> points of view from the mainstream.
This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went
directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble
getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through
which support existing theories.
Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out
of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient
data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got
my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the
data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on
re-writing the science books this is what you need to do.
I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers
published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I
can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not
complete.
> Sharon Hope recently posted a report
> indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
> of the dangerous side effects of statins.
Complete and absolute bullshit. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165
articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788130&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788124&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788123&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16788122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16757716&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16287954&itool=pubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16391219&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15572722&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367547&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249563&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
> Does JAMA run ads in
> their magazine paid for by companies that make statins?
Yes.
> If so, can you see
> that there is a conflict of interest.
No. Most scientific journals are set up such that the editorial boards
and advertising boards have no influence over each other. Keep in mind
that the people who pick and review papers for scientific journals are
not employees of the journal, nor are they paid for their services.
Hell, even I have reviewed papers for journals, and my boss acts as an
editor for several journals. The whole underlying purpose of this
system is to avoid the very conflicts you worry about.
Long story short, scientists pick the content of the journal, the
advertising guys simply try to pay for it - where do you think the money
comes from to pay for all of those journals which have free on-line access?
> If you wrote a well researched
> article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
> article would be printed in JAMA?
They most certantly would. In fact, I found four articles in JAMA on
that very topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10568650&itool=pubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15150207&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14519711&itool=pubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11308401&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum
The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish...
> I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.
Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong...
Bryan
Bryan Heit
>>Cathy,
>>I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
>>interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
>>that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
>>out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
>>advocates of creation science. Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
>>magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
>>was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
>>article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
>>was an advocate of evolution.
>
>
> It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
> member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
> for creation science.
> It's an untestable hypothesis.
Well stated. unIntelegent design fails all three criteria to be a
scientific theory:
1) It is untestable. (how do you test for "irreproducible complexity",
or the existence of god?).
2) It is not based on, nor does it explain, previous scientific studies
or their data.
3) It is not falsifiable, meaning that if the theory is wrong you could
never prove so. No matter what result you find, the proponents can
always claim "god du-nn it".
>>It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
>>advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
>>JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins.
>
>
> I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
> said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.
A prejudice which is also dead wrong. See my response to Jason, where I
link to about a dozen studies in JAMA which are about the dangers of
statins.
> It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
> unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
> misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
> the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
> finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
> ulcers.
>
> But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
> Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.
And climate change, and continental drift, and QED, and homeobox genes,
and pretty much every other major scientific theory I can think of.
Bryan
Jason Johnson
<myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello,
Are the members of the peer review panel paid for their services? If so,
they know that they would be fired if they approved articles that
mentioned the dangerous side effects and newly discovered side effects of
statins or other drugs made by the companies that were advertisers.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason Johnson
"cathyb" <cathyb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.
> It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
> advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
> JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins.
I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.
> The peer review
> process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.
It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.
But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cathy,
You always make great points. Were you ever on a debate team?
I know how the process works. Thank goodness for the newsletters published
by alternative doctors such as Doctor Julian Whitaker and alternative
magazines such as "Prevention" and "Life Extension". I visit a health
food store at least once a week and have seen at least a dozen different
alternative health magazines for sale in that store. The vast majority
of people in America are more likely to read those magazines than read
JAMA and related mazagines. It's my guess that more people read the
creation science newsletter published by the Institute for Creation
Research than read the magazine published by the Smithsonian Intitute.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason Johnson
<bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryan,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain the review process.
I am glad that you were able to get your scientific publications
past the peer review process. You made some excellent points.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Probert
Most people prefer the excellent pictures in Smithsonian.
Mark Probert
Jason, note how Bryan demonstrated that the conspiracy bullshit is just
that. There are those who substitute conspiracy crap for facts, since
they are long on the former, and short on the latter.
Jan Drew
Jason Johnson
<markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
Yes, Bryan done a great job. We both know that any magazine that has ads
paid for by companies that make statins would in most cases not print an
article that was entitled, "The Side Effects of Statins". Of course, an
article related to statins might mention some of side effects of statins.
The editors know that those companies will stop paying for expensive ads
if the editors make them upset with negative articles about the
medications those companies make.
Jason
Jason Johnson
ja...@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update:
I hope that Bryan sees this:
I found this in another newsgroup:
> > Sharon Hope wrote:
> > How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the
> > dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association,
> > refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as
> > collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish
> > the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the
> > JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to
> > inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue?
> >
> > http://www.thincs.org/index.htm
> >
> > select "News"
> >
> > Click on the link for
> >
> > Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley
> > Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL
> > trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors
> > tell us about the nature of these side effects?
Mark Probert
We both do not know that, and, kindly, do not speak for me. I know just
the opposite.
Of course, an
> article related to statins might mention some of side effects of statins.
> The editors know that those companies will stop paying for expensive ads
> if the editors make them upset with negative articles about the
> medications those companies make.
As was pointed out to you, the editorial boards of peer reviewed
journals do not correlate with the business departments.
Like I said, long on conspiracy bullshit, short on facts.
Mark Probert
You are assuming an awful lot. First, that the yarn is factual. Second,
that what is alleged is factual. Third, that the editors have not dealt
with the requestors before, and know what they are up to.
Bryan Heit
> Update:
> I hope that Bryan sees this:
> I found this in another newsgroup:
>
> > > Sharon Hope wrote:
> > > How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the
> > > dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association,
> > > refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as
> > > collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish
> > > the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the
> > > JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to
> > > inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue?
> > >
> > > http://www.thincs.org/index.htm
> > >
> > > select "News"
> > >
> > > Click on the link for
> > >
> > > Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley
> > > Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL
> > > trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors
> > > tell us about the nature of these side effects?
Yet another set of lies. The side effects noted during the IDEAL trial
were published by JAMA (table 4), and widely discussed in their letters
section:
It's also worth noting that the IDEAL study was for myocardial
infarction; commonly referred to as a heart attack. The extremely high
doses of statins used in this study are four times greater then the
levels used for normal cholesterol-lowering purposes. Keep in mind that
myocardial infarction is highly lethal, even with todays best therapies.
As such aggressive therapies are required if we want to save these
people, and aggressive therapy often comes at the cost of adverse
events. But ask yourself - would you rather attempt a cure, and risk
the chance of an adverse event, or not treat yourself and almost
guarantee your death?
As for the letter not being published, that is nothing special. Any
large study will generate dozens, or even hundreds of letters to the
editor. Journals simply cannot publish all of them. Look at the link
above; you'll see additional links to 7 letters the journal did publish
in regards to the IDEAL study, nearly all of which question some aspect
of the study. As for the reason the letter in question was not
published, the answer is likely that the information they wanted was
already included in the article.
Bryan
Bryan Heit
>
> Hello,
> Are the members of the peer review panel paid for their services?
No.
> If so,
> they know that they would be fired if they approved articles that
> mentioned the dangerous side effects and newly discovered side effects of
> statins or other drugs made by the companies that were advertisers.
But they are not paid, so it's a non-issue.
Bryan
john
"Bryan Heit" <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e95mib$3oo$1...@news.ucalgary.ca...
>
>> If so, they know that they would be fired if they approved articles that
>> mentioned the dangerous side effects and newly discovered side effects of
>> statins or other drugs made by the companies that were advertisers.
>
> But they are not paid, so it's a non-issue.
>
> Bryan
Oh yeah, not paid to review but you can bet your last dose of mercury that
they get funded by vaccine makers, after all the only people who review
vaccine articles are vaccine people
They did an investigation about how the pharmaceutical companies are funding
all the research and spinning the trial results, so you can no longer really
trust what you read in scientific journals. They pointed out that when they
tried to get an expert to review the scientific literature related to
antidepressants, they basically couldn't find someone who hadn't taken money
from the drug companies. Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human
Condition Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker
ditto vax
peer review is how they CONTROL science http://www.whale.to/w/journals1.html
john
Dr Ehmke's comments about parents concerned with vaccine
safety is an insult to anyone with any knowledge of the science surrounding
this debate. His letter was filled with misinformation, errors and just
plain foolish dribble.
First, the MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal. This
blunder set the tone for the rest of his letter.
Second, there has never been a genetic epidemic. The rates
of autism in many states has increased over 1,000% since 1990. I have no
idea what his comment of "92%" rate increases is even based upon. He
discards autistic illness in siblings but these children still exist in
reality, so parring the rise to 10% when excluding siblings is absurd and
comical.
The epidemiological studies refuting the claim of a link
to vaccine mercury have all been refuted as flawed studies, co-authored by
researchers with strong ties to the drug industry. A major paper claiming
the rise was due to 'diagnostic substitution" has been retracted....the
theory is false. The promotion of his own institution's autism center for
genetic testing is a waste of money and time. All environmental toxins,
including thimerosal affect individuals differently based in part upon
genetic and biological susceptibilities.
There are at least 4 published papers that demonstrated
autistic children have a lower, genetically determined ability to eliminate
mercury due to lower levels of glutathione, a protein necessary to bind
mercury before elimination by the liver. This is one major reason why some
vaccinated children get autism and others do not.
Thirdly, it is not just moms anymore claiming that
mercury has caused autism. There are hundreds of physicians breaking rank
with their own organizations such as the AMA and AAP and admitting that
mercury in vaccines was indeed a major cause of a variety of developmental
disorders. Congress agreed. In 2003 the Subcommittee on Health and
Wellness, Committee on Government Reform concluded a 3 year investigation
with the following statement: "Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines
in likely related to the autism epidemic. This epidemic in all probability
may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the
switch regarding the lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal and
the sharp rise of infant exposure to this known neurotoxin. Our public
health agencies' failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance
for self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical
industry." (Mercury in Medicine Report, May 2003).
Fourth, Dr Ehmke makes the absurd assumption that by not
wanting mercury injected into their children, this somehow poses a threat to
vaccination rates. I didn't see a collapse of the vaccine programs in
countries that have eliminated thimerosal. Public confidence would logically
improve, not decline. This is a tired argument.
Finally, I would discourage parents from having too much
trust in what their pediatrician will tell them. Their own organization
receives millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies and would be
jeopardizing this relationship and threatening their reputation of an
organization that was responsible for an oversight catastrophe if they told
their member pediatricians the truth...that they had played a role in
creating this terrible American tragedy. Organizations like the Autism
Research Institute support parent education and physician training in
treating autism by addressing the underlying cause-not through genetics or
antipsychotic drugs but through biological means of treating vaccine injury.
david ayoub 07.12.06
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ayoub5.html
Bryan Heit
> "Bryan Heit" <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
> news:e95mib$3oo$1...@news.ucalgary.ca...
>
>
>>>If so, they know that they would be fired if they approved articles that
>>>mentioned the dangerous side effects and newly discovered side effects of
>>>statins or other drugs made by the companies that were advertisers.
>>
>>But they are not paid, so it's a non-issue.
>>
>>Bryan
>
>
> Oh yeah, not paid to review but you can bet your last dose of mercury that
> they get funded by vaccine makers, after all the only people who review
> vaccine articles are vaccine people
Nope, as I've pointed out to your repetitively, I've reviewed papers but
not once ever received or spent a single penny which came from any
pharmaceutical company. About the only money paid to academic
institutions by pharma is contract fees, as in when they pay us to run
some experiments for us.
Closest I've come was some free T-shirts for my slow-pitch (beer-ball)
team, courtesy of one of our local suppliers. Not exactly a big
present, given that we buy close to a half-million dollars of reagents
from them every year.
> They did an investigation about how the pharmaceutical companies are funding
> all the research and spinning the trial results, so you can no longer really
> trust what you read in scientific journals.
"They" being who? The voices in your head?
> They pointed out that when they
> tried to get an expert to review the scientific literature related to
> antidepressants, they basically couldn't find someone who hadn't taken money
> from the drug companies.
I can think of several people at my uni who'd fit the bill. I guess
"they" didn't look very hard.
> Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human
> Condition Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker
Who's "they"?
Bryan
Jason Johnson
<bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryan,
Since you have done lots of research related to autism, I hope that you
can answer a question for me.
This is the report that caused me to become interested in this issue:
There was a mercury catastrophe in Minamata Bay, Japan, involving ingestion
of methymercury-contaminated fish--it led to neurologic defects.
I have seen other reports indicating that when they test the blood of
children that have autism--it (in most cases) reveals that the children
have high levels of mercury.
When I read reports like the two reports mentioned above, it appears to me
to indicate that mercury MAY be the cause of autism.
When you read those same sorts of reports, why do you discount them? You
already know that some people that have had mercury poisoning for several
years develop mental problems. If this is true, is it possible that when
an infant or small child has been exposed to mercury that it could cause
autism.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Probert
http://www.american.edu/TED/MINAMATA.HTM
It was methyl mercury, which is recognized to be much more toxic than
ethyl mercury, and is retained far more easily.
> I have seen other reports indicating that when they test the blood of
> children that have autism--it (in most cases) reveals that the children
> have high levels of mercury.
Much of the testing is of rather dubious merit. Spend some time and
learn about it.
> When I read reports like the two reports mentioned above, it appears to me
> to indicate that mercury MAY be the cause of autism.
>
> When you read those same sorts of reports, why do you discount them? You
> already know that some people that have had mercury poisoning for several
> years develop mental problems. If this is true, is it possible that when
> an infant or small child has been exposed to mercury that it could cause
> autism.
They are discounted because the epidemiological studies of large and
diverse populations fails to show a link.
You have been told this over and over, and you seem to refuse to
understand that point.
Jason Johnson
<markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> of methymercury-contaminated fish--it led to metal deficits.
http://www.american.edu/TED/MINAMATA.HTM
It was methyl mercury, which is recognized to be much more toxic than
ethyl mercury, and is retained far more easily.
> I have seen other reports indicating that when they test the blood of
> children that have autism--it (in most cases) reveals that the children
> have high levels of mercury.
Much of the testing is of rather dubious merit. Spend some time and
learn about it.
> When I read reports like the two reports mentioned above, it appears to me
> to indicate that mercury MAY be the cause of autism.
>
> When you read those same sorts of reports, why do you discount them? You
> already know that some people that have had mercury poisoning for several
> years develop mental problems. If this is true, is it possible that when
> an infant or small child has been exposed to mercury that it could cause
> autism.
They are discounted because the epidemiological studies of large and
diverse populations fails to show a link.
You have been told this over and over, and you seem to refuse to
understand that point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Probert
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....
Jason Johnson
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 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?
I would assume that the autism MAY have been caused by mercury.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Probert
You assumption is absurd. Did the children have high levels of mercury
at birth? If not, the current blood test is useless.
Even so, since I feel that autism is 99% genetic, there would be no
issue for me.
I would want the mercury levels for the kids addressed, to prevent
future problems.
Jason Johnson
<markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
The children did NOT have high levels of mercury at birth. Let's make it
10,000 children instead of 10 children.
The same question:
Would you discount the 10,000 blood tests that showed high levels of
mercury or assume that mercury MAY have caused the autism.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff
"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:wiStg.2633$F_6...@fe12.lga...
(...)
> You assumption is absurd. Did the children have high levels of mercury at
> birth? If not, the current blood test is useless.
>
> Even so, since I feel that autism is 99% genetic, there would be no issue
> for me.
The problem is that the data do not indicate that autism is 99% genetic.
There are clearly a lot of environment factors involved as well.
I should point out that the data, coming from different sources, indicate
that neither mercury nor organomercury pounds (e.g., ethyl- and
methylmercury) are not causes of autism.
Jeff
Mark Probert
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > 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.
Jan Drew
Right backatcha
>
>> When I read reports like the two reports mentioned above, it appears to
>> me
>> to indicate that mercury MAY be the cause of autism.
>>
>> When you read those same sorts of reports, why do you discount them? You
>> already know that some people that have had mercury poisoning for several
>> years develop mental problems. If this is true, is it possible that when
>> an infant or small child has been exposed to mercury that it could cause
>> autism.
>
> They are discounted because the epidemiological studies of large and
> diverse populations fails to show a link.
>
> You have been told this over and over, and you seem to refuse to
> understand that point.
pt. 1 predetermined - denying of link between autism and vaccines
".......Meanwhile in Texas, after receiving an internal transcript that
allegedly
proves the Institutes of Medicine's report denying a link between
childhood
vaccines and autism last year was "predetermined", a US District Court
judge
has ordered the worlds' "big five" vaccine manufacturers to "produce
any and
all documents relating to payments made to, or stock ownership" by the
seventeen members of the IOM's Immunization and Safety Review
Committee...."
A Byronchild world exclusive report Release: March 7, 2005
Contact: Naomi Radunski,
Marketing and Strategy Byron Publications P/L
7 Palm Avenue
Mullumbimby,
Australia 61 02 6684 4353
"This article may be freely posted, reproduced and distributed with
acknowledgement to both Lisa Reagan (author) and byronchild magazine
(also
list http://www.byronchild.com). If you do so, please notify byronchild
magazine through Naomi Radunski and forward all copies (electronic and
printed) to vacc...@byronpublications.com or the above postal address.
Click here to download this article in .pdf format:
http://www.byronchild.com/Dragon.pdf
"A Dragon By The Tail"
On the eve of an historic, billion-dollar world vaccination campaign, a
leaked transcript ignites questions of vaccine safety and research
corruption. Meanwhile, US senators fast-track a bill to protect vaccine
manufacturers from litigation. With millions of lives at stake, and
billions
of dollars to loose, will a merger of philanthropy, big business and
compromised science win an epic race between corporate agendas and
medical
ethics? In this world exclusive report, byronchild exposes how the most
powerful medical research bodies in the United States compromise their
vaccine safety research for vested interests, as they assist in a
global
vaccine policy, while a bill looms in the background to protect it all.
By Lisa Reagan
On January 24, 2005 -- the same day the Global Alliance for Vaccines
and
Immunization (GAVI) announced the receipt of $750 million for its
historic
world vaccination campaign -- seven US Senators introduced Senate Bill
3 .
The bill is an unprecedented act giving comprehensive liability
protections
to vaccine manufacturers , restricting Freedom of Information Acts on
drug/vaccine safety, and pre-empting states' rights to ban mercury from
children's vaccines, all under the bill's official title: ''Protecting
America in the War on Terror Act of 2005''.
Meanwhile in Texas, after receiving an internal transcript that
allegedly
proves the Institutes of Medicine's report denying a link between
childhood
vaccines and autism last year was "predetermined", a US District Court
judge
has ordered the worlds' "big five" vaccine manufacturers to "produce
any and
all documents relating to payments made to, or stock ownership" by the
seventeen members of the IOM's Immunization and Safety Review
Committee.
A court document submitting the IOM's leaked transcript as an exhibit
in the
first civil juried lawsuit against the vaccine manufacturers states the
transcript proves the IOM committee, "predetermined the necessity of
not
finding causality between vaccines and autism and/or neurological
injury" in
its official reports on the issue.
Judge T. John Ward also ordered the vaccine manufacturers to produce
all
communications with "members of the World Health Organization, the
Center
for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Institute of
Medicine, the Brighton Collaboration, or the Global Alliance for
Vaccines
and Immunization relating to the issue whether the thimerosal contained
in
pediatric vaccines causes autism or other neurological disorders."
When the defendant's legal counsel balked at the amount of expense
involved
in producing such extensive documentation for the court, Judge Ward
reassured the defense that the useful for both defendants and
plaintiffs of
the more than 300 pending lawsuits " involving claims related to the
use of
thimerosal in pediatric vaccines" waiting to be tried in the US.
Vaccine manufacturers Aventis Pasteur, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth
and Eli
Lilly and Co. are cited as defendants in the lawsuit brought by the
parents
of a child who developed autism after receiving mandatory routine
childhood
immunizations.
The same IOM reports denying a link between vaccines and the country's
autism epidemic have been used:
. to endorse standardized case definitions for Adverse Events
Following
Immunizations for "global dissemination";
. as justification for Senate Bill 3's sweeping provisions and
protections;
. as a cause for no further federal monies to be spent on research of
the
potential vaccine/autism link;
. as a reason to silence media inquiries into vaccine safety issues;
. and as a defense for dismissing over 4,500 petitions for vaccine
injuries
in a federal court.
Is it possible that a closed meeting transcript alleged as proof of a
ploy
to ignore vaccine risks, a near billion dollar grant for a global
vaccination campaign, emerging lawsuits for vaccine injuries and a
sweeping
federal bill to protect vaccine manufacturers are unrelated?
Is it possible that in spite of US Congressional hearings and reports
citing
widespread conflicts of interest between federal policy makers and the
vaccine industry that Senate Bill 3 will defy the US Constitution's
provisions for state and civil rights in order to shield vaccine
manufacturers from liability?
And finally, how will a world vaccine policy influenced by allegedly
"predetermined" safety reports implemented through a global alliance of
international governments and vaccine manufacturers with a fund of
billions
headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, support or protect the health and
human rights of targeted Third-World country peoples?
History of the IOM's Immunization and Safety Review Committee
Insight to these questions may lie in the pivotal year of 1999, a year
preceded by a decade of declining vaccine sales, major breakups within
the
manufacturing industry, increased requirements for routine childhood
vaccines, a growing autism epidemic, and researchers and media reports
questioning the safety of vaccines and their possible link to autism.
In 1999, as a US Congressional Government Reform Committee initiated an
investigation into the rampant conflicts of interest between federal
vaccine
policy makers and manufacturers, a global rescue effort of the sinking
vaccine industry began with the formation of GAVI.
Originally funded by Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates through his
Seattle-based Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI's partnership of
international governments and vaccine manufacturers salvaged lagging
sales
through an overhauled world vaccination campaign that placed GAVI,
headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, at the center of the reorganized
alliance.
Also formed in 1999 were the international Brighton Collaboration and
the
WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety.
Brighton's sole purpose was to create standardized case definitions for
Adverse Events Following Immunizations for "global dissemination".
Brighton's steering committee members currently hail from the US FDA,
CDC,
and Aventis Pasteur, a vaccine manufacturer and federal lawsuit
defendant.
Brighton's website does not include autism among its listed adverse
events.
The WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has " concluded
that
there is currently no evidence of mercury toxicity in infants,
children, or
adults exposed to thimerosal in vaccines" and "that current WHO
immunization
policy with respect to thimerosal containing vaccines should not be
changed."
The Brighton Collaboration has been cited as being "fraught with
pitfalls
and merges regulators and the regulated into an indistinguishable
group."
" I am very concerned about the development of the Brighton
Collaboration,"
stated US Congressional Representative Dave Weldon, MD, (R-FL) at an
Autism
One Conference in May 2004. "Particularly troubling is the fact that
serving
on the panels defining what constitutes an adverse reaction to a
vaccine,
are vaccine manufacturers. What is even worse is the fact that some of
these
committees are chaired by vaccine manufacturers. It is totally
inappropriate
for a manufacturer of vaccines to be put in the position of determining
what
is and is not an adverse reaction to their product. Do we allow GM,
Ford and
Chrysler to define the safety of their automobiles?"
In 1999, w with GAVI's international partnership and Bill Gates'
billions on
the way to rescue the industry, the CDC hired the IOM's Immunizations
and
Safety Review Committee to examine multiple "vaccine safety
challenges".
In its public report, the CDC specifically sited a 1998 British Lancet
study
recommending more research into a potential link between the Measles,
Mumps,
Rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, negative press, public information
vaccine
conferences, the Rotavirus vaccine recall and seven congressional
hearings
questioning vaccine safety as impetus to employ the IOM.
However, the CDC's ability to objectively and fairly evaluate vaccine
risks
has been denounced by a three year long US congressional investigation:
"To
date, studies conducted or funded by the CDC that purportedly dispute
any
correlation between autism and vaccine injury have been of poor design,
under-powered, and fatally flawed. The CDC's rush to support and
promote
such research is reflective of a philosophical conflict in looking
fairly at
emerging theories and clinical data related to adverse reactions from
vaccinations.
"The CDC in general and the National Immunization Program in particular
are
conflicted in their duties to monitor the safety of vaccines, while
also
charged with the responsibility of purchasing vaccines for resale as
well as
promoting increased immunization rates," states the congressional
report.
(View the report at
http://www.nomercury.org/science/documents/GRC_6-15-00.pdf )
"They serve as their own watchdog -- neither common nor desirable when
seeking unbiased research," Weldon has stated in describing the CDC.
"An
association between vaccines and autism would force CDC officials to
admit
that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who
among us
would easily accept such a conclusion about ourselves? Yet, this is
what the
CDC is asked to do," Weldon said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thimerosal
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/click_here.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/03/02_354.html
http://www.talkinternational.com/haley-congress.html
Report on Mercury Toxicity from Dental Amalgams and Thimerosal
Presented to Congressional Hearing - May 8, 2003
Presented By Boyd E. Haley, Ph.D.
Professor and Chairman of the Department of Chemistry
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 50606-005
In developing an opinion on mercury toxicity from exposures to dental
amalgam and thimerosal I have reviewed toxicologic data relevant to animal
and human studies to environmental mercury, methylmercury, thimerosal and
exposure to mercury from amalgam fillings. I have reviewed literature
searches conducted on various computerized databases; evaluated published
literature on primary studies as referenced in part herein. I have reviewed
relevant unpublished reports, consulted review articles, where appropriate,
and held working meetings with experts in the field. I have also conducted
experiments in my laboratory at the University of Kentucky with regards to
the enzyme and cellular toxicity of both dental amalgams and thimerosal,
including vaccine with and without thimerosal added as a preservative. In
addition, I have reviewed evaluations and conclusions of various
governmental agencies, including the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institute
of Health (NIH), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and other groups regarding this issue. I have come to the following
conclusions.
1. Mercury is the most toxic, non-redioactive elements known to man.
Virtually every industry has either reduced or banned the use of mercury
with the exception of dentistry. Dental amalgam is approximately 50% mercury
by weight. Each amalgam typically has between half of a gram to a gram of
mercury. A typical person having between 5 and 15 amalgams, would have
several grams of mercury implanted in his or her mouth. This amount is
colossal using any standard. I am aware of no other situation today where
grams of mercury are implanted in any human being. In fact, in the
healthcare industry, mercury has been all but banned.
2. The concentration of thimerosal in vaccines that contain this agent as
a preservative is approximately 125,000 nanomolar. In our studies pure
thimerosal shows toxicity to neurons in culture at 10 to 20 nanomolar, a
12,500 to 6,250 dilution factor. Calculations, using a conservative
approach, demonstrate that vaccinations of infants exposed them to
concentrations of thimerosal that could biologically injure them, especially
if they were exceptionally susceptible to mercury toxicity due to genetic
predisposition, other concurrent toxic exposures (e.g. to lead, elemental
mercury, cadmium, etc.) further, our research has shown that thimerosal,
which releases the toxic agent ethylmercury, inhibits the same brain enzymes
as does Hg2+. Therefore, multiple exposures from dental amalgams, food, and
vaccines are all capable of adding to the toxic load of these infants.
3. Further, we need to emphasize that humans are not rats in a pristine
cage, being fed chow that is tested to be free of other toxic agents. Humans
are exposed to numerous toxic agents that may act in a synergistic fashion
to enhance the toxicity of other toxicants. That is, and this is well
established, low levels of lead will greatly enhance the toxicity of
mercury. It is well known that levels of lead previously thought to be
non-toxic are now associated with decreased mental abilities in children.
Could it be that this lead is enhancing the toxicity of mercury exposures
from dental amalgams and vaccines?
4. The position of organized dentistry, primarily the American Dental
Association (ADA), that "no valid scientific evidence exists that dental
amalgam poses any health risk-other than rare, localized allergic
reactions," is, in my opinion, indefensible in the light of huge amounts of
published science. The major basis I have heard for the ADA stand is the
finding of "expert committees" within the dental branch of the FDA and WHO.
I looked up the members of these committees and have serious concerns about
who the ADA classifies as "expert" that served on these committees. In my
opinion, there was a severe paucity of relevant research publications on
mercury toxicity by members of these committees. The ADA stand is especially
weak if one considers the recent National Academy of Sciences and EPA
reports implying that 8 to 10% of American women of child bearing age have
blood levels of mercury that put any child they give birth to at risk for
having neurological problems. Also, a plethora of peer reviewed, published,
scientific studies and articles completely refute the evaluation of the ADA
regarding amalgam safety. Frankly, outside of the Journal of the American
Dental Association or JADA, the ADA's trade journal, which is not a refereed
scientific journal, but solely a trade journal, scientific consensus is
completely contrary to the ADA's position (note that the ADA escapes
adjudication by claiming to be a trade organization with no responsibility
to public health.) The fact is that there are no solid, refereed
publications showing that mercury is not significantly emitted from dental
amalgams. On the contrary, there are several showing significant emissions
of mercury from dental amalgams. In the one JADA article (Saxe, et al. JADA
Alzheimer's Disease, Dental Amalgam and Mercury, V130, p191, 1999) it is
claimed that amalgams are not related to brain Hg levels. I have several
design and scientific criticism of this paper, which I will not go into
here. However, in this same paper there is a histogram that shows that about
6% of the subjects had mercury brain levels above 1 micromolar levels and
about 15% had brain levels above 0.5 micromolar levels. Therefore, roughly 6
to 15% of Americans, on the day they die, have what any competent
neurologist or neurochemists or toxicologist would call severely toxic
levels of mercury. These levels are about 1,000 times that needed to cause
neurons to die in culture. Therefore, one needs to ask the questions "where
does this mercury come from and why does it exist in brain tissues at such
high levels." I seriously doubt that the major cause is eating seafood for
85 year old AD subjects. The cause is obvious exposures from known sources
(amalgams, food and vaccines) and the reason it collects in certain
individuals is because they cannot effectively excrete mercury due to
genetic susceptibilities or presence of other toxicants (lead, pesticides,
etc.) or loss of cellular protection due to advanced age or disease. Perhaps
this same phenomena accounts for the 22,000 times normal level of mercury in
the heart tissues of children who die with Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy
(Frustaci et al., J. American College of Cardiology, v33#6, p1578, 1000.)
This latter issue alone should make Congress consider a ban on mercury in
dentistry and medicine.
5. Dental amalgam emits dangerous levels of mercury. In fact, according to
a 1991 WHO report, dental amalgam constitutes the major human exposure to
mercury.1 Grams of mercury are in the mouth of individuals with several
amalgam fillings. Also, the level of blood and urine mercury positively
correlates with the number of amalgam fillings.2 It would be quite
informative to require that the American Medical Association (AMA) be
required to evaluate the state of mercury toxicity caused by dental amalgams
and make a report regarding this issue. The lack of AMA support for the ADA
contention on amalgam safety says something.
6. Careful evaluation of the amount of mercury emitted from a commonly
used dental amalgam in a test tube with 10 ml of water was presented in an
article entitled "Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a
Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam."3 This study showed that "the overall mean
release of mercury was 43.5 Ä… 3.2 micrograms per cm2 /day, and the amount
remained fairly constant during the duration of the experiments (2 years.)"
This was without pressure, heat or galvanism as would have occurred if the
amalgams were in a human mouth. To be fair, this amalgam contained about 66%
mercury compared to about 50% in most amalgams in use. The importance of
this publication is that the discovery of the tremendous amount of mercury
released from this amalgam material was not discovered by NIDCR, FDA, ADA,
CDC or any other American research group. It came from the University of
Singapore. Why hasn't the ADA or FDA or DCD done similar studies on every
amalgam preparation used in the USA today? In my laboratory we have done
this on several aged amalgams made from one conventional, widely used
amalgam company. The results indicated that about 4.5 micrograms Hg/cm2/ day
was released without abrasion, but this increased to about 47
micrograms/cm2/day with two 30 second brushings with a toothbrush.
Therefore, the question remains, who is protecting the American public from
adverse exposures to mercury? It appears as if those who should be doing
this job are failing to do so. Having an unbiased research group repeat the
study above on all ADA approved amalgam materials would be very informative
and I strongly recommend that this be done even though doing this is was not
supported by the ADA spokesperson at a past Congressional hearing on this
issue.
Recent research has shown that the birth hair of normal children increase
in mercury content with increasing dental amalgams in the birth mother (A.
Holmes, M. Blaxill and B. Haley, Reduced Levels of Mercury in the First Baby
Haircuts of Autistic Children, in press, International J. Toxicology v22#4,
2003.) In contrast, autistic children have much lower levels of mercury in
their birth hair, yet due to numerous reports have elevated mercury in their
bodies on mercury challenge testing. This strongly indicates that a subset
of the population does not have the ability to excrete mercury even if it is
from low chronic daily exposure from dental amalgam.
7. Furthermore, due to the substantial amounts of mercury in amalgams, it
is the number of amalgams that controls the amount of mercury exposure and
this is likely not significantly affected by the length of time each amalgam
is in the mouth.4 Put another way, since each large amalgam (i.e. those with
0.5 and 1.0 grams of mercury) contains between 500,000 to 1,000,000
micrograms of mercury, and if mercury were estimated to be released at a
high rate of 10 micrograms a day from each amalgam, it would take between
137 and 274 years before any individual amalgam is completely depleted of
its mercury content. A small amalgam with 0.1 grams of mercury would take
27.4 years for depletion at this rate. Also, there is a high variance which
is influenced by the surface area of the amalgam, its copper content, its
location and the individual's eating and grinding habits, and rate of
acidity, as noted herein. However, even at very conservative estimates,
these figures equate to a substantial amount of chronic (continuous, daily)
mercury exposure over a sustained, prolonged period of time. I think it is
imperative that the ADA provide detailed research that demonstrates that
amalgams MADE OUTSIDE THE MOUTH DO NOT RELEASE MERCURY ON REASONABLE
ABRASION AS WOULD BE EXPECTED ON CHEWING FOOD OR DRINKING HOT DRINKS. The
ADA and other supporters of amalgam refuse to do these studies or fund these
studies even though several refereed journal reports list solutions in which
amalgams have been soaked as "severely cytotoxic."
8. About 80% of the mercury vapor from amalgams is readily taken up by the
human body and distributed to various organs. Very little, if any, of the
mercury vapors are exhaled; the vapors as well as mercury particles are
absorbed into the lungs and body tissues. Through the lungs, for instance,
mercury enters the bloodstream where it has access to all of the major
organs; of particular concern are the kidneys and the central nervous
system.5 For example, studies have been performed where amalgams containing
radioactive mercury were placed in sheep and monkeys, showed the
radioactivity collecting in all body tissues and especially high in the jaw
and facial bones.6 Human studies are also supportive.7
9. Even more concerning is the synergistic toxicity effects of other
elements in amalgams, which increase the toxicity of mercury. For example,
Zinc (or Zn) is a needed element for body health and is found in very low
percentages in dental amalgams when compared to mercury. However, Zn+2 is a
synergist that enhances mercury toxicity. Studies have shown that solutions
in which amalgams have been soaked were "severely cytoxic initially when Zn
release was highest."8 (see also, Lobner & Asrari, Neurotoxicity of Dental
Amalgam is Mediated by Zinc. J. Dental Research v82#3, 243, 2003.) We have
repeated similar amalgam soaking experiments in my laboratory. Cadmium (from
smoking), lead, zinc and other heavy metals enhanced mercury toxicity as
expected. This is a well know phenomena in toxicology as it has been
reported many years ago in a study on determining the lethal dose (LD) that
"the administration of an essentially no-response level (LD-1) of a mercury
salt together with a 1/20 of the LD-1 of a lead salt killed all of the
animals." If the toxicity were additive only 1 to 2 rats of 100 should have
died, instead 100% died. (J. Shubert, E. Riley & S. Tyler. Combined Effects
in Toxicology--A Rapid Systemic Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury and
Lead. J.Toxicology and Environmental Health v4, p763, 1978.) What the data
from several studies clearly shows is that no one can state what is a "safe"
level of mercury exposure without knowing the concentration of all other
factors that may synergistically exacerbate mercury toxicity.
10. Synergistic effects on ethylmercury is demonstrated by the dramatic
enhancements of thimersosal toxicity against neurons in culture by aluminum
cation (Al3+), antibiotics and testosterone. Al3+ is another component of
vaccines and dramatically increases the killing of neurons by thimerosal.
Testosterone, at low nanomolar levels is not noticeably toxic to neurons.
However, if testosterone is present with low nanomolar levels of thimerosal
the rate of neuron death is greatly enhanced, more so than with Al3+. This
likely explains the 4 to 1 ratio of boys to girls that become autistic and
the fact that most of the severe cases of autism are boys. This involvement
of testosterone in autism is further supported by the work of Dr. Baron
Cohen of England who studied the amniotic fluid of mothers who gave birth to
autistic children. The only abnormality he found was that their amniotic
fluid contained elevated testosterone. It is likely that this early elevated
testosterone level rendered these children at enhanced risk for ethylmercury
neurotoxicity.
11. There are two common misconceptions fostered by pro-amalgam supporters
concerning mercury amalgam filings: (1) that the mercury in dental amalgam
is all chemically bound and not released at significant rates; and (2) that
amalgam mercury is in a form that is biologically inactive. We have tested
this in a direct fashion in my laboratory by soaking amalgams in distilled
water and then testing these solutions for toxicity in a manner similar to
our testing of solutions known to contain specific amounts of Hg2+. The
results were unequivocal, solutions in which amalgams were soaked for only
one hour gave very similar effects on inhibiting the activity of tubulin and
creatine kinase, two enzymes previously reported to be greatly inhibited in
Alzheimer's diseased brain as compared to age-matched normal brain (B.
Haley, The Relationship of the Toxic Effects of Mercury to Exacerbation of
the Medical Conditions Classified as Alzheimer's Disease, Nordisk Tidsskrift
for Biologisk Medisin, 2003.) Therefore, amalgams likely created a cytotoxic
environment in situ as report by others also.
12. By definition, an amalgam is a mixture of uncharged metal powders in
elemental form that is mixed with liquid mercury to form an emulsion that
hardens with time. Amalgams are not an alloy similar to steel or bronze.
Furthermore, in the case of dental amalgam, all of the elements that are
used to form amalgam have totally filled electron shells and form what is
known as metallic bonds. Mercury is a liquid because it makes very weak
metallic bonds, even with other metals, and this bonding is reversible
allowing bound mercury to become unbound and escape as a vaporous atom, Hg0,
at a rate that is significant. As such, there does not exist an irreversible
covalent bond between mercury and the other metals that is caused by two
elements binding to fill in shells with missing electrons. This means that,
unlike most chemically bound molecules, the elements that are mixed in an
amalgam do not lose their individual elemental properties on release from
the amalgam, unless this release is caused by electro-galvanism. Simply put,
mercury vapor emitting from amalgams does not lose any of its toxicity
because it was at one time inside of a dental amalgam. As shown in study
after study, mercury vapor is emitted from amalgams at substantial and toxic
amounts, and is then distributed within the human body. The claims made by
ADA spokesperson, even by one past director for the NIDCR, that mercury in
amalgams is like sodium in table salt, or like hydrogen in water, represent
what would be considered as preposterous by anyone knowledgeable in freshman
level general chemistry.
13. As to the second misconception, all of the metal elements in amalgam,
including mercury, are not biologically inactive. As noted in numerous
studies, some of which are cited herein, mercury emits from amalgams on a 24
hour a day basis.9 The emissions are increased based on the introduction of
hot substances, such as beverages (coffee and the sort), with chewing (such
as chewing gum or food) and with galvanism as Hg (the simple electrical
current set up between different metals in the mouth and ionic saliva.)
Additionally, numerous interactions cause the scratching of the amalgams,
again causing an increase in mercury vapor emissions. This includes the
grinding of teeth. Once the mercury vapor is emitted it enters the body and
is converted to toxic Hg2+ inside of cells by a specific enzyme (catalyase).
In the blood it is carried to various organs, including, but not limited to,
the brain as supported by various studies, some of which are cited herein.
Based on this, mercury vapor from dental amalgams cannot be said to be
biologically inactive as it is rapidly converted to a toxic form once inside
a cell.
14. Equally unsupportable, scientifically, is any "estimate" that amalgams
emit mercury at minute amounts under a tenth of a microgram per day as
suggested by an ADA pro-amalgam spokesperson at the last congressional
Hearing. Applying simple math to this "estimate" of 0.1
micrograms/day/amalgam confirms this inaccuracy. If one would divide the 0.1
microgram/day amount by 8, 640 (24 hours/day X 60 minutes/hour X 6 ten
second intervals/minute) to calculate the amount of mercury in micrograms
available for a ten second mercury vapor analysis. This equals 1.16 X 10-5
micrograms total. Assume the oral cavity is somewhere between 10cm3 to 100
cm3 volume (note that 1 milliliter equals 1 cm3) then 1.16 X 10-6
micrograms/cm3 or 1.16 X 10-7micrograms/cm3 would be obtained from a single
amalgam. Note that the conventional vapor sniffer reads at its lowest
setting about 10 micrograms/meter3 or 10 micrograms/ 1,000,000 cm3 or
0.000001 or 10-6 micrograms/cm3. Therefore, the readings from 0.1 microgram
mercury released/day/amalgam in a 10 second reading would give values in a
10 cm3 oral volume that are barely if at all detectable. In a 100 cm3 oral
volume it would take about 8-9 fillings to get a minimal reading on a vapor
sniffer. This indicates that it would almost be impossible to detect mercury
emitting from one amalgam or several if the "estimate" of the ADA
spokesperson were accurate.
However, the mercury vapor sniffer has been used by numerous individuals
to detect mercury vapor in a human mouth or oral volume, and in my opinion
the levels reported would underestimate the amount of mercury emitting from
a single amalgam because of the following. Consider that somewhere between
one-half to five-sixths of the mercury released would enter the body through
the tooth (that area of the amalgam that exists below the visibly exposed
amalgam surface) and not into the oral air. While the margins between a
tooth and an amalgam filling are small they are large compared to an atom of
mercury vapor. So mercury does enter readily through this route. In
addition, some mercury in the oral air would be rapidly absorbed from the
air into the saliva and oral mucosa since mercury is a lipophilic (or
hydrophobic) vapor. This mercury would not be measured by the mercury
analyzer and yet would enter the body. Further, as the mercury analyzer
pulls mercury containing oral air into the analysis chamber, mercury free
ambient air rushes into the oral cavity decreasing the mercury
concentration.
Taking all of this into account one can calculate that most mercury
analyzers could not detect this "estimated" 0.10 micrograms/day level of
mercury even if the test subject had several amalgams. However, it is quite
easy to detect mercury emitting from one amalgam using these analyzers.
Therefore, it is impossible for daily emissions from amalgam to be anything
less than the detection limits of an analyzer in a 10 second test.
Separately, if amalgam is gently rubbed with a toothbrush the amount of
mercury emitted, as measured by a commercial mercury vapor sniffer,
increases dramatically. As I have cited herein, mercury emissions from
amalgams increase substantially when hot liquids are introduced or when the
individual is chewing.10
15. Additionally, it is also important to note that measurement of mercury
emissions by a mercury vapor analyzer in the human mouth tends to greatly
underestimatethe amount of mercury exiting the amalgam as it does not
measure much of the mercury that is rapidly absorbed in saliva and oral
mucosa. Also, as the analyzer pulls mercury contaminated air out of the
mouth, mercury concentrations are also decreased as mercury free ambient air
rushes in the oral cavity.
16. It is also important to note that when it comes to amalgam fillings,
the concern is chronic, not acute, exposures. Basically, in the case of an
acute exposure, one would be exposed to a large amount of mercury in a
single dosage that, in and of itself, may or may not be toxic. In the case
of chronic exposures, while an individual exposure may not be toxic, the
concern is the sum of the exposures. With amalgams, the exposure is
constant, 24 hours a day (chronic), and increases with the introduction of
various elements, such as chewing and the like, and also the introduction of
other chemicals which may act synergistically with mercury. Furthermore,
mercury accumulates within the human body in various organs and remains
there for prolonged periods of time as a "retention toxicity." A "retention
toxicity" from mercury differs from most conventional toxicities as the
toxin is not removed, but remains and builds up. For example, getting drunk
or alcohol toxic one night, the toxicity is cleared by the body as it
metabolizes the alcohol to other compounds. Mercury, being an element cannot
be metabolically changed and, most importantly, forms a long-term attachment
(or covalent bond) with proteins inside of cells and organelles, causing
what is called retention toxicity as the level of mercury can build up with
continuous chronic exposure.
In fact, mercury has been shown to remain in human organs for years after
initial exposure accumulating in the brain, kidney, and lung.11 Specific to
amalgam and the central nervous system, low doses of mercury vapor enter and
remain within motor neurons for prolonged periods of time. According to
various studies, these are levels well within the WHO guidelines for
occupational exposure.12 Simply put, these published studies show that
amounts of mercury that are considered within safe limits reaches the
central nervous system, and accumulates to toxic levels via "retention
toxicity." Mercury can be lodged in various organs causing toxicity for a
prolonged period of time. This is of particular concern with amalgams, as
mercury continuously accumulates in a given subject for years, adding up to
potentially toxic levels in many individuals, including, as noted below, the
developing fetus.
17. Any claim on the part of the ADA or established dental organizations
that a zinc oxide layer is formed on the amalgams that decreases mercury
release can only be true if an individual is not using his or her teeth.
Note that zinc is listed at "trace levels" in amalgams. How can trace levels
cover the 50% mercury? However, in the real world, any zinc oxide layer is
easily removed by slight abrasion such as chewing food or brushing the
teeth. Further, my laboratory has confirmed that solutions in which amalgams
have been soaked can cause the inhibition of brain proteins that are
inhibited by adding mercury chloride, and these are the same enzymes
inhibited in AD brain samples.
18. Even more concerning is that at least some of the inorganic mercury
that is emitted from amalgams is converted to methylmercury, a more toxic,
organic form of mercury.13 This strongly indicates that "organo mercury
species" are indeed capable of being made in the human body and likely
explains the appearance of methylmercury in the blood and urine of
individuals who do not eat seafood, but do have amalgam fillings.
19. The bottom line is that amalgams emit significant levels of neurotoxic
mercury that are injurious to human health and would exacerbate the medical
condition of those individuals with neurological diseases such as
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ("ALS" or "Lou Gehrig's Disease") 14 ,
Multiple Sclerosis ("MS"), Parkinson's, autism and Alzheimer's Disease
("AD"). For example, mercury inhibits the same enzymes in normal brain
tissues as are inhibited in Alzheimer's Disease.15 AD is pathologically
confirmed post-mortem by the appearance of neuro-fibillary tangles (NFTs)
and amyloid plaques in brain tissue. Published research, within the past
year, has shown that exposure of neurons in culture to sub-lethal doses of
mercury (much less than is observed in human brain tissue) causes the
formations of NFTs,16 the increased secretion of beta-amyloid protein and
the hyper-phosphorylation of a protein called Tau.17All three of these
mercury-induced aberrancies are regularly identified by world class scholars
as the major diagnostic markers for AD. Yet the ADA states there is no
scientific data published to indicate that mercury from amalgams could
contribute to these diseases.
20. Furthermore, mercury from amalgams is transferred from a pregnant
mother to the developing fetus, causing increased mercury body burden in
children solely based on the presence of amalgams in the mother.18 Mercury
exposure is even more devastating to the developing brain than to an adult
brain. This has been shown in study after study culminating with the recent
publication by Dr. Lorscheider, et al., showing brain neuron degeneration
from small amounts of mercury and conclusively proving that such
degeneration does not occur with the introduction of any other element,
including lead.19 The research mentioned above on the levels of mercury in
the birth-hair of children increasing with the mother's amalgam clearly
demonstrates that mercury from dental amalgams enters the child in utero as
has been previously reported.
21. Also, low level exposures like those associated with amalgam fillings
and the resultant increase in the mercury body burden are toxic to the
central nervous system.20 These can cause from severe to subtle
neuropsychological functions such as depression of performance, intellectual
functioning, impairments of attention, impairment of short-term memory
function, visual judgment of angles and directions, psychomotor retardation
and personality changes. As further proof that these are mercury related,
scientists have shown that in some cases, the effects can be reversed simply
by removal of the source of mercury intoxication, together with proper
medical treatment. 21 Mercury from fillings also leads to "considerable
concentrations of [mercury] in the olfactory bulbs."22 This may also explain
the phenomena of Alzheimer's patients losing their sense of smell in the
early stages of the disease. (Kovacs, T., Cairns, N.J., Lantos, P.L.
Olfactory Centres in Alzheimer's disease: Olfactory bulb is Involved in
Early Braak's Stages. Neuroreport 12(2): 285-288, 2001 and Gray, A.J.,
Staples, V., Murren, K., Dahariwal, A. and Benthan, P. Olfactory
Identification is Impaired in Clinic-Based Patients with Vascular Dementia
and Senile Dementia of Alzheimer's type. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 16 (5):
513-517, 2001.)
22. Mercury from dental fillings has also been associated with adverse
effects in the cardiovascular system, including high blood pressure, low
heart rate, low hemoglobin, and low hematocrit. 23
23. Many of the experiments that show mercury emission and exposure from
dental amalgams are so simple and inexpensive to do that they could have
should have been completed many years ago, in the 1950's and 60's. Yet, they
have not been done, or at least not reported on, despite numerous requests
by concerned citizens by the agencies and bureaucracies that today testify
that amalgams are safe. This includes the ADA and dental branch of the FDA.
It is important to note that I do not hold the entire FDA responsible for
the actions of the dental branch of the FDA. Other researchers also doing
these tests do not find amalgams safe based on the continuous, chronic
release of mercury. The fact that both the national Academy of sciences and
the EPA warn the government of the dangers of the level of mercury found in
Americans and the NIH and WHO studies that amalgams are the major
contributor to the mercury body burden of humans. Couple this with the
certain fact that mercury, and only mercury of the toxic metals, can mimic
the aberrant biochemistry and produce the components of the widely accepted
diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease and it should be obvious that
all exposures to mercury should be held to the lowest levels.
24. Finally, science has produced compelling evidence at the biological
level that mercury can cause the aberrancies found in Alzheimer's disease.
Recent research has shown both strong biological plausibility and
epidemiological studies regarding ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal in
vaccinations being the cause of the devastating disease of autism and
related disorder. Yet, our organizations and bureaucracies formed to protect
us deny even the possibility that mercury or organic mercury is involved in
the causation or exacerbation of these diseases. One only needs to know the
history of Pink disease (acyrodynia) to understand that proving mercury
involvement in disease is quite difficult due to genetic susceptibility.
However, all of the scientific and biomedical facts together emphasizes the
need for congressional action to stop the exposure of Americans to mercury
and organic mercury compounds.
Mark Probert
> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:wiStg.2633$F_6...@fe12.lga...
>
> (...)
>
>> You assumption is absurd. Did the children have high levels of mercury at
>> birth? If not, the current blood test is useless.
>>
>> Even so, since I feel that autism is 99% genetic, there would be no issue
>> for me.
>
> The problem is that the data do not indicate that autism is 99% genetic.
> There are clearly a lot of environment factors involved as well.
We are far too early in the investigation to rule that out. Like I said
I *feel* it is. I read every study that comes from PubMed on this, and
it is looking more and more like it is a genetic disorder, with a
*remote possibility* of an environmental trigger, ASSUMING THAT THE
GENES ARE THERE. This would explain why not all of the kids who were
exposed to Thimerosal developed autism.
> I should point out that the data, coming from different sources, indicate
> that neither mercury nor organomercury pounds (e.g., ethyl- and
> methylmercury) are not causes of autism.
100% agreement.
Jason Johnson
<markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Probert
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.
Jason Johnson
<markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. 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.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan Drew
Note how Mark adds the word *epidemiological*.
One should NOT read his fingers, or his postings.
http://www.flu.org.cn/news/2004986362.htm
Thimerosal,New study reopens debate on vaccinations
Published: Sep ,8,2004 16:21 PM
By ###
Special to The Wall Street Journal & Medicalnewstoday
By Tara Parker-Pope
The Wall Street Journal
Just a few months after the nation's top medical adviser rejected a link
between vaccines and autism, a mouse study has reignited the debate and
raised new fears among parents considering vaccinations and flu shots for
their kids.
For years, a cadre of parents and physicians have contended that thimerosal,
an ethyl-mercury compound that has been one of the most widely used vaccine
preservatives, is partly responsible for an apparent rise in autism in
recent decades. But broad population studies haven't supported the claim. In
May, a major report from the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety
Review Committee rejected a link between autism and vaccines.
But today, a congressional committee will review a June study from Columbia
University, which found that a preservative used in vaccines can cause
autism-like symptoms in a specific strain of mice. The research raises
questions about whether some people might be genetically vulnerable to the
effects of thimerosal.
The study also raises questions about a new push by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to add flu shots to the immunization schedule for
school-age kids. The vast majority of flu shots given still contain the
preservative.
In the study, researchers administered thimerosal to four strains of young
mice. Three of the mice strains were unaffected by thimerosal, but the
fourth developed problems consistent with autism such as delayed growth,
social withdrawal and brain abnormalities. The mice were known to have a
genetic susceptibility to mercury.
Thimerosal, found in childhood vaccines, can increase the risk of
autism-like damage in mice
A new study indicates that postnatal exposure to thimerosal, a mercury
preservative commonly used in a number of childhood vaccines, can lead to
the development of autism-like damage in autoimmune disease susceptible
mice. This animal model, the first to show that the administration of
low-dose ethylmercury can lead to behavioral and neurological changes in the
developing brain, reinforces previous studies showing that a genetic
predisposition affects risk in combination with certain environmental
triggers. The study was conducted by researchers at the Jerome L. and Dawn
Greene
Infectious Disease Laboratory at the Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University. Over the past 20 years, there has been a striking
increase--at least ten-fold since 1985--in the number of children diagnosed
with autism spectrum disorders. Genetic factors alone cannot account for
this rise in prevalence. Researchers at the Mailman School, led by Dr. Mady
Hornig, created an animal model to explore the relationship between
thimerosal (ethylmercury) and autism, hypothesizing that the combination of
genetic susceptibility and environmental exposure to mercury in childhood
vaccines may cause neurotoxicity.
Cumulative mercury burden through other sources, including in utero
exposures to mercury in fish or vaccines, may also lead to damage in
susceptible hosts. Timing and quantity of thimerosal dosing for the mouse
model were developed using the U.S. immunization schedule for children, with
doses calculated for mice based on 10th percentile weight of U.S. boys at
age two, four, six, and twelve months.
The researchers found the subset of autoimmune disease susceptible mice with
thimerosal exposure to express many important aspects of the behavioral and
neuropathologic features of autism spectrum disorders, including:
Abnormal response to novel environments;
Behavioral impoverishment (limited range of behaviors and decreased
exploration of environment); Significant abnormalities in brain
architecture, affecting areas subserving emotion and cognition; Increased
brain size.
These findings have relevance for identification of autism cases relating to
environmental factors; design of treatment strategies; and development of
rational immunization programs. The use of thimerosal in vaccines has been
reduced over the past few years, although it is still present in some
influenza vaccines. Identifying the connection between genetic
susceptibility and an environmental trigger for autism--in this case
thimerosal exposure--is important because it may promote discovery of
effective interventions for and limit exposure in a specific population,
stated the lead author Dr. Mady Hornig. Because the developing brain can be
exposed to toxins that are long gone by the time symptoms appear, clues
gathered in these animal models can then be evaluated through prospective
human birth cohorts--providing a powerful to tool to dissect the interaction
between genes and the environment over time.
Citation source: Molecular Psychiatry 2004 Volume 9, advance on line
publication doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001529
For further information on this work, please contact Mady Hornig, MD,
Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Greene Infectious
Disease Laboratory, 722 W 168th St, New York, New York 10032, United States
of America, phone: 212-342-9036; FAX: 949-824-1229; e-mail:
mh2...@columbia.edu
ARTICLE: "Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse
strain-dependent"
M Hornig, D Chian, W. I. Lipkin
Greene Infectious Disease Laboratory, Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University, 722 W 168th St, New York, New York 10032
1: Neurotoxicology. 2005 Jan;26(1):1-8. Related Articles, Links
Thimerosal neurotoxicity is associated with glutathione depletion:
protection with glutathione precursors.
James SJ, Slikker W 3rd, Melnyk S, New E, Pogribna M, Jernigan S.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and
Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute, Little Rock, AR 72202, USA.
jame...@uams.edu
Thimerosol is an antiseptic containing 49.5% ethyl mercury that has been
used for years as a preservative in many infant vaccines and in flu
vaccines. Environmental methyl mercury has been shown to be highly
neurotoxic, especially to the developing brain. Because mercury has a high
affinity for thiol (sulfhydryl (-SH)) groups, the thiol-containing
antioxidant, glutathione (GSH), provides the major intracellular defense
against mercury-induced neurotoxicity. Cultured neuroblastoma cells were
found to have lower levels of GSH and increased sensitivity to thimerosol
toxicity compared to glioblastoma cells that have higher basal levels of
intracellular GSH. Thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with
depletion of intracellular GSH in both cell lines. Pretreatment with 100
microM glutathione ethyl ester or N-acetylcysteine (NAC), but not
methionine, resulted in a significant increase in intracellular GSH in both
cell types. Further, pretreatment of the cells with glutathione ethyl ester
or NAC prevented cytotoxicity with exposure to 15 microM Thimerosal.
Although Thimerosal has been recently removed from most children's vaccines,
it is still present in flu vaccines given to pregnant women, the elderly,
and to children in developing countries. The potential protective effect of
GSH or NAC against mercury toxicity warrants further research as possible
adjunct therapy to individuals still receiving Thimerosal-containing
vaccinations.
PMID: 15527868 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Mol Psychiatry. 2004 Sep;9(9):833-45. Related Articles, Links
Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent.
Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI.
Jerome L and Dawn Greene Infectious Disease Laboratory, Department of
Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New
York, NY 10032, USA. mady....@columbia.edu
The developing brain is uniquely susceptible to the neurotoxic hazard posed
by mercurials. Host differences in maturation, metabolism, nutrition, sex,
and autoimmunity influence outcomes. How population-based variability
affects the safety of the ethylmercury-containing vaccine preservative,
thimerosal, is unknown. Reported increases in the prevalence of autism, a
highly heritable neuropsychiatric condition, are intensifying public focus
on environmental exposures such as thimerosal. Immune profiles and family
history in autism are frequently consistent with autoimmunity. We
hypothesized that autoimmune propensity influences outcomes in mice
following thimerosal challenges that mimic routine childhood immunizations.
Autoimmune disease-sensitive SJL/J mice showed growth delay; reduced
locomotion; exaggerated response to novelty; and densely packed,
hyperchromic hippocampal neurons with altered glutamate receptors and
transporters. Strains resistant to autoimmunity, C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ, were
not susceptible. These findings implicate genetic influences and provide a
model for investigating thimerosal-related neurotoxicity.
PMID: 15184908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://poisonevercure.150m.com/autism.htm
Autistic children are shown to retain abnormally high concentrations of
mercury from environmental sources such as vaccines.
********* (Until recently, the FDA administration concealed their knowledge
that thimerosal has been known to cross through the blood-brain barrier and
concentrate in the brain).***********
In a recent communication with Congressman Dr. Weldon, CDC conceded that
some of the routinely recommended vaccines contained the full amount of
thimerosal (25 mcg) as late as 2003. Those are not to expire until towards
the end of 2005. There is no existing reason to believe that manufactures
have it in mind to completely remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines in
the near future. Much to my alarm, documents recently obtained from the
World Health Organization (WHO)state that their policy is to lobby strongly
for maintaining thimerosal in vaccines as they see it necessary to use
childhood vaccines in third world countries. The mentality is that if
thimerosal is taken out of American childhood vaccines, the third world
countries will not accept thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines. This
seems to be a clear disturbing indication that, for whatever reason, WHO
desires to inoculate third world country populations with thimerosal
containing vaccines. This is an agency that claims to have an interest in
making sure that children in developing countries have the best
opportunities at life. How is that possible when they are being
deliberately poisoned with high concentrations of a neurotoxins?
There exists many decades worth of peer-reviewed literature (literally
hundreds) on the dangers of thimerosal which include case-reports, animal
studies, tissues culture studies, genetic studies, toxicology studies, and
biochemical studies. According to the above article, CDC, HHS and AAP warns
that 1/166 children have autistic spectrum disorders and even more alarming,
1/6 children have developmental and or behavioral disorders.
The World Health Organization's (WHO) Expert Committee on Biological
Standardization acknowledges that thimerosal is essential during vaccine
production to inactivate certain pathogenic organisms and toxins and prevent
microbial growth during vaccine storage and use. (click here to view
document). Read the Eli Lilly's, manufacturer of thimerosal, safety data
sheet on thimerosal. According to this document, thimerosal will react with
strong oxidizing agents and one listed is peroxides. Another vaccine
component. Also listed are the effects, including signs and symptoms of
exposure such as topical allergic dermatitis, topical hypersensitivity
reactions. Early signs of mercury poisoning are noted as nervous system
effects which include narrowing of the visual field and numbness in the
extremities. "Exposure to mercury in utero and in children can cause mild
to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination's
impairment". Primary routes of entry are listed as inhalation and skin
contact. For shipping information, there's no question of the label:
POISONS accompanied by the skull and bones picture label.
Mercury over stimulates the brain's immune system. Over stimulation of the
brain results in activation of the microglia widely dispersed in the brain.
When the microglia are activated, they release toxins killing surrounding
brains cells. Prolonged stimulation of the microglia by too many vaccines
kills far too many brain cells.
Though, some may find the reasoning of this imitation form of immunization
to make sense and logic, studying the peer review, lab work and studies
conducting the safety of such the practice will encourage you to think
twice. The dangers of inoculating children and adults with vile
microorganisms is potentially fatal. World Health Organization is privy to
this information. Other material indicate they know that more children
would die and or die quicker without the thimerosal. Sounds insane, but a
fact worth keeping in mind and or researching on your own. So, in order to
inactivate these microorganisms something even more toxic is needed to do
just that. That's where the thimerosal comes in. These facts alone should
raise a few eyebrows. Remember, in the records of mercury toxicology, it
only takes 35 mcg to kill a rabbit. Now, think about how much is in each
vaccine. There's 25mcg in Hib, Pneumococcal (except for Prevnar), DTaP, all
Tetanus brands. Then there's 12.5 in the Hep b. How much thimerosal is
needed should be your other indicator of the dangers of vaccines. The next
indicator is how many doses children receive by school registration.
It's one Russian roulette game after another to keep the big bucks packing
into the pockets of the big dogs.
Mol Psychiatry. 2004 Sep;9(9):833-45.Related Articles, Links
Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent.
Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI.
Jerome L and Dawn Greene Infectious Disease Laboratory, Department of
Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New
York, NY 10032, USA. mady....@columbia.edu
The developing brain is uniquely susceptible to the neurotoxic hazard posed
by mercurials. Host differences in maturation, metabolism, nutrition, sex,
and autoimmunity influence outcomes. How population-based variability
affects the safety of the ethylmercury-containing vaccine preservative,
thimerosal, is unknown. Reported increases in the prevalence of autism, a
highly heritable neuropsychiatric condition, are intensifying public focus
on environmental exposures such as thimerosal. Immune profiles and family
history in autism are frequently consistent with autoimmunity. We
hypothesized that autoimmune propensity influences outcomes in mice
following thimerosal challenges that mimic routine childhood immunizations.
Autoimmune disease-sensitive SJL/J mice showed growth delay; reduced
locomotion; exaggerated response to novelty; and densely packed,
hyperchromic hippocampal neurons with altered glutamate receptors and
transporters. Strains resistant to autoimmunity, C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ, were
not susceptible. These findings implicate genetic influences and provide a
model for investigating thimerosal-related neurotoxicity.
PMID: 15184908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1: Neurotoxicology. 1989 Winter;10(4):699-706.Related Articles, Links
Effect of organic and inorganic mercuric salts on Na+K+ATPase in different
cerebral fractions in control and intrauterine growth-retarded rats:
alterations induced by serotonin.
Chanez C, Flexor MA, Bourre JM.
Unite 26, INSERM, Hopital Fernand WIDAL, Paris, France.
An intrauterine growth-retarded (IUGR) model based on restriction of blood
supply to the rat fetus at the 17th day of pregnancy was studied. We
investigated in vitro the effects of thimerosal and mercuric chloride on
Na+K+ATPase activity in total brain homogenate, synaptosomes and myelin at
weaning. In addition, we evaluated the reversal effect of serotonin on
mercury-inhibited Na+K+ATPase activity. The toxicity, in terms of inhibition
of Na+K+ATPase activity was greater with mercuric chloride than with
thimerosal. Synaptosomes and principally myelin were more sensitive to the
metal salts than total homogenate. Serotonin stimulated the Na+K+ATPase
activity in total brain homogenate and synaptosomes but inhibited the enzyme
in the myelin fraction. This effect was more marked in the IUGR group than
in the control group. Serotonin (1 mM) added to total homogenate pretreated
with the mercury salts produced variable reversal effects. In the
synaptosomal fraction reverse effect was noted with serotonin. In myelin
fraction, added serotonin increased inhibition caused by thimerosal.
PMID: 2562765 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1: Int J Biochem. 1983;15(1):5-7.Related Articles, Links
Rat brain (Na+-K+)ATPase: modulation of its ouabain-sensitive K+-PNPPase
activity by thimerosal.
Lewis RN, Bowler K.
1. The (Na+ + K+) ATPase activity of a rat brain synaptic membrane
preparation was inhibited by 10(-5) M thimerosal. 2. The ouabain inhibitable
K+-PNPPase activity of thimerosal treated membranes was compared with that
of untreated membranes with respect to sensitivity to temperature, ouabain,
K+ and ATP. 3. All those kinetic characteristics were substantially altered
by treatment with thimerosal.
PMID: 6298022 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
pharmacist friend maintains multiple dose vials of flu vaccine all
contain mercury as a preservative/antibacterial. the single dose vials
do not have mercury as a preservative, but have had mercury added
during the initial processing of the vaccine. the resultant single
dose vials have a minute amount of mercury, esp in comparison to the
multiple dose vials. one can request one's physician order single
dose vial flu vaccine. It is more expensive.
(2-5-04) BOSTON, Mass. - According to new research from Northeastern
University pharmacy professor Richard Deth and colleagues from the
University of Nebraska, Tufts, and Johns Hopkins University, there is
an apparent link between exposure to certain neurodevelopmental toxins
and an increased possibility of developing neurological disorders
including autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The
research - the first to offer an explanation for possible causes of
two increasingly common childhood neurological disorders - is
published today in the April 2004 issue of the journal Molecular
Psychiatry.
Though some speculation exists regarding this link, Deth and his
colleagues found that exposure to toxins, such as ethanol and heavy
metals (including lead, aluminum and the ethylmercury-containing
preservative thimerosal) potently interrupt growth factor signaling,
causing adverse effects on methylation reactions (i.e. the transfer of
carbon atoms). Methylation, in turn, plays a significant role in
regulating normal DNA function and gene expression, and is critical to
proper neurological development in infants and children. Scientists and
practitioners have identified an increase in diagnoses of autism and
ADHD in particular, though the reasons why are largely unknown.
In their work, the scientists found that insulin-like growth factor-1
(IGF-1) and the neurotransmitter dopamine both stimulated
folate-dependent methylation pathways in neuronal cells. At the same
time they noted that compounds like thimerosal, ethanol and metals
(like lead and mercury) effectively inhibited these same biochemical
pathways at concentrations that are typically found following
vaccination or other sources of exposure. By better understanding what
happens when infants and children are exposed to these materials, the
work of Deth and his colleagues helps to explain how environmental
contact with metals and administration of certain vaccines may lead to
serious disorders that manifest themselves during childhood, including
autism and ADHD.
"Scientists certainly acknowledge that exposure to neurotoxins like
ethanol and heavy metals can cause developmental disorders, but until
now, the precise mechanisms underlying their toxicity have not been
known," said Deth. "The recent increase in the incidence of autism
led us to speculate that environmental exposures, including vaccine
additives might contribute to the triggering of this disorder."
Thimerosal, which was largely phased out in the U.S. and in Europe
starting in 2000,was often used for its preservative abilities in
multi-dose units of vaccines for diseases like hepatitis, whooping
cough, tetanus and diptheria. Today, most vaccines carry only trace
amounts of it, according to the CDC. But in larger, multi-dose vials of
these vaccines, often shipped to and used in third world countries,
thimerosal is still very common. Multi-dose flu vaccines still contain
thimerosal.
Additionally, the scientists recently obtained more insight into the
mechanism by which thimerosal interferes with folate-dependent
methylation. It acts by inhibiting the biosynthesis of the active form
of vitamin B12 (methylcobalamin), which is of particular interest
because doctors treating autistic kids are having good success with the
administration of methycobalamin.
Northeastern University, a private research institution located in
Boston, Massachusetts, is a world leader in practice-oriented
education. Building on its flagship cooperative education program,
Northeastern links classroom learning with workplace experience and
integrates professional preparation with study in the liberal arts and
sciences. U.S. News & World Report, in its annual guide America's
Best Colleges, 2003, ranked Northeastern University number one in the
country among programs that "require or encourage students to apply
what they're learning in the classroom out in the real world." In
addition, Northeastern's career services was top ranked by Kaplan
Newsweek's "Unofficial Insiders Guide to the 320 Most Interesting
Colleges and Universities," 2003 edition. For more information, please
visit http://www.northeastern.edu.
Paper in full at this link:
http://www.nupr.neu.edu/2-04/deth_article.pdf
Mol Psychiatry. 2004 Apr;9(4):358-70. Related Articles, Links
Activation of methionine synthase by insulin-like growth factor-1 and
dopamine: a target for neurodevelopmental toxins and thimerosal.
Waly M, Olteanu H, Banerjee R, Choi SW, Mason JB, Parker BS, Sukumar S,
Shim S, Sharma A, Benzecry JM, Power-Charnitsky VA, Deth RC.
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston,
MA 02115, USA.
Methylation events play a critical role in the ability of growth
factors to promote normal development. Neurodevelopmental toxins, such
as ethanol and heavy metals, interrupt growth factor signaling, raising
the possibility that they might exert adverse effects on methylation.
We found that insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1)- and
dopamine-stimulated methionine synthase (MS) activity and
folate-dependent methylation of phospholipids in SH-SY5Y human
neuroblastoma cells, via a PI3-kinase- and MAP-kinase-dependent
mechanism. The stimulation of this pathway increased DNA methylation,
while its inhibition increased methylation-sensitive gene expression.
Ethanol potently interfered with IGF-1 activation of MS and blocked its
effect on DNA methylation, whereas it did not inhibit the effects of
dopamine. Metal ions potently affected IGF-1 and dopamine-stimulated MS
activity, as well as folate-dependent phospholipid methylation: Cu(2+)
promoted enzyme activity and methylation, while Cu(+), Pb(2+), Hg(2+)
and Al(3+) were inhibitory. The ethylmercury-containing preservative
thimerosal inhibited both IGF-1- and dopamine-stimulated methylation
with an IC(50) of 1 nM and eliminated MS activity. Our findings outline
a novel growth factor signaling pathway that regulates MS activity and
thereby modulates methylation reactions, including DNA methylation. The
potent inhibition of this pathway by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum
and thimerosal suggests that it may be an important target of
neurodevelopmental toxins.
PMID: 14745455 [PubMed - in process]
Medical News Today
Thimerosal, found in childhood vaccines, can increase the risk of
autism-like damage in mice
09 Jun 2004
A new study indicates that postnatal exposure to thimerosal, a mercury
preservative commonly used in a number of childhood vaccines, can lead to
the development of autism-like damage in autoimmune disease susceptible
mice. This animal model, the first to show that the administration of
low-dose ethylmercury can lead to behavioral and neurological changes in
the developing brain, reinforces previous studies showing that a genetic
predisposition affects risk in combination with certain environmental
triggers. The study was conducted by researchers at the Jerome L. and Dawn
Greene
Infectious Disease Laboratory at the Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University. Over the past 20 years, there has been a striking
increase--at least ten-fold since 1985--in the number of children
diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. Genetic factors alone cannot
account for this rise in prevalence. Researchers at the Mailman School,
led by Dr. Mady Hornig, created an animal model to explore the
relationship between thimerosal (ethylmercury) and autism, hypothesizing
that the combination of genetic susceptibility and environmental exposure
to mercury in childhood vaccines may cause neurotoxicity.
Cumulative mercury burden through other sources, including in utero
exposures to mercury in fish or vaccines, may also lead to damage in
susceptible hosts. Timing and quantity of thimerosal dosing for the mouse
model were developed using the U.S. immunization schedule for children,
with doses calculated for mice based on 10th percentile weight of U.S.
boys at age two, four, six, and twelve months.
The researchers found the subset of autoimmune disease susceptible mice
with thimerosal exposure to express many important aspects of the
behavioral and neuropathologic features of autism spectrum disorders,
including:
Abnormal response to novel environments;
Behavioral impoverishment (limited range of behaviors and decreased
exploration of environment); Significant abnormalities in brain
architecture, affecting areas subserving emotion and cognition; Increased
brain size.
These findings have relevance for identification of autism cases relating
to environmental factors; design of treatment strategies; and development
of rational immunization programs. The use of thimerosal in vaccines has
been reduced over the past few years, although it is still present in some
influenza vaccines. Identifying the connection between genetic
susceptibility and an environmental trigger for autism--in this case
thimerosal exposure--is important because it may promote discovery of
effective interventions for and limit exposure in a specific population,
stated the lead author Dr. Mady Hornig. Because the developing brain can
be exposed to toxins that are long gone by the time symptoms appear, clues
gathered in these animal models can then be evaluated through prospective
human birth cohorts--providing a powerful to tool to dissect the
interaction between genes and the environment over time.
Citation source: Molecular Psychiatry 2004 Volume 9, advance on line
publication doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001529
For further information on this work, please contact Mady Hornig, MD,
Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Greene Infectious
Disease Laboratory, 722 W 168th St, New York, New York 10032, United
States of America, phone: 212-342-9036; FAX: 949-824-1229; e-mail:
mh2...@columbia.edu
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/asdexperts.htm
http://www.thecre.com/quality/2005/20050825f_quality.html
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Why Won't the CDC Allow Access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink?
Memo to CDC: We're not getting our money's worth
David Kirby
May 23, 2005
Can mercury in vaccines cause autism in children? This hotly disputed
question will only burn brighter as more biological evidence surfaces to
suggest a link. But a definitive answer might take years. Meanwhile, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is sitting on a
multi-million-dollar database - paid for by you and me - that could probably
resolve this contretemps within weeks.
They have the data. We paid for the data. Yet we cannot see the data. The
information is kept under lock and key within the massive health agency --
as jealously guarded as nuclear secrets.
The CDC tells us that they have looked at the data exhaustively and found
"no evidence of harm." They implied that their own scientists are perfectly
capable of analyzing the data, thank you very much, and outside researchers
cannot be trusted to independently verify their analyses, nor to protect the
confidentiality of patients whose numbers they would be crunching.
But, as any high school student can tell you, the replication of a study is
the hallmark of all good science. Without access to the raw data originally
used by the CDC researchers, it is impossible to verify their work. All we
can do is trust that they got it right.
The CDC, which has budgeted nearly $200 million to operate the Vaccine
Safety Datalink, spent four years analyzing data from children who received
varying amounts of thimerosal in their vaccines. The study went through five
different permutations before being published in November, 2003. Early study
"generations," which were never meant to see the light of day, showed highly
elevated, statistically significant increased risks for autism and other
disorders among the kids receiving the most mercury.
But by the time the study was published, most of these associations had
somehow disappeared entirely.
Only two outside researchers, Mark and David Geier, have managed to gain
access to the raw CDC data. They faced daunting hurdles to get into the CDC
computer center, and nearly crippling software malfunctions once they were
inside. But among the data they did manage to mine, they reportedly found
highly elevated risks for autism among children in the highest mercury
exposure group.
So we now have two extremely different interpretations of the same data. It
is way past time that the CDC allow a third team - outside researchers
completely acceptable to all parties involved in this dispute - into the
database to conduct any analyses they see fit. (Patients names are removed
from the data, making it exceedingly hard for researchers to identify
anyone, even if they desired, which is extremely unlikely in itself).
It sounds reasonable, it sounds nice. But don't hold your breath. The CDC is
hardly issuing engraved invitations to come trawl its mainframes, despite a
harshly written report earlier this year from the Institute of Medicine. The
IOM complained of CDC foot dragging, and even insolence, on this matter, and
suggested that vaccine officials at the health agency seek "legal counsel."
Why? Because the original datasets of children used by the government have,
as they say, gone missing. (Actually, the official explanation was that they
"were not archived in a standard fashion.") The intentional loss or
destruction of taxpayer funded data or datasets is a violation of the
Federal Data Quality Act. It is a felony, and someone could go to jail for
it.
Meanwhile, the data just sit there. Our data, not theirs. CDC officials
insist they have an "open mind" on this issue, and that thimerosal has not
been ruled out as a possible cause of autism and other disorders. But they
also insist that the vaccine safety database yielded no evidence of harm.
If that is true, then why are they so reluctant to let someone else in to
verify this claim? I cannot answer that question, because the CDC is not
talking to me. But I do know that people with nothing to hide are
unencumbered by doubts of what others will find if they rifle through their
closet.
If the data can prove that injecting a known neurotoxin into infants at
levels up to 125 times over federal safety limits was a safe and sane thing
to do, then why isn't the CDC having an open house for all researchers worth
their salt to come on down and have a look-see for themselves?
Without access to the raw data, parents who support the thimerosal theory -
and their allies in Congress, academia and law - are falling back on other
recent studies that show a possible link between mercury and autism. They
may not have the epidemiology on their side, yet, but the mounting evidence
emerging from the fields of biology and toxicology is becoming too urgent to
ignore. Recent published studies have shown:
+ Autistic children retain mercury at much higher rates than non-autistic
kids.
+ Autistic children lack certain sulfur-based proteins that bind to heavy
metals and remove them from the body.
+ Autistic children have a dysfunctional immune profile generally consistent
with mercury toxicity.
+ The rate of increase in reported autism cases peaked between 1987 and
1992, the same years that new mercury-containing vaccines were added to the
U.S. schedule.
+ Mice with autoimmune disorders react horrifically to mercury exposure from
vaccines, whereas typical mice of the same species do not.
+ In primates, mercury from vaccines was more likely to become trapped in
the brain than mercury from fish.
+ Children who live near mercury spewing power plants have an elevated risk
of developing autism.
These are all intriguing, to be sure. But what we really need is to get our
hands on the raw CDC data - our data.
David Kirby is author of "Evidence of Harm" (St. Martin's Press)
www.evidenceofharm.com
Jeff
"Jason Johnson" <ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-14070...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
(...)
> 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
> Jason
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan Drew
> 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?
>> I would assume that the autism MAY have been caused by mercury.
>
> You assumption is absurd. Did the children have high levels of mercury at
> birth? If not, the current blood test is useless.
Wow!!! What nonsense.
http://www.flu.org.cn/news/2004986362.htm
Cumulative mercury burden through other sources, including in utero
exposures to mercury in fish or vaccines, may also lead to damage in
susceptible hosts.
==
it is still present in flu vaccines given to pregnant women.
The developing brain is uniquely susceptible to the neurotoxic hazard posed
by mercurials. Host differences in maturation, metabolism, nutrition, sex,
and autoimmunity influence outcomes. How population-based variability
affects the safety of the ethylmercury-containing vaccine preservative,
thimerosal, is unknown. Reported increases in the prevalence of autism, a
highly heritable neuropsychiatric condition, are intensifying public focus
on environmental exposures such as thimerosal. Immune profiles and family
history in autism are frequently consistent with autoimmunity. We
hypothesized that autoimmune propensity influences outcomes in mice
following thimerosal challenges that mimic routine childhood immunizations.
Autoimmune disease-sensitive SJL/J mice showed growth delay; reduced
locomotion; exaggerated response to novelty; and densely packed,
hyperchromic hippocampal neurons with altered glutamate receptors and
transporters. Strains resistant to autoimmunity, C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ, were
not susceptible. These findings implicate genetic influences and provide a
model for investigating thimerosal-related neurotoxicity.
PMID: 15184908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Neurotoxicology. 1989 Winter;10(4):699-706.Related Articles, Links
Effect of organic and inorganic mercuric salts on Na+K+ATPase in different
cerebral fractions in control and intrauterine growth-retarded rats:
alterations induced by serotonin.
Chanez C, Flexor MA, Bourre JM.
Unite 26, INSERM, Hopital Fernand WIDAL, Paris, France.
An intrauterine growth-retarded (IUGR) model based on restriction of blood
supply to the rat fetus at the 17th day of pregnancy was studied. We
investigated in vitro the effects of thimerosal and mercuric chloride on
Na+K+ATPase activity in total brain homogenate, synaptosomes and myelin at
weaning. In addition, we evaluated the reversal effect of serotonin on
mercury-inhibited Na+K+ATPase activity. The toxicity, in terms of inhibition
of Na+K+ATPase activity was greater with mercuric chloride than with
thimerosal. Synaptosomes and principally myelin were more sensitive to the
metal salts than total homogenate. Serotonin stimulated the Na+K+ATPase
activity in total brain homogenate and synaptosomes but inhibited the enzyme
in the myelin fraction. This effect was more marked in the IUGR group than
in the control group. Serotonin (1 mM) added to total homogenate pretreated
with the mercury salts produced variable reversal effects. In the
synaptosomal fraction reverse effect was noted with
>
> Even so, since I feel that autism is 99% genetic, there would be no issue
> for me.
Of course. Neither is thimerosal.
>
> I would want the mercury levels for the kids addressed, to prevent future
> problems.
But..NOT past problems.
Mark is here to try and protect *organized and conventional* medicine.
Jason Johnson
<kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff
Correct. But we can be certain that the postition of Jupiter at one's birth
doesn't cause autism. Likewise, we can be certain that autism is not caused
by mercury, even if we don't know the exact cause.
> 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.
Of course, if we knew organic mercury were the cause of autism, we would
take steps to limit the amount of organic mercury that children and young
women are exposed to even more than they are now. In other words, just
because we don't know what causes something, we don't have to assume that
something that has been eliminated for all practical reasons as a cause is
the cause.
>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.
It seems unlikely that heavy metals play much of a role. The type of damage
in the brain when brain tissue is examined under the microscope is different
for mercury (and organic mercury) poisoning and autism. I would be very
surprised to learn that there is any type of posioning that looks similar
under the microscope to the damage done in autism.
Nonetheless, there is something triggering autism, and it is not just
genetics.
Jeff
> Jason
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason Johnson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff,
Scientists will be able to figure it out. Would it be possible to give
laboratory rats (or other test animals) various types and doses of mercury
and other heavy metals to see if it triggers autism. I guess if it was
that simple, we would already know the exact cause of autism. Do you have
any ideas on how scientists could track down the cause?
Jason
Jan Drew
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觔m/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/è‹”rticles/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/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/
http://www.drgreene.com/21_1904.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/mercury-autism-and-the-c_b_3184.html
http://www.life-enthusiast.com/index.php?Q1=Concerns&Q2=Autism
http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/1/autism_mercury.htm
Jan Drew
Two blatant lies. Evidence has been clearly posted over and over.
Rich
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9k0ug.49054$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.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/
vernon
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?
Jason Johnson
<there@there> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Probert
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.
Mark Probert
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:9k0ug.49054$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>> Try reading comprehension. What I said is that there is no evidence of
>>> causation. None. It is nothing more than a theory, and that is why Boyd
>>> Haley, et al, were excluded from testifying. All the evidence says
>>> otherwise.
>> Two blatant lies. Evidence has been clearly posted over and over.
>
> Not lies, blatant or otherwise. The links you post from "Altcorp" and
> "WhaleTo" and other anti-vac liar sites do not constitute evidence no matter
> how warm and fuzzy they make you feel. As for lies, "I posted it with the
> permission of the author" is a lie. YOU are the blatant liar here and that
> has been irrefutably proven.
Not only that...Haley was barred from testifying because the judge found
that he only has a theory, and no proof.
Jan Drew
Dr. Geier and Dr. Haley were not qualified because his cuasation theory was
filled with
speculation that is
*****directly contary to the **conclusions** reached in well
respected and numberous epidemiologicand medical studies********.
Period.
Jan Drew
> Rich wrote:
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:9k0ug.49054$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.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.
>
>
Rich
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
Exactly! The conclusions reached by all those well-respected studies were
that there is no connection between vaccination or Thimerosal and autism.
Geier's and Haley's causation theories are directly contrary to those
conclusions.
Period.
Rich
>
> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:eksug.2375$nj6....@fe08.lga...
>> Rich wrote:
>>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:9k0ug.49054$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.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.
Am not. YOU are.
> He can see no lies.
I can see "I posted it with the permission of the author."
>
> [there was no lump,lump head...is a fine example]
No, it's not, and that's been explained to you. I won't explain it again
because you are too stubborn and stupid to understand.
>
>
> The links you post from "Altcorp" and
>>> "WhaleTo" and other anti-vac liar sites do not constitute evidence no
>>> matter
>
> Yes, they do.
No, they don't. They are not scientific studies published in peer reviewed
journals. They include no data, no information about how their conclusions
were reached, and no guidance for how their results could be replicated.
It's not science; it's not evidence.
>
>
>>> 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!
Do you really think it's funny that you are a PROVEN liar and thief?
Jason Johnson
<markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello,
Good point. In relation to the military, I should have been more clear--I
was referring to the dangers of mercury poisoning--not autism. As you may
know, when people have higher than normal levels of mercury--the symptoms
may not show up for several years or even be blamed on other medical or
psychological problems. Some of the symptoms of mercury poisoning are:
short term mermory loss
mood swings
anxiety
depression
fits of anger
irritability
indecision
excitability
fatique
headaches
Did any of those 250 people have any of those symptoms of mercury poisoning?
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason Johnson
<jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich,
It would be better to test them for medical problems 10 years after they
were exposed to all of those things. I recall watching a television show
about 15 years ago. They took a camera crew to Viet Nam. They showed
hundreds of little children that had missing arms and legs. A doctor on
the camera crew tested the blood of those children. The doctor concluded
that the handicaps were caused by exposure to agent orange. Those children
were not born until after the war but the food they ate was grown on soil
that was contaminated with agent orange and the water supply (from the
river) had high levels of agent orange. They showed children playing and
swimming in that river. They ate fish from that same river.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Bowditch
Pretty conclusive, isn't it, Jan? I'm glad you agree that Haley's
speculation was contrary to real science. At last you seem to be
getting the point about the fool.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
vernon
Yes, there is absolutely no reason for heavy metals of any type to be in
anything except for known, purposeful, therapeutic reasons.
Jan Drew
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xstug.16586$MF6...@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Conclusions. Judgments.
> Geier's and Haley's causation theories are directly contrary to those
> conclusions.
Judgments. Period.
>
> Period.
> --
>
>
> --Rich
Jan Drew
"Peter Bowditch" blathered:
Yep. *organized medicine*.
I'm glad you agree that Haley's
> speculation was contrary to real science.
Where did you see that?
You did not.
At last you seem to be
> getting the point about the fool.
YOU are the fool.
> --
> Peter Bowditch
Jan Drew
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:fSsug.121872$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> news:eksug.2375$nj6....@fe08.lga...
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:9k0ug.49054$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.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.
>
> Am not. YOU are.
Lied again.
>
>> He can see no lies.
>>
>> [there was no lump,lump head...is a fine example]
>
> No, it's not,
Yes, it is. A blatant lie.
[ ]
>>
>> The links you post from "Altcorp" and
>>>> "WhaleTo" and other anti-vac liar sites do not constitute evidence no
>>>> matter
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>
> No, they don't.
Yes, they do.
They are not scientific studies published in peer reviewed
> journals. They include no data, no information about how their conclusions
> were reached, and no guidance for how their results could be replicated.
> It's not science; it's not evidence.
Liar.
>> 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.
> --
>
>
> --Rich
Jan Drew
*Anecdotes can be made up. They teach how in the P.T. Barnum School Of
Internet Marketing, Scamming and MLMing.*
*Anecdotes are Bullshit...*
*Anecdotes are bullshit and prove nothing.*
> --
>
>
> --Rich
Rich
I'm not trying to prove any scientific theory or the efficacy of any
medication or treatment. I'm just telling a story for illustration. That's
very different from using anecdote to sell homeopathy or chiropractic.
Rich
>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Exactly! The conclusions reached by all those well-respected studies were
>> that there is no connection between vaccination or Thimerosal and autism.
>
> Conclusions. Judgments.
>
>
>
>> Geier's and Haley's causation theories are directly contrary to those
>> conclusions.
>
> Judgments. Period.
>>
>> Period.
LOL! You've once again demonstrated your inability to read with
comprehension. Print this out and ask any intelligent person you know to
explain it to you.
--
;o) Rich
Rich
>
Enough of "Is!" "Is NOT!" Everyone here knows who the real liar is.