or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research! - Page 12

post #221 of 261
Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Show me something you take as evidence of harm and I'll be happy to talk about what I see as the flaws with it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Really? I doubt that because you have been shown this evidence countless times on this forum. 

http://www.mothering.com/community/newsearch/?search=mercury+in+vaccines&type=all

here's a link with many posts on here talking about it

post #222 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 i just haven't seen any evidence of harm from the amounts of thimerosol which are found in vaccines. 

Translation: " I just haven't seen the evidence you have posted (even though I spent a lot of time attempting to discredit it)."

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Show me something you take as evidence of harm and I'll be happy to talk about what I see as the flaws with it.

Translation:  "What you think is evidence isn't really evidence (because I say so).  You (and the researchers who published the studies you present) only think it's evidence because you are too stupid to see the flaws. I know better than you."

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

And I don't remember a huge scandal. Maybe before I had kids - didn't think much about vaccines until then. Happy to discuss it on this thread if you point us to the research.

Translation: "I don't remember all the posts about the Simpsonwood scandal (even though I spent a lot of time trying to discredit anyone who mentioned it). Maybe it was before I had kids (even though it was in the last 12 months)."

 

******************************************************

{MDC members immediately post evidence of harm from thimerosal, quotes from the Simpsonwood transcripts of doctors and researchers ADMITTING evidence of harm fom thimerosal, and links to previous MDC threads discussing such evidence.

******************************************************

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The BODY OF EVIDENCE points to thimerosal being safe in the amounts present in vaccines.

Translation: "The fact that there is evidence of harm from thimerosal in the amounts present in vaccines doesn't matter, because  the BODY OF EVIDENCE (from industry-funded, industry-directed, industry-interpreted, industry-marketed studies published by industry-funded journals) says its all perfectly safe!"

post #223 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Show me something you take as evidence of harm and I'll be happy to talk about what I see as the flaws with it.


Wow! Here you state that you know the evidence is flawed *before* even seeing the evidence!! That says boatloads! So anyone who thinks she has evidence of vaccine harm is wrong? Without a doubt? No possibility at all of there being a "rare" case of vaccine adverse reaction? Really? Do you mean to say that?
post #224 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Really? I doubt that because you have been shown this evidence countless times on this forum. 

I know. And I've talked about the flaws in it countless times too. Shall we do it again?
post #225 of 261
Emmy526 - thanks for the link. I'll get to it.

Taxi - interesting to see your interpretation of what I write. Never let the facts get in the way huh! Anyway you did give me something to google. Simsonwood. So thanks for that. I'll get on that too. smile.gif
post #226 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

Wow! Here you state that you know the evidence is flawed *before* even seeing the evidence!! That says boatloads! So anyone who thinks she has evidence of vaccine harm is wrong? Without a doubt? No possibility at all of there being a "rare" case of vaccine adverse reaction? Really? Do you mean to say that?

That's not at all what I said. But interesting to see that's how you interpret it. Of course there are rare cases of vaccine harm. 0.0001% of vaccines even end up being compensated for harm (see top of thread).

And of course I've seen what's posted here as evidence of significant harm. Just saying when it comes to thimerosol specifically I don't find any if it convincing. smile.gif

And I'm happy to point out flaws in any specific evidence you think does show harm from thimerosol. smile.gif
post #227 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

That's not at all what I said. But interesting to see that's how you interpret it.

smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif seems the only way one could interpret it. smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif enough smartass smilies for you yet? smile.gifsmile.gif
post #228 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/newsearch/?search=mercury+in+vaccines&type=all

here's a link with many posts on here talking about it

 

It's just a search on the forum on "mercury in vaccines".

 

Note that thimerosol is not the same as mercury - it's a mercury containing salt. In the same way table salt contains chlorine and sodium (both poisoness to humans in large quanties - as is table salt itself I suppose). Water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen - both explosive. There's meme on this going round right now (from Vaccination Meme Machine on Facebook).

 

*

 

So any study demonstrating that metalltic mercury is harmful and shouldn't be injected into children (which I entirely agree with) is irrelevant to proving thimerosol is harmful. 

post #229 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post


 smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif enough smartass smilies for you yet? smile.gifsmile.gif

 

I hate the icons too - particularly dancing ones. I agree they seem very rude. 

 

Funny how a :) can be interpreted so differently to how it's intended just as text is... 

post #230 of 261

So a quick Google on Simpsonwood suggest this is what is meant (7 years before I had kids): 

 

 

Quote:
The official title of the meeting was the "Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information." This conference, held on June 7-8, 2000 at Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, assembled 51 scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers. These included Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur.

 

Ah - there's a wikipedia article on it (please join wikipedia and edit it if you wish to debate the accuracy of it). 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Simpsonwood_CDC_conference

 

This article suggests:

 

 

 

Quote:
A 2005 article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., published by Rolling Stone and Salon.com, focused on the Simpsonwood meeting as part of a conspiracy to withhold or falsify vaccine-safety information. However, Kennedy's article contained numerous major factual errors and, after a number of corrections, was ultimately retracted by Salon.com.[1][2] Nonetheless, on the basis of Kennedy's claims, the conference gained notoriety in the anti-vaccination movement, where it formed the basis of various conspiracy theoriesand allegations.

 

(PS. 2005 was 2 years before I had any kids). 

 

And in fact the wikipedia article says that in 2007 (the year I had my first child) the US Senate Committee on Heath, Education, Labor and Pensions say: 

 

 

 

Quote:
Addressing the conspiracy alleged by Kennedy and members of the anti-vaccination movement, the Committee found that: "Instead of hiding the [Simpsonwood] data or restricting access to it, CDC distributed it, often to individuals who had never seen it before, and solicited outside opinion regarding how to interpret it. The transcript of these discussions was made available to the public."

 

OK, but lets go to source. What is this evidence that thimerosol is harmful which the meeting discussed (and some people claim tried to hide, while others point out they actually made publicly available)..... 

 

It seems it was a study lead by Thomas Verstraeten. The wikipedia article links to a letter he wrote to Pediatrics in 2004 discussing the event: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/932.full

 

He starts: 

 

 

 

Quote:
I am the first author of a recent article on a study undertaken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to screen for a potential link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental delays.1 The article has been subject to heavy criticism from antivaccine lobbyists. Their criticism basically comes down to the following two claims: the CDC has watered down the original findings of a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has hired me away from the CDC so as to convince me to manipulate the data further before publication. Because I was responsible for nearly all aspects of this study, including study design, data gathering, data analysis, and writing of the article, I wish to give my opinion on these claims. These are my personal opinions and do not represent the opinion of the CDC or GSK.

 

Follow the link for the rest. Although this one statement really struck me: 

 

 

 

Quote:
The bottom line is and has always been the same: an association between thimerosal and neurological outcomes could neither be confirmed nor refuted, and therefore, more study is required.

 

This is also relevant to our prior discussion over the ethical beliefs of professional scientists: 

 

 

 

Quote:
I regard myself as a professional scientist who puts ethical value before any personal or material gains.
post #231 of 261

And PS. Taximom - I'll save you a search. I've never discussed "Simsonwood" on Mothering.com before. I had not heard of it before this thread. 

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/newsearch/?search=simsonwood+prosciencemum&resultSortingPreference=relevance&type=all

post #232 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


That's not at all what I said. But interesting to see that's how you interpret it. Of course there are rare cases of vaccine harm. 0.0001% of vaccines even end up being compensated for harm (see top of thread).
 

Oops - I'm mixing up threads. The percentage actually under discussion in this thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1374558/99-999-of-children-have-no-serious-side-effects-from-vaccines

post #233 of 261
Quote:
Just saying when it comes to thimerosol specifically I don't find any if it convincing. smile.gif

And I'm happy to point out flaws in any specific evidence you think does show harm from thimerosol. smile.gif

so being in the UK and feeling the way you do- you must have been crushed that your child's vacs didn't contain thimerosal- where you able to seek some out so you child got a doses?

 

IRL are you lobbing to have thimerosal put back into the vac in your country or do you just spend time spouting the need here? I would think with your fervent support and the support of the masses that feel like you do, it should be put back in-no?

 

Maybe this county could have vacers start to lobby to have it put back in here as well-I'm sure so many would be in favor of it.       Poll?   letter writing? demand must be there 

I am talking about where it has been removed from and that so many.ROTFLMAO.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bag.gif still waiting for my answers chickabiddy and prosciencemom and Rrrrrachel if you want to tell me what dangers exist please spell them out-proof is always nice (I keep hearing so few- what exactly are they?) and since they are so safe- what would need to be done to make them SAFER? something?nothing? what?

 

 Quote:

I don't believe they are as dangerous as some other people believe they are.

Are you admitting there are dangers to vacs?

 

Quote:

Did you not read or understand my post where I stated that I acknowledged that there are risks to vaccines?  It's post #194.  However, just in case you missed it, I'll say it again.  There are risks to vaccines.

NO I don't understand what you mean?

 

 

IF they (vacs) are as you state, as dangerous- what does dangerous/danger mean to you?

 

Where would your risks come from? 

 

 

 

and please help me here too- 

 

Quote:
I am entirely in favor of making vaxes safer.  All for it!

 

 

Quote:
I believe, based on the available evidence, that there are GREATER risks, both individually and societally, to remaining unvaccinated.

you seem to be saying (and please clear this up) NOT vaccinating is the GREATER risk YET you say you favor making vaxes "safer" at the same time saying there is RISK to vaccing too-correct?------so what is the "making safer" you are referring too mean? How are they NOT safe?

 

 

whistling.gifsmile!


Edited by serenbat - 3/11/13 at 5:00am
post #234 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

so being in the UK and feeling the way you do- you must have been crushed that your child's vacs didn't contain thimerosal- where you able to seek some out so you child got a doses?

 

IRL are you lobbing to have thimerosal put back into the vac in your country or do you just spend time spouting the need here? I would think with your fervent support and the support of the masses that feel like you do, it should be put back in-no?

 

 

 

 

Um no. I'm just pointing out that there's no clear evidence it's dangerous, so if thimerosol were in vaccines I would not be concerned. It's not in any of the paediatric vaccines in the US either (since 2000). I don't think it's dangerous (in the western world with good vaccine storage practices) to have it not present. But the situation is very different in remote parts of rural Africa (and elsewhere). 

 

 

 

Quote:
still waiting for my answers chickabiddy and prosciencemom and Rrrrrachel if you want to tell me what dangers exist please spell them out-proof is always nice (I keep hearing so few- what exactly are they?) and since they are so safe- what would need to be done to make them SAFER? something?nothing? what?
 
Are you admitting there are dangers to vacs?

 

All medicines have the potential for side effects. I do not deny that vaccine reactions can occur and that (rarely) they can be serious. I agree with the PP that on balance the diseases are still more dangerous though.

 

 

 

Quote:
you seem to be saying (and please clear this up) NOT vaccinating is the GREATER risk YET you say you favor making vaxes "safer" at the same time saying there is RISK to vaccing too-correct?------so what is the "making safer" you are referring too mean? How are they NOT safe?

 

Maybe an analogy would help you understand. I am going to start with the assumption that you understand that things can have different levels of risk. Like crossing the street. It's dangerous - some people die daily doing it, but it's possible to do it without harm. We can make it safer - teach people how to look for dangers (ie. risk factors for vaccine reactions, like egg allergies for example), we can monitor the safety to uncover particularly risky bits of the street (or vaccines), and we can continue to improve the safety with better street lighting, cross walks etc. 

 

So why is it hard to understand that lots of people conclude that while vaccines do contain some risk, it's a lower risk that the risk from the disease they protect against. And meanwhile we want to keep reducing the risk from vaccines as much as possible - who on Earth wouldn't be in favour of that? 

 

I actually think the anti-vaccination movement is doing much more harm than good to wider public knowledge of potential harms from vaccines. By jumping on any tiny admission in a "a ha so you admit it's dangerous, let's ban all vaccines" kind of way, I think they push the health industry to down play more and more any real risks. If instead people could engage calmly with the discussion of the pros and cons of vaccination I suspect there's be much more admission from mainstream locations about potential downsides, and perhaps even less pushing of the pros too (like what I will admit I think is an overplaying of the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the US, which I suspect in the long run is also going to be damaging to vaccination programmes too). 

post #235 of 261

twins.gif once again you just try and go off topic and provide no proof of what you are saying ROTFLMAO.gifthis assumption that you just want to blame anti vacers is a joke - you have nothing to offer blowkiss.gif

post #236 of 261

Wow, prosciencemum, you say that you have never seen any evidence of harm from thimerosal in the amount in vaccines.  I posted evidence.  You ignored it, but posted....a Wikipedia article written by a shill for the vaccine companies?  

 

Here, in case you somehow missed it, is just some of the evidence.  Again.

 

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772240802246458

 

Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry

Volume 91Issue 4, 2009

 

Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds

And, from the TRANSCRIPT of the Simpsonwood meeting (so, no, you can't pretend that this is just a conspiracy theory):

 

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 40-41:  “…we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes.  First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code.  Exposure at three months of age, Tics.  Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder.  Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders.

 

Dr. Weil, pg. 207 - the man representing the American Academy of Pediatrics [the very organization that helped to set guidelines for vaccine policy - the organization said to be "dedicated to the health of all children"]:  "The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant.  You can play with this all you want.  They are linear.  They are statistically significant.

post #237 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There's no point in going round and round with people who think there's a conspiracy to defraud the public. Any evidence or lack thereof is just declared part I the conspiracy. Pointless.

I agree - except there is no point in going around and around with people who refuse to acknowledge that there may be things that are being hidden from the public by the government and public health officials.  Pointless

post #238 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I think it's quite clear pharmaceutical companies (especially in their US based dealings) are totally reprehensible. I suspect they have a lot less power than many people seem to assume though.

Particularly I'd they're trying to get scientists to do what they want. Might as well try to herd cats! The only thing that's sure in a room full of scientists is that they'll enjoy a vigorous debate, and would love to disprove the status quo.

Sure the industries tried to hold back recognition of the harm of thalidomide and smoking (and other examples). Thing is they failed....

Sadly for vaccines (and other life saving medicines) we have no choice but to deal with them. There's really no way to make them otherwise. But we place numerous checks in place to prevent them from cutting corners on safety. Perhaps we need more....

What would convince you? Could anything?

I haven't had a laugh this hard in a while. Thanks!!!!!! ROTFLMAO.gif

 

The pharmaceutical industry is Washington's largest and most powerful lobby. 

post #239 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Show me something you take as evidence of harm and I'll be happy to talk about what I see as the flaws with it.

Read this book and then come back and lets talk

 

http://www.walmart.com/ip/15548684?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227000000000&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=&wl3=21486607510&wl4=&wl5=pla&veh=sem

 

Please do not throw out the tired argument that this book is crap because the authors are Olmstead and Blaxill. This book is VERY well referenced and you can easily chase down each and every reference for yourself. 

 

Really PSM put your 14 bucks where your mouth is and read this book with an open mind. I'm not holding breath that you will however I am looking forward to the excuse you will put forth about why you can't or won't read it. 

post #240 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Read this book and then come back and lets talk

 

http://www.walmart.com/ip/15548684?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227000000000&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=&wl3=21486607510&wl4=&wl5=pla&veh=sem

 

Please do not throw out the tired argument that this book is crap because the authors are Olmstead and Blaxill. This book is VERY well referenced and you can easily chase down each and every reference for yourself. 

 

Really PSM put your 14 bucks where your mouth is and read this book with an open mind. I'm not holding breath that you will however I am looking forward to the excuse you will put forth about why you can't or won't read it. 

 

I am going to make it even easier for PSM, here is the book on Amazon UK for under 4 pounds.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Age-Autism-Medicine-Man-Made/dp/0312545622/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363011345&sr=8-1

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research!