Robert F Kennedy explains vaccines and the autism coverup

samson09 · 26-06-2009 7:14pm #1

As the vaccine issue has popped up on another thread, I thought people might find the following video interesting. There is a lot of info. available on the dangers of vaccines, I can post more info. if people are interested.

Watch the video, mull over it and let me know what you think.

Are the dangers of vaccines real or is this just another "conspiracy theory"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry7toSjjgXE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnaturalnews%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

Additional links:

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/#

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDF

tallaght01 · 26-06-2009 7:54pm

alas, and still no lower rates of autism in kids who haven't been vaccinated.

But who cares about that :P

King Mob · 26-06-2009 8:00pm

The scientific consensus is clear: vaccines do not cause autism.

The evidence is clear: there is no link what so ever between vaccination and autism.

But if RFK says so....

He is a doctor with a good basis for making these claims right?

2Scoops · 26-06-2009 8:00pm

Not only that, but no reductions in autism prevalence following the removal of the mercury-based compound thimerosal (the subject of the vid above) from vaccines, despite huge increases in autism awareness.

samson09 · 26-06-2009 8:09pm

I assume none of the above posters has bothered to read the full report.

That saying "ignorance is bliss" springs to mind here.

King Mob · 26-06-2009 8:15pm

I have actually.

The claims are the same baseless claims every other anti vaxxer makes.

It still does not change the fact that all the evidence shows clearly that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

Here's an article that explains it quite well.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4055

tallaght01 · 26-06-2009 8:17pm

samson09 wrote: »

I assume none of the above posters has bothered to read the full report.

That saying "ignorance is bliss" springs to mind here.

I can be reasonably certain that you've read a lot less of the actual science behind this than me or 2scoops. Reading opinions does not equal reading science.

Do your own literature searches, and make your own mind up. People will spin science to you in all kinds of way.

Don't let them take you for a ride. Read some science, come into bio+med and ask people to help you interpret the papers, and make your own mind up.

Robert F kennedy hasn't interpreted the science correctly. Don't let him bring you down with him.

2Scoops · 26-06-2009 8:28pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Robert F kennedy hasn't interpreted the science correctly.

Robert F hasn't even read the science himself.

samson09 wrote:

I assume none of the above posters has bothered to read the full report.

I did. And I watched the video. What am I missing? What's the conpiracy?

tallaght01 · 26-06-2009 8:33pm

2Scoops wrote: »

Robert F hasn't even read the science himself.

Well, he's read some of the abstracts, because he quotes them word for word. :P

watty · 26-06-2009 9:14pm

Politicians have a tendency to watch for votes than naunces of scientific debate.

But the facts are clear. The anti-vaccine campains have cost lives and illness. What tiny evidence there was of a link was incorrect. There is no evidence of a link.

2Scoops · 26-06-2009 9:28pm

watty wrote: »

Politicians have a tendency to watch for votes than naunces of scientific debate.

Robert F Jnr. isn't even a politician; he's a lawyer and author.

Jocksereire · 26-06-2009 10:05pm

hi Samson, you might like to read this
http://www.vishet.se/sm6gqw/f2h/dispell.htm

samson09 · 27-06-2009 4:19pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

I can be reasonably certain that you've read a lot less of the actual science behind this than me or 2scoops. Reading opinions does not equal reading science.

Do your own literature searches, and make your own mind up. People will spin science to you in all kinds of way.

Don't let them take you for a ride. Read some science, come into bio+med and ask people to help you interpret the papers, and make your own mind up.

Robert F kennedy hasn't interpreted the science correctly. Don't let him bring you down with him.

I'm more than capable of deciding what is the truth and what is junk science. You may continue to believe in your "tobacco science" all you want or maybe you should try reading some of the information posted in this thread.

tallaght01 · 27-06-2009 4:23pm

samson09 wrote: »

You may continue to believe in your "tobacco science" all you want .

LOL and that signals the end of any hope of sensible conversation

Au revoir :P

King Mob · 27-06-2009 4:31pm

samson09 wrote: »

I'm more than capable of deciding what is the truth and what is junk science.

Really?
How do you determine what is truth and junk science without relying of peer reviewed research?
Doesn't seem like you can.

samson09 wrote: »

You may continue to believe in your "tobacco science" all you want

As opposed to the celebrity science?
Because that's all that supports the link between autism and vaccines.
The actual science (the verifiable honest kind) is quite clear on the matter.

samson09 wrote: »

or maybe you should try reading some of the information posted in this thread.

But he has.
There's no basis for the claims.

I wonder if you looked at the link I provided?

samson09 · 27-06-2009 4:45pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

LOL and that signals the end of any hope of sensible conversation

Au revoir :P

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

http://www.naturalnews.com/022479_vaccines_mercury_autism.html

"Junk science and faulty conclusions

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

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

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

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

Here's an example to explain this a bit more:

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

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

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

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

Obviously you will claim the source is unreliable, it's all lies and the only "true" science is the one that you are a part of.

A growing number of people are realising the truth and it is only a matter of time before these liars are exposed.

tallaght01 · 27-06-2009 4:52pm

Like I said, I'm done here. But if only you could see how sloppy the science is in what you've just printed.

It's awful. And you haven't a clue.

I work in paediatrics. I have no reason to want to give kids something that could harm them.

But you literally have no idea what you're talking about. I rarely say that about anyone. But you're literally buying anything that's sold to you. It's sad. Thankfully fabrications, such as what you've posted above will never ever have any chance to influence policy and harm our kids.

But, don't let facts stand in the way etc etc

King Mob · 27-06-2009 4:56pm

samson09 wrote: »

"Junk science and faulty conclusions

Perfectly describes that article.

samson09 · 27-06-2009 5:24pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Like I said, I'm done here. But if only you could see how sloppy the science is in what you've just printed.

It's awful. And you haven't a clue.

I work in paediatrics. I have no reason to want to give kids something that could harm them.

But you literally have no idea what you're talking about. I rarely say that about anyone. But you're literally buying anything that's sold to you. It's sad. Thankfully fabrications, such as what you've posted above will never ever have any chance to influence policy and harm our kids.

But, don't let facts stand in the way etc etc

I do know what I am talking about. The lies and corruption of conventional medicine will be exposed, hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

King Mob · 27-06-2009 5:58pm

samson09 wrote: »

I do know what I am talking about. The lies and corruption of conventional medicine will be exposed, hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

So you're exposing the lies by spreading other lies and half truths?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

samson09 · 28-06-2009 3:30pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Like I said, I'm done here. But if only you could see how sloppy the science is in what you've just printed.

It's awful. And you haven't a clue.

I work in paediatrics. I have no reason to want to give kids something that could harm them.

But you literally have no idea what you're talking about. I rarely say that about anyone. But you're literally buying anything that's sold to you. It's sad. Thankfully fabrications, such as what you've posted above will never ever have any chance to influence policy and harm our kids.

But, don't let facts stand in the way etc etc

According the the forum charter:

• Flaming
Posts containing personal attacks on another user will be edited/deleted. Attack the post, not the poster. Minor infringements will warrant a warning followed by a ban. Serious infringements and/or intentional flaming will receive an automatic ban.

• Respect other posters
Snide remarks and bitching will not be tolerated, nor will accusations thrown at other members of the Boards.ie community. Singling out a poster or posters, including stating things like "some posters on here" could land you in trouble.

• Making the natives restless
This is a catch-all rule for general trolling, bitching and similar. Posting in a manner purely to get a reaction from someone will not be tolerated. If a moderator feels that said poster is doing this intentionally or is the cause of the mess, then the poster can and will be infracted and/or banned. This rule will hopefully put an end to the bitching going on in here of late.

I'm sure the above post ticks one or two of the above boxes.

Please attack the post but not the poster tallaght01.

6th · 28-06-2009 6:18pm

tallaght01, you know how to make your point and be diplomatic, please do so here.

samson, seeing as you've clearly read the chart how did you miss this bit?

• Reporting posts
Please use the report post function if a post breaks the charter or general Boards.ie rules. Please note that reported posts are reviewed by all the mods of this forum. Where action is taken we are under obligation to make those actions public. Do not abuse the report post function. If you report a post please do not then go on to address the post.

samson09 · 28-06-2009 6:23pm

6th wrote: »

tallaght01, you know how to make your point and be diplomatic, please do so here.

samson, seeing as you've clearly read the chart how did you miss this bit?

I didnt miss it, its just that I reported it yesterday and nothing had been done so felt the need to highlight the forum charter myself. In hindsight I should have allowed more time for the mods to respond, apologies.

6th · 28-06-2009 6:30pm

And the bit in the charter which says about arguing with a mod in a thread? Rhetorical btw.

Now I've given out warning so from this point on i expect everyone to be back on topic and to behave civil.

Nehaxak · 29-06-2009 3:12am

Far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong as the HSE are not the most open and transparent of agencies in Ireland - Thimerosal is no longer used in vaccinations in Ireland.

The statistics though available, particularly for China after the introduction of vaccinations which do use Thimerosal are truly shocking and damning, Autism rates going from zero to 1.8 million in a single year after Thimerosal's introduction. :eek:

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2009 3:29am

Nehaxak wrote: »

Far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong as the HSE are not the most open and transparent of agencies in Ireland - Thimerosal is no longer used in vaccinations in Ireland.

The statistics though available, particularly for China after the introduction of vaccinations which do use Thimerosal are truly shocking and damning, Autism rates going from zero to 1.8 million in a single year after Thimerosal's introduction. :eek:

can you provide a link to that source?

as for Doctors not meaning to do any harm, well Thaladymde wasnt considered dangerous til after the babies started being born, Asbestos was the wonder product of the turn of the century, and I distinctly remember seeing old newsreel footage of public health officials spraying kids with DDT in the fifties as a Mozzie repellant.

The Best Current knowledge is all well and good, but thats all it is, current knowledge, whenever anyone comes along and says to a comunity like Doctors, well everything you believed about this particular aspect of your business might just be wrong most wont listen instead refusin to acknowledge that they may have been wrong all this time and may have even put the lives of their patients at risk, its better to just Deny Deny Deny.

Nehaxak · 29-06-2009 3:33am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

can you provide a link to that source?

Sure, read the original post from the original poster - it gives the details within the document he linked.

I'll quote from it though...

In 1999, the federal government began purchasing tens of millions of dollars of thimerosal containing vaccines for export to developing countries.
At that time autism was virtually unknown in the developing world. Our export of thimerosal-containing vaccines has been followed by exploding autism rates in India, Argentina and Nicaragua, and other lands where the
disease had not previously been reported. At the same time, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck began aggressively marketing thimerosal-containing vaccines to China’s communist government.
As David Kirby reports in his new book Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy, a few years after the vaccine manufacturers launched their campaign, the number of cases of children suffering from autism “unexpectedly skyrocketed.”
179

This past August, Xin Hua, China’s news agency, reported that autism rates in China have risen from almost zero previously to 1.8 million cases reported last year. Scientists estimate an astonishing annual growth rate of 20% for the disease in China.

Mahatma coat · 29-06-2009 3:47am

Thanks, the timelines do match up, seems pretty cut and dry to me.

watty · 29-06-2009 9:56am

But how much interest in the past was there in diagnosing Autism?

Don't confuse causuality.

Both consumption of vaccines and diagnoses of more illness will rise in parallel as health services increase where there was less health service before.

You might as well claim that having more doctors makes more people in Asia and Africa sick. It's just without the Doctors we didn't know they were sick, or what in detail they were sick with.

Two statistics can increase at same time without one causing the other.

bonkey · 29-06-2009 12:24pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Best Current knowledge is all well and good, but thats all it is, current knowledge, whenever anyone comes along and says to a comunity like Doctors, well everything you believed about this particular aspect of your business might just be wrong most wont listen instead refusin to acknowledge that they may have been wrong all this time and may have even put the lives of their patients at risk, its better to just Deny Deny Deny.

By "deny" you mean "refuse to work of anything less than the best current knowledge", I assume.

I'm not sure why you make this out to be a bad thing.

You've provided a list of examples where research carried out after general acceptance of a practice caused "best knowledge" to change. Thats exactly how it should work....and yet you then go on to suggest that this either doesn't happen, or perhaps that people should abandon "best knowledge" in favour of "most appealing guess".

samson09 · 30-06-2009 10:16am

For anyone who still considers vaccines to be safe and effective, please have a look at the following list of studies before making up your mind...

http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/references.htm

Ostrom · 30-06-2009 10:20am

Most of those articles are from the 60's and 70's

samson09 · 30-06-2009 12:09pm

efla wrote: »

Most of those articles are from the 60's and 70's

Your point being?

Perhaps it was easier to publish studies that highlighted the dangers of vaccines back then. Suppression of information is a lot more frequent thesedays. Just because some of the articles are old shouldnt mean they arent important.

King Mob · 30-06-2009 2:04pm

Wow the names of those studies sure are scary!

I bet the actual content of them is just as scary. No need to read what they actually say.

And 30 year old articles are at the cutting edge of science.
Medical science hasn't progressed that much in 30 years has it?

Ostrom · 30-06-2009 2:15pm

samson09 wrote: »

Your point being?

Perhaps it was easier to publish studies that highlighted the dangers of vaccines back then. Suppression of information is a lot more frequent thesedays. Just because some of the articles are old shouldnt mean they arent important.

My point being....reasonably self explanatory?

Suppression of information is more frequent? What are you basing this on?

Notwithstanding the obvious world of difference between the state of medical knowledge forty years ago, publication has never been easier, more open, nor more prolific.

The possibilities of circulation, data archiving, citation indexing, global peer review; none of which were to the standard we enjoy today.

Ostrom · 30-06-2009 2:18pm

Bear with me while I pick through your article list...

Postvaccinial Lymphadenitis Developing into Hodgkin's Disease

ABSTRACT. In four cases, Hodgkin's disease developed after vaccination against smallpox (three cases) and diphtheria (one case). The cases are reported and may contribute to the discussion on the aetiology and nature of Hodgkin's disease

Four cases?

Ostrom · 30-06-2009 2:22pm

Hugoson, G et al, "The Occurrence of Bovine Leukosis Following the Introduction of Babesiosis Vaccination", Bibl Haemat, 1968, 30:157-161

This one is about cows

samson09 · 30-06-2009 4:55pm

Keep going, only another 300 plus to go :rolleyes:

If you can seriously overlook all these studies and claim that vaccines are safe I don't know what else to say to you. I'm not trying to be smart and I hope you dont think I'm being condescending but I'm just trying to highlight something that I feel is being kept from people.

The majority of people have the same opinion as you but why wouldnt they? In my opinion, if the companies involved in vaccine production were to admit that they have caused harm, they would quickly find themselves bankrupt due to the flood of lawsuits from people whose lifes have been ruined.And thats just bad "business".

King Mob · 30-06-2009 5:03pm

samson09 wrote: »

Keep going, only another 300 plus to go :rolleyes:

And of those 300 how many are refering to human vaccinations?
And of those how many actual reach the conclusion that vaccines are harmful?

This is just a list of scary sounding articles.

samson09 wrote: »

If you can seriously overlook all these studies and claim that vaccines are safe I don't know what else to say to you. I'm not trying to be smart and I hope you dont think I'm being condescending but I'm just trying to highlight something that I feel is being kept from people.

And what about the studies that do show vaccines are safe? Are they all faked by Big Pharma?

samson09 wrote: »

The majority of people have the same opinion as you but why wouldnt they? In my opinion, if the companies involved in vaccine production were to admit that they have caused harm, they would quickly find themselves bankrupt due to the flood of lawsuits from people whose lifes have been ruined.And thats just bad "business".

But there have already been lawsuits about vaccines causing damage.

DTrotter · 30-06-2009 5:21pm

I won't believe it until I hear from Jenny McCarthy.

Ostrom · 30-06-2009 5:22pm

samson09 wrote: »

Keep going, only another 300 plus to go :rolleyes:

If you can seriously overlook all these studies and claim that vaccines are safe I don't know what else to say to you. I'm not trying to be smart and I hope you dont think I'm being condescending but I'm just trying to highlight something that I feel is being kept from people.

The majority of people have the same opinion as you but why wouldnt they? In my opinion, if the companies involved in vaccine production were to admit that they have caused harm, they would quickly find themselves bankrupt due to the flood of lawsuits from people whose lifes have been ruined.And thats just bad "business".

I'm going to assume (through a logic as baseless as your own conclusions on vaccination) that you are not a doctor, and have not read many completely.

I tend to err on the side of evidence-based conclusion - the weight of evidence in this case suggests vaccination is safe, your exceptions aside (many of which appear to rely on very small samples, and local case studies - using methodologies, and consequently, producing conclusions incomparable with the case under discussion here).

You, on the other hand, have the luxury of arguing from a position beyond reproach

DTrotter · 30-06-2009 5:24pm

efla wrote: »

I'm going to assume (through a logic as baseless as your own conclusions on vaccination) that you are not a doctor, and have not read many completely.

I tend to err on the side of evidence-based conclusion - the weight of evidence in this case suggests vaccination is safe, your exceptions aside (many of which appear to rely on very small samples, and local case studies - using methodologies, and consequently, conclusions incomparable with the case under discussion here).

You, on the other hand, have the luxury of arguing from a position beyond reproach

What are you doing in here?

samson09 · 30-06-2009 5:47pm

efla wrote: »

I'm going to assume (through a logic as baseless as your own conclusions on vaccination) that you are not a doctor, and have not read many completely.

I tend to err on the side of evidence-based conclusion - the weight of evidence in this case suggests vaccination is safe, your exceptions aside (many of which appear to rely on very small samples, and local case studies - using methodologies, and consequently, producing conclusions incomparable with the case under discussion here).

You, on the other hand, have the luxury of arguing from a position beyond reproach

I didnt jump to any conclusions overnight if thats what you think, but in my opinion a lot of the evidence that suggests vaccines are safe is manipulated and unreliable. Again, this is just MY opinion and I dont expect you to agree with me. To be honest, I expect 99% of people to disagree with me but I'd happily settle for people to just keep an open mind on the matter and maybe look into things themselves once in a while.

stevejazzx · 12-07-2009 2:41pm

Certainly one of the pro-vaccine studies often cited is Rutters
but he has appears to have considerable conflict of intrests and his study is widely criticised by other professionals (see link) - I am undecided on the issue.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/

stevejazzx · 12-07-2009 3:14pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

Certainly one of the pro-vaccine studies often cited is Rutters
but he has appears to have considerable conflict of intrests and his study is widely criticised by other professionals (see link) - I am undecided on the issue.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/

also below is a peer reviewed publication read bottom of page 82 & 83
and it simply concludes that it can neither rule in or out thimerasols involvement with neuro disorders and notes that 'mercury is a neurotoxic' chemical.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10208&page=83

King Mob · 12-07-2009 3:28pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

also below is a peer reviewed publication read bottom of page 82 & 83
and it simply concludes that it can neither rule in or out thimerasols involvement with neuro disorders and notes that 'mercury is a neurotoxic' chemical.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10208&page=83

And there has been tons and tons of other papers that conclude that Thiomersal doesn't cause autism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

Most conclusively, eight major studies (as of 2008) examined the effect of reductions or removal of thiomersal from vaccines. All eight demonstrated that autism rates failed to decline despite removal of thiomersal, arguing strongly against a causative role.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Also thiomersal doesn't contain pure mercury, it contains ethylmercury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylmercury.

Mercury is indeed neurotoxic, but the symptoms of mercury poisoning are not the same as autism.

watty · 12-07-2009 6:31pm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1550196&pageindex=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning

There is no evidence that any form of Mercury Poisoning causes Autism.

stevejazzx · 12-07-2009 7:04pm

King Mob wrote: »

And there has been tons and tons of other papers that conclude that Thiomersal doesn't cause autism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

Great. I said I was undecided.

km wrote:

Also thiomersal doesn't contain pure mercury, it contains ethylmercury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylmercury.

It is still toxic - apparently it doesn't accumulate as much and thats why it's used that state.

km wrote:

Mercury is indeed neurotoxic, but the symptoms of mercury poisoning are not the same as autism.

Hmm. Who said they did?
I clearly said Mercury was a neurotoxic, for that matter, so is ethylmercury. But lets stop pretending we're all mercury experts.
Have you seen the cnn 60 minutes clip about the '76 flu outbreak and subsequent vaccine drive. In it the the reporter clearly demonstrates that one of the doctors (in an interview with that same doctor in question speaking very plainly) advising the CDC highlighted to them the danger nueurological diseases relating to that vaccine -information they denied and did not pass on to the public. It is not unreasonable to imagine that similar probelms may exist today. In an ideal world vaccines would be fully trialed before mass realease with that data available to the general public in a highly accessible way like downable PDF etc.

King Mob · 12-07-2009 7:21pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

Great. I said I was undecided.

It is still toxic - apparently it doesn't accumulate as much and thats why it's used that state.

Well so is every chemical in big enough quantities.

The amount of ethymercury in vaccines isn't at dangerous levels. Nor does it accumulate in the body and become a danger.

Alot of anti-vaccination proponents confuse (sometimes deliberately) mercury with ethylmercury and ethylmercury with methylmercury (which does accumulate).

stevejazzx wrote: »

Hmm. Who said they did?

I clearly said Mercury was a neurotoxic, for that matter, so is ethylmercury. But lets stop pretending we're all mercury experts.

But there is no evidence of anyone getting either mercury poisoning or ethylmercury poisoning form normal vaccines.
Why bring up the fact that mercury is neurotoxic?
It has nothing to do with vaccines.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Have you seen the cnn 60 minutes clip about the '76 flu outbreak and subsequent vaccine drive. In it the the reporter clearly demonstrates that one of the doctors (in an interview with that same doctor in question speaking very plainly) advising the CDC highlighted to them the danger nueurological diseases relating to that vaccine -information they denied and did not pass on to the public. It is not unreasonable to imagine that similar probelms may exist today. In an ideal world vaccines would be fully trialed before mass realease with that data available to the general public in a highly accessible way like downable PDF etc.

And there's a difference between imagining something and something being true.
Currently all the evidence shows vaccines are not a cause of autism.
Claiming that vaccine are dangerous when there is no evidence is in fact dangerous itself.

In recent years the level of vaccinations has gone down in parts of America due to such baseless fears. This has lead to several large outbreaks of usually rare and vaccine preventable diseases.
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Preventable_Illnesses.html

There has yet to be any case of autism being caused by a vaccine.

stevejazzx · 12-07-2009 8:56pm

If you really want to understand ethyl mercury see below link
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/17076
You seem to think it's not as harmful?

By the way that's an article linked for the doctor in question explanation of mercury in vaccines and not in support for his coverup theory.

And I have not mentioned autism specifically (at all actually) which you have not picked up on (or else have ignored). I am looking at studies about possible links between vaccines and neurological diseases (not just add/autism etc.) and more specifically the mercury link. I have made no claim that I am right. The closest thing to a claim I make is that I think there be a case for retrospective review of process and certainly I do not not trust the CDC in the states. I think there are serious studies claiming links between mercury and nd's are plausible that are being covered over (if not up). The above article discusses it at lenght.

King Mob · 12-07-2009 9:24pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

If you really want to understand ethyl mercury see below link
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/17076
You seem to think it's not as harmful?

Because there is no reason to believe that it is harmful at the levels in vaccines.
And one crank crying that there's a cover doesn't amount to scientific evidence.

Not too mention this guy is mixing up mercury and ethylmercury all over the place.

stevejazzx wrote: »

By the way that's an article linked for the doctor in question explanation of mercury in vaccines and not in support for his coverup theory.

Yes it's funny how he alludes that anyone who has some kind of financial stake in the science must be involved in a cover up.
Then sell his books on his website.

stevejazzx wrote: »

And I have not mentioned autism specifically (at all actually) which you have not picked up on (or else have ignored).

Well given the title of this thread you can see why I might make that mistake.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I am looking at studies about possible links between vaccines and neurological diseases (not just add/autism etc.) and more specifically the mercury link.

But vaccines don't contain pure mercury.
What exactly leads you to believe there is a link?

stevejazzx wrote: »

I have made no claim that I am right. The closest thing to a claim I make is that I think there be a case for retrospective review of process and certainly I do not not trust the CDC in the states.

But you would trust a single guy on the internet who wrote an article on a site that pretty much publishes anything?

stevejazzx wrote: »

I think there are serious studies claiming links between mercury and nd's are plausible that are being covered over (if not up). The above article discusses it at lenght.

And how do you know that these studies exist?

How do you know it's not just people making a unverifiable claim to explain away the fact their position has nothing to back it up?

Robert F Kennedy explains vaccines and the autism coverup

Comments