or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › From Acrodynia to Autism: Mercury Across Generations, More Evidence of Harm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

From Acrodynia to Autism: Mercury Across Generations, More Evidence of Harm - Page 4

post #61 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

I'm not twisting, I quoted you directly. NO you didn't! I guess a twisted statement would be more like, "a person like me might say that a person like you was stupid if that person was to do something like you did." But you are right, you did not say "EM is stupid." Had you quoted me you would see I didn't call the poster any name.

Whatever the definition of stupid, I would ask my daughter for example to not use that word to refer to another person.

 

I heard a CEO use the word stupid after he fired someone for exactly what I described - it is what it is, like the word dumb better? It's that too.  Doing so is ground in many companies (charities as well) for termination and doing so is just what I said. 

 

as you are entitled, so am I to voice my thoughts - doing so is clearly not  viewed as "smart" by most who have the power to hire and fire people 


Edited by serenbat - 10/27/13 at 11:34am
post #62 of 114
Do you mean I did not quote you because of the ellipses which replaced "not credible and also?" i put those in b/c I didn't want to address the issue of her scientific credibility, because that could be viewed as relevant to the issue. Otherwise it was a direct quote, the ellipses are a legit way to show something is left out of a quote, and if you were to have an English teacher diagram the original sentence, I imagine it would show that you were describing (ETA: how other people think that) people like that are both stupid and not credible. I only wished to address one of those points, and have no interest in arguing the other.
Edited by Ratchet - 10/27/13 at 12:08pm
post #63 of 114
And, sorry, please read, but initially I never said you called her stupid directly. "But not you, right?" Is I think what I wrote. We can mince words but I wanted to point that out because I think it is moving this discussion in an unnecessarily hostile direction. I'm sure you can argue your points without discussing how good of an employee EM is, or how other people might view other people as stupid.

And, it is OK to talk about dumb actions, but no, I think "other people would look at a person like this as dumb" is equally inappropriate.
post #64 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

And, sorry, please read, but initially I never said you called her stupid directly. "But not you, right?" Is I think what I wrote. We can mince words but I wanted to point that out because I think it is moving this discussion in an unnecessarily hostile direction. I'm sure you can argue your points without discussing how good of an employee EM is, or how other people might view other people as stupid.

And, it is OK to talk about dumb actions, but no, I think "other people would look at a person like this as dumb" is equally inappropriate.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

Do you mean I did not quote you because of the ellipses which replaced "not credible and also?" i put those in b/c I didn't want to address the issue of her scientific credibility, because that could be viewed as relevant to the issue. Otherwise it was a direct quote, the ellipses are a legit way to show something is left out of a quote, and if you were to have an English teacher diagram the original sentence, I imagine it would show that you were describing (ETA: how other people think that) people like that are both stupid and not credible. I only wished to address one of those points, and have no interest in arguing the other.

 

and you can't see what you posted??

 

and your point is what? frankly using the word "stupid" in the context I did (as in loosing one's job and/or career) frankly I find it a very mild verb used here, I can think of several others to use as well

clearly you understand it was a compound sentence with two meanings to get across and two words used - are you as worried about "credibility"? or is not appropriate either?

 

what exactly is it when someone does this? are you advocating it's some how a "smart" thing to do?

because I see more and more people posting and loosing  jobs over positions they take on issues on the internet and given the context here, this poster says she works for a company and works with autistic children and makes statements about them & their parents, autism and her employer - I feel it's fair to address it, apparently she felt it was fair to state it

post #65 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

Surely you have read that this poster is not some random mother making these claims- she states she is a professional who works with autistic children yet produces no data to back up what she stated. Quite a bit different.

Your point is what?? I wasn't discussing what any ither members here have said. YOU stated that you have never met a child IRL that was unvaccinated and autistic. I was asking YOU if you had somehow missed the numerous posts by moms here who have unvaccinated children that are autistic. Again just because we haven't seen something with our own eyes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
post #66 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post


Your point is what?? I wasn't discussing what any ither members here have said. YOU stated that you have never met a child IRL that was unvaccinated and autistic. I was asking YOU if you had somehow missed the numerous posts by moms here who have unvaccinated children that are autistic. Again just because we haven't seen something with our own eyes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

that does not even make sense!

 

I said IRL (in real life-get it?, not something I don't know is really true, not something I have read or a movie, that is why IRL is used-meanign real, daily life), you go on to say you are -"I wasn't discussing what any ither members here have said." and you precede to talk about numerous posts on the here? - that is NOT IRL :dizzy these are posts, this is a message board 

 

 

It's real clear, in real life (as in daily interactions where you see people and interact) I have never meet a child that was unvaccinated and autistic - nope, ones I have meet and their parents have all said basically the same story as to when and how they were prior to being vaccinated. The unvaccinated children and parents (adults) I know also do not have autism and or spectrum disorders and frankly are in great health over all. 

 

ETA- I have/had grandparents that came from very large families,we have had reunions where I have seen large groups of people that grew up pre-routine vaccines and if they had one vaccine (small pox) that was usually the norm, many didn't even have that, some might have had tetanus (when that was not a combo), the men largely also did not join the military and none were autistic either. I know so many want to always throw this out about unvaccinated and autism - how many have spoken to OLD, yes really old, general practitioners, who have been practicing prior to routine vaccinations and  who treated children for years? Who were the first to see what we are seeing now and recognize autism epidemic as real? It just seem so easy to say so many unvaccinated have autism. How many is that compared to vaccinated?


Edited by serenbat - 10/27/13 at 5:03pm
post #67 of 114
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I would personally LOVE for mercury to be cause for autism. Some of the kids I work with and their families would get a payout and the support they need, plus better research into maybe how to reverse the damage that has been done? Vaccinations could be made organic and the whole autism nightmare would have an end, numbers would suddenly reduce, etc. I am sure pharma companies would find great new ways of financially turning this around for them. They are clever that way.

 

But it just simply isn't the case (with our knowledge so for, anyway.)

 

 

Whoa, there.  We don't know that mercury is NOT a cause of autism.   

 

Mercury-free pediatric vaccines began to be manufactured in 2000/2001, but thimerosal-preserved pediatric vaccines continued to be manufactured, sold, and distributed in the US until at least 2004, when the flu shot began to be recommended.  Flu shots given to pregnant women, infants, and children continue, for the vast majority, to be the thimerosal-preserved version.

 

The current statistics on the rate of autism in the US is based on studies done in 2008--on children born in 2000.

 

In other words, on children who received the full schedule of thimerosal-preserved vaccines as infants.  In fact, they received far more thimerosal-preserved vaccines by age 8 than children born in previous decades.

 

So, if you are relying on the fallacy "Oh, thimerosal was taken out of vaccines 13 years ago and the autism rate is still climbing, so that exonerates thimerosal," please do realize that that is, in fact, a total fallacy.

 

If anything, it supports the data that autism has continued to increase with the continued and increased use of thimerosal.

 

It doesn't mean it's the sole cause, or that there aren't plenty of other factors.

 

It's just a good idea to get the facts straight.

post #68 of 114

A large amount of autistic kids are below the age of thirteen though. And there are kids who have severe autism who have never been vaccinated in the first place, so that would certainly rule our mercury as a sole cause. 

 

This thread has went rather OT. No, I am not allowed to share the actual name of the place I work in, but AM allowed to say NAS. Strict guidelines forbid me mentioning names of children, etc. It IS allowed to share anecdotes, in fact, my bosses do that on other boards where they give advice about PECS or toilet training of autistic kids and share examples. 

 

However, I asked to the senior to have a wee look at this thread and she said, to be on the safe side, even though it is rather obvious, I should mention that my opnions on are mind. I so not represent the NAS here. They don't have a stand on vaccinations, so that would be rather obvious anyway. Maybe the US is more Orwellian than the UK?

 

There was a lady who got dismissed. She had shared on FB the initials of a boy and the school.Plus the fact that the boy had done this or that.  At that school there was only one boy with those initials, so they were right to fire her. 

 

You see Social Workers, lawyers, hairdressers, etc, online who roughly name their employer and share stories. You just gotta be careful and not give out actual identities of the families involved. 

post #69 of 114

A large amount of autistic kids are below the age of thirteen though. And there are kids who have severe autism who have never been vaccinated in the first place, so that would certainly rule our mercury as a sole cause. 

 

This thread has went rather OT. No, I am not allowed to share the actual name of the place I work in, but AM allowed to say NAS. Strict guidelines forbid me mentioning names of children, etc. It IS allowed to share anecdotes, in fact, my bosses do that on other boards where they give advice about PECS or toilet training of autistic kids and share examples. 

 

However, I asked to the senior to have a wee look at this thread and she said, to be on the safe side, even though it is rather obvious, I should mention that my opinions on are mine. I so not represent the NAS here. They don't have a stand on vaccinations, so that would be rather obvious anyway. Maybe the US is more Orwellian than the UK?

 

There was a lady who got dismissed. She had shared on FB the initials of a boy and the school.Plus the fact that the boy had done this or that.  At that school there was only one boy with those initials, so they were right to fire her. 

 

You see Social Workers, lawyers, hairdressers, etc, online who roughly name their employer and share stories. You just gotta be careful and not give out actual identities of the families involved. 

 

But thanks for the "worry".

 

Regarding my DS, no he has not been vaccinated fully, but will be. His first onset of symptoms took place before he received any vaccinations at all, so he couldn't have them. He couldn't get viruses either, or be exposed to stuff other kids can. I do wish medical professionals would make up their minds though. Until then, we trusted herd immunity, and it worked. 

 

The vaccinations will be beneficial for your child, just not much has been misunderstood. I am talking a scenario, where all kids are protected, just yours isn't and the risk of catching for instance mumps, measles or rubella are small. So, "not much" would mean "small risk, as everyone is protected". And certain illnesses like chickenpox wouldn't normally be very dangerous to a healthy child, so that is included in the "not much." I don't see the absurdity. 


Edited by EineMutti - 10/28/13 at 3:45am
post #70 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Maybe the US is more Orwellian than the UK?

 

 

 

It's not "Orwellian" it's called being respectful.

 

This is an international site, personally I have family in the UK, and in Scotland I know full well what NAS is and so do other family members  - Stef hearing your "anecdotical" remarks haven't gone over well. 

post #71 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

The vaccinations will be beneficial for your child, just not much has been misunderstood. I am talking a scenario, where all kids are protected, just yours isn't and the risk of catching for instance mumps, measles or rubella are small. So, "not much" would mean "small risk, as everyone is protected". And certain illnesses like chickenpox wouldn't normally be very dangerous to a healthy child, so that is included in the "not much." I don't see the absurdity. :rotflmao

what ever???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post


I don't think those who vax assume there is a huge benefit. 
 

yea a really winning slogan - maybe Glaxo Smith Kline should use you two to sell vaccines!

Sure that logic would go over so well - wonder why they haven't marketed this school of thought? :twins 

post #72 of 114
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post

A large amount of autistic kids are below the age of thirteen though. And there are kids who have severe autism who have never been vaccinated in the first place, so that would certainly rule our mercury as a sole cause. 


Yes, there are many autistic kids under the age of 13, whose mothers were given thimerosal-preserved flu shots while pregnant (thimerosal crosses the placenta), and who also received thimerosal-preserved flu shots (2 at 6 months followed by yearly thimerosal-preserved flu shots), which were not part of the recommended vaccine schedule 13 years ago.

There are also other common exposures to mercury, such as ingestion of high-in-mercury fish (tuna, swordfish), dental amalgams, pesticides, living near coal-fired plants, and use (in mother or child) of over-the-counter nasal decongestant sprays and prescription eyedrops preserved with thimerosal.

There is also the vastly increased use of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines, which not only have their own dangerous side effects, but, when given in combination with a thimerosal-preserved flu shot, can exponentially increase side effects of thimerosal. (Thimerosal is NEVER supposed to be combined with aluminum--says so right on the container.)

I'd like to hear your explanation of how this rules out mercury as a cause of autism.
post #73 of 114

Like I said, we need better studies. For now, the mercury theory is about as valid as a religious one would be. It is not even a theory, but a hypothesis. And one that deserves to be looked into  by people who have no personal interest in the outcome. 

post #74 of 114
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

Like I said, we need better studies. For now, the mercury theory is about as valid as a religious one would be. It is not even a theory, but a hypothesis. And one that deserves to be looked into  by people who have no personal interest in the outcome. 

No, for now, the mercury hypothesis/theory has not been accurately refuted--and there are studies clearly indicating a link.  Even the CDC has admitted it cannot reject it. To say it is as valid as a religious theory is dismissive and insulting.

 

I suggest you take a look at: 

http://www.evidenceofharm.com/introduction.htm

http://www.fourteenstudies.org/ourstudies.html

 

for starters.

post #75 of 114

There is nothing wrong with religious debates. Not dismissive either. No-one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. 

post #76 of 114
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

There is nothing wrong with religious debates. Not dismissive either. No-one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. 

I disagree.


You are implying that nobody can prove that there is a mercury-autism link.

 

It's already been linked.  What hasn't been proven is the degree of causality.  And that CAN be proven, with a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study.

post #77 of 114

No, it can't easily proven by a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study. That is the problem here. The studies are flawed.

 

You can't just compare unvaccinated children to vaccinated children, and then take the result as a "cause".

 

I had a look at your links. In there, the "scientific research" does exactly that, but it does NOT rule out intervening variables.

 

OF COURSE vaccinated children are a more likely to have disabilities. Non-vaccinating parents in general are anything but stupid and thoughtless when it comes to babycare. While I think their decision in that point is wrong (just as wrong as it is to avoid eggs due to cholesterol or eat more whole wheat) do you really think that a thoughtful, crunchy, non-vaccinating parent will smoke a packet of fags a day, take heroin, drink alcohol, etc?

 

The term "vaccinated children" includes all those in state care whose parents have done great harm to their babies in utero. It includes the babies of smoking parents, alcoholic parents, parents with terrible, terrible diets. Vegan children are less likely to have disabilities, too, and not because vegan diet is best, but because the parents are more thoughtful and less likely to drink, smoke or take drugs. More likely to read books to their children, take them outside, etc, etc. 

 

And as for correlations being used as cause... there is a link between stork density and birth rate., Doesn't mean the storks bring the babies.. 

post #78 of 114

Are there any animal studies that compare fully vaccinated to unvaccinated? 

post #79 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Are there any animal studies that compare fully vaccinated to unvaccinated? 

 

Animals can't get most of the diseases humans get, so what would a vaccination do to them?

 

You could do a study that compares vaxxed vs unvaxxed kids, but it would be VERY difficult to have two groups that are similar in lifestyle, diet, drugs, booze, education, etc.

 

Also because studies that have to exclude variables that people are dishonest about (substance abuse, child abuse and sex are some of those) are notoriously unreliable. And the link would probably be so small that it can be put down to error rate or people lying to themselves about their substance abuse. 

post #80 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

No, it can't easily proven by a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study. That is the problem here. The studies are flawed. BUT NAS will publish a study on this - will that be flawed as well? AND you can not make statements that have no merit like - "so many unvaccinated children are autistic"

 

You can't just compare unvaccinated children to vaccinated children, and then take the result as a "cause". or keep harping so many unvaccinated children are autistic can you?

 

I had a look at your links. In there, the "scientific research" does exactly that, but it does NOT rule out intervening variables.

 

OF COURSE vaccinated children are a more likely to have disabilities. ? Non-vaccinating parents in general are anything but stupid and thoughtless when it comes to babycare. While I think their decision in that point is wrong (just as wrong as it is to avoid eggs due to cholesterol or eat more whole wheat) do you really think that a thoughtful, crunchy, non-vaccinating parent will smoke a packet of fags a day, take heroin, drink alcohol, etc?

 

The term "vaccinated children" includes all those in state care whose parents have done great harm to their babies in utero. :dizzy seriously you think this way???  It includes the babies of smoking parents, alcoholic parents, parents with terrible, terrible diets. Vegan children are less likely to have disabilities, too,how about some source here??? and not because vegan diet is best, but because the parents are more thoughtful and less likely to drink, smoke or take drugs. More likely to read books to their children, take them outside, etc, etc. ? where does all this tribble in these two paragraphs come from :dizzy Vegan parents are more thoughtful??? seriously you believe this??? and the meat eater parent - are they trash or what??? I can't grasp this is even here!!!!!!!! this is bizarre 

 

And as for correlations being used as cause... there is a link between stork density and birth rate., Doesn't mean the storks bring the babies.. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Many parents who have one child on the spectrum refuse to vaccinate their subsequent children. Fair enough, really, I would do the same. But because there seems to be a genetic component, the subsequent children turn out to have autism as well. Not all, but many. We have many siblings here, one vaccinated, one unvaccinated kid (not hundreds mind you, but about 20), both severely affected by autism. 

 

The NAS will soon publish a study about this.

 

If you visit a school with severely affected children and ask around, you will find the same. 

 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › From Acrodynia to Autism: Mercury Across Generations, More Evidence of Harm