I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research! - Page 8 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-10-2013, 03:02 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
No. i just haven't seen any evidence of harm from the amounts of thimerosol which are found in vaccines. It's truely minuscule. And it's not metallic mercury any more than salt is chlorine, or water hydrogen.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-10-2013, 03:11 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

No. i just haven't seen any evidence of harm from the amounts of thimerosol which are found in vaccines. It's truely minuscule. And it's not metallic mercury any more than salt is chlorine, or water hydrogen.

And others have seen evidence of harm from thimerosal in vaccines. Your argument is tired and very flimsy to say the least, but only to be expected from pharmaceutical companies and their loyal followers. 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 03-10-2013, 03:54 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-10-2013, 03:55 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I had no idea it was so simple to switch career tracks from science to investment banking!
Most people don't have the luxury of retraining midway through their careers, when family and financial obligations make starting over with school and quitting an established job prohibitively expensive. It seems unlikely that "scientists" as a class are somehow different and that they are immune to factors which might decrease job satisfaction in other fields, thus ensuring they will remain eternally idealistic. Sounds like a bunch of crap.

And you really have to try hard to be willfully ignorant about the dangers if thimerosal. Do you not remember the huge scandal from a few years ago with the US govt trying desperately to cover up the vast and mounting evidence of thimerosal's contribution to children's neurological problems? Guess they brainwashed some folks quite successfully.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
Old 03-10-2013, 03:59 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
It's the maths skills. smile.gif Also poor career/job security for young scientists (and long training period) leads to many leaving in their 30-40s for other jobs.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-10-2013, 04:00 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-10-2013, 04:21 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

No. i just haven't seen any evidence of harm from the amounts of thimerosol which are found in vaccines. 

Actually, you have seen plenty of evidence of harm from thimerosal in the amounts found in vaccines. 

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

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 03-10-2013, 04:35 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
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.

The huge scandal has also been discussed here, many times.

 

In an effort to put a stop to lies being posted here, I have permission from autismhelpforyou to repost the following quotes from the Simposonwood Meeting (full transcript here http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/HG%20IN%20VACCINES%20-%20Simpsonwood%20-%20Internet%20File.pdf):

 

 

 

The following were quotes from the Simpsonwood Meeting - the secret CDC meeting attended by 51 persons during which that original report had been discussed (link 1 above) - emphasis added and [blue brackets added by Jeanne A. Brohart as comments/OPINIONS] - note page numbers vary a little based on fact that report actually includes a few "duplicate" pages...

 

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."  [I for one would certainly be interested in knowing what all those "other disorders" were... although I have a very good idea!!!  Note that, at least in my opinion, although those attending the meeting varied greatly in their "concern", the population sample used in this study, in my opinion, could only be described as very "white washed".   When you don't want to see "a link", as clearly stated in the Simpsonwood transcripts, the children you allow in your study will certainly impact the results!]

 

Dr. Bernier, pg. 113:  "We have asked you to keep this information confidential.  We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22.  At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information [THIS WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO FOLKS!!!], so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data.  The ACIP work group will be considering also.  If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment.  So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting.  So to basically consider this embargoed information. 

 

Dr. Keller, pgs. 116 & 118:  "…we know the developing neurologic system is more sensitive than one that is fully developed…"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 165:  "Personally, I have three hypotheses.  My first hypothesis is it is parental bias.  The children that are more likely to be vaccinated are more likely to be picked and diagnosed. Second hypothesis, I don't know.  There is a bias that I have not recognized, and nobody has yet told me about it.  Third hypothesis. It's true, it's Thimerosal.  Those are my hypotheses." [In other words, either the parents made it up and we really don't have an issue - it is just a matter of "skewed data", or,  we made it up or it really IS thimerosal!!!   Good luck proving the first two hypotheses... looks like that leaves only one!!!]

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 166:  "When I saw this, and I went back through the literature, I was actually stunned by what I saw because I thought it is plausible.  First of all there is the Faeroe study, which I think people have dismissed too easily, and there is a new article in the same Journal that was presented here, the Journal of Pediatrics, where they have looked at PCB.  They have looked at other contaminants in seafood and they have adjusted for that, and still mercury comes out.  That is one point.  Another point is that in many of the studies with animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury.  Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury.  Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals were exposed.  Now, I don't know how much you can extrapolate that from animals to humans, but that tells me mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury.  There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury.  On top of that, I think that we cannot so easily compare the U.S. population to Faeroe or Seychelles populations.  We have different mean levels of exposure.  We are comparing high to high I the Seychelles, high to high in the Faeroe and low to low in the U.S., so I am not sure how easily you can transpose one finding to another one.  So basically to me that leaves all the options open, and that means I can not exclude such a possible effect."

[MY PERSONAL FAVORITE... NEXT...]

 

Dr. Johnson, pg. 198:  "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with Thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available.  I do not believe the diagnoses justifies compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point.  I deal with causality, it seems pretty clear to me that the data are not sufficient one way or the other.  My gut feeling?  It worries me enough.  Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out a eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section.  Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.  It will probably take a long time.  In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines." [In other words, all of us at this meeting could make an informed decision for our loved ones, but, we'll just keep all this to ourselves and let those "other kids" get these mercury-laced vaccines even though we knew there were some major and statistically significant concerns here!!!]

 

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.  The positive relationships are those that one might expect from the Faroe Islands studies.  They are also related to those data we do have on experimental animal data and similar to the neurodevelopmental tox data on other substances, so that I think you can't accept that this is out of the ordinary.  It isn't out of the ordinary." [It certainly appeared to me that Dr. Weil - like me - also was seeing a group of people trying to play with the data to manipulate or change the outcome of the data.]

Dr. Weil, pg. 208:  "The rise in the frequency of neurobehavioral disorders whether it is ascertainment or real, is not too bad.  It is much too graphic.  We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." [More than any, this was the statement that told me that "genetics" were fairly stable over time - a very critical point as explained in "book 3"].

Dr. Caserta, pg. 234:  "One of the things I learned at the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico that was tied into the metal lines in biology and medicine that I never really understood before, is the interactive effect of different metals when they are together in the same organism.  It is not the same as when they are alone, and I think it would be foolish for us not to include aluminum as part of our thinking with this." [Given aluminum was a KNOWN gene mutant, I would agree with that statement - especially since during the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico, participants were told that when you mix metals, the toxicities were generally "additive" ... in other words, the effects were greater than you would expect from either metal alone!  Note a quote from a completely separate article/paper talking about the effect of "mixing metals":

"Another important factor with regard to mercury on the mind, which officials at the CDC, FDA and the professors in the IOM do not consider, is synergistic toxicity (refer to: http://www.talkinternational.com/health/report_on_mercury_toxicity_bh_050803.htm) – mercury’s enhanced effect when other poisons are present. A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum. " [Emphasis added - This quote taken from:  Dr. Donald W. ******, Jr., Mercury on the Mind, http://www.lewrockwell.com/******/miller14.html, refer also to: J. Shubert, E. Riley & S. Tyler. Combined Effects in Toxicology--A Rapid Systemic Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury and Lead. J.Toxicology and Environmental Health v4, p763, 1978]]

Now... back to quotes from the transcript on mercury in vaccines...

Dr. Clements, pg 247- 249:  "I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which was the boat should go at all.  And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted, and we have all reached this point now  where we are left hanging, [In other words, we really don't want these studies done because the public could be proven right] even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes." 

" I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic.  The ACIP is going to depend on comments from this group in order to move forward into policy, and I have been advised that whatever I say should not move into the policy area because that is not the point of this meeting.  But nonetheless, we know from many experiences in history that the pure scientist has done research because of pure science.  But that pure science has resulted in splitting the atom or some other process which is completely beyond the power of the scientists who did the research to control it.  And what we have here is people who have, for every best reason in the world, pursued a direction of research.  But there is not the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work that has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group.  And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say."

"My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day the 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe." [You just have to love this typical "my objectives come first... after all... I get evaluated on that... so, let me proceed blindly even though there were obviously some major concerns here!!!]

"So I leave you with the challenge that I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations.  My message would be that any other study, and I like the study that has just been described here very much.  I think it makes a lot of sense, but it has to be thought through.    What are the potential outcomes and how will you handle it? [In my opinion, looks like this was saying... be careful because this could come back to bite us...].  How will it be presented to a public and media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they in store for them?"

"…but I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here." [That was what we were all wondering now given parents were finally realizing they had been lied to by the CDC... The CDC obviously knew that immature neurologic systems were quite vulnerable...  yet, clearly, they still refused to recall mercury-laced vaccines and continued to vaccinate thousands each day!!!]

...  AND JUST WHERE EXACTLY WAS THAT PRESS RELEASE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH THE PUBLIC SEVERAL YEARS AGO!!!

NOTE:   There were certainly many, many comments stating that attendees felt the "relationship was weak" between exposure and outcome, but then again, there were many, many issues with the data itself - especially as it related to what I could only described as a very "white washed population sample".   In spite of those comments, however, there certainly did appear to be "reason for concern" and a definite need for "better data" and "more studies".

LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES

Note that the "draft" report was significantly different than what was released to the public as discussed in this article.  "Thimerosal Linked To Autism In Confidential CDC Study", http://healing-arts.org/children/cdc.htm 

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 03-10-2013, 05:12 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
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.

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


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 03-10-2013, 05:21 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
The BODY OF EVIDENCE points to thimerosal being safe in the amounts present in vaccines. Quote mining aside.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 03-10-2013, 05:24 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
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

emmy526 is online now  
Old 03-10-2013, 07:36 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
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!"

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 12:37 AM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
pek64 is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 01:36 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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?

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 01:48 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 01:51 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 02:17 AM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 04:47 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 04:48 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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... 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 05:09 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 05:11 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

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


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 05:12 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 05:47 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
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!


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 06:28 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
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). 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 06:52 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)

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


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 07:16 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

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.

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 07:44 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 07:57 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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. 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 08:07 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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. 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 03-11-2013, 08:18 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
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


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
 

Tags
Vaccinations , The Vaccine Controversy The History Use And Safety Of Vaccinations , Saying No To Vaccines , Vaccines
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off