Robert F Kennedy explains vaccines and the autism coverup

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?

stevejazzx · 12-07-2009 9:51pm

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Going by

a) his qualification
b) his expertise on the specific topic at hand

http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

(there is a list of his published papers on there.)

'crank' as you call is plain incorrect and a little poorly researched on behalf of yourself. He's far more qualified than you or I to make statements on this. So he either

a) believes this himself
b) your theory: he is monstrously evil and is in it to sell books.

km wrote:

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

Hmm. There is simply no way you read that article and made that comment. You skimmed over it. In it he admonishes the CDC scientists for mixing up the types of mercury. He is apparently quite an authority on it. Has done a numbers of published papers on it.

km wrote:

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.

Not really. I am good friends with an Egyptian oncologist who recently attended a conference in Switzerland which was sponsored by a large pharmaceutical company. After the conference the speakers lobbyists asked for the doctors present to lend their support to a new drug even though the evidence presented at the talk was new and in no way could be properly examined by any of the participants. His then told me that at least half of those present signed their consensus for it. This may be anecdotal but I have no reason not to believe an otherwise perfectly honest individual.

km wrote:

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

actually no I can't.
My first post states clearly that I am undecided. That should have set you straight. But I imagine you thought you smelt a CT and thought you sniff him out. Sorry.

km wrote:

But vaccines don't contain pure mercury.

This is getting embarrassing. Ethyl mercury is neuro toxic. It just clears from the body quicker (although as stated everywhere with consensus there isn't a whole lot of data on this) but that doesn't help (it clearing quicker) in high risk cases (newborns, people with suppressive immuno disorders, elderly etc.)

km wrote:

What exactly leads you to believe there is a link?

Research supports mercury-autism linkBy Michael Wagnitz

It was reported repeatedly in 2006 that the link between mercury-containing vaccines and autism has been disproven. Yet if one looks at the most recent research coming from some of our major universities, one may draw the opposite conclusion.

What we have learned in the last couple of years is that the underlying medical condition of autism is neuroinflammatory disease. In a study conducted at John Hopkins University, brain tissue from deceased autistic patients was examined. The tissue showed an active neuroinflammatory process and marked activation of microglia cells. Neuroinflammatory disease is synonymous with an activation of microglia cells.

A study done at the University of Washington showed that baby primates exposed to injected thimerosal (50 percent mercury), at a rate equal to the 1990s childhood vaccine schedule, retained twice as much inorganic mercury in their brains as primates exposed to equal amounts of ingested methylmercury. We know from autometallographic determination that inorganic mercury present in the brain, following the dealkylation of organic mercury, is the toxic agent responsible for changes in the microglial population and leads to neuroinflammation.

Recently it was shown that in more than 250 examined patients, atypical urinary porphyrins were almost three times higher in autistic patients than controls. Porphyrins are precursors to heme, the oxygen-carrying component of blood. Mercury inhibits the conversion of porphyrins to heme. When the patients were treated to remove mercury, urinary porphyrins returned to normal levels.

In a study done at the University of Arkansas, autistic children were found to have significantly lower levels of the antioxidant glutathione. Glutathione is the major antioxidant needed for the elimination of mercury at the cellular level. This may explain why some children are more severely affected by thimerosal in vaccines than others.

While all the government-conducted epidemiological (statistical) studies show no link between thimerosal and autism, the clinical studies examining brain tissue, blood, urine and human cells show a completely different picture.

Michael Wagnitz is a Madison resident with more than 20 years of experience as a chemist working with trace metal analysis.

Published: February 27, 2007

km wrote:

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

Yeah one guy, with tonnes of references an official government report, personal expertise and no apparent motive for lying except delirium.

Oh btw it's not one guy.
And I think I've made point. I'll bow out now. I've seen these go on and on. I'm making no outlandish claims and you're choosing 100% the official government spin. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between.

King Mob · 12-07-2009 10:45pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

Going by

a) his qualification
b) his expertise on the specific topic at hand

http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

(there is a list of his published papers on there.)

'crank' as you call is plain incorrect and a little poorly researched on behalf of yourself. He's far more qualified than you or I to make statements on this. So he either

And as we all know doctors are infallible and can't be wrong on something. Even if the the vast majority of other doctors (with actual research) disagree.

stevejazzx wrote: »

a) believes this himself
b) your theory: he is monstrously evil and is in it to sell books.

I never said that.
But if you believe that the CDC are out for profit and alter science accordingly, why can't this guy misrepresent science for a similar reason?

stevejazzx wrote: »

Hmm. There is simply no way you read that article and made that comment. You skimmed over it. In it he admonishes the CDC scientists for mixing up the types of mercury. He is apparently quite an authority on it. Has done a numbers of published papers on it.

Because it's a biased analysis of a meeting, not a scientific paper.
Just because he is an authority doesn't make him right.
What about all the other authorities that disagree with him?

stevejazzx wrote: »

Not really. I am good friends with an Egyptian oncologist who recently attended a conference in Switzerland which was sponsored by a large pharmaceutical company. After the conference the speakers lobbyists asked for the doctors present to lend their support to a new drug even though the evidence presented at the talk was new and in no way could be properly examined by any of the participants. His then told me that at least half of those present signed their consensus for it. This may be anecdotal but I have no reason not to believe an otherwise perfectly honest individual.

Yes it is anecdotal.
You said yourself that the evidence was presented at the talk.
What did this support entail exactly? Further study? More tests? Approval for sale?
Your not exactly giving an abundance of facts on this.

stevejazzx wrote: »

actually no I can't.
My first post states clearly that I am undecided. That should have set you straight. But I imagine you thought you smelt a CT and thought you sniff him out. Sorry.

Yes your first post linked to this.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/
Japanese Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

I stated the fact that the scientific consensus says otherwise.

stevejazzx wrote: »

This is getting embarrassing. Ethyl mercury is neuro toxic. It just clears from the body quicker (although as stated everywhere with consensus there isn't a whole lot of data on this) but that doesn't help (it clearing quicker) in high risk cases (newborns, people with suppressive immuno disorders, elderly etc.)

Dude full fat milk is harmful to newborn infants.
Loads of medicines are harmful to all those groups. That's why they are high risk.

The ethylmercury that was in vaccine where at a safe level.
The fact it does clear the body quickly is a very big deal.

Oh and the fact ethylmercury is completely different chemically to pure mercury.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Research supports mercury-autism linkBy Michael WagnitzIt was reported repeatedly in 2006 that the link between mercury-containing vaccines and autism has been disproven. Yet if one looks at the most recent research coming from some of our major universities, one may draw the opposite conclusion.What we have learned in the last couple of years is that the underlying medical condition of autism is neuroinflammatory disease. In a study conducted at John Hopkins University, brain tissue from deceased autistic patients was examined. The tissue showed an active neuroinflammatory process and marked activation of microglia cells. Neuroinflammatory disease is synonymous with an activation of microglia cells.A study done at the University of Washington showed that baby primates exposed to injected thimerosal (50 percent mercury), at a rate equal to the 1990s childhood vaccine schedule, retained twice as much inorganic mercury in their brains as primates exposed to equal amounts of ingested methylmercury. We know from autometallographic determination that inorganic mercury present in the brain, following the dealkylation of organic mercury, is the toxic agent responsible for changes in the microglial population and leads to neuroinflammation.Recently it was shown that in more than 250 examined patients, atypical urinary porphyrins were almost three times higher in autistic patients than controls. Porphyrins are precursors to heme, the oxygen-carrying component of blood. Mercury inhibits the conversion of porphyrins to heme. When the patients were treated to remove mercury, urinary porphyrins returned to normal levels.In a study done at the University of Arkansas, autistic children were found to have significantly lower levels of the antioxidant glutathione. Glutathione is the major antioxidant needed for the elimination of mercury at the cellular level. This may explain why some children are more severely affected by thimerosal in vaccines than others.While all the government-conducted epidemiological (statistical) studies show no link between thimerosal and autism, the clinical studies examining brain tissue, blood, urine and human cells show a completely different picture.Michael Wagnitz is a Madison resident with more than 20 years of experience as a chemist working with trace metal analysis.Published: February 27, 2007

And what about the studies I linked in my first post? Did you read them?
Cause they all show there was no decrease in the rate of autism when Thimersol was removed.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yeah one guy, with tonnes of references an official government report, personal expertise and no apparent motive for lying except delirium.

Oh btw it's not one guy.

And it's completely impossible that he simply has the wrong idea?
And no the whole movement is not one guy.
But numbers don't equal scientific evidence.

stevejazzx wrote: »

And I think I've made point. I'll bow out now. I've seen these go on and on. I'm making no outlandish claims and you're choosing 100% the official government spin. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between.

No I'm believing the scientific consensus which is supported by the evidence.

Why exactly do you believe the guys with no evidence?

the_syco · 12-07-2009 11:34pm

samson09 wrote: »

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:

<snip>

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.

I've highlighted the "may be" in both paragraphs.

cahill31 · 12-07-2009 11:43pm

Here is a link to the most recent study on the subject of a connection between Autism and Thimerosal
http://dprogram.net/2009/07/10/new-study-proves-thimerosal-induces-autism-like-neurotoxicity/

samson09 · 12-07-2009 11:57pm

cahill31 wrote: »

Here is a link to the most recent study on the subject of a connection between Autism and Thimerosal
http://dprogram.net/2009/07/10/new-study-proves-thimerosal-induces-autism-like-neurotoxicity/

Nice find cahill

King Mob · 13-07-2009 12:00am

cahill31 wrote: »

Here is a link to the most recent study on the subject of a connection between Autism and Thimerosal
http://dprogram.net/2009/07/10/new-study-proves-thimerosal-induces-autism-like-neurotoxicity/

Well here's a much larger study involving actual autistic children not just in vitro cells that says otherwise.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281

The weight of the evidence in this study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins administered prenatally or during infancy and neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years.

cahill31 · 13-07-2009 12:35am

King Mob wrote: »

Well here's a much larger study involving actual autistic children not just in vitro cells that says otherwise.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281

Yeah it definitely says otherwise.

[FONT=arial, helvetica] "Higher prenatal mercury exposure was associated with better performance on one measure of language"[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]"Increasing levels of mercury exposure from birth to 7 months were associated with better performance on one measure of fine motor coordination and on one measure of attention and executive functioning.[/FONT]"

Mercury is good for you now? I didn't know that. Thanks New England Journal!

King Mob · 13-07-2009 12:39am

cahill31 wrote: »

Yeah it definitely says otherwise.

[FONT=arial, helvetica] "Higher prenatal mercury exposure was associated with better performance on one measure of language"[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]"Increasing levels of mercury exposure from birth to 7 months were associated with better performance on one measure of fine motor coordination and on one measure of attention and executive functioning.[/FONT]"

Mercury is good for you now? I didn't know that. Thanks New England Journal!

That's not what they say.

So you gonna actually comment on the science of the paper?

You know the bit that actually shows no link between autism and vaccines?

cahill31 · 13-07-2009 12:57am

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what they say.

So you gonna actually comment on the science of the paper?

You know the bit that actually shows no link between autism and vaccines?

But it is what they say, its in plain English.
Also, no I'm not going to comment on the science of the paper because I came across something more interesting.

"[SIZE=-1]Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.[/SIZE]"

Vaccine manufacturers supported the study! ROFL. Conflicts of interest spring to mind?

the_syco · 13-07-2009 1:03am

cahill31 wrote: »

Vaccine manufacturers supported the study! ROFL. Conflicts of interest spring to mind?

And yet when it's pointed that out about the authors of the studies you link to have conflicts of interest, you assume it's lies?

Robert F Kennedy explains vaccines and the autism coverup

Comments