FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » nursing
Autism: It's not ancient, it's new.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 6 [77 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:28 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

In article <1152666687.958216.148380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Peter Moran wrote:
Quote:
"Jason Johnson" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1107061517030001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
In article <44b41b55$0$24756$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Peter Moran"
pmoranATbodernet.com.au> wrote:

"Jason Johnson" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1107061152240001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
In article <zKadnfSe_YVzey7ZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com>, "john"
sc@nospam.com> wrote:

this is one of the main lies to hide the vaccine
connection.http://www.whale.to/a/autism_diagnosis.html

"So the first lie to remember today is this: autism is ancient. It's not
ancient, it's new." ------Mark Blaxill, MBA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello,
Perhaps it was called by a different name in ancient times. I recall
that
when I was raised in the mountains of western Virginia, most everyone in
that area had NEVER spent a day in college. They called everyone that
had
various types of mental problems-- "crazy". It's possible they did that
same sort of thing in ancient times.

An example is the medical term "Raynaud Phenomenon". In ancient times,
people did NOT have Raynard Phenomenon. The truth is that lots of people
had it but they called it by a different name.

Scientists still are not 100 percent sure related to the cause of
autism.

Jason

True, but we have been fairly certain from the beginning that it is rarely
if ever caused by vaccines and the evidence against that is becoming
firmer
by the day.

See, for example, http://tinyurl.com/rwytw Quebec removed thiomerasol
from vaccines in 1996. How come autism is, if anything, still
increasing
there?
Those still pushing the autism/mercury line should be feeling embarassed
and also guilty for contributing to a furore that has undoubtedly diverted
resources from research into the true sources of autism.

Peter Moran



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter,
We discussed this in another thread. If mercury IS the cause of autism,
children would STILL develop autism even if they never took a vaccine
containing thimerosal. The reason is: mercury is found in wood
preservatives, paints,
fungicides, cosmetics, foods, dental fillings, and in contaminated fish.

The mercury/autism theory depends upon the expected sensitivity of the
immature brain to mercury and the immature brain of babies and infants is
not liable to be exposed to toxic levels of mercury from any other source.
Is it?

Peter

You wouldn't think so. Furthermore, Jason seems to have been saying
that since there is so much mercury from other sources, one wouldn't
expect the rates of autism in the population to decrease on the removal
of thimerosal from vaccines even if the mercury/autism theory were fact
instead of unsupported theory.

Which is to say that it is an insignificant factor in mercury exposure,
at least until major factors have been removed. If thimerosal makes *no
difference* to autism rates, then the benefits of using the
preservative outweigh the disadvantages (which appear to be none) in
that situation.

Cathy


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
I knew someone would make that point. You won the prize Cathy.
The first step is to start removing mercury from our environment.
The anti-vac crowd wants to start the process by removing mercury
from vaccines. They have won that battle. I hope that their next
step is to remove it from dental fillings. They have not yet won
that battle. I hope they eventually remove it from fish. I hope they
succeed in removing mercury and other heavy metals from our
environment. Mercury and heavy metal poisoning are known medical
problems. The experts at FDA agrees with me related to this issue.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
HCN
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:33 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

"vernon" <there@there> wrote in message
news:44b418a2$0$23438$88260bb3@news-taz.teranews.com...
Quote:

"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OYWdnWNYOJuIcS7ZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...

"john" <sc@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zKadnfSe_YVzey7ZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com...
this is one of the main lies to hide the vaccine
connection.http://www.whale.to/a/autism_diagnosis.html

"So the first lie to remember today is this: autism is ancient. It's not
ancient, it's new." ------Mark Blaxill, MBA



So havind a Masters in Business Administration makes him an expert in the
history of neurology?



History of neurology?

No one needs to know a thing about neurology to recognize or be around the
autistic.

That is, unless you are inferring that autism is secretive disease that a
Doctor must "discover" and thus treat.


Wow... you are as much an expert as someone with an MBA!



























(clueless twit)
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:37 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <61Wsg.37$Pg1.31@fe11.lga>, Mark Probert
markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:


Again, my comment is that you are presuming that there is an
autism<->thimerosal/mercury link. Since the overwhelming weight of the
evidence says there is no link, then your argument goes BOOM.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
I don't know if autism is (or is not) caused by mercury.

If you choose to ignore the evidence, what does that say about you?
There is no evidence of causality, and solid evidence of no causality.

Furthermore, you seem to have it backwards. The proof is on the party to
prove a relationship. Merely conjuring one up does not count.

Even
Quote:
the scientists are not 100 per cent sure related to the cause of autism.

The intelligent and honest ones are sure that it is not mercury.

Quote:
About the only research study that would convince me would be to raise
about
100 or more children in an environment that has NO mercury. Such a
research study would cost too much money.

This is absured.

If even one of those children
Quote:
developed autism, that would convince me and millions of other people
that mercury does not cause autism. I saw one study that involved testing
the blood of children that had autism. Almost everyone of those children
had high levels of heavy metals. That led me to believe that heavy metals
are an issue that needs to researched in regard to the cause of autism.

Please post attributions, not vacuous recollections.
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:43 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

Bryan Heit wrote:
Quote:
Autism has been defined clinically at least as far back as 1951:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14838158&query_hl=44&itool=pubmed_docsum


Unfortunately, pubmed only goes back that far so we cannot readily look
back farther for older references. Unfortunately, I do not have ready
access to databases which go back farther from my lab. Given that the
word "autism" is used in the title, you can guarantee that it was
defined pre-1951.

Bryan

Leo Kanner first describe Autism as a separate disorder in the early
1940's.

http://www.bestbehaviour.ca/briefhistory.htm
Back to top
cathyb
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 365

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:43 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <1152666687.958216.148380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Peter Moran wrote:
"Jason Johnson" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1107061517030001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
In article <44b41b55$0$24756$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Peter Moran"
pmoranATbodernet.com.au> wrote:

"Jason Johnson" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1107061152240001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
In article <zKadnfSe_YVzey7ZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com>, "john"
sc@nospam.com> wrote:

this is one of the main lies to hide the vaccine
connection.http://www.whale.to/a/autism_diagnosis.html

"So the first lie to remember today is this: autism is ancient. It's not
ancient, it's new." ------Mark Blaxill, MBA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello,
Perhaps it was called by a different name in ancient times. I recall
that
when I was raised in the mountains of western Virginia, most everyone in
that area had NEVER spent a day in college. They called everyone that
had
various types of mental problems-- "crazy". It's possible they did that
same sort of thing in ancient times.

An example is the medical term "Raynaud Phenomenon". In ancient times,
people did NOT have Raynard Phenomenon. The truth is that lots of people
had it but they called it by a different name.

Scientists still are not 100 percent sure related to the cause of
autism.

Jason

True, but we have been fairly certain from the beginning that it is rarely
if ever caused by vaccines and the evidence against that is becoming
firmer
by the day.

See, for example, http://tinyurl.com/rwytw Quebec removed thiomerasol
from vaccines in 1996. How come autism is, if anything, still
increasing
there?
Those still pushing the autism/mercury line should be feeling embarassed
and also guilty for contributing to a furore that has undoubtedly diverted
resources from research into the true sources of autism.

Peter Moran



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter,
We discussed this in another thread. If mercury IS the cause of autism,
children would STILL develop autism even if they never took a vaccine
containing thimerosal. The reason is: mercury is found in wood
preservatives, paints,
fungicides, cosmetics, foods, dental fillings, and in contaminated fish.

The mercury/autism theory depends upon the expected sensitivity of the
immature brain to mercury and the immature brain of babies and infants is
not liable to be exposed to toxic levels of mercury from any other source.
Is it?

Peter

You wouldn't think so. Furthermore, Jason seems to have been saying
that since there is so much mercury from other sources, one wouldn't
expect the rates of autism in the population to decrease on the removal
of thimerosal from vaccines even if the mercury/autism theory were fact
instead of unsupported theory.

Which is to say that it is an insignificant factor in mercury exposure,
at least until major factors have been removed. If thimerosal makes *no
difference* to autism rates, then the benefits of using the
preservative outweigh the disadvantages (which appear to be none) in
that situation.

Cathy


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
I knew someone would make that point. You won the prize Cathy.
The first step is to start removing mercury from our environment.
The anti-vac crowd wants to start the process by removing mercury
from vaccines. They have won that battle. I hope that their next
step is to remove it from dental fillings. They have not yet won
that battle. I hope they eventually remove it from fish. I hope they
succeed in removing mercury and other heavy metals from our
environment. Mercury and heavy metal poisoning are known medical
problems. The experts at FDA agrees with me related to this issue.
Jason

You seem to be confusing mercury with its various salts and mercury
poisoning with autism. There is no evidence to suggest that
ethylmercury from any source is a risk factor for autism. The anti-vac
crowd has succeeded in selling its lies to the public and pointlessly
removing a useful preservative from our vaccines by suggesting that
either mercury poisoning or autism result from its use.

As a by-the-by, if thimerosal were actually implicated in autism, one
would expect to see some sort of reduction in cases, however small, no
matter the mercury load from other sources. This has not happened, as
shown by the Quebec study and others.


Cathy

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:14 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1152666687.958216.148380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(...)

Quote:
You wouldn't think so. Furthermore, Jason seems to have been saying
that since there is so much mercury from other sources, one wouldn't
expect the rates of autism in the population to decrease on the removal
of thimerosal from vaccines even if the mercury/autism theory were fact
instead of unsupported theory.

Which is to say that it is an insignificant factor in mercury exposure,
at least until major factors have been removed. If thimerosal makes *no
difference* to autism rates, then the benefits of using the
preservative outweigh the disadvantages (which appear to be none) in
that situation.

Don't get me wrong. The tiny bit of mercury in vaccines has never been shown
to do any harm at the doses used. In the US and other developed countries,
it seems like it would be a lot better if all forms of mercury were removed
from the vaccines. Other preservatives can be used, and there is a
theoretical risk of having mercury in vaccines. Clearly, the benefits of the
vaccine with thimerasol clearly outweigh the tiny risks of the vaccines,
but, I think vaccines would be a bit safer if they didn't have mercury in
them.

So, personally, I would prefer that mercury were removed from all vaccines.
But, vaccines are still safe, even with the tiny bit of mercury in them.

Jeff

Quote:
Cathy



Thimerosal is just ONE of the sources of mercury. I should repeat--I
don't
know whether or not mercury is the cause of autism. The type of mercury
in
fish is MUCH more dangerous than the type of mercury in thimerosal.
Most
of the anti-vaccine people only seem to care about thimerosal and not
the
mercury from the other sources mentioned above. They have an agenda.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:18 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1152668633.690432.86590@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(...)

Quote:
Cathy,
I knew someone would make that point. You won the prize Cathy.
The first step is to start removing mercury from our environment.
The anti-vac crowd wants to start the process by removing mercury
from vaccines. They have won that battle. I hope that their next
step is to remove it from dental fillings. They have not yet won
that battle. I hope they eventually remove it from fish. I hope they
succeed in removing mercury and other heavy metals from our
environment. Mercury and heavy metal poisoning are known medical
problems. The experts at FDA agrees with me related to this issue.
Jason

You seem to be confusing mercury with its various salts and mercury
poisoning with autism. There is no evidence to suggest that
ethylmercury from any source is a risk factor for autism. The anti-vac
crowd has succeeded in selling its lies to the public and pointlessly
removing a useful preservative from our vaccines by suggesting that
either mercury poisoning or autism result from its use.

As a by-the-by, if thimerosal were actually implicated in autism, one
would expect to see some sort of reduction in cases, however small, no
matter the mercury load from other sources. This has not happened, as
shown by the Quebec study and others.

If ethylmercury were a cause of autism, you would also expect to see a rise
in the rates of autism when a new vaccine was introduced, followed by a
plateu. If one compares the introduction of new vaccines with the rates of
autism over time, no such rise followed by a plateu exists. So the data
support the conclusion that ethylmercury does NOT cause autism.

Jeff
Quote:
Cathy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:18 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:e91ik1$br4$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
Quote:
Peter Moran wrote:
The mercury/autism theory depends upon the expected sensitivity of the
immature brain to mercury and the immature brain of babies and infants is
not liable to be exposed to toxic levels of mercury from any other
source. Is it?

Peter

Yes, numerous sources. Main sources being milk (mercury the mother eats
can be secreted in milk), contaminated water, and food. However, as you
may imagine the amount of mercury normally absorbed by these routes is
extremely small. This lends a great deal of weight to the studies showing
no link between vaccinations and autism, as removal of the mercury from
the vaccines essentially removes the majority of mercury most kids are
exposed to until they begin eating solid food.

Can you please provide data to support your contention that the major source
of mercury for kids is vaccines?

Jeff

> Bryan
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:23 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:QtYsg.508$W%2.191@fe09.lga...
Quote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Autism has been defined clinically at least as far back as 1951:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14838158&query_hl=44&itool=pubmed_docsum
Unfortunately, pubmed only goes back that far so we cannot readily look
back farther for older references. Unfortunately, I do not have ready
access to databases which go back farther from my lab. Given that the
word "autism" is used in the title, you can guarantee that it was defined
pre-1951.

Bryan

Leo Kanner first describe Autism as a separate disorder in the early
1940's.

http://www.bestbehaviour.ca/briefhistory.htm

John Down first described Down Syndrome in the mid 1800s. Yet people had it
before he described it. Ditto Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. And
people even had AIDS before it was described. And Thomas Edison and Albert
Einstein are both believed to have ADHD before it became popular.

So a disease can exist, even if it has not been described.

Speaking of autism, I read an excellent book about it: Curious Incident of
the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon. Excellent book.

Jeff
Back to top
Mark Probert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1720

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:24 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

Jeff wrote:
Quote:
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:QtYsg.508$W%2.191@fe09.lga...
Bryan Heit wrote:
Autism has been defined clinically at least as far back as 1951:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14838158&query_hl=44&itool=pubmed_docsum
Unfortunately, pubmed only goes back that far so we cannot readily look
back farther for older references. Unfortunately, I do not have ready
access to databases which go back farther from my lab. Given that the
word "autism" is used in the title, you can guarantee that it was defined
pre-1951.

Bryan
Leo Kanner first describe Autism as a separate disorder in the early
1940's.

http://www.bestbehaviour.ca/briefhistory.htm

John Down first described Down Syndrome in the mid 1800s. Yet people had it
before he described it. Ditto Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. And
people even had AIDS before it was described. And Thomas Edison and Albert
Einstein are both believed to have ADHD before it became popular.

So a disease can exist, even if it has not been described.

Some people will find that strange.

Quote:
Speaking of autism, I read an excellent book about it: Curious Incident of
the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon. Excellent book.

I usually catch up on reading in the summer and this year my list is
soooooooo long it cannot bear another entry.
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:28 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:x4Zsg.61$pX2.29@fe08.lga...

(...)


Quote:
Speaking of autism, I read an excellent book about it: Curious Incident
of the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon. Excellent book.

I usually catch up on reading in the summer and this year my list is
soooooooo long it cannot bear another entry.

Well, if I recommend it, it *must* be good. So remove one of your other
books and replace it with this. ;-)

It's pretty short, too.

Or add it to next year's list.

Jeff
Back to top
Peter Bowditch
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 352

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:45 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

"HCN" <hcn@nospam.com> wrote:

Quote:

"john" <sc@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zKadnfSe_YVzey7ZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com...
this is one of the main lies to hide the vaccine
connection.http://www.whale.to/a/autism_diagnosis.html

"So the first lie to remember today is this: autism is ancient. It's not
ancient, it's new." ------Mark Blaxill, MBA



So havind a Masters in Business Administration makes him an expert in the
history of neurology?

I've got a business school postgraduate qualification, but it would
never occur to me to think that it had any relevance outside an
office. Also, the MBA is always a coursework masters, never a research
degree.

Quote:

He is "Not Even Wrong":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1582344787

--

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
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:09 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

In article <1152668633.690432.86590@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
Quote:
In article <1152666687.958216.148380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Peter Moran wrote:
"Jason Johnson" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1107061517030001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
In article <44b41b55$0$24756$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"Peter Moran"
pmoranATbodernet.com.au> wrote:

"Jason Johnson" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1107061152240001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
In article <zKadnfSe_YVzey7ZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com>, "john"
sc@nospam.com> wrote:

this is one of the main lies to hide the vaccine
connection.http://www.whale.to/a/autism_diagnosis.html

"So the first lie to remember today is this: autism is ancient.
It's not
ancient, it's new." ------Mark Blaxill, MBA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello,
Perhaps it was called by a different name in ancient times. I recall
that
when I was raised in the mountains of western Virginia, most
everyone in
that area had NEVER spent a day in college. They called everyone that
had
various types of mental problems-- "crazy". It's possible they
did that
same sort of thing in ancient times.

An example is the medical term "Raynaud Phenomenon". In ancient times,
people did NOT have Raynard Phenomenon. The truth is that lots
of people
had it but they called it by a different name.

Scientists still are not 100 percent sure related to the cause of
autism.

Jason

True, but we have been fairly certain from the beginning that it
is rarely
if ever caused by vaccines and the evidence against that is becoming
firmer
by the day.

See, for example, http://tinyurl.com/rwytw Quebec removed thiomerasol
from vaccines in 1996. How come autism is, if anything, still
increasing
there?
Those still pushing the autism/mercury line should be feeling
embarassed
and also guilty for contributing to a furore that has undoubtedly
diverted
resources from research into the true sources of autism.

Peter Moran



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter,
We discussed this in another thread. If mercury IS the cause of autism,
children would STILL develop autism even if they never took a vaccine
containing thimerosal. The reason is: mercury is found in wood
preservatives, paints,
fungicides, cosmetics, foods, dental fillings, and in contaminated fish.

The mercury/autism theory depends upon the expected sensitivity of the
immature brain to mercury and the immature brain of babies and infants is
not liable to be exposed to toxic levels of mercury from any other source.
Is it?

Peter

You wouldn't think so. Furthermore, Jason seems to have been saying
that since there is so much mercury from other sources, one wouldn't
expect the rates of autism in the population to decrease on the removal
of thimerosal from vaccines even if the mercury/autism theory were fact
instead of unsupported theory.

Which is to say that it is an insignificant factor in mercury exposure,
at least until major factors have been removed. If thimerosal makes *no
difference* to autism rates, then the benefits of using the
preservative outweigh the disadvantages (which appear to be none) in
that situation.

Cathy


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
I knew someone would make that point. You won the prize Cathy.
The first step is to start removing mercury from our environment.
The anti-vac crowd wants to start the process by removing mercury
from vaccines. They have won that battle. I hope that their next
step is to remove it from dental fillings. They have not yet won
that battle. I hope they eventually remove it from fish. I hope they
succeed in removing mercury and other heavy metals from our
environment. Mercury and heavy metal poisoning are known medical
problems. The experts at FDA agrees with me related to this issue.
Jason

You seem to be confusing mercury with its various salts and mercury
poisoning with autism. There is no evidence to suggest that
ethylmercury from any source is a risk factor for autism. The anti-vac
crowd has succeeded in selling its lies to the public and pointlessly
removing a useful preservative from our vaccines by suggesting that
either mercury poisoning or autism result from its use.

As a by-the-by, if thimerosal were actually implicated in autism, one
would expect to see some sort of reduction in cases, however small, no
matter the mercury load from other sources. This has not happened, as
shown by the Quebec study and others.


Cathy

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
You explained your points very well. Believe it or not, I am NOT part of
the anti-vac crowd. We both know that methylmercury is much more dangerous
than ethylmercury. It's my opinion that all types of mercury should be
removed from our environment. I've seen at least one study that involved
testing the blood of children that have autism for heavy metal poisoning.
Almost every child had high levels. Some people in Japan ate
methylmercury-contaminated fish which led to neurologic deficits. These
facts led me to believe that scientists should conduct more research
studies to determine if mercury and/or other heavy metals cause autism.
It's obvious that more research needs to be done.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
cathyb
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 365

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:11 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

Jeff wrote:
Quote:
"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1152666687.958216.148380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(...)

You wouldn't think so. Furthermore, Jason seems to have been saying
that since there is so much mercury from other sources, one wouldn't
expect the rates of autism in the population to decrease on the removal
of thimerosal from vaccines even if the mercury/autism theory were fact
instead of unsupported theory.

Which is to say that it is an insignificant factor in mercury exposure,
at least until major factors have been removed. If thimerosal makes *no
difference* to autism rates, then the benefits of using the
preservative outweigh the disadvantages (which appear to be none) in
that situation.

Don't get me wrong. The tiny bit of mercury in vaccines has never been shown
to do any harm at the doses used. In the US and other developed countries,
it seems like it would be a lot better if all forms of mercury were removed
from the vaccines. Other preservatives can be used, and there is a
theoretical risk of having mercury in vaccines. Clearly, the benefits of the
vaccine with thimerasol clearly outweigh the tiny risks of the vaccines,
but, I think vaccines would be a bit safer if they didn't have mercury in
them.

So, personally, I would prefer that mercury were removed from all vaccines.

All other things being equal, why not? And, of course, it more or less
has been. It seems, however, that the anti-vac crowd just move on to
finding another reason to try and deny kids vaccination. MMR/autism,
MMR/SIDS. The lack of evidence doesn't bother them, but the worry with
all the scaremongering is rates of vaccination. And that's a worry for
the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.


Quote:
But, vaccines are still safe, even with the tiny bit of mercury in them.

Jeff

Cathy



Thimerosal is just ONE of the sources of mercury. I should repeat--I
don't
know whether or not mercury is the cause of autism. The type of mercury
in
fish is MUCH more dangerous than the type of mercury in thimerosal.
Most
of the anti-vaccine people only seem to care about thimerosal and not
the
mercury from the other sources mentioned above. They have an agenda.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:11 am    Post subject: Re: Autism: It's not ancient, it's new. Reply with quote

In article <fWYsg.6699$PE1.4496@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

"cathyb" <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1152666687.958216.148380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(...)

Quote:
You wouldn't think so. Furthermore, Jason seems to have been saying
that since there is so much mercury from other sources, one wouldn't
expect the rates of autism in the population to decrease on the removal
of thimerosal from vaccines even if the mercury/autism theory were fact
instead of unsupported theory.

Which is to say that it is an insignificant factor in mercury exposure,
at least until major factors have been removed. If thimerosal makes *no
difference* to autism rates, then the benefits of using the
preservative outweigh the disadvantages (which appear to be none) in
that situation.

Don't get me wrong. The tiny bit of mercury in vaccines has never been shown
to do any harm at the doses used. In the US and other developed countries,
it seems like it would be a lot better if all forms of mercury were removed
from the vaccines. Other preservatives can be used, and there is a
theoretical risk of having mercury in vaccines. Clearly, the benefits of the
vaccine with thimerasol clearly outweigh the tiny risks of the vaccines,
but, I think vaccines would be a bit safer if they didn't have mercury in
them.

So, personally, I would prefer that mercury were removed from all vaccines.
But, vaccines are still safe, even with the tiny bit of mercury in them.

Jeff

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeff,
We are in agreement.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 6 [77 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:49 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » nursing
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Vaccinations & Autism & Breast Implants & Genetics ..... BreastImplantAwareness.or nursing 15 Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:23 pm
No new posts Vaccinations & Autism & Breast Implants & Genetics ... BreastImplantAwareness.or nursing 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:48 am
No new posts Fombonne's autism research is dangerously inaccurate john nursing 18 Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:38 am
No new posts AUTISM: THE EVOLUTION OF A DISEASE by Bryan Jepson, MD john nursing 38 Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:26 pm
No new posts Vaccine autism evidence overwhelming john hepatitis 0 Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:22 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0594s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0080s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]