Study: Number of 'Misleading' Anti-Vaccination Videos on YouTube Growing

[Celebration]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315502,00.html

Toronto researchers Dr. Kumanan Wilson and Dr. Jennifer Keelan analyzed 153 videos about vaccination and immunization on YouTube, and found that more than half of the videos portrayed childhood, HPV, flu and other vaccinations negatively or ambiguously.

Of those videos, 45 percent contained messages that contradict the 2006 Canadian Immunization Guide, which provides vaccination recommendations similar to those offered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the study said.

So, do we have to start banning videos from YouTube? No, here is the recommended response--

“Health care professionals need to be aware that individuals critical of immunization are using YouTube to communicate their viewpoints and that patients may be obtaining information from these videos,” said Wilson, senior author and an associate professor with U of T’s Department of Medicine. “YouTube users also need to be aware of this, so they can filter information from the site accordingly.

“The findings also indicate that public health officials should consider how to effectively communicate their viewpoints through Internet video portals,” Wilson said in the news release.

[xchrom]

1. it is wishful thinking that all good speech can

overcome the negative effects of all bad speech.

when it comes to issues like health -- more -- spreading disease vis a vis misinformation -- then something has to be done.

your right to free speech ends at spreading pertusis.

[Celebration]

2. It would backfire, you know

Everyone wants to read a banned book. Everyone wants to see a banned YouTube video. Yes, by the way, banning an anti vaccine video would be unconstitutional. Of course You Tube can make up its own rules. But there are plenty of places on the internet that would be happy to put anti vaccine videos. If the government prohibited them, the interest would skyrocket. Of course, it would also be unconstitutional. It would be a big, big can of worms, and would not advance the cause of people who favor universal vaccination.

[xchrom]

3. fortunately -- you aren't the arbiter -- nor i'm guessing an expert

on the constitution.

all free societies have to have rules to function.

the bill of rights is being interpreted as a free for all.

that is exactly wrong.

[Celebration]

4. we won't find out that I am right

Even our government is not stupid enough to try to censor anti-vaccine videos on the internet. They would have to ban it and then have a test case by the ACLU or somebody.

It ain't gonna happen. Although, I could see You Tube possibly try to do something. I am kind of doubting that will happen, though because they know it would cause too much of a stir and backfire.

[varkam]

5. Hit a nerve, have I?

So, do we have to start banning videos from YouTube?

My my, so dramatic.

As the other poster pointed out, your right to free speech ends when you start spreading preventable disease. I do find it interesting, though, that there seems to be a tendency to blame health professionals for the activities of nut-jobs on the internet ie they are not doing enough to counter the lunacy being posted on YouTube. Seems like a rhetorical win-win for woo-woos.

[xchrom]

6. it's the same as calling for violence -- though in a way more insidious and ugly.

but the anti-vaccinators are so closely aligned with anti-women groups and religious wack jobs -- they can't see anything else.

it really is dangerous.

[Celebration]

7. Drama

The drama would come if there was actually a government proposal to censor anti-vaccine videos on the net. And there is at least one poster here that wants it!!

Definitely, this would hit a nerve for anyone who values civil liberties.

[varkam]

28. Because, as you well know, I don't value civil liberties.

:eyes:

[trotsky]

8. Clearly.

After all, the totally reasonable idea that people dispensing medical advice should know the hell what they're talking about is the exact same thing as goosestepping around a huge bonfire of burning books, dontcha know.

[Celebration]

9. "knowing what they are talking about"

Who decides this? Hopefully, it is the reader, or listener. If it is an authoritarian centralized committee, then, yes, goose stepping comes to mind.

[trotsky]

10. Would you, as a reader or listener,

be able to tell which of two speakers on particle physics was the expert?

[Celebration]

11. sure

The reader, or listener, is the "only" person to decide.

That's why it is called a "free" country--freedom to choose what to listen to, freedom to publish, freedom to read/not read what one wishes. That is the "marketplace of ideas." This is the very foundation of our country and western civilization. To endanger those freedoms in any way is quite dangerous and strikes at the heart of a democracy.

I am *still* not getting what most of you guys want here. You decry all the bad information out there--well and good. But what do you actually want to *do* about it?

Do you want it to be illegal to put videos on the 'net that are heavily slanted against vaccination? One person seems to indicate "yes." I can hardly believe that in DU that there is a single person that wants a law passed like that.

[trotsky]

12. Then you are not being honest.

Admit it: without a certain level of education or training yourself, there is just no way you can make the judgment about which person is speaking the truth when it comes to particular topics or subjects. To say otherwise is to simply and utterly distort the truth.

So why is it then that the only way you can approach discussion of this is by lining up these black-or-white right-or-wrong freedom-or-totalitarianism extremes? Either everyone has the "freedom" to broadcast whatever swill they want on whatever topic they want, and even promote themselves as an expert... OR there has to be a law instated by the big brother government to stifle all free speech? Do you really and truly believe that there can only be those extremes?

[Celebration]

13. I think things are fine the way they are

Each person who reads and thinks can decide who is worth reading and watching. Will some be wrong, including you and me? OF COURSE!! We have the right to be wrong, both of us. So do the people posting videos.

Since I think the practices and laws now are absolutely fine, and since I love the freedom of expression on the internet, it is incumbent upon YOU to tell us exactly what you would change and how you would change it.

I really have no idea what measures you are calling for--they could be very extreme, or not. Why don't you just go on and tell me what you would change, and I will comment on the specifics.

[trotsky]

14. I'm sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense to discuss this with you.

If you truly believe that everyone on this planet is equally qualified to make a judgment of the truth value of ANY statement, in ANY field, well, there is such a disconnect between you and reality that there's really no point in continuing.

If you could just acknowledge, in the slightest way, that SOMETIMES we need to defer to experts in a field, that would go a long way toward restoring my confidence in your sanity.

[Celebration]

15. you have to be kidding

If you could just acknowledge, in the slightest way, that SOMETIMES we need to defer to experts in a field, that would go a long way toward restoring my confidence in your sanity.

Of course we need to do that. I defer to expert opinion all the time. None of us knows everything.

How about your acknowledging that we all have a absolute right to listen to non-expert opinions on internet videos? Without any qualification...............

[trotsky]

16. Explain the contradiction first.

Upthread you said you would be qualified to judge the truth of a statement on particle physics. Now you say we do need to defer to experts. Which is it? (Unless your personal experience does happen to be in particle physics, of course.)

[Celebration]

17. not exactly right

You asked,

"Would you, as a reader or listener, be able to tell which of two speakers on particle physics was the expert?"

Of course I could tell. I can't judge the truth of the statement, but all I would have to do would be to look at the resumes to see if either/neither/or one is an expert. And if the two disagreed, I could go to yet another source to seek clarification. And, if really interested in the subject, I could read something on the subject myself, and try to figure out what the cause was for the disagreement, whether either had a vested interest, etc.

I don't want any sort of governing body determining who is or isn't the expert--no matter what the subject. I have the right to listen to non-experts on the subject of particle physics or anything else.

[trotsky]

18. The entire point here is that especially when it comes to something like health advice,

separating the fact from the fiction isn't something that should be the burden of the person who needs help. This isn't like investigating an opinion on particle physics, it could literally be a matter of life and death. Choose the wrong treatment simply because someone's website LOOKS for all the world to be legit, with a nice long list of references from what sounds like actual institutions, and you're dead.

Obviously you and I see the world differently on this. I see a lot of libertarianism in your view - everyone's on their own, if they're fooled and screwed by someone, oh well, maybe they can sue (if they're still alive, that is). Guess they should have done their research better. Far better that those people die than - Koresh forbid - we actually use our power as a society to put a filter on some of the harmful crap that's out there.

To me, liberalism means we do need the power of government from time to time. Only the government can do certain things. Would you like private companies to provide all mail service? Fight fires? Regulate business and ensure product safety?

Seriously, I'm sensing a huge disconnect here. It's very hard for me to reconcile your line of thinking on this with a liberal, democratic mindset.

[Celebration]

19. Real disconnect for sure!!

I can't figure out why you trust the government, after the last seven years. I am definitely an ACLU fan. You still haven't said what you would do differently. I am just absolutely adamant that freedom of expression needs to be protected, at all cost. I consider anti vaccine propaganda on the internet, videos or websites, to be included in that protection. Fraud is not covered, insurrection, child porn, etc. We have hit the right balance.

Civil liberties is probably my biggest issue. But I cannot believe that anyone who loves our Constitutional form of government, and the freedoms that are part of it, would agree to limit freedom of expression in this way.

Of course, I *still* don't know what you would propose.

[trotsky]

20. And the fact that you are still insisting that I come up with some perfect proprosal

only serves to further illustrate the disconnect. I'm not an expert. I don't pretend to be. I don't believe that I could do the research necessary to draw up a perfect proposal. I do know that your alarmist overreaction isn't necessary - the government regulates tons of things just as well under FDR's administration as they do under Bush. Again this all-or-none thinking just takes over your brain - "Bush = evil" so therefore the entire government cannot be trusted.

"We have hit the right balance."

Glad you are "expert" enough to make that determination. :eyes:

People who view government as the enemy found their hero in Ronald Reagan. Perhaps you are on the wrong message board.

[Celebration]

21. the government

DOES NOT REGULATE SPEECH.

Free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.

This is not even a Democrat/Republican issue. This issue is Constitutional.

The weird thing is I have never heard of a proposal to regulate speech in the manner that you seem to suggest. The reason we have heard of no such proposal is because it is just too flabbergasting that someone would want it, or that they think it would be legal. I am completely shocked at this. I don't doubt that lovers of Reagan or lovers of Kennedy would all agree on this.

So now you have to have an "expert" to tell you what you want to propose? Can't you think for yourself at all?

And how do you think this proposal could even work, in a free society? Don't you think that trying to outlaw something makes it even more attractive?

And, if this proposal passed, what next? People couldn't post about their bad experiences with anti-depressants, because it might make people scared to take them? You know, we have to protect the innocent potential anti-depressant consumer from ideas that might hurt the pocketbook of corporate America...........

[trotsky]

22. Are you kidding? The government regulates all kinds of speech.

This was pointed out to you again and again in the other thread, and you of course totally ignored it because it nips all your self-righteous objections in the bud. Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Can't incite violence. Etc., etc. Clearly the right to free speech is NOT absolute, so why do you keep insisting that it is?

The reason we have heard of no such proposal is because it is just too flabbergasting that someone would want it, or that they think it would be legal.

No, the reason why is because it's a very difficult area to get a handle on, and recent history has made it harder. The Internet has made it a lot more easy to sell your ideas and make it LOOK as if you're an expert. Go back a few years and when your health choices were a real live doctor in his office with his diploma on the wall versus a PO box in an ad in the back of a magazine and gee, it's a little easier to figure out who should be taken seriously, dontcha think? Not such a disparity today when the kook selling zappers can have a website that looks just as impressive as the AMA's, especially to the layman.

So now you have to have an "expert" to tell you what you want to propose? Can't you think for yourself at all?

I am not so arrogant as to proclaim that I know everything there is to know on the subject. Obviously you feel differently. I have done much thinking, and I have some ideas about how something would work. But you're obviously just trying to bring up a red herring and divert this discussion into criticism of my proposal rather than the problem itself.

And how do you think this proposal could even work, in a free society? Don't you think that trying to outlaw something makes it even more attractive?

Gee, did outlawing Vioxx make it more attractive? Thalidomide?

[Celebration]

23. opinion, opinion

Free speech is all about freedom of expression of opinion. It has zero to do with the exploitation of child porn, and it has nothing to do with inciting a riot, both of which are illegal, nor does it have to do with fraud, also illegal. If it is someone's opinion that vaccines should be given twice a day to an infant for the first twelve months of life, then that opinion should be able to be expressed. If someone has the opinion that any vaccines at all are dangerous, they should be able to state that opinion. Whether their opinion is "expert" or not, it is their fundamental Constititional right to express that opinion.

I know that the powers that be hate the internet, because they cannot control it like they do the MSM. Well, guess what? Tough cookies.

If opinions on the internet are wrong, then definitely get on the internet and make things right. Please win in the marketplace of ideas.

Again, there may or may not be a problem, but it seems much less of a problem than adult pornography. And I would not regulate that any more than is done now, either. How about you? What if all sorts of "experts" determined that a majority of adult websites were harmful to people? (I don't doubt that). You would want that regulated too, right?

Honestly, do you want to live in a place that dictates the opinions that can be expressed? How can that be?

[trotsky]

24. I really wish you could argue your point without resorting to hyperbole.

All your points have been addressed, many times over, but you simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Enjoy your libertarian paradise of the "marketplace of ideas." Hope you don't accidentally choose a crackpot who kills you or your family. At least you can say they had a spiffy website.

[Celebration]

25. Civil Liberties

Is what it is called.

[trotsky]

26. Sure thing.

You go run into a movie theater tonight and run down the aisle screaming "FIRE!" and come back to me and report just how absolute those civil liberties are, k?

[Celebration]

27. OPINION!!!! n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

75. WTF

Sorry, but your post is just so random it hurts my eyes.

[philb]

29. The common/serious adverse health effects of vaccines are real and well documented

There is solid documentation in the medical literature that millions have been adversely affected. (I'm one of those)
www.flcv.com/kidshg.html
www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html

And Flu shots which aren't effective are still damaging large numbers
Besides the fact that flu shots are known to not be very effective at preventing flu(1), flu shots contain mercury and have been documented to have significant adverse health effects(2).
There are very few if any long term studies of what effect the flu vaccine has on your health. One such study has revealed the following. According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD, one of the world's leading immunogeneticist and one of the most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals), if an individual has had five consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (the years studied), his/her chances of developing Alzheimer's Disease is ten times higher than if they had one, two or no shots. Dr. Fudenberg was asked why this was so and he said it was due to the mercury and aluminum that is in every flu shot (and most childhood shots). The gradual mercury and aluminum build-up in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. (2)

It is possible to protect yourself from getting the flu, reducing effects if you get it, and help to build health by detoxifying the immune system and doing things to strenghten the immune system.
Notes:
1. Flu Shots: Do they really work?, Severyn, R.Ph., Ph.D., Kristine M., Vaccine News.
2. Recorded from Dr. Fudenberg's speech at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference, Arlington, VA, September, 1997. Quoted with permission.
3. www.whale.to/v/quotes3.html
4. www.home.flcv./kidshg.html

(note: Fudenberg treats mercury toxicity conditions like autism and is well known)
*****************************
American researchers find that those who were vaccinated were almost twice as likely to seek assistance at an emergency department because of their asthma than those not vaccinated.

By Michael Bradley
www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/23/1090464867466.html
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia


Decisions need to be based on facts and on risk. But those many quote aren't careful with the facts and haven't done their homework.
Too bad that its so hard to get real efforts at consensus in this age of domination of the media and the medical system by special interests such as Pharmaceuticals and Insurence industries. This is not a simple issue.

[Celebration]

30. hmmm

In trotsky's perfect world your post might be criminally prosecutable (of course he won't say).

[trotsky]

56. It's a pity you have nothing but hyperbole in your argument toolbox. n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

31. The common/serious adverse health effects of not vaccinating are real and well documented.

[philb]

32. Not all vaccines have clear cases of benefit over harm;

Its likely that millions have been helped by some and millions harmed by some. But the debate needs to be based on
science and clinical experience.
And as you likely know, the case for polio vaccine isn't as clear and simple as some would make out. Though I would not suggest that on balance polio vaccines weren't overall beneficial.

But that's separate from the issue of large numbers of vaccines that contained high levels of mercury thimerosal and other toxic or immune harmful ingredients. Which are well documented to have caused harm to millions.

I think I likely wasn't around when the polio vaccines started, but I think high levels of mercury and such in vaccines was not an issue in that vaccine or in those times. I've seen discussions of the polio vaccine history, but don't remember the details.

We also aren't talking about such as small pox.

There was no good reason for high levels of mercury and such in vaccines, or giving kids like me (in earlier times) vaccines containing huge levels of mercury. For example, the Hep B vaccine just after birth was a huge mistake. And also some of the others.

[xchrom]

33. superstitious hogwash -- and that's the problem --

passing superstition as though it were a serious, well documented fact.

you wouldn't be in the well ordered civilization you are today if it weren't for vaccines.

http://blogs.cgdev.org/globalhealth/

January 22, 2007
Hundreds of Thousands Saved: A Measles Success Story

The numbers are in! The Measles Initiative, which set out to halve the global measles burden between 1999 and 2005, has surpassed its goal with a 60 percent reduction. A new Lancet study (subscription required) reports an estimated drop in measles deaths from 873,000 in 1999 to 345,000 in 2005 (based on a natural history model to evaluate mortality trends).

For related coverage, see The Economist, the Washington Post, the New York Times and elsewhere. But also be sure to check out CGD's Millions Saved for a detailed account of how measles was nearly eliminated in seven southern African countries in the late 1990s. The case study suggests some key ingredients for the intervention's success: the commitment of governments, the strengthening of surveillance systems, and the integration of measles vaccinations with other health services. Some of these reasons are echoed by WHO director Margaret Chan in an International Herald Tribune op-ed on the more recent Measles Initiative success. She said that "it took a new partnership - with commitment, caring and cash - to turn things around," and noted that the success in countries was aided by their ability to build on the strategies and infrastructure of existing health programs and services.

As usual in public health, this success implies more work to be done. In a good sign that past successes are being used to inform future aims, the Measles Initiative has already set a new goal of reducing measles mortality 90 percent by 2010. Margaret Chan is optimistic that the new measles target will be achieved; so am I.


http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/vaccinedevelopment/overview

Nowhere are the potential benefits greater than in the production and distribution of new vaccines to prevent the diseases that needlessly take lives and destroy livelihoods in developing countries.

In 2003 we established a Working Group, including economists, public health professionals, lawyers, experts in public policy and pharmaceutical and biotech experts, with the mandate to develop a practical approach to the vaccine challenge: to go from ideas to action. The result is this report.

My colleagues propose an elegant solution to enable the high income countries to work together to accelerate the development of vaccines for diseases of low-income countries to guarantee to pay for such vaccines if and when they are developed. The solution is simple and practical. It unleashes the same combination of market incentives and public investment that creates medicines for diseases that afflict us: arrangements that have been spectacularly effective in improving the health of the rich nations in the last century. It creates incentives for more private investment in these diseases. And it will ensure that, once a vaccine is developed, the funds will be there to get the vaccine to the people who need it.

Adequate investment in global public goods should be a cornerstone of foreign assistance. By definition, we all benefit from global public goods, and we share a responsibility to see that they are properly funded and available to everyone. These are investments with high returns and low risks of corruption and appropriation. Furthermore, this proposal ties funding directly to results: if the commitment does not succeed, there is no cost to the sponsors.

Every so often, an idea comes along that makes you ask: now why didn't I think of that? This is such an idea.
Nancy Birdsall
President


http://www.savekids.org/vaccines/v.html

the above site is comprehensive in recording both past achievements and current achievements for saving millions of lives through vaccinations.
truly a remarkable human achievement.

this describes an effort to save 5 MILLION CHILDREN through vaccination
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/pressreleases/iffi-bond.asp

The first step was taken today to raise funds for a mass immunisation programme for children in the developing world, at a ceremony in London attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, and representatives of Britain’s faith groups.
The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) will deliver 4 billion dollars over the next ten years to be spent on the immunisation of up to 500 million children in the world’s 70 poorest countries against preventable diseases like polio, measles and diphtheria. It is estimated this will save 5 million lives in the years up to 2015, and a further 5 million afterwards, and lead to the eradication of polio.
Speaking in advance of the launch, the Chancellor said:
"Millions of people campaigned to Make Poverty History last year, and now we can say to them all: we are delivering the promises we made, your hopes are becoming a reality, and millions of young children's lives will be saved as a result."
IFFIm uses long-term, binding commitments from donors as collateral against which to borrow money up front from institutional and private investors, which can be spent immediately on mass vaccination programmes. Commitments have so far been made by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Brazil and South Africa, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The first step was taken today to raise funds for a mass immunisation programme for children in the developing world, at a ceremony in London attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, and representatives of Britain’s faith groups.
The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) will deliver 4 billion dollars over the next ten years to be spent on the immunisation of up to 500 million children in the world’s 70 poorest countries against preventable diseases like polio, measles and diphtheria. It is estimated this will save 5 million lives in the years up to 2015, and a further 5 million afterwards, and lead to the eradication of polio.
Speaking in advance of the launch, the Chancellor said:
"Millions of people campaigned to Make Poverty History last year, and now we can say to them all: we are delivering the promises we made, your hopes are becoming a reality, and millions of young children's lives will be saved as a result."
IFFIm uses long-term, binding commitments from donors as collateral against which to borrow money up front from institutional and private investors, which can be spent immediately on mass vaccination programmes. Commitments have so far been made by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Brazil and South Africa, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


''Vaccines have been one of the most important health gains in the past century. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases; that is why it is critical that they are protected through immunization. The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks. Children who are not immunized increase the chance that others will get the disease. Since this effort 50 years ago, we can now protect children from more than 12 vaccine-preventable diseases, and disease rates have been reduced by 99% in the United States. Immunizations are extremely safe thanks to advancements in medical research and ongoing review by doctors, researchers, and public health officials; yet without diligent efforts to maintain immunization programs here and strengthen them worldwide, the diseases seen 50 years ago remain a threat to our children.''
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/events/polio-vacc-50th/

the above quote is from the cdc re: the fiftieth anniversary of the polio vaccine and takes in the scope of what vaccines have brought humanity -- millions have been saved -- and many millions more will be through hard work and determination.


the devastating history of communicable disease makes the protestation of anti-vaccinators both laughable and tragic.

england and ireland both have publicly warned against the anti-vaccine movement -- a rumour that vaccines weren't needed in japan reulted in a bad pertusis outbreak killing 40 children -- and just recently here in the bay area an unvaccinated child exposed to pertusis died.

and the really cruel part of the anti-vaccinators bad advise is that it will overwhelmingly hurt poor women and children.

be sure that the well educated rich will never fall for this mumbo jumbo -- but the hysteria you spread can be contracted by those less sophisticated and educated.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/401_vacc.html

The CDC and the NIH recently contracted with the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, to establish the Immunization Safety Review Committee. The independent committee is charged with evaluating nine vaccine safety topics over a three-year span. The possible association of the MMR vaccine and autism was the first topic.

On April 23, 2001, the Immunization Safety Review Committee reported its finding that the current evidence does not favor the hypothesis that there is a link between MMR and autism, and that no changes should be made in the current policy of administering the MMR vaccine. The committee could not rule out the possibility that the MMR vaccine might be linked to autism in some sub-population, and recommended that targeted research in this area be conducted. To date, there is no indication as to whether there is any such subpopulation, or what the genetic makeup or other characteristics of such a subpopulation would be, Egan says.

"It's important that policy decisions about vaccine safety be based on science," says Martin G. Myers, M.D., director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's National Vaccine Program Office. As vaccine safety research continues, Myers says, we can't afford to lose sight of what life was like before immunization. Vaccination is the reason we don't see the suffering, disability, and death from whooping cough, measles, polio and other infectious diseases like we used to.

"Vaccines are very safe," Myers adds, "but nothing is without risk." Not vaccinating against certain diseases means choosing another type of risk, he says. Myers recalls treating an infant with seizures from tetanus so strong they shook the baby's whole body. These types of seizures and many deaths are preventable by vaccination. And Myers still has an audiotape from the early eighties of a child hacking and gasping for air because of whooping cough. "The child's mother asked me to play it for parents who might be undecided about getting vaccinated." He's also played the tape for medical students and residents. "It doesn't take long before somebody in the room asks me to please turn it off."


What can we do to prevent infants from getting pertussis?



In the U.S., we have the vaccine called DTaP (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine). DTaP is safe and effective, and prevents severe pertussis and death among infants and young children. The best way to protect infants from pertussis is to give DTaP vaccine starting on time at 2 months of age. Parents should vaccinate their infant on-time (at 2, 4, and 6 months of age) and complete all the recommended doses of DTaP vaccine to best protect their infant.

At least three DTaP doses are needed to have the maximum benefit from the vaccination. However, even one or two doses of DTaP will provide some protection against pertussis. Parents are urged to make sure their infant receives these doses on time.

Parents can also help protect their very young infants by minimizing exposure (close contact) with persons who have cold symptoms or cough illness. Coughing people of any age, including parents, siblings and grandparents can have pertussis. When a person has cold symptoms or cough illness, they need to stay away from young infants as much as possible.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/pertussis/faqs.htm#1

What is the recommended immunization schedule to prevent pertussis with DTaP?



DTaP (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis) vaccine is recommended for all infants at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. An additional dose of DTaP vaccine is recommended at 15-18 months of age and at 4-6 years of age. It is important that young infants start their DTaP vaccination without delay at 2 months of age.

[LeftishBrit]

34. Thanks for this post

About two and a half million children, mostly in poor countries, die every year because of diseases that could have been prevented by vaccines that they or their countries could not afford! That is the REAL scandal about vaccines.

[xchrom]

35. indeed that IS the scandal -- more --

in countries where the government is heavy into skimming -- so to speak -- it prevents the development of infrastructure so desperately needed for the delivery of vaccines. i'm excusing first world counties either -- ind you -- i'm merely noting that one obstacle.

or any sophisticated medical care.

[Celebration]

36. Sounds like the two of you

Need to put up some YouTube videos.

[xchrom]

37. honey -- sounds like you need professional help. that's just an OPINION.

but it's in caps -- so that makes it authoritative.

in the mean time -- here are some web sites that will support your anti-woman and anti child p.o.v.

http://www.eagleforum.org/

http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp

i'm sure you'll be very comfortable there.

[Celebration]

38. what a productive idea!!

Now let's see--I posted something saying there are too many anti-vaccine You Tube videos, with a suggestion from the author that more pro-vaccine You Tube videos be put up, and that people be educated about vaccines, and what do we get in this thread??

1. Ban all anti-vaccine You Tube videos (or something less harsh, but not defined, and quite likely unconstitutional and definitely limiting civil liberties)

2. Directions for me to go to ultra right wing websites--are these places you visit or something?

Not very funny. Not very productive. So someone who takes civil liberties seriously gets called out as Freeper? Just what is your of Thomas Jefferson? I suppose the ACLU is really just a Freeper organization. Boy have I been deluded. :sarcasm:

[xchrom]

40. i didn't call you a freeper -- but freepers think they take civil liberties

very seriously too.

they take it seriously like you do -- ruby ridge, waco, you can't make me get vaccinated, that flag is about southern heritage.
a lot of them even claim to be libertarian -- taxes are unconstitutional, nooses in a tree is free speech.

i'm sure it's not your fault that your views run so closely parallel to theirs. close enough you could kiss each other on the cheek.
and if a bunch of poor minority women and children should die because they listened to nut case ''civil libertarian'' types who hate vaccines -- why that would tickle them pink -- and you'd think just like them -- except for the tickle me pink part of course. yes -- sure.
:crazy:

[Celebration]

42. so any ideas that you label dangerous

that are outside of the mainstream, you want banned.

And, the ACLU is responsible for ruby ridge and waco, and says taxes are unconstitutional.

Please find me a bunch of poor minority women that have died because of internet videos where someone talks about vaccines!!

There are very misogynistic rap songs that are destructive, and probably cause a lot of domestic violence. There is pornography that can trap people into a downward spiral of despair. There are just a lot of dangerous, harmful (IMHO) ideas and videos out there. And you want to limit free speech.................how? What is *your* proposal?

[xchrom]

43. i merely point out the very clear relationship between your notion of ''free'' speech

and others who hold the very same notions.

i firmly believe that these notions are distinctly anti-women and anti-children as they will very obviously be the ones who suffer the most from falling prey to people who will help spread disease through misinformation and down right lies.

as i have pointed out before there are limits on speech -- and other limits will be decided on a case by case basis.

if wacko notions about vaccines spread an outbreak or epidemic -- then you can bet that there will be limits on that speech.

it's pains me to no end that DU allows people -- as it is -- to dump and further disseminate information that is really next of kin to calling for violence.

as far as i'm concerned -- that's what you do -- and it's barbaric and uncivilized.
those other websites are examples of folk who hold similar notions -- and would welcome your ''libertarian'' views.

[Celebration]

44. LOL

DU can ban or not ban what it wants. Take it up with the administrators.

And You Tube can do the same. Take it up with them.

Just don't mess with the First Amendment. (And no, we haven't heard your proposal either).

You *should* actually love my original post in this thread, because it points out a potential problem with You Tube videos being anti-vaccine, and proposes a solution. Somehow you have interpreted this to mean that I am anti-vaccine. In truth, all my kids have been vaccinated. This thread was not even meant to discuss the pros and cons of vaccination, just to discuss a reasonable way for pro vaccination people to get their ideas across.

And, obviously, I make no excuses for my pro ACLU, pro First Amendment ideals, which even convoluted reasoning cannot connect to Waco or Ruby Ridge. By the way, you need to read up on Ruby Ridge.

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

In the months leading up to the incident, Weaver had failed to appear in court to answer charges relating to possession of an illegally shortened sawed-off shotgun, and the U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve a warrant for his arrest. Weaver failed to show up on his court date, as the warrant had been deliberately issued with an incorrect date stating Weaver was to attend court on March 20th. The warrant gave the wrong date however as the date of the hearing was February 20th. The spark of the incident was when Weavers dog detected somebody outside the cabin and began barking, Weaver, his friend Kevin Harris, and his 14 year old son Sam went to investigate. Federal agents shot Samuel's dog, sparking a firefight which resulted in the deaths of Samuel and US Marshal William Degan. As a result, Federal agents stormed the house. Lon Horiuchi, an FBI sharpshooter, shot at Weaver and Harris, injuring them and killing Vicki Weaver as she held her baby daughter.


FBI Director Louis Freeh told the Senate committee, "At Ruby Ridge, the F.B.I. did not perform at the level which the American people expect or deserve from the F.B.I. Indeed, for the F.B.I., Ruby Ridge was a series of terribly flawed law-enforcement operations with tragic consequences."<14>

The surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death suit and Randy Weaver received a $100,000 settlement while his daughters received $1 million each.

[xchrom]

45. your support for randal weaver speaks for itself.

and fits with my earlier observations about like company.

and limits on speech are and will be decided on a case by case basis -- that's the only proposal necessary.

you're not the arbiter of how things will or won't be decided -- and the aclu will support whichever causes it decides to support.

that's our system.

it's adversarial.

that doesn't mean your position isn't barbaric and crude -- isn't anti-women and children - it is.

[Celebration]

46. umm

Oh, I support Randy Weaver, and you support his wife and son being killed, huh?

Off topic for here-- but Randy Weaver and family were awarded a lot of money in this case. That does not happen without FBI malfaesance. And the FBI purposely wrote the wrong date on the warrant and came guns loaded when he didn't honor it. You support THAT?? Your position is more law and orderish than FBI Director Louis Freeh, who actually admitted to terrible mistakes being made!!

Where does that put you on the political spectrum?

I suppose you like students being tasered when they get out of line and ask rude questions. Why not just support putting anti-vaccine terrorists on the no fly list. :sarcasm:

[xchrom]

48. you're digging your own hole deeper and deeper.

but please -- continue -- i'm taking unusual pleasure in this display.

[Celebration]

52. Hardly

In, The Nation--

The Nation ........ is a weekly..... U.S. periodical devoted to politics and culture, self-described as "the flagship of the left."........

I take pride in my agreement with this take on the situation by "the flagship of the left" and the ACLU spokesperson described here-- I guess you love, love, love Maher, that libertarian.

Perhaps the most serious case in point, because so much later "extremism" harks back to it as a touchstone, is that of Rachel Weaver. She is the daughter of Randy and Vicki Weaver of the Ruby Ridge bloodbath of 1992. Rachel was 18 when she invited Ronson to shoot guns in her backyard in Montana, but she was only 12 when US marshals shot her 14-year-old brother Sammy in the back and then shot her mother, Vicki, in the head while Vicki stood in the doorway of their hilltop cabin in Idaho, holding her 10-month-old daughter, Elisheba, in her arms. Rachel's mother dropped dead at her feet. "Dad picked Elisheba up off from underneath Mom and handed her to me," Rachel told Ronson. "She had blood and stuff all over her head, and we were afraid she'd been shot too, but she was OK. It was just Mom's blood. Dad brought Mom in and put her on the kitchen floor." They stayed holed up in the cabin for another week, surrounded by federal agents, who had come looking for her father on a weapons charge. "I remember having to crawl through Mom's blood every time I needed to go into the kitchen to get food." Randy Weaver ended the standoff by surrendering, and after that he triumphed over the government in his trial. The United States paid Rachel and her two sisters $1 million each in damages.

The Ruby Ridge story illuminates a complex issue about how "extremists" are identified and defined in our political culture. Randy Weaver is a former Green Beret who'd moved his family to a remote hilltop in Idaho in the early 1980s to get away from the secret clique of international bankers who ruled the world. He had no terrorist plans; he just wanted to be left alone. He did go to a nearby Aryan Nations summer camp, but he got kicked out for smuggling in beer. And he also had political differences with the neo-Nazis. As Ronson explains it, "The neo-Nazis blamed the Jews exclusively, whereas Randy felt that focusing antipathy onto a single race was a mistake. He did not consider himself to be a white supremacist. He was a separatist. This may sound pedantic, but it was not pedantic to him."



Ronson juxtaposes Randy Weaver's insistence on ideological accuracy with his portrayal by the mainstream media--in particular, by Bill Maher on Politically Incorrect. The panel that day included Nadine Strossen of the ACLU and Garry Marshall, creator of Mork and Mindy and director of Pretty Woman. The discussion took place in the immediate aftermath of the incident at Ruby Ridge:


BILL MAHER: He was in Aryan Nations. Come on. Oh, boo hoo!
NADINE STROSSEN (ACLU): Belonging to Aryan Nations is not a crime. That's his right.
BM: They shot dog in the back. Can you believe that, Garry? Oh, man, that's a Canine American! He has his rights!
AUDIENCE: (laugh.)
GARRY MARSHALL: That was the worst thing that happened!
AUDIENCE: (laugh.)
NS: He wasn't causing any danger to anyone.
BM: If you're bringing up your kids in Aryan Nations you are causing danger because you're spawning hate in America.
AUDIENCE: (Applause.)

It's enough to make you hate Bill Maher forever and write a check to the ACLU immediately (From The Flagship of the Left).

So you are with the so-called "libertarian" Maher and I am with the "flagship of the left" and the ACLU. I love it!!

:rofl:

[xchrom]

57. hey -- and you're a defender of the Aryan Nation.

since you can't comprehend anything resembling a ''case by case basis'' -- and yes you're a defender of randal weaver -- and his brand of violence.

see -- you can hold the goverment responsible and get recompense when it's found to be in the wrong -- and that's what happened.

but where's the recompense for those terrorized by folk like the Aryan Nation -- and folk like you who defend them?

that's why there are limits on violent speech -- and you're kind enough to be an example of the insanity that has gripped right wing extremeists.
thank you -- please keep posting your examples.

[Celebration]

59. excuse me?

What type of logic do you have? I can't stand the Aryan Nation. It is the antithesis of everything I believe in. I know The Nation and the ACLU don't like the group either. So, by your logic, The Nation must love the Aryan nation. Right?

:eyes:

What we do like is civil liberties and free speech. Has it ever occurred to you that the only kind of speech that needs any kind of protection is unpopular? If it were popularly accepted, nobody would want to outlaw it. A civil libertarian wants people to be able to freely express ideas that they personally adamantly oppose.

It's easy to accept free speech when people are espousing the Golden Rule. I will defend free speech when it is not popular. I will stand with my liberal counterparts at the Nation and the ACLU, and you can have Maher.

[xchrom]

63. you don't defend speech that is unpopular -- you're defending speech that will cause

somebody to get sick and die -- more than likely a woman or a child.

like wise your defense of the Aryan Nation -- and really with you and the eagle forum agreeing so closely -- why wouldn't you agree with the Aryan nation?

free speech is not now -- nor will it ever be an excuse for a fuckin free for all -- now you are either aware of that and in agreement with it -- or you believe in some ''libertarian utopia'' that only the crudest and barbaric of people would want to live in.

you're passing yourself off here as some expert on the first amendment -- that frankly you are not.

there will always be limits to the first ammendment -- those limits will expand and contract over time.

you know that -- so passing off some notion that dangerous speech on the internet is some how sacrosant is just bull shit.

[Celebration]

65. So the ACLU and the Nation are bullshit

Just because you decide to label an idea "dangerous", does not mean that it should be censored, or that it is legal to do so.

Frankly, your idea to use censorship in this fashion is about a dangerous idea as I have come across recently. It is an extremely dangerous idea, but your opinion on it should not be censored.

The Aryan Nation has some dangerous ideas too. They should not be censored. Nor should membership in the Aryan Nation be outlawed (if you like Weaver's wife and kid murdered, I assume you want membership in the Aryan Nation banned??). Remember the ACLU defends the rights of the KKK to march. I agree with them.

Exactly *who* is an expert on the First Amendment? Someone who tries cases in that area? All citizens should be experts on the First Amendment. During this conversation I have come to feel very grateful for my liberal education, and my upbringing.

[xchrom]

66. when you spread notions that it is acceptable to spread

hair of fire dogma re: vaccines -- and you do -- then you are spreading the disease.

there are and there always will be limits on speech -- as it should be.

you have no notion of what speech is -- and that's obvious by your inability to understand context and a real lack in comprehension.
you don't have a liberal education -- you are in fact under-educated. ignorant.

[Celebration]

67. "acceptable" or not

*your* definition.........therein is the rub --again, we are talking about opinion, not insurrection or imminent danger. It is freedom of expression of opinion that should be unhindered.

Thank you, Thomas Jefferson.

[xchrom]

69. free speech does now -- and always will have limits.

you continue to under whelm with your inability to understand the simplest concept.

those limits can and will expand and contract with time.

you don't even understand that fraud or libel are forms of limitaion on speech.

seriously -- those websites i gave you are better companions for someone with your limited abilities.

[Celebration]

70. Are you KIDDING???

Fraud, libel, and slander, insurrection, limit speech. They are against the law!! That is very settled law, and for centuries. You are talking about making "new" law, based on the fact that the internet is new. Nary a single jurisdiction has, to my knowledge, limited opinion in the way that you desire. You are for passing law, and interpreting the Constitution in an entirely different way. It is extremely dangerous, and I support your right to make the argument. But you are wrong.

[xchrom]

71. again your lack of comprehension --

laws change over time -- some things get more restricted some things less.

you cannot solicit minors -- that's a limitation of speech -- over the internet -- there can be and there will be limitations on other kinds of speech.

threatening the health of a societies citizens with bad -- or worse -- medical will be under consideration should a bad threat from those sources arise. -- and they may very well indeed.

as i've mentioned before -- england and ireland have officialy warned about anti-vaccinators -- deleting topics from the internet -- would not be impossible and may even necessary in the event of a serious threat from the anti-vaccinate crowd.

[Celebration]

72. you are paranoid

No question about it. Thank goodness, at least for now, this will not fly here. Oh, yeah, I think the KKK should be able to march, too.

[xchrom]

73. quelle surprise that you should think the kkk should march.

however that doesn't change the facts on the ground -- there are limits on speech -- there can and will be other limits in the future.

and you are projecting -- typical of people with limited comprehension abilities.

[Celebration]

74. creeping loss of freedom

Do you believe the KKK should be able to march? Or is this one of the "limits in the future" that you envision?

[xchrom]

77. i'm neither expert nor judge --so i have no idea -- but i'm certainly

surprised to see you support them. that just figures.

[Celebration]

78. neither expert nor judge

Doesn't keep you from having opinions about anti vaccine websites.
:sarcasm:

[xchrom]

80. facts on the ground -- there are limits on speech -- there will be different limits on speech in the

future.
if there is speech that contributes to the spread of communicable disease -- especially among chldren -- you can bet they will limit that speech -- as they should.

this democracy is not and will not be a ''libertarian freak for all'' --

[lizerdbits]

55. The ACLU says taxes are unconstitutional?

I thought they just opposed using tax dollars to support religion, etc. I must be misinformed.

[xchrom]

58. the OP is misinformed and under educated about both the first amendment

and the aclu.

[Celebration]

60. no they don't

He just came up with that out of thin air somehow.

Actually there is a very tiny movement here in the USA that says income taxes are unconstitutional. I haven't really followed their reasoning, but it has something to do with the way the amendment was passed by the states I think?

I submit that people who think that taxes are unconstitutional should be able to voice their opinion. Likewise, the Iraq War. Likewise the Patriot Act. And, without being added to a "no fly" list, I might add.

But I am not sure how that got dragged into this.

[lizerdbits]

64. It got dragged into this from your post

"And, the ACLU is responsible for ruby ridge and waco, and says taxes are unconstitutional."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x28345#28442

[Celebration]

68. Oh, I guess on that part I forgot my

:sarcasm:

Obviously the ACLU is not responsible for Ruby Ridge, Waco, or saying taxes or unconstitutional.

[LeftishBrit]

47. Just out of curiosity...

are there any restrictions on advertising in the United States?

Because there certainly are in the UK. Anyone who makes false claims in an advertisement CAN be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act.

And this seems to me to be the parallel. If people put out advertisements that make false claims about vaccinations - whether by attacking vaccinations or advertising a vaccine under false pretences - then this could be liable to legal restriction. It's a matter of truth in advertising, which does not come under free speech protection.

If someone puts out an article or video attacking vaccines but makes it clear that this is an OPINION, then it should not be liable to prosecution (any more than claiming the world is flat, etc.) However, quite a lot of what I see on the Internet definitely presents such opinions as proven truth; and often combines them with advertisements for the poster's own 'medical products', and I do think that is a form of fraud.

[Celebration]

49. there are fraud statutes

So any advertising that is fraudulent is against the law. It would be about impossible to prove fraud without a financial motive. Most anti-vaccine websites have no financial motive to keep people from getting vaccinated, so there would be no fraud involved. It is usually just a bunch of parents or people who claim to have been injured by vaccines.

Most of the ones I see have links to research--they are selective links, of course. And most don't tell people to not vaccinate. They seem to be sort of "pro choice" on the idea. It is like "Read this. Here are the links (selective). Do what you want." Some may actively promote people not getting vaccinated--I don't really know. But it doesn't seem typical of them.

I'd be hard pressed to find an anti-vaccine website that is fraudulent under USA law, but there may be some.

[xchrom]

51. you don't interpret u.s. law. nt

[Celebration]

53. well, if you think they are against the law

Get them prosecuted. Good luck on that.

:sarcasm:

[xchrom]

50. we have very similar rules and regulations.

there's not much difference.

at some point something very ugly will happen with a disease outbreak -- and as i have noted in other threads and here, both the irish and british governments have issued warning about anti-vaccine sites -- and there will be rules and regulations around what can be posted.

the OP -- deriving pleasure from spreading dangerous misinformation -- will be pissed -- but that's how it will probably go down.

these things have happend in japan, england and ireland -- there will be rules.

[Celebration]

54. here, too

If a website promotes products and profits off of products that purport to take the place of vaccination, then that would be fraudulent. I haven't seen any such websites, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some out there.

[philb]

39. Our patient support organization works with thousands of real people/cases

We've interacted with many thousands of kids with serious harm from vaccinations. Your info has a lot of propanganda not supported by real facts. But I'm not the one to best deal with the history. I don't claim that all vaccinations should be avoided or that some types haven't helped people.
But the vaccination schedules that caused millions of kids to get as much as 30 vaccinations over 6 years with huge levels of mercury and other toxics has caused significant harm to millions. This is all well documented by organizations like ours that work with the patients and by the condition research assocications (ARI,etc.) and clinics and doctors who treat them, also gov't agency info.

Part of the problem is that the vaccines contained huge levels of mercury unnecessarily, supposedly to save a little money. But in doing so they caused harm to large numbers of kids.

The National Academy of Sciences found that over 50% of pregnancies in the U.S. in the 1990s resulted in birth defects or developmental conditions, and most of those were documented to be from pre-natal and neo-natal toxic exposures, with vaccinations being a large factor in this.

www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html
www.flcvcom/kidshg.html

And not only did many die directly from the vaccines (see gov't records), but very large numbers had their neurological and immune systems wiped out by the large toxic doses in the vaccines. Many when they got their vaccination screemed for over a week and could not quit, and never fully recovered.
Here are some cases with some case history information that I'm aware of. I know of other organizations and medical clinics with much more extensive documentaiton:

www.flcv.com/autismc.html

[xchrom]

41. all of which has been debunked time and time again -- and

yet these unsubstantiated -- anecdotal, not scientific reports keep popping up here.

reports that eventually threaten the health and well being of others.

this is no different than calling for violence.

these websites are quackery -- horrifying to think that people use them to purport fact -- which it is not.

[philb]

76. What you say is not true- produce some documentation- you talk a lot but never produce

any evidence or documentation

everything that I posted here is documented by credible documentation and evidence.
I know that there is no documentation that you could find or credible experts who could say otherwise. If you think there is produce them.

My documentation is from peer-reviewed medical studies, medical labs, MDs, credible scientists, Gov't agencies, etc. as anyone can see by looking at the documentation.

I challenge you to find any credible documentation contradicting my information, or to find a credible expert who can provide convincing evidence.

[chicagomd]

79. Ahhhh, philb.

"The National Academy of Sciences found that over 50% of pregnancies in the U.S. in the 1990s resulted in birth defects or developmental conditions, and most of those were documented to be from pre-natal and neo-natal toxic exposures, with vaccinations being a large factor in this."

Link the statement, not your pseudoscientific BS website like you always do. Lets just start there, and after you can define for us what "large factor" means according to the National Academy.


EDIT: You know what, don't bother. Here you go:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9871

"Today, about 3% of the major developmental defects are estimated to be attributable to toxicant exposure (Oakley 1986; Kimmel 1997; March of Dimes 1999)"

I don't know what world you live in, but 3% is hardly "most". And I am still reading the document looking for a comment on vaccines, you want to link it for me or did you just make that part up?

[xchrom]

82. i'm not good at this sort of thing --

but you might show him pictures from this site.

http://www.vaccineinformation.org/photos/

combine that with the fact that our battle is against these diseases is relatively new -- we have buried many millions of people -- people who died miserable deaths.

that's what the anti-vaccine people want to bring back --

[philb]

83. You or the person quoted aren't familar with the research, see the following

for example and look at the numbers from the peer-reviewed studies by credible scientists

www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html
(and the other review studies with additional doc. that I posted)
the % is over 30% just from these studies, and there are a lots of others in the other peer-reviewed studies that I posted links to.
Your guys don't do real research; their estimates are based on neither a serious review of the many studies out there, or on actual data. Anyone can state their guestimate-what's important is a valid methodology and good data.
The US. EPA and DOH Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR) list mercury, lead, and arsenic as the 3 toxics adversely affecting the most people each year, and toxic metals are 7 of the top 10. See the reference in the above.
And the numbers affected from their information is in the millions.
See also the federal NHANES III study of dental amalgam connection to increase chronic conditions like cancer, MS, etc. And the fact that it is documented by several studies that most people with MS who were tested and had amalgams replaced and did detox recovered or signif. improved; similar for lupus, etc. www.flcv.com/ms.html And the fact that most modern countries with advanced medical systems are banning or phasing out dental amalgam and likewise limiting mercury in vaccines.

And in a large national survey of tests on people all over the country by a medical lab, over 30% of people had dangerous levels of mercury in some states, and over 22% of all in the U.S. tested. As you know I can post hundreds more of such studies and examples of the common adverse health effects that have been documented due to toxic metal exposures. Do I need to? I've provided the links already.

Accompanying data tables by State and Metropolitan Statistical Area
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/addendum-to-mercury-report
State participants no. >1.0 %> 1.0
Florida 389 130 33.4%
New York 455 183 40.2%
U.S. 6385 22%

[chicagomd]

84. Philb, you are full of shit.

And I am not just talking about constipation. My personal farmiliarity with the issue is not the question. I simply want you to back up the claims you make without linking your garbage website. On to your comments:

There are two quotes in my post. One is FROM YOU, and I asked you to provide supporting documentation for it. You did not, but I will repeat in case you forgot what you wrote and don't want to scroll back up:

"The National Academy of Sciences found that over 50% of pregnancies in the U.S. in the 1990s resulted in birth defects or developmental conditions, and most of those were documented to be from pre-natal and neo-natal toxic exposures, with vaccinations being a large factor in this."

That is your exact quote, and it is bullshit. Show me a link from a publication from the National Academy that contains that information.

The second quote is actually from the National Academy of Sciences and it refutes the bullshit you ascribed to them in your post. I was nice enough to provide you with a direct link to it, something you fail to do time and time again.

So either you are not familiar with the research, or the National Academy (whom you use to support your position) is not familiar with the research.

Which one is it?

[philb]

85. A search of the review paper referenced finds the cite is this one

(82) National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Developmental Toxicology, Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, June 1, 2000, 313 pages; & Evaluating Chemical and Other Agent Exposures for Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Subcommittee on Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity, Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council National Academy Press, 262 pages, 6 x 9, 2001; & National Environmental Trust (NET), Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Learning Disabilities Association of America, "Polluting Our Future: Chemical Pollution in the U.S. that Affects Child Development and Learning" Sept 2000; http://www.safekidsinfo.org ; & Dr. Fionta Stanley, Department of Paediatrics, the University of Western Australia “Before the bough breaks” Zonta International Conference, Gothenburg Sweden, July 2, 2002 www.zonta.org/Member_Resource_Center/StanleySpeech.pdf

I believe that the NAS study being referenced was the first one listed here, I could check further on it but I'm not the one who cited it. I could also ask him.

The documentation on the percent of learning disabilities and developmental conditions caused by toxic metals included the following which cite hundreds of peer-reviewed studies; there were also other cites

www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html
www.flcv.com/kidshg.html
As noted some of the references are from EPA and DOH ASTDR who list mercury, lead, arsenic as the 3 toxics adversely affected the most people and toxic metals as 7 of the top 10- millions
ATSDR/EPA Priority List for 2005: Top 20 Hazardous Substances, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.atsdr.cdc.gov/clist.html


additionally, the large medical tests survey by a medical lab that found high/dangerous levels of mercury in over 30% of people in some states and over 22% throughout U.S. is supportive, along with the EPA data on mom's and infants levels with dangerous levels.

Accompanying data tables by State and Metropolitan Statistical Area
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/addendum-to-mercury-report
State participants no. >1.0 %> 1.0
Florida 389 130 33.4%
New York 455 183 40.2%
U.S. 6385 22%

As previously noted, over 3000 peer-reviewed studies documenting adverse effects including the mechanisms by which toxic metals cause these conditions- (in addition to the hundreds in the URLs above) and many thousands of clinical cases that have been previously posted from medical clinics- such as www.flcv.com/autismc.html

there are others similar that have been posted.

[trotsky]

86. Neither of your first two links work.

Nor does your summary even come close to suggesting that they support your bogus claim.

This is standard procedure for you, Bernie-kid/Bernie. Make outlandish claims, say no one can prove you wrong, throw an armful of unrelated studies at any questions, and move on.

[philb]

88. I'm citing an article with lots of credible references: old URLs change, you could find new one

(the information does support the claim, lots of credible documentation, produce doc./evidence that anything here is wrong)
here's another of the many that's supportive

Increase in Autism Reflects Real Increases in Childhood Chronic Diseases and Disability
http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/autismsp.htm
The incidence of autism, like that of learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), asthma, diabetes, arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease and other autoimmune and neurological disorders, has risen dramatically in the U.S. and other technologically advanced countries, while high vaccination rates have caused the incidence of childhood infectious diseases to fall just as dramatically in these countries. Instead of epidemics of infectious disease, there are now epidemics of chronic disease.
A University of California study published by the U.S. Department of Education in 1996 found that "The proportion of the US population with disabilities has risen markedly during the past quarter-century . . . this recent change seems to be due not to demographics, but to greater numbers of children and young adults reported as having disabilities." The study concluded that "these changes may be partly accounted for by the increases in the prevalence of asthma, mental disorders (including attention deficit disorder), mental retardation, and learning disabilities that have been noted among children in recent years."
Autoimmunity Epidemic
After heart disease and cancer, autoimmune disease has become the third leading cause of illness in the United States and in many technologically advanced countries. According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), the autoimmune disease, asthma, is now "the most common disorder in children and adolescents, affecting nearly five million children under the age of 18, including an estimated 1.3 million children under the age of five. Fifty to 80 percent of children affected with asthma develop symptoms before they are five years old." (http://www.aaaai.org).
A 1997 study published in Science found that asthma has doubled in prevalence in Western societies during the past 20 years and in the United States causes one-third of pediatric emergency room visits. A 1995 report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated that between 1982 and 1992, asthma increased 52 percent for persons between 5 and 34 years old and asthma deaths increased 42 percent.
Another autoimmune disorder, arthritis, is also "on a steady rise" according to the CDC in 1998, which estimated that arthritis now plagues more than 40 million Americans and projected that the number will grow to 60 million by 2020. Cases of diabetes, yet another chronic autoimmune disorder, have tripled in the U.S. since 1958, now affecting nearly 16 million Americans and ranking fourth in the leading causes of death in America. The CDC concluded in 1997 that "the number of newly diagnosed cases of diabetes was almost 50 percent higher in 1994 than in 1980" and did not appear to be a result of the aging of the population.
In Europe, a new report issued by the EURODIAB study group (Lancet-2000), evaluated the incidence rate of diabetes from 1989 to 1994 in Europe and Israel and found a 63 percent increase in children under 5 years old; a 31 percent increase in children five to nine years old; and a 24 percent increase in children 10 to 14 years old. They said, "The rapid rate of increase in children under 5 years old is of particular concern." There is no explanation for why adult-onset diabetes, once extremely rare in children, has become more prevalent in American children in the past ten years.
In addition to an unexplained increase in autoimmune disorders during the past three decades, there also has been an unexplained dramatic increase in the numbers of minimally brain damaged children who are filling special education classrooms in schools across America

[philb]

90. Urine Testing Confirms Autism is Mercury Poisoning

Urine Testing Confirms Autism is Mercury Poisoning
http://www.usautism.org/USAAA_Newsletter/usaaa_newsletter_special_edition_news_release_100107.htm

[philb]

91. Increased Mercury and Oxidative Stress in Autistic Brain Samples

Oxidative Stress in Autism: Elevated Cerebellar 3-nitrotyrosine Levels
Increased Mercury and Oxidative Stress in Autistic Brain Samples
by Sajdel-Wulkowska et al. (2008) was published in the American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology.
http://www.usautism.org/USAAA_Newsletter/usaaa_newsletter_111207.htm

[varkam]

95. Given that site also credulously accepts the findings of the...

Geier "study", I'm not sure how much stock to place in your link...

[chicagomd]

87. Incredible:

More bullshit AND a complete inability to respond to a question.

I gave you the link from your source, and you still could not find supporting evidence for your position. Do you even LOOK at the crap you cut and paste here?


As an aside, what the hell does this mean?
"I believe that the NAS study being referenced was the first one listed here, I could check further on it but I'm not the one who cited it. I could also ask him"

If there is more than one philb out there you might want to at least keep the same person responding in the same thread. Either that or consider making another account.

[philb]

89. There's a huge amount of documentation - here's more

Classen Immunotherapies
The data in humans shows a strong association between immunization and the risk of insulin dependent diabetes (IDDM) Type I diabetes, an autoimmune disease. http://www.vaccines.net/diabetes.htm http://www.vaccines.net/newpage114.htm

Juvenile Diabetes and Vaccination: New Evidence For A Connection
The Vaccine Reaction, Feb. 1998 http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/juvenilediabetes.htm

Asthma and allergies linked to vaccines
http://www.vaccines.net/Asthma/allergie.htm

CASE REPORTS TO NVIC OF DIABETES FOLLOWING MMR SHOTS
http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/dicasee.htm

[xchrom]

81. ...

this is just a beginners primer -- you post not credible and dangerous misinformed sources -- and debunked to boot.

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/4038myth.htm

It seems that almost every month newspaper articles and television programs depict the horrors of vaccines. The villains of these stories are greedy vaccine manufacturers, disinterested doctors, and burdensome regulatory agencies. The focus of the stories is that children are hurt unnecessarily by vaccines, and the tone is one of intrigue and cover-up.

Perhaps the most dangerous part of these stories (apart from the fact that they may cause many children to miss the vaccines they need) is that the explanations are presented in a manner that seem believable. Below we have listed the most commonly aired stories about vaccines and have tried to separate fact from myth.

CONCERN: Vaccines don't work.
Probably the best example of the impact of vaccines is the vaccine that prevents meningitis caused by the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib).

The current Hib vaccine was first introduced to this country in 1990. At that time Hib was the most common cause of bacterial meningitis, accounting for approximately 15,000 cases and 400 to 500 deaths every year. The incidence of cases and deaths per year had been steady for decades. After the current Hib vaccine was introduced, the incidence of Hib meningitis declined to fewer than fifty cases per year! The power of the Hib vaccine is that most pediatricians and family practitioners working today saw its impact.

The story of the Hib vaccine is typical of all widely used vaccines. A dramatic reduction in the incidence of diseases such as measles, mumps, German measles, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis occurred within several years of the introduction of vaccines against them.

Vaccines not only work, but they work phenomenally well.

CONCERN: Vaccines are not safe.
What does the word safe mean?
The first definition of the word safe is "harmless." This definition would imply that any negative consequences of vaccines would make the vaccine unsafe. Using this definition, no vaccine is 100 percent safe. Almost all vaccines can cause pain, redness, or tenderness at the site of injection. And some vaccines cause more severe side effects. For example, the pertussis (or whooping cough) vaccine can be a very rare cause of persistent, inconsolable crying or high fever. Although none of these severe symptoms results in permanent damage, they can be quite frightening to parents.

But, in truth, few things meet the definition of "harmless." Even everyday activities contain hidden dangers. For example, each year in the United States, 350 people are killed in bath- or shower-related accidents, 200 people are killed when food lodges in their windpipe, and 100 people are struck and killed by lightning. However, few of us consider eating solid food, taking a bath, or walking outside on a rainy day as unsafe activities. We just figure that the benefits of the activity clearly outweigh its risks.

The second definition of the word safe is "having been preserved from a real danger." This definition implies that vaccines provide safety. Using this definition, the danger (the disease) must be significantly greater than the means of protecting against the danger (the vaccine). Or, said another way, a vaccine's benefits must clearly and definitively outweigh its risks.

To better understand the definition of the word safe when applied to vaccines, let's examine four different vaccines and the diseases they prevent.

Is the hepatitis B vaccine safe?
The hepatitis B vaccine has few side effects. However, one side effect is serious. About one of every 600,000 doses of hepatitis B vaccine is complicated by a severe allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. The symptoms of anaphylaxis are hives, difficulty breathing, and a drop in blood pressure. Although no one has ever died because of the hepatitis B vaccine, the symptoms of anaphylaxis caused by the vaccine can be quite frightening.

On the other hand, every year thousands of people die soon after being infected with hepatitis B virus. In addition, tens of thousands of people every year suffer severe liver damage (called cirrhosis) or liver cancer caused by hepatitis B virus. Children are much more likely to develop these severe and often fatal consequences of hepatitis B virus infection if they get infected when they are very young. For this reason, the hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for newborns.

Some parents wonder whether it is necessary to give the hepatitis B vaccine to newborns. They ask, "How is a baby going to catch hepatitis B?" But before the hepatitis B virus vaccine, every year in the United States thousands of children less than ten years of age caught hepatitis B virus from someone other than their mothers. Some children caught it from another family member, and some children caught it from someone outside the home who came in contact with the baby. About 1 million people in the United States now are infected with hepatitis B virus. However, because hepatitis B virus can cause a silent infection (meaning without obvious symptoms), many people who have hepatitis B virus infection don't even know that they have it! So it can be hard to tell who might be contagious. Worse yet, you can catch hepatitis B virus after casual contact with someone who is infected (for example, sharing hand towels).

Because the benefits of the hepatitis B vaccine clearly and definitively outweigh the risks, the hepatitis B vaccine is safe.

CONCERN: Infants are too young to get vaccinated.
Children are immunized in the first few months of life because several vaccine-preventable diseases infect them when they are very young. For example:

* Pertussis infects about 8,000 children, causing five to ten deaths every year in the United States. Almost all of the cases are in children less than one year of age.
 
* Children under two years old are 500 times more likely to catch Hib meningitis if someone with a Hib infection is living in the home.
 
* About 90 percent of newborns whose mothers are infected with hepatitis B will contract hepatitis and go on to develop chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and possibly liver cancer.


For these reasons, it is very important for infants to be fully immunized against certain diseases by the time they are six months old.

Fortunately, young infants are surprisingly good at building immunity to viruses and bacteria. About 95 percent of children given DTaP, Hib, and hepatitis B virus vaccines will be fully protected by two years of age.

[philb]

92. Evidence of Harm by David Kirby MERCURY IN VACCINES AND THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC

Evidence of Harm by David Kirby MERCURY IN VACCINES AND THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC: A MEDICAL CONTROVERSY http://www.evidenceofharm.com/ http://wpr.org/cardin/index.cfm?strDirection=Prev&dteShowDate=2007-06-12%2008%3A00%3A00

[varkam]

105. There is no Autism epidemic.

Putting it in capital letters does not make it so, philb.

[philb]

112. Thats a rather silly statement- have you seen the numbers

Health agencies and Congress and Health organizations and Autism Associtions obviously disagree with you - would you like for me to post some statements by them on this?

rate of autism has increased drastically in the last 20 years, and autism is now the largest accute neuro developmental disease. (more than 1 in 500)

According to State Dept. of Education reports, autism increased 10 fold in the 1990s,
in Florida from 300 to over 4000. Fl. Dept. of Education

Similar in other states; the California data which is carefully kept has been widely discussed and shows a similar trend- but larger numbers.

See the following for data and documentation, references, Gov't data, etc.
www.flcv.com/kidshg.html

And other neurological kids problems such as ADHD and learning disabilites are commonly caused by the same toxic exposures and have had similar growth

ADHD over 15% of kids in many areas. And has been shown to commonly be caused by mercury/toxic metals- similar to autism - the neurological effects are just not as severe
www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html

Lots more peer-reviewed studies and clinical case info on the other vaccine thread further supporting this.


And I don't believe that there is any credible scientist or MD who after looking at the following sample of cases would suggest that a lot of these autism cases weren't caused by vaccines. Find me one.
We have personal experience with these cases and the doctors who treated them. The evidence is clear.
www.flcv.com/autismc.html

[philb]

94. Immunization: History, Ethics, Law and Health (Polio) by Catherine Diodati

Immunization: History, Ethics, Law and Health by Catherine Diodati ISBN 0968508006
"Paralytic cases were not distinguished from non-paralytic cases until a recommendation was made by the Dominion Council of Health in 1949- The LCDC figures provided from 1952 and onward represent this administrative change: recording only those cases adhering to the requirements for a diagnosis of paralytic poliomyelitis. In a report released in June of 1959, another administrative change was recommended by the Dominion Council of Health, further altering the way in which apparent cases of poliomyelitis would be reported. All non-paralytic cases of poliomyelitis were to be henceforth recorded as "meningitis, viral or aseptic," a disease which itself only became reportable in 1952." These two administrative changes effectively reduced the apparent incidence of poliomyelitis. In particular, since the latter change is temporally correlative to the introduction of the polio vaccines, the vaccines appear to have been responsible for a reduction in poliomyelitis cases when it is entirely possible that the administrative changes are primarily responsible."--Catherine Diodati (Immunization History, Ethics, Law and Health p116)

The history of polio vaccine has been mischaracterized and is not as simple as implied;
there are many such in this regard and this paragraphy just deals with one part of the case made. There is also doc. that
the polio vaccine has caused widespread harm, not just benefits.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. Thank you for posting this.

Some of the responses are extremely revealing. It can be quite surprising to see some of the worldviews that are represented on this site.

It is clear that the public health community needs to be looking into ways of improving the dissemination of accurate health information and effectively communicating with the public.

[Celebration]

62. You are welcome

It has certainly opened my eyes, too.

[philb]

93. CDC study author: environmental exposures a signif. factor in autism

CDC granted nearly $6 million for investigators at five major research centers to study 2,700 children over the next five years, in "the largest-ever U.S. study aimed at solving one of the most perplexing mysteries of modern times: the cause of autism."
Lisa Croen, the study's principal investigator in California, told the paper that, "What's become very clear is that autism results from a combination of having a genetic predisposition or genetic susceptibility, plus the added extra exposures from environmental factors or other kinds of lifestyle factors."

One of the major genetic predispositions and exposures that has been documented is mercury thimerosal in vaccines.

[xchrom]

96. that's a lie -- and you know it.

there have several international studies -- all posted here several times that shows there is no link between autism and vaccines.

you are posting flat out falsehoods.

[philb]

100. This is a direct quote from the CDC study author- I have nothing to do with it

[xchrom]

97. there is no relationship between vaccines and autism

Science Coordination & Innovation


* Office Director
* Science Coordination & Innovation
* Vaccine Safety


* Email this page
* Printer-friendly version



Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine and Autism Fact Sheet

Basic Information

* The MMR vaccine protects children against dangerous, even deadly, diseases.

* Because signs of autism may appear at around the same time children receive the MMR vaccine, some parents may worry that the vaccine causes autism.

* Carefully performed scientific studies have found no relationship between MMR vaccine and autism.

* CDC continues to recommend two doses of MMR vaccine for all children.


Additional Facts

* MMR is a combination vaccine that protects children from measles, mumps, and rubella (also known as German measles). The first dose of the vaccine is usually given to children 12 to 15 months old. The second dose is usually given between 4 and 6 years of age.

* In 1998, a study of autistic children raised the question of a connection between MMR vaccine and autism.

* The 1998 study has a number of limitations. For example, the study was very small, involving only 12 children. This is too few cases to make any generalizations about the causes of autism. In addition, the researchers suggested that MMR vaccination caused bowel problems in the children, which then led to autism. However, in some of the children studied, symptoms of autism appeared before symptoms of bowel disease.

* In 2004, 10 of the 13 authors of the 1998 study retracted the study's interpretation. The authors stated that the data were not able to establish a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism.

* Other larger studies have found no relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. For example, researchers in the UK studied the records of 498 children with autism born between 1979 and 1998. They found:


* The percentage of children with autism who received MMR vaccine was the same as the percentage of unaffected children in the region who received MMR vaccine.

* There was no difference in the age of diagnosis of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

* The onset of "regressive" symptoms of autism did not occur within 2, 4, or 6 months of receiving the MMR vaccine.

* Groups of experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, agree that MMR vaccine is not responsible for recent increases in the number of children with autism. In 2004, a report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that there is no association between autism and MMR vaccine, or vaccines that contain thimerosal as a preservative.

* There is no published scientific evidence showing that there is any benefit to separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots.


More Information

http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm

* Autism Information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
* Mercury and Vaccines (Thimerosal)
* Frequently Asked Questions about Vaccines and Autism from CDC's Autism Information Center
* National Immunization Hotline:

* English [phone]
* Spanish [phone]



Other Organizations

* American Academy of Pediatrics
* American Medical Association
* Autism Society of America
* Immunization Action Coalition: MMR vaccine does not cause autism
* National Network for Immunization Information
* The MMR Decision Aid from the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, Australia

Page last modified: October 31, 2007

[philb]

101. You are wrong. The evidence is clear and overwhelming- as I've documented

I've produced real studies from real experts who have real experience with the condition.
There is no credible evidence that contradicts their evidence.

[xchrom]

102. you have posted evidence that is next of kin to wish craft.

all the evidence you have presented has been debunked as garbage time and time again.

it isn't right and it is far from accurate.

you post information that could really hurt some one and spread disease.

it's no different than calling for violence.

[philb]

119. I've posted case histories of actual cases and statements of their doctors

and information from the federal agency compiling the thousands of deaths and injuries to infants from vaccines. Lots of which cases my organization is personally aware of through out interactions with the parents.

www.flcv.com/autisDPT.html
www.flcv.com/autismc.html

The information on our organizations web site which I reference is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed studies and Gov't information and medical lab tests, which are referenced and available to anyone for review. Abstracts of most of the peer-reviewed studies can be found in the Natinal Library of Medicine Medline
www.nlm.nih.gov

The information on our web site cites peer-reviewed studies but the information as compiled into reviews has been reviewed and cited and used by lots of PhD researchers and MDs and Gov't agency employees, which I have some records of. Its been translated into other languages, used in some medical school courses, used as the primary basis for books and articles in medical newsletters written by MDs, etc.

In several years involvement with the organizations web site, I've never seen any
credible serious substantive criticism of any of the articles. Same with most of the other peer-reviewed studies that I've quoted in these threads. If you are aware of one please provide it. The author makes changes as new information becomes available.

[xchrom]

98. authors RETRACT statements linking autism and bowel syndrome.

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/Lancet-MMR-03-2004.htm

Majority of Authors Retract
Controversial Interpretation of 1998 Lancet Paper
Linking MMR Vaccine to A New Syndrome of Bowel Disease and Autism




 
 Statements
 
A statement by the editors of The Lancet     
"We wish to make it clear that in paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon findings in the (1998) paper, according to precedent."

from Retraction of an Interpretation by Simon H Murch, Andrew Anthony, David H Casson, Mohsin Malik, Mark Berelowitz, Amar P Dhillon, Michael A Thomson, Alan Valentine, Susan E Davies, John A Walker-Smith (10 of the original 12 authors; John Linnell could not be reached)

   
Richard Horton
   
A statement by Dr Simon Murch   
Simon Murch
   
A statement by Professor John Walker-Smith   
John Walker-Smith
   
A statement by Dr Andrew Wakefield   
Andrew Wakefield
A statement by The Royal Free and University College Medical School and The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust   
Professor Humphrey Hodgson
 
The lessons of MMR   
Richard Horton
 
Retraction of an interpretation   
*Simon H Murch, Andrew Anthony, David H Casson, Mohsin Malik, Mark Berelowitz, Amar P Dhillon, Michael A Thomson, Alan Valentine, Susan E Davies, John A Walker-Smith
   
Original paper:  Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children
  Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowtiz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA.
  Lancet 1998; 351: 637-41

 

[philb]

103. They still believe the study is valid. Just that more study is needed. But there is more evidence

There has been a huge amount of pressure on the authors and threats and real harm to their practice. They still believe their results, but think more and larger studies are needed to more fully investigate the connections.
But there have been more studies with similar results.

here are some real cases I'm familiar with, of cases of autism related to MMR

www.flcv.com/autisMMR.html

and other researchers/MDs, have confirmed his findings in other cases. As I've posted doc. on before.

and

The Age of Autism: But is Wakefield right? http://www.upi.com/Consumer_Health_Daily/Reports/2006/06/12/the_age_of_autism_but_is_wakefield_right/6204/

[xchrom]

106. you have posted what amounts to fabrication and wild speculation.

wakefield is an utterly discredited individual -- who may face jail time.

yet DU allows this crap to go on -- and it's dangerous to people who are susceptible to cult like thinking.

this is irrational -- not science based fiction you are putting out there.

[philb]

113. Not true, his findings have been confirmed by other credible doctors and lots of cases

I'm familar with lots of MMR related autism cases, and the doctors treating them find exactly the same conditions in the kids that Wakefield did.
Wakefield's findings were clearly accurate and lots of kids with those conditions have been treated by other doctors.
Wakefield is being persecuted by some clearly biased individuals and special interests trying to cover up the clear implications of his findings. Nothing new here. Happens all the time- not just regarding autism. Similar for doctors treating other chronic conditions that the insurence companies don't want to pay for treatment for- such as lyme, and that pharms and doctors responsible for harm to millions (MMR & thimerosal) would prefer not be known.

For example, here are some of the cases I'm familar with, a small subset of the ones I've seen information on.

www.flcv.com/autisMMR.html

And Dr. Garth Nicholson is one of top immunologists in the world and has documented similar findings in his research clinic on autistic patients.
Though some of his cases came from contaminants in other vaccines.
See his web site or other post.

[xchrom]

99. more

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=autism19&date=20040519

Panel finds no credible link between vaccines, autism

By David Brown
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The Institute of Medicine, an influential adviser of the government on scientific matters, said yesterday there is no credible evidence that either the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine or vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal cause autism.
The conclusion came in an 81-page report requested by two federal agencies to address the doubts raised about the safety of childhood vaccines.
The 14-person panel urged more research on autism, but said further pursuit of possible links between vaccines and the neurological disorder probably is not worth the money or effort.
Critics said the final proof may come if autism diagnoses drop now that thimerosal has been virtually eliminated in routine childhood vaccines.
Autism is a complex developmental disorder best known for impairing a child's ability to communicate and interact with others. Recent data suggest a tenfold increase in autism rates in the past decade, although it's unclear how much of the apparent surge reflects better diagnosis.
Reports published in 2001 by the Institute of Medicine found no connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, and insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative added to multiple-dose vials of vaccine. Since then, enough new studies have been published to reject both theories, the panel said.
Especially convincing were a Danish study showing no difference in the rate of autism between children who got thimerosal-containing vaccines and those who did not; and a British study showing no relationship between the introduction of MMR and autism rates, or between the timing of a vaccination and the onset of autism symptoms.
"The vaccine hypotheses are not currently supported by the evidence," wrote the panel, consisting of physicians, neuroscientists, epidemiologists, statisticians and a nurse.
In a telephone briefing, the chairwoman of the committee, Marie McCormick, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said her advice to parents is that children "should be getting their vaccines" because the life-threatening infections they protect against "are only a plane ride away."

[philb]

104. The studies quoted have been documented to be highly problematic and opinions have changed

You aren't up on the latest studies, and the recent discussions of these. As I've posted, CDC and IOM appear to have changed their minds and have additional evidence now, such as I've posted. A new IOM conference is planned soon on this.

[xchrom]

107. because you say so? -- you peddal fiction -- as though it were true.

and that's the problem -- peer reviewed science isn't ever going to keep with the wild fantasies of anti-vaccinators.

it takes time -- not rumour and a key board for real medical science to take place.

[xchrom]

108. more

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070716/vaccine_070716/20070716?hub=Health

The Public Health Agency of Canada says MMR vaccination rates in this country hovered around the 95 per cent rate throughout the period from 1997 to 2004, though no data were collected from 1998 to 2001. Still, in Canada and in the United States, anecdotal reports from pediatricians -- and a perusal of Internet discussions dedicated to the issue -- show the fear sparked by Wakefield's work has taken root here too.


Shortly before publishing the retraction, Lancet editor Dr. Richard Horton declared Wakefield had a "fatal" conflict of interest that would have precluded publication, if the journal had been informed of it.


The doctor was doing paid research for a group of parents of autistic children who were trying to mount a class action suit against the makers of the MMR vaccine. Later it was revealed Wakefield had taken out a patent on a new vaccine while publicly challenging the safety of the existing one.

Despite the allegations of research improprieties, despite the mounds of studies refuting Wakefield's work, pediatricians continue to find themselves facing parents reluctant or unwilling to vaccinate infants against these diseases and others.

Fear can trump science, especially when babies are concerned.

Ofner, who specializes in the spread of hospital acquired infections, knows how to read and assess complex medical studies.

Her oldest child, a seven-year-old daughter, is autistic. The little girl was vaccinated with the MMR shots, which are given at about the age when autism's first symptoms are typically observed.

When Ofner's second daughter was born, she didn't want to take a chance with the combined vaccine, and arranged to purchase individual vaccines against the three diseases. Her second daughter was diagnosed with autism at 18 months. But a reappraisal when the girl was three revealed she no longer meets the criteria for autism.

"I'm totally pro-vaccination," Ofner insists.

"However, when it's your kid and there's a slight chance." she says, leaving the sentence unfinished.

She accepts that studies have proven the shot doesn't cause autism, but worries it might serve as a spark in a small subset of children with a genetic predisposition to the condition. She has a cousin with autism and believes coding for the condition may be contained in the genetic blueprints of one or both of her daughters.

"I've read everything. You know what? Honestly I don't know. So I went to my pediatrician and I said: I don't feel comfortable doing this," says Ofner, referring to vaccinating her youngest daughter with the MMR vaccine.

Still, she points to the experience of a friend who has two sons, both autistic.

"She vaccinated the first one and the second one she didn't. The second one is severe, the first one is mild," Ofner says, referring to where on the scale of autism the boys fall.

"So what's that mean?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

[xchrom]

109. studies show that autism rates grow even when thimerasol is removed from vaccines

http://www.autism-watch.org/rsch/thimerosal.shtml

In the published paper, in Phase I, the cumulative thimerosal exposure at three months was associated with tics. At HMO B, the cumulative exposure at three and seven months was associated with language delays, with relatively low relative risks. In Phase II at HMO C, there were no significant associations between cumulative thimerosal exposure at one, three, or seven months and speech or language delay, ADD, or tics. Only HMO B had a sufficient number of cases of autism to perform an analysis, and even in the preliminary analysis, autism was not significantly associated with thimerosal exposure. The conclusion was that there was no evidence of a clear association between thimerosal exposure in infant vaccines and specific neuro-developmental disorders. But results among the HMOs were inconsistent, and so further investigation was recommended.

The next study was a retrospective cohort study looking at over 100,000 children born in the U.K. between 1988 and 1997, which evaluated the relationship between exposure to thimerosal via DT or DTP vaccines and neuro-developmental outcomes. There was some evidence for higher risk of tics with increasing doses at four months, but no negative associations were found between thimerosal exposure and ADD, general developmental disorders, and unspecified developmental delay.

A problem with these cohort studies is that diagnostic accuracy of outcomes such as ADD or autism is not perfect. For example, in the study just presented, 90 percent of the tics were transient. The doses of thimerosal also differ among the studies. Cohort studies are best used to quantify a risk to exposure rather than to prove its absence.

Dr. Liebermann then talked about ecological studies. In 2000 the Institute of Medicine presented data showing the amount of thimerosal in vaccines and cases of autism diagnosed in California by year of birth. The data show increases in the amount of thimerosal given to children by birth cohort and increases in the rates of diagnosis of autism, and they track fairly well. The rate of autism rose in the mid-eighties, even before an increase in thimerosal. However, anything that increased in the nineties tracks with diagnoses of autism, including use of home personal computers and cell phones. This kind of data only shows that two things were increasing at the same time. It says nothing about a possible association.

An ecological study in Denmark analyzed data from almost 1,000 children diagnosed with autism over 30 years. Thimerosal was used in childhood vaccines from the early fifties until 1992, and there was no trend for an increase in autism up through 1990. From 1991 to 2000, the incidence of autism increased, after thimerosal was discontinued from vaccines, suggesting no relationship between thimerosal and autism in Denmark.

In Sweden, a similar ecological study analyzed inpatients diagnosed between two and ten years of age with autism over a 12-year period. It looked at the average cumulative dose of thimerosal using vaccine-coverage levels. Thimerosal was eliminated by 1993, after which the data show no decline in autism, in fact, it continued to rise. From 1980 to 1996 there was almost a doubling in cases. Looking at all these studies, the Institute of Medicine report in 2004 said the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.

There have been studies showing an association: two ecological studies and three studies using passive reporting data, all by the same authors, who are the only ones who ever found a relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. Quoting the Institute of Medicine, "These studies cited have serious methodological flaws. Their analytic methods were nontransparent, making the results uninterpretable and therefore noncontributory with respect to causality." They used the VAERS database to calculate an incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders and heart disease following thimerosal-containing versus thimerosal-free DTaP vaccines. It might be possible with rare events, like intussusception or Guillain Barre, but not autism. They found an exponential distribution link between autism, speech disorders and heart arrest, and thimerosal dose. VAERS has many limitations. It's passive and there's underreporting, incomplete reporting, and, certainly, bias. It can't be used to calculate incidence and the cases weren't verified. These authors also did an ecological study with U.S. Department of Education data. They compared autism to thimerosal exposure by birth cohort and showed a linear relationship - as thimerosal in vaccines increased, autism increased. However, that does not prove causality and how they actually got their numbers is not clear.

A paper published by Sarah Parker and colleagues carefully analyzed the studies looking at autism and thimerosal exposure, emphasizing the quality of the studies. How good are the data? Are exclusion criteria defined and outcome measures precisely described? Is there a basis for the sample size? Is bias controlled? The paper concluded that while the studies that do not support a relationship are not perfect, one can understand the methodology. The studies that do support a relationship are worthless to evaluate any possible association between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Since the IOM report, there have been two new studies. In the U.K. a longitudinal study of more than 14,000 children determined the ages at which they got thimerosal-containing vaccines, calculated levels of mercury exposure, and compared them with development at between 6 and 91 months of age. Again, the results showed no evidence of any harmful effect of early exposure to thimerosal on neurological or psychosocial outcomes. Indeed, the unadjusted results suggested a beneficial effect of thimerosal exposure. For example, those who had thimerosal had less hyperactivity and better model development. When results were adjusted for possible confounders, eight of the nine significant associations actually showed a beneficial effect, not suggesting that thimerosal is protective, but no evidence of harm. The only negative association was poor pro-social behavior at 47 months.

The last study, published this past year from Montréal, looked at almost 30,000 children and evaluated the relationship between the development of pervasive developmental disorder and changes in vaccines, thimerosal exposure as well as MMR. The cumulative exposure to thimerosal increased and decreased over time. By 1996, it was out of the vaccines. There were a total of 182 children with pervasive developmental disorders. Looking at average thimerosal in the vaccines and diagnoses of autism by birth cohort, the same trend of increases in cases over time can be seen, even in those infants who were not exposed to thimerosal. This seems to be the most compelling evidence of no association. If thimerosal is responsible for autism, as it is removed from vaccines, cases of autism should decline, but that is not happening.

Data from California from 2002 to 2006, which has been submitted for publication, indicates that cases of autism in three- to five-year-olds and six- to nine-year-olds have continued to increase. There's absolutely no evidence of any decrease in cases of autism since thimerosal has been taken out of vaccines. Instead, cases have continued to climb. The science shows that in well-designed epidemiologic studies, there's no association between thimerosal exposure from vaccines and autism. The ecological studies show that autism does not go down when thimerosal is removed from childhood vaccines. Studies in tissue cultures and animals provide interesting information about toxicity, but they do not translate to what is going on in children.

Finally, Dr. Liebermann talked about unintended consequences. For example, the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine is universally recommended to prevent against failures of screening, but hospitals discontinued the routine birth dose in 1999, after the joint statement until thimerosal-free vaccines became available. However, by 2006, vaccine-coverage rates for the birth dose were still below the 1999 levels. As a consequence, hundreds of children in the U.S.were born to hepatitis B-positive mothers and, for various reasons, not screened. The infants did not get their dose of hepatitis B vaccine and, therefore, were at risk of becoming chronic carriers of hepatitis B. Concerns about vaccine safety and the fear that the MMR vaccine caused autism caused MMR vaccination rates to fall in the U.K. with subsequent outbreaks of these vaccine-preventable diseases. Fear of thimerosal caused some high-risk children to avoid the recommended flu vaccine. So there are real consequences to every decision made.

California has passed legislation banning thimerosal-containing vaccines for children under three years and pregnant women in that state. A provision was put in for an exemption in case of emergency or vaccine shortage. In fall 2006, there was a delay in shipping some doses of flu vaccine for children three years of age and younger because one virus in the vaccine was slow growing. A group of medical organizations requested an exemption, which was granted. There are no data to show how this influenced flu vaccines in California, but flu vaccines are time-dependent and not having vaccine makes it very hard to vaccinate children. Anything that limits the availability of vaccines for children potentially puts them at risk.

In conclusion, the evidence does not support an association between thimerosal and autism. The consistency among these well-designed studies lends strength to their individual conclusions. Autism is increasing and research should be directed towards areas of more promise.
                       

[philb]

110. These studies have been shown to be badly flawed; not accurate

May 25, 2004
Collusion Seen After Release of Flawed Vaccine-Autism Report
http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/040519-PR11.pdf
http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/040525-PR13-Denmark2.pdf


Something is Rotten in Denmark
http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/20040518_AutismAuthorsNetwork.pdf

Public Health Concerns regarding vaccine effects taken up by Congress
http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/20May2004_PR_OSC.pdf
which resulted in members of Congress expressions of concern

http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/NoMercury_IOM_Report.pdf

The Thimerosal Scandal
http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDF
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/attack-on-mothers_b_52894.html?view=screen

Autism: Why The Debate Rages CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/06/15/couricandco/entry2934107.shtml

Flaws in CDC Data Documented
http://www.upi.com/Consumer_Health_Daily/Reports/2006/11/22/the_age_of_autism_problems_in_cdc_data/6168/

[xchrom]

115. nope. they are authoritative -- and more comprehensive than yours. -- and yours are bogus.

there is nothing wrong with these studies -- other than the conclusions aren't ones that make you happy.

these studies are peer reviewd -- these studies are authoritative.

DU allows you to post crap from sites like safe minds -- well it's beyond me -- and robert f kennedy is beginning to look like some one who's been abducted -- by aliens.

[philb]

118. Not true, other experts and researchers have pointed out the same things and

Congressional Hearings on this issue have confirmed what I have noted.
And Congressmen have expressed their concern to the agencies based on the hearings. Some of the Congressmen expressing their displeasure with the bias exhibited by the agencies data and studies were MDs. I could post URLs to the hearings and statements.

some of the other studies pointing out problems with these are found elsewhere in these threads. States and other countries have banned mercury from vaccines for this reason.

[xchrom]

124. your experts abandon their own research -- that's a fact.

the other fact is that finland, denmark, britain, france, canada and the u.s. have all done years worth of studies debunking each of you hysterical ''theories'' -- you are pushing disease.

[philb]

114. Analysts found that there is a timing problem with this data

They only took thimerosal out of vaccines a few years ago and not all at once or in all vaccines. And autism is often not diagnosed until age 3 or 4. So the kids diagnosed with autism in a given recent year may have had a lot of vaccines with thimerosal. There were no controls for this problem.

I've seen discussions of this and could likely find it, but am about to leave for a Christmas trip. Maybe after I get back.

[xchrom]

116. -- you are fabricating again -- makin shit up.

you don't tell the truth philb -- nothing like it.

the stuff you post is insane -- and could cause real harm -- well it does cause harm.

[philb]

117. You are aware of the facts that I posted & that vaccines have killed or harmed millions of infants

or children.

And that the information reported to the federal VAERS database on
infants harmed shows that thousands are killed or disabled by vaccines

Federal Vaccine Event Reporting System
The VAERS database has 228,212 reported adverse events. These range from deaths and disabilities to lesser conditions. Studies indicate that the majority(over 90%) of adverse events are not reported to this system, especially events other than immediate acute reactions.
2001 14694
2002 14128
2003 16868
2004 15487
2005 15712
2006 17468
2007 to Oct 20862

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/stats.html

and my information and the projection studies shows millions.

I've posted many dozens of cases that my organization is aware of of the thousands such that were tested and treated by just one clinic that I have data from.

www.flcv.com/autisDPT.html
www.flcv.com/autismc.html


more: http://www.nvic.org/Issues/VAERS.htm

This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands (at a minimum) significantly harmed by vaccine contaminants like monkey viruses (SV40 for example) and dangerous mycoplasmas, as documented by experts like Dr. Garth Nicholson and others- see the other vaccine thread.

[xchrom]

122. those sources are utterly unreliable.

they make things up to suit an hysterical agenda.

they mean to spread panic and harm -- and that's what you are trying to do through baseless rumour and fiction.

[philb]

120. what are you suggesting that I made up and that you disagree with.? what I said seems obvious

which statement is it that you think I made up and that you disagree with??

Here are my 2 statements that you objected to:

They only took thimerosal out of vaccines a few years ago and not all at once or in all vaccines. (do you disagree?)


Autism is often not diagnosed until age 3 or 4.
(do you disagree?)

I think everyone agrees with these statements, so I'm not sure what your objection is?

I've also seen much discussion of this issue, including evidence that where data is carefully made to be consistent, there is evidence that autism cases and the number of infants killed by vaccines have declined since thimerosal was removed from vaccines.
The studies I'm remembering have been posted to this site before and could be found again.
If this thread is still around after Christmas, I could find the references.

The CDC VAERS data base previously listed is a source for checking on the numbers killed by vaccines after thimerosal was removed, compared to the number killed before; and the seriousness of harm before and after removal, and whether most vaccines that have caused deaths and serious disabilities had thimerosal (or not)

[xchrom]

121. it's obvious that any hysterical and phony objections you have

are addressed in these studies.

you have not placed ONE authoritative source -- you have placed sources that are compromised beyond anything believable.

[philb]

111. Mothering Magazine Warns Parents About Mercury In Flu Vaccines

http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/press_releases/MotherMagazinePressRelease.pdf
based on studies showing infant harm from vaccines containing mercury thimerosal

[xchrom]

123. safeminds is an utterly reprehensible and irresponsible source. nt

[philb]

125. What is your basis for your judgement? are you an expert? Do you have experience in treating

kids with the conditions in question? Do you know anything about the Safeminds organization or the credentials of their researchers?

Though my statements depend little on anything from Safeminds, I know that they are a patient support organization primarily organized by parents of kids who have suffered significant harm from vaccines, they have researchers with reasonable credentials, they interact with the Autism Associations and parent organizations of kids with autism and other conditions that appear to be primarily related to vaccine exposurs. they do what they do based on lots of real experience with the autistic kids that they represent and the parents and doctors treating them. I've never seen any deliberate misrepresentation or disinformation distribted by any of their people. No one is perfect, but they appear to be sincere and interested only in the public interest and the welfare of the kids that they interact on behalf of.

I have real doubts about someone who would make such a harmful statement about a patient support organization representing kids with serious chronic conditions and their parents who are concerned that there appears to be millions of kids being harmed by practices such as exposing infants to huge levels of toxic substances like mercury before their neurological or immune systems are fully developed. I don't think that you can document that their concerns are unwarrented, so I'm surprised that you would make such a statement.
If you can document for them that some of their concerns that they express are unwarrented you should do so. If you know that the cause of their kids serious conditions is something other than vaccines, I think you should make that known to them, and to the public at large, and tell us and them what are the real causes of 50% of births resulting in birth defects or chronic developmental conditions such as autism, ADD, learning disabilities, eczema, mood disorders, asthma, diabetes, etc. etc.
I've seen their case and its a lot stronger and based on more real case evidence, tests, treatment experience, etc. than any Ive seen from you.
But I would be glad for you to educate us on what the real cause of the huge numbers of developmental neurological conditions affecting kids that they were organized to investigate on behalf of those with those conditions.
Rather than calling concerned parents of disabled kids names, why don't you educate us and them about the real causes of their kid's conditions.

[xchrom]

126. no -- i post from those people who really are the experts.

safeminds is a lunatic place spreading the gospel of disease -- and death.

[philb]

131. You are wrong; they just have actual experience with real kids killed and harmed by vaccines

You obviously don't work with lots of such kids with these conditions.

Some examples they and I am aware of from experience (see also the Gov't website on reported vaccine effects I've posted URL to before)

Vaccines kill many. The following chiIdren suffered a severe reaction to a routine DPT (diphtheria. pertussis, tetanus), MMR (measles, mumps. rubella), or OPV (oral polio) vaccine. They are only a few of the thousands of children who have died or been left with medication resistant seizure disorders, mental retardation, physical handicaps, learning disabilities or other chronic illnesses after a reaction to a routine vaccination.
Chris - Christopher died 21 hours after receiving his 1st DPT & OPV vaccinations at two months of age.

Ashley - Within 72 hours of her 4th DPT and OPV and HIB Ashley was hospitalized with kidney failure and encephalitis. Because of these vaccinations Ashley is severely mentally and physically handicapped.
Richell - Within 10 hours of 3rd DPT and OPV Richell suffered a grand mal seizure. She is now severely mentally and physically handicapped.
Kimber - Within 3 hours of 1st DPT and OPV Kimberly suffered 103 degree fever, high pitched screaming and convulsions. Kimberlie died 2 years later.
Josh - Within 6 hours of 3rd DPT and OPV, at an age of 6 months, Josh suffered high pitched screaming, a 101 degree fever followed by a one hour grand mal seizure. Josh is moderate to severely mentally retarded and severely language delayed.
Anna - Within 2 days of her 1st MMR at an age of 15 months Anna began limping. Within 6 weeks she was totally paralyzed. At age 3 Anna could not walk independently or talk and was severely handicapped and language delayed.
Matthew - Within 26 hours of 1st DPT and OPV and after projectile vomiting, staring, and behavior change Matthew died.

other cases of signif. harm I'm aware of by experience(they have more than me):
www.flcv.com/autisDPT.html
www.flcv.com/autisMMR.html
www.flcv.com/autihepB.html
www.flcv.com/autismc.html

[ElboRuum]

127. GAH!

I must tell you that some of the cryptocensorship talk in this thread is particularly alarming. You would think that people would see the slippery slope that the censoring of "dangerous" opinion would clearly represent. You would hope that they would see that for every well-intentioned censor, there are a thousand more people ready to censor based upon their own personal views or desire to push an agenda, ready to repress necessary information. You would hope that people would see that we tolerate dangerous opinion and misrepresentation of fact in order to have the ability to be able to refute those claims, and that censorship derives its character from who is in control of the eject lever. God forbid you disagree with THAT person or persons.

I read somewhere in this thread a comment about how the person seeking help should not be the one to bear the burden of having to determine the veracity of a source, in this case, a medical source.

My head reeled. Seriously. Of COURSE, the person seeking help should have this burden! They are the ones who will be harmed, they are the primary stakeholders in their own health, and as such, the bulk of the burden is theirs, and they should, for their own best interest be happy to shoulder it!

And the simple answer is, if you need medical advice or wish to clarify a medical issue, ask your doctor, not the effing web!

This is America. Advertisers, the media, and just about anyone who can get access to a microphone or a recording device of any kind have been pushing false claims and spin and misinformation on us from time immemoriam. At one point or another, the individual MUST SHOULDER THE BURDEN for one's own choices, one's own life, and what one chooses to believe and know. This WILL leave some hurting. It is the price we pay for being able to have individual choices, individual lives, and individual beliefs.

This thread is :crazy:

[trotsky]

128. So you read this whole thread and you STILL don't get it?

Now THAT'S :crazy:

[Celebration]

130. So how would you feel

If philb was the censor of medical information on the internet?

[trotsky]

135. Terrible, because philb (and/or the person who shares his account) has no education.

Yes, I am of the crazy mindset that sometimes educated people DO know more than the rest of us.

[Celebration]

141. not sure about Philb's education, but how about

Dr. Mercola? He does. BTW, remember that some of our great civil servants in the Justice Department have educations as well-- law degrees from Liberty University (is that the name of it?) Would you like them as censors?

[trotsky]

146. Since you still can't seem to understand anything but extremes,

I'm not going to indulge you anymore. Sorry. Let me know when you've given up black-and-white thinking.

[Celebration]

149. Do you get this? We are stuck with an extreme NOW!!

It's not hypothetical. It is Liberty University.

[trotsky]

151. Because that's all you see.

I'm terribly sorry.

[Celebration]

157. And what is it that you see?

Free speech survives administrations like this. If we allowed censorship, then, under this administration or one like it, pro choice viewpoints, as an example, could be censored.

As far as I am concerned, you are advocating a totalitarian position.

[trotsky]

159. And as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing to argue with but strawmen.

Good luck with that.

[Celebration]

163. Wish that GWB was a strawman

Unfortunately, NOT.

[trotsky]

164. And GWB sees all, controls all, knows all.

Ah that all-or-none mindset. How precious.

[Celebration]

169. Yes, enough to lead us to WAR

And we are still in it. Not to mention talking telecom companies into spying on us. If his administration were allowed to censor, he would exercise that same power.

You are advocating an extremely dangerous position.

[philb]

132. Clearly you are the one that don't get it. Apparently you didn't read the whole thread.

Do you deny that many have been killed by vaccination and millions harmed?
Have you read the Gov't web site info that tracks such?
And the widespread harm caused by virus and micoplasma contaminants in vaccines, that have also killed large numbers and caused widespread extremely serious health effects, as documented by the top immunologists in their fields.
You can find this all by reading the posts/URLs posted on these vaccine threads.
Its not a simple case; some vaccines have some benefits but vaccines have had widespread serious adverse effects , killing and harming large numbers.
I think its clear some vaccines are more harmful than beneficial; but there has been no careful analysis of the pros and cons by anyone that I've seen.

[trotsky]

136. No, philb, you have demonstrated over and over and over again...

on this thread and many, many others that you have no clue. You assert as if you were an expert (whichever one of you is posting this time, Bernie/Bernie Jr.) and promote DANGEROUS and LIFE-THREATENING "treatments."

Do you deny that many have been killed by vaccination and millions harmed?

Yes, I deny this. "Millions harmed"?!? Give me a break! I am sick, sick, SICK of your misinformation and the danger you pose to others.

[philb]

178. Nothing I've posted has ever been contradicted by credible evidence- produce some

Show me an example of misinformation. If I've posted so much surely you can provide some specifics with the credible evidence to the contrary.


Mercury is extremely neurotoxic, the 2nd most toxic element, and as noted EPA says so toxic along with other toxic metals that the top 3 toxics adversely affecting large numbers of people are mercury, lead, and arsenic(millions)- which have been found by the doctors treating autistics to all be factors in some of the cases, with mercury in virtually all, and the main source being vaccines.
Thimerosal has been documented by medical tests/medical labs (www.melisa.org) to cause autism by causing autoimmunity; and also by neurotoxic effects and blocking metabolic processes(as measured by standard fractionated porphyrin test using a medical lab test- see previous documention and studies) And even more cases of ADHD and other developemental disabilities (www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html

(here's a peer-reviewed study with real credible medical tests, backed by lots of similar studies that have also shown similar)

A prospective assessment of porphyrins in autistic disorders: a potential marker for heavy metal exposure. Geier DA, Geier MR. Neurotox Res. 2006 Aug;10(1):57-64
Conclusion: An apparent dose-response effect was observed between autism severity and increased urinary coproporphyrins. Patients with non-chelated autism (2.25-fold, 83% had levels > 2 SD above the control mean) and non-chelated ASDs (2-fold, 58% had levels > 2 SD above the control mean), but not patients with non-chelated pervasive developmental delay-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) or Asperger's disorder (1.4-fold, 46% had levels > 2 SD above the control mean), had significantly increased median coproporphyrin levels versus controls. A significant increase (1.7-fold) in median coproporphyrin levels was observed among non-chelated ASD patients versus chelated ASD patients. Porphyrins should be routinely clinically measured in ASDs, and potential ASD treatments should consider monitoring porphyrin levels. Additional research should be conducted to evaluate the potential role for mercury exposure in some ASDs. (I've posted refs. for the test before)

DAN doctors treating thousands of autistics all over this country and others have by medical tests confirmed that the autisitic children were mercury toxic (extremely high mercury levels) plus also many toxic with other toxic metals(lead,arsenic, antimony, etc.) And documented that they recover when treated by detoxification. See the other autism threads for documentation.

Likewise the mechanism by which mercury causes over 30 chronic conditions is documented in the medical literature by thousands of peer-reviewed studies (www.flcv.com/indexa.html
and the organization whose web site I keep up has documented over 60,000 cases of recovery or signif. improvement in patients with all of those conditions after reducing mercury exposures and detox. Thousands of these documented by peer-reviewed studies.
www.flcv.com/hgremove.html

There is overwhelming scientific consensus on this; and scientific panels in most advanced countries have agreed. Many European countries have banned or in the process of banning dental amalgam for this reason and EU is in process of doing so. Japan doesn't even teach use of amalgam in dental schools any more. The latest Congressional Hearings on autism and the lastest FDA hearing panel concluded that mercury causes adverse effects and is not safe to use. The DOH ATSDR, agency responsible for toxic safety and standards confirmed what other studies and gov't agencies have stated, that dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most people who have amalgam fillings, with 10 times more exposure on average than those without amalgam. www.flcv.com/damspr1.html

EPA has confirmed that dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in all sewers(since people get such high exposures and excrete it into sewers along with dental office mercury). Also that dental amalgam is a major source of mercury in water bodies and fish, with 30% of all U.S. water bodies having mercury warnings for fish.
Also that amalgam is a major source of mercury air emissions, from crematorium amalgam and sewer sludge vaporization/emissions. Sewer sludge has on average 3 ppm mercury, most from amalgam.
www.flcv.com/damspr2f.html

I've summarized much of what I've posted in the past here so you can provide the credible evidence that contradicts what I've posted.
Have at it.

[trotsky]

181. Bernie/Bernie Jr., you've been deluged with information that shows you are wrong.

You simply put your hands over your eyes and yell "LA LA LA LA LA" to pretend it doesn't exist!

You claim you want "credible" evidence. Here's a big clue for you: melisa, flcv, mercola, wackosRus, and your own advocacy sites aren't credible. Your logical failings have been pointed out to you again and again and again. You keep shotgunning, though, hoping that your opponents will just give up because you have 3000 links to studies that either aren't peer reviewed, aren't real science, or - and here's the kicker - never supported what you said in the first place! :rofl:

All of us here will continue to combat your efforts to undermine people's health. You can count on that.

[philb]

195. Your saying something doesn't make it so; you still have no credible evidence to present apparently

MELISA test was developed by a Pharmaceutical Company to screen pharmaceutical drugs related to producing autoimmune effects; but was found to be very useful for other types of toxics and in general for autoimmune conditions. The developer has outstanding research credentials. MELISA is a widely used test, both for drugs and toxic metals. The articles I site are published in some of the most prestiegous peer-review journals, and peer-reviewed. I haven't depended on Mercola for anything, though I think he likely has a good practice and lots of healthy patients. You haven't cited anything credible to the contrary regarding the documentation that I've sited.
The 3000 peer-reviewed studies that I site can be checked by anyone and most can be found in NIH National Library Medline www.nlm.nih.gov
Its clear that you aren't familiar with the literature and since there is so much documentation out there apparently don't want to be bothered by the facts- by looking at the information.
again I note- there is a huge amount of documentation, summaries, etc. in the studies and reviews of the studies that I cite. Yet I can't remember you ever providing credible evidence that any of it is problematic. Credible evidence means a study with real tests on real people or on test animals, like the large numbers of such that I've cited. Or credible evidence that something in any of the large numbers I've cited has something problematic. You just make silly remarks without support.

[trotsky]

197. That's entirely what your argumentation consists of, Bernie/Jr.

Your saying something doesn't make it so. Repeatedly citing the same studies that have nothing to do with your assertions, or are so bogus as to be laughable, doesn't make them any more valid.

Everything that contradicts you is credible, philb. Do you take money from people for your "assistance"?

[DemExpat]

129. Risks of living in open, free societies.

I know what kind of society I wish to live in - despite the risks.

Open, relatively free societies like ours in the West are being increasingly threatened from without and from within IMO.

DemEx

[Celebration]

153. Yep, it is all about control

Our current administration practices its own brand of censorship by destroying all evidence. It is very criminal. Ooooo, too much "dangerous" information out there for us peons and serfs. We need to be "protected" because our leaders know best.

[philb]

133. Toxic metal acute exposures indistinguishable from autism

We've heard a lot about the recalls for the toys made with lead paint. Lead poisoning can have severe impacts on a child and his or her family.
Problems for Noah Breakiron began at nine-months-old. He was often sick and out of control.
"We couldn't go to the grocery store, church, really anywhere due to the screaming," said Rob, Noah's dad.
Noah was diagnosed with autism, but then the underlying problem was discovered: lead poisoning. Noah had seven-times the upper limit of lead in his body.
"We were shocked," said Lisa Breakiron, Noah's mother. "We were absolutely shocked. Like, lead poisoning? That can't be right."
Lisa and Rob couldn't pinpoint how the lead got in Noah's body. But now, his parents believe it might have been from his toys.
"I can tell you when he was a toddler, he was always chewing on stuff," said Rob.
Chealation treatments have reduced Noah's lead levels and have made a huge impact.
"It was really powerful and amazing for us to watch. It was like literally watching a miracle right in front of your eyes," said Rob.
Pediatrician David Berger is Noah's doctor.
"We have a child here who is virtually indistinguishable from his peers and that's certainly not what he was a year or two years ago," said Dr. Berger.
Dr. Berger says a developing brain is much more sensitive to lead exposure. He says universal testing for lead in young kids should be done. It's a blood test doctors stopped doing routinely ten years ago, but one he says parents should ask for.
"This can cause significant long term problems and it's worthwhile checking for," said Dr. Berger.
"With Noah's level of lead poisoning, if that would have continued, he could have died," said Lisa.
Today, you can't tell that Noah's body is in a battle to remove the lead. He just seems like a typical four year old, and that's good news. Because the symptoms of autism and lead poisoning mimic each other.
http://www.wftv.com/health/15051675/detail.html?rss=orlc&psp=health

millions of kids neurologically affected by toxic metal exposures:
www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html

[ElboRuum]

175. Why do you keep posting this stuff?

Yes, it is theorized, and there is evidence to support the claim, that increase of pollution, including that of heavy metals, may be a significant contributing factor to autism. I read it in a SciAm two or three months ago. Nothing like having a reliable source of scientific information around, isn't there?

[philb]

196. This is a real case; you seem to prefer claims without real experience; lots like this

Many milions affected similarly by toxic metal toxicity and documented in the literature. By real credible peer-reviewed studies that I'm not aware any credible scientist disagrees with.
www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html
www.flcv.com/kidshg.html
etc. etc.

[LeftishBrit]

134. Do you also think...

that there should be no restrictions on fraudulent claims in advertising, or deceptions about food ingredients, because after all, it's the customer's job to check these claims, as it's their individual choice what to buy?

[trotsky]

137. EXCELLENT analogy, LB.

Free society! If you end up with arsenic in your corn flakes, well I guess you should have bought a kit to test for arsenic first, huh? Gosh I'd hate to live in a society where FREEDOM was clamped down so much as to prevent food manufacturers from throwing motor oil or rat poison in with their product! Wouldn't that be RESTRICTIVE? :eyes:

[ElboRuum]

174. Actually, no, this isn't even an accurate analogy. See post below. n/t

[trotsky]

177. Actually, yes, because you assume this advice isn't part of an ad

or promotion. 99 times out of 100, it is. Try again!

[ElboRuum]

185. What, in the name of Dog, are you talking about?

Advertising and ingredients on food labels aren't free expression either. They are a testament to fact and as such certainly fodder for regulation in this regard.

Having a yahoo opinion, bullshitting about the facts, and posting up a screed on YouTube IS free expression, albeit, in my opinion, a complete waste thereof. If all free expression had to be truthful, we'd have to arrest any writer of fiction and just about all people with a political agenda. But we don't, no matter how many uninquisitive people it may lead astray of the truth.

If someone is going to believe some chucklehead on YouTube over doctors and scientists about issues of health, then so be it.

Firstly, you'll have to explain where I assumed that this ISN'T a part of an ad.

Even if I had made that assumption, it would not have changed the fact that the analogy presented is one which, while on the face seems to have some merit in accuracy, upon closer inspection, is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison.

Advertising is bound to certain standards of truth to claim, ingredients on food labels are subject to even more stringent standards. However, if it is, in fact an advertisement, you must be aware that so long as there is ONE study out there to suggest the position has merit, and it is on the face of this study that the product or service being sold is based, presuming there is a product or service being sold, and that the product or service is being marketed as an alternative treatment (regardless of its efficacy), and as long as this treatment cannot be proven to cause harm, that means that the only thing left to be crabby about is the fact that there are people who are easily led astray of what you claim is the truth and that they need protection from their own inability to parse truth from fiction, shit from shinola.

My underlying point is that as consumers of information, we are as much bound by "caveat emptor" as when we're consuming goods. We are guaranteed certain levels of protection from outright fraudulent claims. But, there are limits to this as well, which is why we must rely upon our own wits to avoid getting taken for a ride.

Let's be frank, if 99 out of every 100 similar videos, is, in fact, part of an advertisement as you claim, what reasonable person would accept the view of some tool in a YouTube video in a matter of issues of health rather than going to a doctor and soliciting advice from a professional? Certainly, anyone who has been on YouTube for three and a half minutes would have to realize that there isn't any real filtration to speak of. That said, maybe quite a few would. And I don't, as my last sentence states, believe that these people require protection from dubious advertising at the expense of true free expression practiced at the hands of others, which, whether you realize it or not, is precisely what you propose.

THAT, my friend, is the crux of the issue. When you invoke "censorship", what you are essentially saying is that people DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to vet out the truth of the information presented them, nor do they have the right to CONTRIBUTE INFORMATION without first being subject to some third party filtration process before it may be presented. If you censor one thing because it lacks your particular requisite levels of truthiness, that is the first dodgy step down a slippery slope where the politics of the day determines what gets heard and what doesn't. It all depends on who's holding the lever at the time.

I'll pose the questions yet again.

When it comes to information, who would we trust to censor? Let me start off by saying that it wouldn't be you. Why? Because you are not qualified to vet this information any moreso than I am, and the ones that cry out for censorship the most are the least desirable to implement it. Second, even if I did trust you, will you do it for life? If not, can I trust the next person to be as fair? Or would this be a government thing? Would we appoint a blue-ribbon panel of political hacks and gladhanded appointees to do it? Would we trust them to weed the truths from the frauds in matters of science, medicine, and technologies? The same body of individuals who produced someone who claims that the Internet is a series of tubes?

Pretty sick scenario, yes? And you could claim hyperbole, but if the last half century of history has taught us anything is that a right or freedom, once surrendered, is never returned willingly. And once surrendered, those who have the most to gain through its surrender, who are now free to act in its stead, will predictably act to make you regret your decision.

[trotsky]

186. Just trying to follow your reasoning. It's tough, I admit!

Firstly, you'll have to explain where I assumed that this ISN'T a part of an ad.

Because you didn't say you did?

However, if it is, in fact an advertisement, you must be aware that so long as there is ONE study out there to suggest the position has merit, and it is on the face of this study that the product or service being sold is based, presuming there is a product or service being sold, and that the product or service is being marketed as an alternative treatment (regardless of its efficacy), and as long as this treatment cannot be proven to cause harm, that means that the only thing left to be crabby about is the fact that there are people who are easily led astray of what you claim is the truth and that they need protection from their own inability to parse truth from fiction, shit from shinola.

Are you citing law or legal precedent here? Or just talking outta your ass? Because in case you didn't realize it, we don't live in libertopia where "caveat emptor" is the supreme law of the land. Even stupid people are protected to some extent, because that's the RIGHT thing to do.

But, there are limits to this as well, which is why we must rely upon our own wits to avoid getting taken for a ride.

Sure we do. But because someone can't discern legit claims from fraudulent ones, does that mean they deserve to suffer and possibly die?

Let's be frank, if 99 out of every 100 similar videos, is, in fact, part of an advertisement as you claim, what reasonable person would accept the view of some tool in a YouTube video in a matter of issues of health rather than going to a doctor and soliciting advice from a professional?

Reading here in this forum, I'm afraid there would probably be a lot more than you think. Especially if said individuals had no health insurance. They might be desperate and don't have the luxury of analyzing claims.

When you invoke "censorship", what you are essentially saying is that people DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to vet out the truth of the information presented them, nor do they have the right to CONTRIBUTE INFORMATION without first being subject to some third party filtration process before it may be presented.

And right there is where you and the others in this thread are just completely whacked. Is it "censorship" when we prohibit people from shouting fire in the crowded theater? Of course not. It's a reasonable restriction on free speech. Has it led to a slippery slope ending all free speech? Of course not. The defenders of medical nonsense scream CENSORSHIP but this is the same exact thing. So feel free to keep using the word, but you'll just look sillier.

When it comes to information, who would we trust to censor? Let me start off by saying that it wouldn't be you. Why? Because you are not qualified to vet this information any moreso than I am, and the ones that cry out for censorship the most are the least desirable to implement it.

When did I say it *SHOULD* be me? LOL, that's quite the strawman! I readily admit I don't have the knowledge and I'm pretty sure I've done exactly that on this thread already.

The rest of your post is just the same old science-bashing that I'm usually accustomed to seeing from Republicans. Finding it here on DU is sad, but just goes to show that fear and ignorance knows no political boundaries.

Anyway, I'm sure you have more windmills to tilt at. Go forth, brave knight, and continue your noble battle against us evil totalitarian bastards who are upset at harmful videos on YouTube. :rofl:

[DemExpat]

138. I would say sales is quite a different issue

from publication and broadcasting of ideas/viewpoints.

Not a good analogy IMO.

DemEx

[trotsky]

139. Well with the reasoning you present, I guess it's hard to argue.

You don't think the quacks out there are selling treatments and products too?

[LeftishBrit]

140. The point is that many of these are presented not as viewpoints, but as FACTS

If something is clearly presented as a viewpoint, that's one thing; but if they say that something is 'medically proved' then it's another.

Moreover, many anti-vaccination sites and spokespeople go way beyond just opposing vaccinations, and actively promote their own treatments, such as 'chelation therapy'. So this is pretty similar to sales.

I do think there need to be some restrictions on direct advertising of medical products to consumers. I don't think that pharmaceutical companies should do so either.

[Celebration]

142. Facts

What they do is *selectively* list studies and viewpoints of medical professionals. Those are by far the majority of the anti-vaccine websites. They are completely lacking in any evidence that goes against them. I can see that some would view this as a problem. A few might suggest chelation therapy, but most have no financial interest in that. Again, most of these websites are run by people with no financial interest in it. The question is, if this is a problem, how do we fix it?

The answer is not censorship, unless you want to open a can of worms like no other.

Just about all viewpoints are presented as FACTS. Look at all the so-called conspiracy theories around 911. Whether one is pro government report or anti government report, all of them cite FACTS. But they all collect their own sets of facts surrounding their viewpoints.

Anyone who feels that people need a more balanced viewpoint on vaccines should present their own sets of facts to the people in a way that persuades them.

Linking for profit treatments to anti vaccine websites would be a big problem. I know of one doctor who retired so that he can make his viewpoints known, without being accused of promoting his own treatments.

[DemExpat]

144. Sure, most viewpoints are presented as facts as people see them.

And definitely IMO 'medically proven' facts need to be checked and challenged - "facts" coming from any source in society, including the FDA, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, laymen, consumers, quacks, etc.

Promoting treatments is not similar to sale of a product, and since I value alternative medicine I would not ever accept that its promotion would be restricted in the media.

I am all for standards for safety and labelling of a product, and am all for standards for alternative medicine and treatments as exists here in Holland. I want ALL quacks and unethical people - educated or not, expert or layman - using other people dishonestly for private gain to be challenged.

The EU recently overhauled and tightened standards for supplements and herbs, and I support this measure as it in no way has limited availability of these products or greatly raised prices.

But viewpoints/ideas/challenges to the norm or even to the "experts" are not to be squashed or limited in media, communications, etc.

I am totally against this unless people are threatening to murder or engage in violence against individuals, groups, or society as a whole.

Ideas are to be fought with debate, attempt to prove, discussion, never restriction and censor.

I find so much in society harmful, dishonest, dangerous, etc., and know that others find OTHER things just as harmful. Encouraging censorship would be the beginning of the end of open society.

DemEx

[trotsky]

147. Should child porn be censored? n/t

[DemExpat]

148. Yes, it should, IMO, along with pedophile sites, etc.

As violence/abuse against young children.

DemEx

[trotsky]

152. Let me know when you've got a consistent position.

Ideas are to be fought with debate, attempt to prove, discussion, never restriction and censor.

[DemExpat]

154. Let me know when you can even read my previous posts!

I am totally against this unless people are threatening to murder or engage in violence against individuals, groups, or society as a whole.

DemEx

[trotsky]

158. Nope, that doesn't cover it.

Is a picture of a naked child murder or violence?

Work on that consistency.

[DemExpat]

160. Pornography

Creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire

Creating and stimulating sexual desire for a naked child's body is abusive to children.
You are free to think otherwise.

DemEx

[trotsky]

162. See, you are adjusting your definition.

You know you have a consistency problem. Now it's not about violence or murder, you're including non-physical abuse.

You DO support censorship of certain ideas.

[DemExpat]

168. See, you are hooking onto a different topic when you run out of arguments......

You shifted to child porn from discussion of censorship of challenging ideas/discussions on health and healthcare on YouTube.

I see child pornography definitely as physically abusive of children and consistent with my views of censorship.
And of course it is always a slippery slope of who is judging what is violent, what is abusive, what is harmful. That is what the courts are for.

I do not in any way support censorship of ideas/discussion of pedophilia
or child pornography, censorship of the idea of child pornography/pedophilia, nor do I support censorship of photographs of naked children.


I do support censorship of child pornography - clear distinction of this as defined above as inciting sexual desire/use/abuse of children, as well as the photographs themselves using children in sexual poses, sexual acts, etc.
This is not so difficult to see as violent and physically abusive because it involves children, not possibly consenting adults.


Here in The Netherlands there are Pedophile sites as well as a political party for pedo's, which I find abhorrent.
But they are not forbidden here as long as they are promoting their standpoint and do not post pornography.

Child pornography using children in sexual acts/positions is abuse and is against the law.


DemEx

[trotsky]

170. Not at all.

You made the universal pronouncement that censorship is always bad.

To disprove a global/universal statement, you only have to find one exception. I did. You responded by changing your position.

You are now equivocating to try and save face, but it's too late. I made my point, and you showed that you DO believe that certain things and ideas should be censored.

[ElboRuum]

176. But isn't it imperative...

that people have to consider the source of any "facts" they have presented?

As far as this other issue of the presentation of "fact" by anti-vaccination sites and spokespeople:

Would you censor the promotion of holistic treatments for disease?
Would you censor those who believe in intelligent design rather than evolution?

Certainly these individuals are purporting some knowledge of fact, so what about them?

Furthermore, at what point would you deem censorship "over the line"? Who gets to determine what the "truth" is? When does it get determined? And does the "truth" then necessarily depend on who is manning the censorship ejection lever?

Since there are no cleats sharp enough to keep from sliding down that slippery slope, maybe it's prudent to stay away from the edge?

[cosmik debris]

143. Kevin Trudeau.

Do I need to explain that reference?

[DemExpat]

145. No.

I don't support its censorship either, even though I may not agree with his viewpoints on many issues.

DemEx

[cosmik debris]

155. Huh?

Are you saying that he should be allowed to sell his quack cures to any damn fool that comes along? That there should be no sanction for people lying to take money from ignorant people? That the consequences of that fraud are not an issue that we should deal with collectively?

I don't understand your position at all.

[DemExpat]

156. I was referring to his book.

Didn't realize he practised all of those cures he lists there.

No, I do not support censoring listings/promotions of alternative treatments.

DemEx

[cosmik debris]

161. He was enjoined from selling fake cures

so now he sells a book listing fake cures and claiming that they work. And now your position seems to be that our society should not inhibit that sale.

I find that position to be cruelly callous and more supportive of greed than compassion or reason.

Are you saying that such fraud is OK? What should be done about obvious frauds like Trudeau? Nothing?

[DemExpat]

165. I found some of his ideas in his book to be ones I use

regularly to my benefit (Supplements, herbs, homeopathy, acupuncture) so I don't see all of his list as a fraud.

Individual treatments given for money can be challenged for being fraudulent, but not the discussion or ideas about them IMO. No matter how whacky they seem to some.

And no, I hate the to my eyes obvious greed, but no more than I detest the greed of other businesses and a whole bunch or other individuals in this world.



DemEx

[cosmik debris]

166. You have my sympathy

But I don't believe that your malady can be cured by anything but better education.

[DemExpat]

167. LOL, no need for sympathy here.

I did help myself with education!

I am thankful for information and services outside the regular medicine world which I use when medicine has nothing to offer.

DemEx

[cosmik debris]

171. You fell for the scam of a known con man

And now you pretend you know more than others.

Indeed you do need sympathy and much much more.

[LeftishBrit]

172. 'I do not support censoring listings/promotions of alternative treatments.'

Do you support pharmaceutical companies having unlimited and unrestricted rights to promote specific conventional medicines directly to the public?

I don't think that censoring the mention and listing of treatments - conventional or alternative - is either desirable or possible. But actual advertising to people in a desperate state - that seems like an undesirable tactic. This is indeed not permitted in the UK with regard to treatments for serious conditions; though the advertising of OTC cold remedies, etc. does take place.

[Celebration]

150. this would be fraud

"Puffery" is allowed in advertising. Fraudulent claims are not.

[ElboRuum]

173. No. But then again...

Advertising and ingredients on food labels aren't free expression either. They are a testament to fact and as such certainly fodder for regulation in this regard.

Having a yahoo opinion, bullshitting about the facts, and posting up a screed on YouTube IS free expression, albeit, in my opinion, a complete waste thereof. If all free expression had to be truthful, we'd have to arrest any writer of fiction and just about all people with a political agenda. But we don't, no matter how many uninquisitive people it may lead astray of the truth.

If someone is going to believe some chucklehead on YouTube over doctors and scientists about issues of health, then so be it.

[philb]

179. Some examples of the videos on U-Tube, but note they are by credible scientists

How mercury kills brain cells and causes neurological diseases (done by top Univ. researchers)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tgwh3HpsM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImCpWzXJ_w


thimerosal causes autism, mechanism, etc. by one of top mercury researchers in the world, Head of Biolgical Chemistry Dept. of Un. of Kentucky

B Haley, Mercury Toxicity & Autism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQYISvsgq6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbcngSD0K90&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v0s8XHFSBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jwnYTgToiA&feature=related


J.B. Handley Interview Autism & Mercury Poisoning (parent of recovered autistic using DAN mercury chelation protocol)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Hhgaf3Co0&feature=related

Dr. Rimland DAN confrence part 2 "Autism is Treatable." Austism Association Conference- see more on other thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUI1k_boOpY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh64V4-quBc&feature=related

see also the documentation on the thousands of autistic kids who been treated and recovered or signif. improved after using the
DAN detox protocol after testing to find high toxic exposures, posted on the other autism thread.
supported by many thousands of medical lab tests, and summaries by the medical labs, see other thread.

anyone have credible evidence that such videos on U-Tube are not accurate?

[cosmik debris]

182. I liked this quote form you "expert"

"We showed that these kids can excrete mercury and that means they are retaining it."

Do you really think that makes sense?

Which is it? excreting? or retaining? If they are excreting it, why do you need chelation? If they are retaining it, how do you find it in their excrement?

Your Dr. Haley could also use a little lesson in "cause and effect" relationships.

The further you pursue this, the sillier you sound.

[LeftishBrit]

183. 'Credible scientists?'

Well, I'll possibly give you one out of three. Rimland really was a researcher in relevant areas (experimental psychology and medicine) and must be given credit for being one of the first to recognize in the 1960s that autism is a neurological condition and not due to 'refrigerator parenting'. He did take the 'vaccination damage' theory more seriously than most psychologists. But it actually wasn't such a silly theory to *consider* in the 1980s and 1990s, when he was mainly proposing it. There was nothing wrong or unscientific with proposing the vaccine damage theory as one worth testing. What is wrong and unscientific is continuing to regard this as the only acceptable theory in the face of negative evidence, and rejecting all the studies that have indicated that this *isn't* the cause of autism.

Neither Haley nor Handley is a medical scientist or a psychologist. Haley is a chemist. He might be a 'credible scientist' on the chemical basis of mercury, but not on the nature and causes of autism. Handley isn't a scientist at all; he is a parent who claims that chelation can treat autism; but he has not carried out systematic studies and I know that he is regarded as *extremely* controversial in the autism community, and given no credence at all among most researchers.

[philb]

191. Haley is biochemist and long time head of a univ. dept. with strong research backgrounds

He's known as one of the top mercury researchers in the world.
Lots of peer-reviewed publications;
Owns a medical lab and has developed advanced techniques for testing for many conditions, including ALS, toxicity, enzymes, etc.

The others are among the top researchers in their field, extremely prestiegous with huge amounts of peer-reviewed publications, honors, etc.
But the documentation speaks for itself. This info has been peer-reviewed and much discussed. Its supported by huge amounts of other similar research by other researchers and is the clear consensus of the scientific community at large, of the majority who do research in their fields. The FDA has had dockets where such information was compiled and reviewed. They were in the clear majority.
I've posted links to the FDA docket info before. The FDA scientific panel agreed with them as well.

[philb]

193. Thousands of parents I interact with share Handley's experience- detox brought back their kids

The experience of DAN Doctors all over the U.S. treating many thousands of autistic kids has been consistent. They do lots of tests and find the kids have extremely high levels of toxic metals, mercury being the big factor most often. They find the kids have blocked enzymatic processes and metabolic processes, which mercury is documented to cause by lots of peer reviewed publications in the literature, which I've cited URLs to.
No other treatment protocol has had such consistent success. They find the kids are suffering from neurological inflamation, such as mercury is documented in the literature to cause. There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have documented that mercury causes the kinds of damage that these patients and also patients with adult autoimmune conditions suffer. And there have been lots of peer-reviewed studies using real autistic kids and medical tests that have documented the clear connection between vaccines/thimerosal and autism.
These are only a few of the recent:
www.flcv.com/autismhg.html

[ElboRuum]

184. For every scientific theory...

...there are at least two that suggest other answers. We learn, not by hearing one side of the conversation, but by hearing all of them. You could line up 1000 researchers that say one thing, and I'll line up 1000 that say another.

As for the credible evidence, do you have any that indicates that this is not accurate? A person given to rationality would at least seek it. Have you done this?

[cosmik debris]

188. I believe you mis spoke

"We learn, not by hearing one side of the conversation, but by hearing all of them."

No. Not at all. We learn from testing a hypothesis. Not from hearing it. There is nothing to be learned from hearing the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese. Only extremely gullible people would learn from hearing that.

[philb]

192. I agree that the proof is in the testing of the hypothesis- using real cases and data

Its clear from the documentation, studies cited here which ones use lots of real medical tests on lots of real patients, and consistently find results that support the large numbers of peer reviewed studies that indicate the mechanisms by which these neurological conditions are caused.

another summary of studies documenting that the huge increase in autism is caused by environmental factors, with vaccines/toxic metals primary factors.

http://www.generationrescue.org/studies.html

[cosmik debris]

194. If there was even a speck of truth in your nonsense

We wouldn't need to have this conversation.

There is no world wide conspiracy to cause autism.

There is no massive conspiracy to shut down autism research.

There is no plot to suppress your wacky ideas.

It is just your delusion.

Get over it.

[LeftishBrit]

189. On this subject, no, the researchers in psychology and medicine are *not* equally divided

'As for the credible evidence, do you have any that indicates that this is not accurate? A person given to rationality would at least seek it. Have you done this?'

Yes. I have examined a lot of research studies about autism.

The two major claims about vaccines and autism have been (1) that MMR vaccine can cause autism; (2) mercury in vaccines cause autism.

The MMR claim was based on a study by Andrew Wakefield, which included 11 children with autism. Measles virus was found in the gut of some of them, which led him to claim that this (a) came from the vaccine and not from some other exposure; and (b) caused the autism. Both of these are questionable, especially as there was NO control group, and no way of seeing how many non-autistic children might have measles virus in the gut. Later studies did not support Wakefield's claims.

There was a recent study in Japan, which shows that autism rates were not affected by withdrawal of the MMR vaccine over a period of years:

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/noMMR.html


This is important because some of the arguments have been on the lines of 'autism diagnoses have increased in recent years; MMR was introduced fairly recently; therefore MMR is the cause.' The fact that MMR diagnoses continued to rise in a country where MMR had been withdrawn argues strongly against this theory.

As regards the claim that mercury in vaccines is responsible for autism: mercury was removed from childhood vaccines in most countries some years ago, and yet autism diagnoses continued to increase. It's worth noting that the flu vaccine is *not* routinely given to young children in the UK or in several Europaean countries; so even if this one vaccine contains mercury, it cannot be blamed for autism in these countries.

So the evidence does not support MMR or mercury as a cause (which does not mean that it's a good thing to have mercury in vaccines!)

There is also very strong evidence for a large genetic component to autism. Identical twins are far more likely to be concordant for autism than are non-identical twins. In fact if you have an autistic identical twin, you are more likely than not to have classical autism yourself, and there is an overwhelming chance (over 90%) that you will have a significant language or cognitive disorder of some sort. Molecular genetics is beginning to isolate *some* of the genes linked to autism - there are multiple genes.

As for chelation therapy - so far as I know (and I work in the 'medical division' of a large university, so have access to a lot of sources of info), there have been no systematic clinical trials of its effectiveness or safety; and there have been deaths from it. Would you take a potentially dangerous 'Big Pharma' drug if it had not been extensively tested through clinical trials; not just from anecdotes? Moreover, the theoretical grounds for it are very dubious. *Even* if - let's pretend for a moment - mercury exposure in vaccines caused autism, it is very unlikely that mercury chelation could cure it, as the autism would involve actual brain damage from previous short-term exposures, rather than long-term toxicity from continuing exposure. For example, there *is* strong evidence that prenatal exposure to alcohol can cause cognitive disorders - in some cases, similar to autism - but giving antidotes to alcohol will not cure children with the condition: the brain damage has already occurred. Even in clear cases of poisoning, antidotes or emetics have to be given within a certain window of time after the poison was ingested to be effective. There seems no reason why mercury should be the only exception. And given that converging evidence shows (see above) that mercury in vaccines does *not* affect the rate of autism, this approach seems dubious in the extreme.

[Celebration]

180. Exactly right

It is a completely authoritarian and undemocratic ideal to promote censorship of opinion on the internet. This type of censorship is the mark of a totalitarian or fascist government.

[LeftishBrit]

187. I actually agree with what you say here...

but I think that it becomes dodgy when people go beyond expressing opinions, and actually state that something has been proved, or when they promote a particular form of treatment.

I think that 'some chucklehead' simply opposing vaccination on YouTube IS acting with their free speech rights, just like someone claiming that the world is flat. I'm with you there. BUT if they claim that it's been *proven* that vaccination causes autism; and especially if they allege, as has been claimed on this forum, that 'virtually all' autistic people are cured by chelation treatments, then IMO it crosses the boundary into false advertising.

[Celebration]

190. It can't be advertising

Unless the person making the statement benefits monetarily, somehow. I would agree that it would be fraudulent for someone to make the statement that it is proven that mercury and/or vaccines cause autism, but that chelation therapy can get rid of it, and come to my clinic where you can get chelation therapy. That would be an untenable legal position.