I had tried to give the Dr. Mark Geier and his son David a rest for a while, as I suspected my readers may have been getting a little tired of my bashing them, no matter how deserved that bashing may have been. After all, they do shoddy science in the service of "proving" that mercury in vaccines causes autism. They concoct dubious IRBs riddled with conflicts of interest to "approve" their research. When the evidence that this is not the case becomes more and more compelling, they add a twist of a claim that many autistic children suffer from "precocious" puberty," which requires treatment with a powerful hormone blocking drug called Lupron (my take on this here). Unfortunately, the Geiers use very loose criteria to diagnose "precocious puberty," so much so that almost any child could qualify, particularly given the leading questions that parents are asked regarding their children's development of secondary sexual characteristics. Most recently, Kathleen Seidel has documented how the Geiers have now stopped referring to "precocious puberty" and started calling it "hyperandrogenicity in autism," as if the two terms are interchangeable. (They're not.)
But last week, a truly delicious judicial ruling came down. If you think the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was a lovely slapdown for "intelligent design" creationism, you'll love U.S. District Court Judge James Beatty's ruling against the Geiers' clients that came down on July 6 in the case of John and Jane Doe v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
Basically, this case involves parents suing Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics because they believed that the thimerosal in RhoGAM given to the mother while she was carrying the child. RhoGAM is the trade name for Rho(D) immune globulin. This particular antibody is used to prevent hemolytic disease of the newborn that can happen when an Rh-negative mother has been sensitized to the Rh antigen by bearing an Rh-positive child (which can only happen if she has a child by an Rh-positive father, resulting in an Rh-positive fetus). The facts of the case are summarized as follows:
Plaintiffs allege that Minor Child Doe 2 ("Minor Child Doe") has suffered severe neurodevelopmental disorders and permanent injuries from exposure to toxic levels of mercury. Plaintiffs claim that this mercury exposure resulted from one single shot of RhoGAM that Jane Doe received while 28-weeks pregnant and another shot of RhoGAM that Jane Doe received shortly after Minor Child Doe's birth. Plaintiffs argue that this limited amount of thimerosal, which contains a mercury derivative, in both of those shots given to his mother caused Minor Child Doe to develop autism approximately sixteen months after his birth.
Relevant to my discussion:
In order to prove their claims Plaintiffs designated three experts on the question of whether thimerosal could cause autism: Dr. Mark Geier ("Geier"), Boyd Haley, Ph.D. ("Haley"), and George Lucier, Ph.D. ("Lucier").
Yes, this is one of the first real judicial cases conducted over whether thimerosal can cause autism. In this case, the claim is that it can affect the fetus in utero, although I'm puzzled how a shot of RhoGAM after the birth of Minor Child Doe could have anything to do with affects on the child. The implication seems to be that mercury in the mother's breast milk contributed to her child's autism, but, given the tiny amount of thimerosal in a single vial of RhoGAM, that seems a stretch even if you accept that mercury might be related etiolotically to autism. In any case, the judge had to rule on the admissibility of the scientific evidence and address the qualifications of the expert witnesses, particularly Dr. Mark Geier. Basically, Judge Beatty used a commonly used legal standard known as the Daubert standard, which takes its name from the case Daubert v. Merrel Dow Chemicals. Basically, according to Daubert, Federal Judges were to become the "gatekeepers" for expert testimony, requiring them to rule on the admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Basically, there are two prongs to this standard: relevancy (the testimony of the expert must be relevant to the facts of the case and the determination of a judgment) and reliability (the expert must have developed his conclusions from the scientific method). As Judge Beatty summarizes:
The nature and necessity of a Daubert hearing is derived from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). Under Daubert, this Court must rule on the admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Daubert requires a two-part analysis: first, this Court must determine whether an expert's testimony reflects "scientific knowledge," whether the findings are "derived by the scientific method," and whether the work product is "good science." Second, this Court must determine whether the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand." This gate keeping function is important because, "due to the difficulty of evaluatig their testimony, expert witnesses have the potential to be both powerful and quite misleading."
In Daubert and related cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has elucidated a number of factors for District Courts to consider when determining whether to admit expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.4 For example, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Daubert that courts may consider whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; whether it can be and has been tested; whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and the existence and maintenance of standards and controls. These factors are not exclusive nor dispositive. Since Daubert, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have also identified additional factors that may be considered, such as whether an expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion, whether an expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations, or whether an expert is proposing to testify about matters "growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying."
So how did the Geiers do under the Daubert standard? Not well at all. Indeed, Judge Beaty gave Dr. Mark Geier a serious slapdown. He starts out, however, by simply summarizing some basics, namely that Dr. Geier based his claims mainly on a review of the literature rather than his own work, pointing out that the research cited by such an "expert" must also meet the Daubert test and concluding that Dr. Geier's testimony did not meet the Daubert standard. Some commentary in the ruling that justifies this conclusion:
He [Geier]is a medical doctor who specializes in obstetrical genetics with a Ph.D. as well in genetics. He is board certified in medical genetics and forensic medicine. However, it is significant to the Court that he is not board certified in pediatrics or in pediatric neurology, nor is he certified as an epidemiologist or biostatistician. Dr. Geier did serve as a researcher at the National Institutes of Health for 10 years and worked as a professor at John Hopkins University. While he has published more than 50 peer-reviewed medical papers, none of these prior publications were on the specific issue at hand, that is, whether RhoGAM with thimerosal causes autism. The Court has taken into account, as well, the fact that Dr. Geier has testified as an expert witness in about one hundred cases before the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program of the United States Court of Federal Claims. It is noteworthy that in more than ten of these cases, particularly in some of the more recent cases, Dr. Geier's opinion testimony has either been excluded or accorded little or no weight based upon a determination that he was testifying beyond his expertise.
Ouch. That one's going to leave a mark. But Judge Beatty was just getting warmed up. First he dispenses with Dr. Boyd Haley's contribution, finding that
.
..Dr. Haley's report does not state an expert opinion that thimerosal causes autism, rather just that he has a theory about how such a thing could happen. At best, he expressed "strong belief" that the cause of "neurodevelopmental disorders in infants" is exposure to an organic-mercury compound such as thimerosal. Additionally, Plaintiffs proffered the report of Dr. Lucier, who is an expert in methylmercury and not ethylmercury, which is the substance in RhoGAM. Dr. Lucier does not offer an opinion that methylmercury causes autism, but rather that it may cause "developmental disorders." Significantly, the Court notes that neither Dr. Haley nor Dr. Lucier asserts that he is an expert on autism nor are they offered as such. In any event, the Court finds that neither of the proffered reports of Dr. Haley nor Dr. Lucier are sufficiently reliable under Daubert on the general causation issue because neither is relevant to the "task at hand." It would be an unacceptable scientific leap to suggest that they serve as proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of Plaintiff's claim that the thimerosal in RhoGAM can cause autism.
And all this is summarized in a single footnote! But Dr. Haley is lucky; he got off easily compared to Dr. Geier. What Judge Beatty says about Dr. Geier and his testimony is even more damning. Commenting on previous findings in previous cases that in which Dr. Geier's testimony was dismissed on the basis of "largely irrelevant" qualifications; his being a "professional witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise, and experience"; his "speculation that is directly contrary to the conclusions reached in well-respected and numerous epidemiologic and medical studies ranging over two decades"; his "neither being board certified nor [having] formal training in pediatrics and pediatric neurology"; his work not being "based on based upon scientific validity, valid methodology, peer review or testing, and more than
minimal support within the scientific community"; and, my favorite of all, a finding that Dr. Geier's testimony was "intellectually dishonest" and that his affidavit was "nothing more than an egregious example of blatant, result-oriented testimony."
"Results-oriented testimony"? Talk about a serious spanking! Yep, that just about sums up it up. He might as well have said "results-oriented research," which is pretty much the totality of the Geiers' work with respect to vaccines and autism. It gets better, though:
As revealed by his testimony at the Daubert hearing, Dr. Geier, however, relied upon a number of disparate and unconnected studies, including the findings of Dr. Haley and Dr. Lucier, to reach a piecemeal conclusion with respect to general causation that the small amount of thimerosal received in this case by the mother of Minor Child Doe during the course of her pregnancy and shortly after the child's birth, could cause autism. Dr. Geier's methodology consisted of attempting to connect various individual studies that had developed the existence of certain findings such as thefollowing: (1) mercury exposure could destroy neurons; (2) high levels of methylmercury exposure may cause developmental defects in children (Faroe Islanders study and Iraq study); (3) mercury can be transmitted through a mother's milk to her suckling child (Iraq study); (4) thimerosal can cross the blood-brain and placental barriers (this study considered doses of 1,000 micrograms of thimerosal, whereas the product RhoGAM has only about 10 micrograms of thimerosal); (5) direct and multiple (6x) injections of 50 miligrams of thimerosal can kill or deform embryonic chickens; (6) topical use of thimerosal as an antimicrobial by pregnant women may have caused birth defects; (7) a mouse model exposed to thimerosal in a way mimicking a childhood immunization schedule developed physical, psychological, and (Holmes study).Thus, on its face, all these study results, when pieced together, would seem to support Plaintiffs' general causation theory, as offered by Dr. Geier, that RhoGAM could cause autism.
However, upon being subjected to extensive cross examination, much of Dr. Geier's analysis, based upon his collective review of a motley assortment of diverse literature, proved, in the Court's view, to be overstated. For example, in examining Dr. Geier's methodology, the Court notes that Dr. Geier could not point to a single study, including anything that he had published, that conclusively determined that the amount of thimerosal in RhoGAM when given not to the fetus but to the mother, as in this case, could cause autism. It is also significant in the review of his methodology that Dr. Geier could not point to a single study that conclusively determined that any amount of mercury could cause the specific neurological disorder of autism. Even with respect to the Holmes study, which was an important part of Dr. Geier's methodology and ultimate conclusion, Holmes states the following in the last sentence of the paper: "Our study provides further insight into one possible mechanism by which early mercury exposures could increase the risk of autism." (emphasis added). Such a conditional statement cannot meet the preponderance of the evidence standard that Plaintiffs need to meet to show that the thimerosal in RhoGAM could cause autism. This Court must find more than the "hypothesis and speculation," engaged in by Dr. Geier in this instance, in order to allow Dr. Geier to rely upon the methodology he used in forming a conclusion based upon his review of the literature presented to the Court. In any event, Dr. Geier's conclusion in this matter is not supported even by the literature he presented to the Court. Moreover, Dr. Geier's conclusion that the peer-reviewed literature he has relied upon supports his theory that autism can be caused by thimerosal is flatly contradicted by all of the epidemiological studies available at this time.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Indeed, I've made many of the very same points about the very same studies in previous posts (1, 2, 3). Indeed, Judge Beatty said essentially the same thing that I and others have said about the shoddy methodology and downright horrible statistical analyses used when the Geiers mined the VAERS database. And I particularly like the description of all the studies the Geiers rely upon as "a motley assortment." Man, are they ever motley! They're a bunch of poorly related studies, some shoddily performed, some represented as supporting a link between autism and mercury when in reality they do not. And that's the best evidence the mercury militia can come up with to counter large, well-designed studies that don'tfind a link.
The court was also not fooled by some of the Geiers' latest work, which has not yet been published, that Dr. Geier tried to sneak in to show that maternal exposure to RhoGAM causes autism:
Nevertheless, looking at these studies in conjunction with Dr. Geier's literature review, the Court remains unpersuaded that Dr. Geier's testimony meets the Daubert test, particularly because Plaintiffs have failed in each instance to show: (1) that the theory employed by Dr. Geier is generally accepted in the scientific community; (2) that Dr. Geier's most recent and most applicable work concerning RhoGAM has been subjected to peer review and publication; and (3) that Dr. Geier properly controlled his studies and maintained standards: particularly, that he failed to take into account that RhoGAM is not the only Rho D immunoglobulin on the market and RhoGAM's competitor did not contain thimerosal, and Dr. Geier admittedly has not separately analyzed which of his patients received Defendant's product RhoGAM and which received some other Rho D immunoglobulin to determine respective autism rates. Moreover, the Court is particularly concerned as to a potential bias in Dr. Geier's methodology and ultimate conclusion given the recency of Dr. Geier's research into the cause of autism, which he admittedly began in only the last two and a half years, a time period that also represents the pendency of this lawsuit.
"The court is particularly concerned as to a potential bias"? That's about as close as the judge can get to calling Dr. Geier a biased hack that you'll see in legal language.
You may have noticed that I haven't said all that much in this post and have mostly selected choice tidbits from the ruling to bolster my point. It's the same sort of thing that I did with the Kitzmiller decision, because it's the same sort of decision, when a judge, with startling clarity and vehemence, completely stomps on pseudoscience. Such decisions are rare and to be savored when they appear. Also, when the judge is mirroring my viewpoint in slapping down pseudoscience so well, I see little need to add a lot of my own commentary, except for a bit of background and (when I can't help it) a bit of sarcasm. Indeed, I was tempted to quote the judge further as he ripped Geier to shreds for his poor differential diagnosis skills and the fact that Geier never even considered or mentioned alternate hypotheses for the causes of autism. Geier never even mentioned the most obvious hypothesis other than his bête noire (mercury), namely genetic causes, which also happens to be the one that most investigators consider to be the primary cause, with others likely to be much less important. That Geier never even mentioned genetics as a cause, even if only to dismiss it and explain why he considered it less likely than mercury, reveals the depths of his bias, a bias that Judge Beatty clearly saw through. Throwing just a pinch of salt in the huge gaping wounds he had inflicted on Dr. Geier's credibility, Judge Beatty also pointed out that Dr. Geier could not pass his Boards in Pediatric Genetics, which means he is not certified even to be making differential diagnoses in that field.
Mark Geier should just be exceedingly grateful that this decision weighs in at only around 25 pages, rather than the 100+ pages Judge Jones produced in the Kitzmiller decision demolishing "intelligent design" and its adherents who testified in the case. Perhaps the reason the ruling is so short is because the plaintiffs' evidence was so bad that the case was dismissed with a summary judgment with prejudice.
But the issue of the Geiers aside, what's really interesting about this case is what it might mean for the Autism Omnibus hearings. As Kevin Leitch points out, Drs. Geier and Haley are two of the main expert witnesses and have been found severely wanting, as has the best evidence the mercury militia can come up with thus far. After a judicial humiliation like this, Mark Geier and Boyd Haley as "expert witnesses" are probably now liabilities to the plaintiffs in the Omnibus case. Mark Geier can continue to be the Don Quixote of the mercury militia, tilting at windmills made of mercury, but his credibility as an expert witness may have just taken a fatal blow. At least, we can hope that's the case.
Note: Prometheus and Kevin Leitch have also commented on this ruling.
I have already mentioned elsewhere that Geier's flurry of research was an attempt to back door support his testimony, as he saw the writing on the walls with those previous ten decisions. Expect more garbage.
This decision is a wonderful "how-to" manual for the DOJ attorneys on how to negate the horde of experts that that plaintiffs have listed in the Omnibus claim. Geier relies on his, Haley and some other's work, Haley relies on Geier and some other, etc. etc. It is really a tremendous house of cards created for the sole purpose of litigation as the Judge points out.
One can only hope that the USDOJ attorneys get a copy of the decision.
"BAM!" -Elzar, and that guy he parodies.
I strikes me that Geier must know that there's no link between mercury and autism. People spreading nonsense such as ID have a religious and political agenda, but what is Geier after with this?
If I had to guess: Money, from his patents on Lupron as an autism treatment and that alternate vaccine after he manipulates people into buying them.
...but what is Geier after with this?
$$$$$ also from up front fees the Geier's received for their "expert testimony," as was suggested on Kev's earlier blog.
Another case is due in the 5th Circuit (LA). Here's a link to blog by Charles Fox, a special ed lawyer and from what I can tell, a drooling, hungry vaccine lawyer at that: http://specialedlaw.blogs.com/home/2006/07/autismmercury_c.html#more
Apparently Mr. Fox hasn't read what Judge Beatty has written in his home state of IL. Perhaps I'll enlighten him.
I do not handle vaccine cases. Maybe you need to check your own religious fervor at the door. Sorry if there any typos, I was wiping drool off the keys.
It is a shame such situations can't also result in a contempt of court penalty with a hefty fine for both the witnesses and the attorney who called them to testify.
Three cheers for what may have been [or at least could have been] an Orac-inspired legal opinion.
Mr. Fox,
You might not handle vaccine cases, but your blog clearly illustrates that you believe the vaccine-autism link is credible despite a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary.
I've frequently heard scientists express reservations regarding scientifically untrained judges handing down decisions on complicated scientific matters, but here, as in Daubert and Kitzmiller, we see evidence that judges, backed by evolving legal precedent establishing procedures for evaluating scientific testimony, can deal quite well with such issues.
Mouse wrote:
"You might not handle vaccine cases, but your blog clearly illustrates that you believe the vaccine-autism link is credible despite a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary".
A wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary? Where the hell is it, Mouse? Get off your excercise wheel and get in the game. A quote from Fox's blog:
"Even if this suit fails it is still an important round one in what promises to be the beginning of many such cases. The tobacco cases went on for years with the defendants winning every case until the fairly recent past. At the very least the arguments and science that link autism and mercury/thimerosal will finally get a full hearing before a jury and a court with powers to order damages that actually compensate the full measure of harm".
Exactly... he's right on. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
My favorite sentence in the whole opinion was:
"Plaintiffs' gambit failed."
Now, that's elegant.
"although I'm puzzled how a shot of RhoGAM after the birth of Minor Child Doe could have anything to do with affects on the child."
Oooooh, I know, I know!!! Quantum Homeopathy! If a shot of RhoGAM before birth can cause autism, a shot to the mother after birth must cause 30C autism!
C'mon, you know they're going to go to that argument once they get desperate.
(oh, and I think you're gonna have to rename the blog to "Respectful Schadenfreude")
Sue w/ no Common Sense wrote: "A wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary? Where the hell is it, Mouse? Get off your excercise wheel and get in the game."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/577
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/793
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&do…
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/5/1039
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&li…
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/6/e645
At the very least the arguments and science that link autism and mercury/thimerosal will finally get a full hearing before a jury and a court with powers to order damages that actually compensate the full measure of harm".
when the jury of scientist peers require too rigorous a burden of proof, it's time to doctor up the story and sell it to the court system.
Sue, you asked for evidence against the purported link? The evidence is that there is no evidence for a link. As has been pointed out to you before, fries and nutrasweet are just as likely the root of an invented epidemic.
You mentioned running on a wheel. Sue are you powering your PC with one? I ask because you're just not ever getting any place.
Scientific evidence 2 - 0 Some guys making stuff up as they go along
The system works, folks! The Geiers' amazing variety of proposed mechanisms in two and a half years should be warning enough that they've got no idea what they're doing.
I like this bit:
As previously noted, the Court has found that Dr. Geier's methodology, concerning the general causation question, that is, whether the thimerosal in RhoGAM could cause autism, has not met the Daubert standard. Based upon this finding, the Court need not go further. [...] nevertheless, for sake of completeness, the Court wil also examine Dr. Geier's methodology concerning specific causation, that is, whether RhoGAM specifically caused Minor Child Doe's autism.
"I've trashed your testimony sufficiently for the summary judgement, but because I think it's important, I'll also go over how useless you are in general."
(No) Common Sense wrote:
"Even if this suit fails it is still an important round one in what promises to be the beginning of many such cases. The tobacco cases went on for years with the defendants winning every case until the fairly recent past. At the very least the arguments and science that link autism and mercury/thimerosal will finally get a full hearing before a jury and a court with powers to order damages that actually compensate the full measure of harm".
Exactly... he's right on. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
This is why you come off as being not very smart. (and this guy doesn't seem like the world's best lawyer, either)
Why did Big Tobacco start losing lawsuits after winning all of the early ones? It had nothing to do with science, because the science was on the side of the plantiffs for the longest time. No, lawyers started winning more often when they took the tact not that cigarettes were defective (because they weren't - they did what they were designed to do) but that the manufacturers of cigarettes lied about the risks. It's one thing to say "cigarettes are bad for you, if you want to smoke go ahead", quite another to downplay or dismiss the risks altogether.
This is the crux of the mercury militia's case - that drug companies knew thimerosal could cause neurological disorders and continued to put it in vaccines. The problem with that argument is that unlike Big Tobacco, there is very little evidence that thimerosal plays even a minor role in such conditions. And it goes without saying there is even less evidence that drug companies knew that thimerosal could cause these conditions and chose to cover it up. If the best "smoking gun" you've uncovered in all your months and years of discovery is a memo from Maurice Hilleman expressing concern about thimerosal content in vaccines, then you've got no chance to win a lawsuit.
Here's the ironic difference, SueTheDrugCompanies - unlike the tobacco lawsuits, the drug companies have mainstream science on their side.
What I find interesting, though, is that you chose not to address the points at hand. The Geiers are one of the lynchpin expert witnesses for the drug companies. Without their evidence and testimony, what's left?
The system works, folks! The Geiers' amazing variety of proposed mechanisms in two and a half years should be warning enough that they've got no idea what they're doing.
I've never understood why that didn't strike reasonable people as odd. The Geiers' couldn't even stick with one plausible line of inquiry. They just switched aroud based on what could make them the most money.
HCN,
Is that all you've got? Lame list. That's the best of your best? Let's see.
1) I'm not at all impressed with Fombonne's latest and greatest epidemiological study.
2) Second study out of UK claims a "beneficial effect of thimerosal". Yeah, right.
3) The third study done by a guy out of the National Immunization Program with the CDC. Whatever.
4) Your 4th study was just crushed by Burbacher's study. Not only that but did you actually read that 4th study? It states:
"The scientific evidence is not yet sufficiently strong to provide the same level of assurance for thiomersal-containing vaccines for use in pregnant women or the premature or low birth weight infant. There is an increased sensitivity of the fetal brain to mercury whether it is ethyl or methyl mercury".
-Not exactly a glowing endorsement of thimerosal.
5) A watered down Verstraeten study. Great. This is the same guy who saw a significant correlation earlier and has said himself that it clearly needs more study.
6) Danish trash? Why bother even posting this one?
7) Not sure why you posted this hep b study here. Doesn't quite fit in...
Mouse wrote:
"quite another to downplay or dismiss the risks altogether".
Mouse, I don't have time to tear your argument apart. Let's just leave it at this. You wrote the above quote in reference to cigarrettes. This will be similar to a quote in the future in regards to unsafe vaccinations. Some will say, but vaccinations saved many lifes... Wonderful, it's one thing to talk of the lives saved, it's "quite another to downplay or dismiss the risks altogether". That is exactly what is happening here.
CommonDunce,
If you're going to claim that a drug company conspiracy exists to downplay or dismiss significant risks of vaccines, the first step is to prove such risks actually exist. Can you at least do that BEFORE you go to the conspiracy card? Next thing you're going to tell me you think whale.to is a good source of medical information.
And of course you don't have time to tear my argument apart. You never have time to rebut anything that make sense, you'd rather just pick at straw men.
CommonSlush,
1) I'm not at all impressed with Fombonne's latest and greatest epidemiological study.
Of course not. It uses logic and statistically valid metholodogy.
2) Second study out of UK claims a "beneficial effect of thimerosal". Yeah, right.
That's the best you can do? Wow, feel the smackdown.
3) The third study done by a guy out of the National Immunization Program with the CDC. Whatever.
Using that unassailable logic, the numerous studies showing the harmful effects of smoking done by the government should be ignored. You do realize that the NIP has no power other than to make recommendations to states with regards to their vaccine policy? (and not all of them follow those recommendations?) Of course you don't.
4) Your 4th study was just crushed by Burbacher's study. Not only that but did you actually read that 4th study? It states:
"The scientific evidence is not yet sufficiently strong to provide the same level of assurance for thiomersal-containing vaccines for use in pregnant women or the premature or low birth weight infant. There is an increased sensitivity of the fetal brain to mercury whether it is ethyl or methyl mercury".
-Not exactly a glowing endorsement of thimerosal.
Hey, genius. That last paragraph (totally taken out of context) is scientific-speak for "we can't rule anything out". And what did Burbacher's three monkeys prove other than some inorganic mercury remains in the brain after mercury exposure and that methylmercury hangs around the body (destroying things like you kidneys) a lot longer than ethylmercury. Of course, Dr. Tom took the money from the autism groups and is now distorting the results of his own research, which is sad.
5) A watered down Verstraeten study. Great. This is the same guy who saw a significant correlation earlier and has said himself that it clearly needs more study.
When you see the same result from several different places using different population groups, that's a pretty good indicator that result is correct. Sue, you just hate the idea that you're wrong.
6) Danish trash? Why bother even posting this one?
It's marginally contributory. I've never been a fan of these studies either, but if you add them to the body of science as a whole it becomes pretty compelling.
7) Not sure why you posted this hep b study here. Doesn't quite fit in...
This is the consequences of the actions of people like you and activist loons like Generation Rescue. People don't vaccinate their kids when they should and put the population at risk, not to mention their own children. I'm not surprised at all that you don't get the correlation.
Let me ask you this, Sue. Why don't you provide us a list of studies? Don't tell me you don't have time, don't tell me to look it up myself, don't tell me it's a waste of time for you, blah, blah. If you're going to trash the scientific body of work disputing a link between autism and vaccines, the very least you can do is provide alternative research that makes your case.
"It's marginally contributory. I've never been a fan of these studies either, but if you add them to the body of science as a whole it becomes pretty compelling".
Even contemplating this as part of a "body of science" in any respect puts you in the twit category. Not worthy of my time.
CS -
Don't you have anything better than the "my opinion is better than yours becuase I say so"?
Appeal to self-importance?
Oh, wait... I forgot:
"Hey, genius. That last paragraph (totally taken out of context) is scientific-speak for "we can't rule anything out".
Sounds like scientific-speak for we have no idea what happens when ethyl mercury... blah, blah, blah... At least they are somewhat honest. Put it in context for me, please, if you feel the need. Since the Burbacher study came out after this study, I'll wait for the next study to come out to address the issues that he presents.
"Don't you have anything better than the "my opinion is better than yours becuase I say so"?
Appeal to self-importance"?
Perhaps you are new here or perhaps you have never read Kev Leitch's blog. I spent a few months trying to talk common sense to people. They don't speak common sense... so now, I just toss out a few comments and move on. It takes less time. Since you are a "doctor", do you inject neurotoxins into babies? Seriously, it's not a trick question and it deserves an answer. So, do you?
Second study out of UK claims a "beneficial effect of thimerosal". Yeah, right.
So you dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't agree with your prejudices? I can think of a number of possible ways in which thimerosol could have a beneficial effect--an antiviral action, for example.
But considering that they looked at 69 behavioral measures and found (after correction for known confounding influences) only 8 apparent "beneficial" effects (compared to one marginally significant "harmful" effect), it could just be a minor statistical anomaly. The bottom line is that a very large study--and a prospective one, at that (which reduces a major source of bias)-- was unable to detect any evidence of a causal relationship between thimerosol and autism.
when you look at the original *super secret* Simpsonwood minutes, you will find that the group exposed to the highest amount of thimerosal had a 50% reduced risk of epilepsy. I wonder why that never made the Pediatrics paper - must a conspiracy of the pharmas who will be catering to more epileptics, now that thimerosal has been removed from vaccines.
(irony off)
Sue - your nom de plume is hilarious. You wouldn't know sense - common or uncommon - if it came up and delivered a hefty kick to your rear end.
Your suspension was lifted on July 1st by the way. When can we expect you back to argue your case with your usual meticulous eye for accuracy and sound science?
"Your suspension was lifted on July 1st by the way. When can we expect you back to argue your case with your usual meticulous eye for accuracy and sound science"?
You won't see me back in that pit, Kev. Why torture myself with nonsense?
"So you dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't agree with your prejudices? I can think of a number of possible ways in which thimerosol could have a beneficial effect--an antiviral action, for example".
If your argument is that thimerosal is beneficial and can be used safely, then prove it. If you can't, then I will continue on *knowing* that ethylmercury injected into babies is dangerous. Period.
"You won't see me back in that pit, Kev. Why torture myself with nonsense?"
Well, you've been torturing us with nonsense for months now. I see from your contributions to this thread that you're still doing it.
Funnily enough though, checking my referral stats I see you're still a regular visitor. 390 visits this moth alone so far. Guess you can't stay away ;o)
Hi Sue,
How many Autistic children do you have? I have two, one who received all scheduled vaccines including a few with thimerosal, the other never received a single vaccine. Since personal opinion and anecdote is important to you, will mine count?
Why don't you sit down and take the time to make a point. If you truly understand what you are talking about, it should take you no longer than ten minutes. Start by explaining the Burbacher study and what you've learned from his work. Just a short paragraph - break it down for those of us lacking common sense. Come on oh-wise-one, educate us.
Feel free to consult with your other coma sense anti-vax friends.
"Funnily enough though, checking my referral stats I see you're still a regular visitor. 390 visits this moth alone so far. Guess you can't stay away ;o)"
Actually, that's quite true. I do keep checking in. I keep waiting for something... anything... to come out of your blog. It's so interesting... morgue-like when we don't post. I was also embarrassed for you treating people like such crap when they visit your blog. I was having fun with you over on another site but of course you ran away when things didn't go your way. Typical.
"390 visits this moth alone so far. Guess you can't stay away ;o)"
Is this how you count your hits or whatever. I bet those 390 visits added up to about 2 minutes of time. Is that how you determine if you are popular Kev? If so, I'd try to find another way to justify your existence in the blogosphere, Kev.
"How many Autistic children do you have? I have two, one who received all scheduled vaccines including a few with thimerosal, the other never received a single vaccine. Since personal opinion and anecdote is important to you, will mine count"?
Of course your "anectdote" is important. I would need more to go on though. For example, I have a friend who is a chiropractor and did not vaccinate his young son. Recently, I had heard through another friend of mine that his son was having developmental issues. I took note of the fact because I knew that his son had not been vaccinated. Interestingly, when I met his wife, I had a light bulb moment, she had the worst teeth that I've ever seen. Silver fillings galore. It could have been a coincidence :)
As for my kids, I have 10 of them. They are all perfect. As I'm sure that yours are. Thank you for asking.
"Interestingly, when I met his wife, I had a light bulb moment, she had the worst teeth that I've ever seen. Silver fillings galore. It could have been a coincidence"
No, it's not that interesting to me actually. Believe it or not I wasn't looking for an online diagnosis from an hysterical antivax mother but I'm sure your chiro-friend appreciated the amateur toxicologist/dental aesthetician evaluation.
Are you saying that a child who hasn't received thimerosal containing vaccines can still be autistic as a result of prenatal exposure to the mother's dental amalgams? So if, by your logic, it's possible to have an autistic child without thimerosal exposure, isn't it also possible that thimerosal doesn't play a role at all? Isn't it also possible that mercury isn't involved at all?
I know you think you are on a noble mission to warn other parents about the dangers of vaccines and all but tell me, how do you think you are helping my children? Do you understand why I might be less than grateful to people who think they can speak for and about my children and all autistics in general?
If you, and people like the Geiers and Buttar, had a conscience you might consider the damage you are causing by spreading lies about something you obviously know nothing about.
Still waiting for your review essay on the Burbacher paper.
"Actually, that's quite true. I do keep checking in. I keep waiting for something... anything... to come out of your blog. It's so interesting... morgue-like when we don't post."
So I'll never see you there again, but you do keep checking in...? Come on Sue, you used to be able to do better than that ;o)
And if by 'morgue like' you mean 'a bit more tranquil now there are less kooks' then you are quite right. However, as I've told you on numerous occasions, comments are unimportant but nice. Readers are vital. Those numbers continue to grow nicely :o)
"I was also embarrassed for you treating people like such crap when they visit your blog."
Whereas I think most people are mainly just embarrased for you without qualification :o)
"I was having fun with you over on another site but of course you ran away when things didn't go your way. Typical."
Well, call me odd Sue but when autistic members are called 'fucking retards' by non autistic members and when your pal John Best Jr makes yet more allusions to paedophilia then that's not really a place that I want to be a part of. Besides, I heard someone say once that the best idea when participating in these kind of discussions was just to 'just toss out a few comments and move on'. What's your opinion?
"I bet those 390 visits added up to about 2 minutes of time."
Fortunately, my software not only tracks how often you visit but how long those visits actually last. Your average visit length lasts approx 6 mins. That equates to about 39 hours of time you've spent on my blog in the eleven days of July.
"Is that how you determine if you are popular Kev? If so, I'd try to find another way to justify your existence in the blogosphere, Kev."
Don't worry, its enough for me to know that I keep the online stalking community happy and sated ;o)
"but I'm sure your chiro-friend appreciated the amateur toxicologist/dental aesthetician evaluation".
Are you kidding? I wouldn't offer that up as a possible reason to him. That's none of my business. I think that you way overestimate what I would/would not say to people out in the "real world".
"Are you saying that a child who hasn't received thimerosal containing vaccines can still be autistic as a result of prenatal exposure to the mother's dental amalgams"?
I've always said that. There can be many factors involved. Thimerosal isn't the only factor (in my opinion).
"Do you understand why I might be less than grateful to people who think they can speak for and about my children and all autistics in general"?
I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself and my family. A question to you, when are you going to be getting your second child vaccinated? It's perfectly safe, right?
"If you, and people like the Geiers and Buttar, had a conscience you might consider the damage you are causing by spreading lies about something you obviously know nothing about".
My conscience is just fine. I don't do anything but ask people to do their own research on the current vaccination recommendations. What's the issue? Where are the lies?
"So I'll never see you there again, but you do keep checking in..."?
Back up, Kev. You will see me check in, you won't see me post and get caught up in the ugliness of your blog. I'll laugh from a far...
"Those numbers continue to grow nicely" :o)
I think that people find you somewhat amusing Kev. You certainly can also be a complete a-hole to those that disagree with you.
"Your average visit length lasts approx 6 mins. That equates to about 39 hours of time you've spent on my blog in the eleven days of July".
That is by far the funniest thing that I have heard in a long time. The idea that I could have spent 39 hrs. of time on your blog in 11 days. Hilarious, Kev. Now, here's the thing... it is possible that maybe I was logged in to my computer/your site and left it on for a while to boost that average but NO CHANCE in hell that I spent 39 hrs. on your blog this month? On what? You haven't even had any good debates going on?? You are off your rocker if you believe that stat, Kev. Too funny.
Commode Sense said: My conscience is just fine. I don't do anything but ask people to do their own research on the current vaccination recommendations.
That's total BS and you know it. How many examples of your anti-vax stance would you like?
Oh, and thanks for the question, I'll be happy to answer once you've answered any of the direct questions you always manage to dodge. Let's start with how many ASD kids you have, and 'perfect' doesn't answer the question, unless you consider autistic children imperfect.
"That's total BS and you know it".
No, that is not total BS. In my everyday life, I don't tell people what to do or what not to do. I give them the facts and tell them to do their own homework and/or research.
"Let's start with how many ASD kids you have, and 'perfect' doesn't answer the question, unless you consider autistic children imperfect".
I have 10 kids and they are all perfect (both autistic and NT kids can be perfect to a mom). So, when are you vaccinating your younger child?
I just spent some time reading Mr. Fox's website about special education. I found it to be rather comprehensive, and it does provide much useful information. Let's be fair and acknowledge that.
I don't tell people what to do in my normal life. That's because most people I know are fully aware of the need to do their homework. They know that they should be able to support their statements, rather than declare their conclusions and pretend they've backed them up.
I'm still waiting for one of you people to produce a single iota of reliable evidence. At current, you rank right up there with the people who put their faith in Q-Ray bracelets and Amway: Nothing but plattitudes, distractions, veiled threats, and precisely zero evidence worthy of consideration.
CS: In my everyday life, I don't tell people what to do or what not to do.
It's nice that you are able to compartmentalize like that. Most people apply the same ethics and standards to on or off line personas.
I have 10 kids and they are all perfect
Are you also anti-contraceptive? Seriously? You have 10 kids? How do you find time to pursue your antivax hobby? How many would you have if the laptop wasn't always in the way?
"That's because most people I know are fully aware of the need to do their homework".
Interesting. I am around very smart people and most of them just believe their doctors and follow the recommended vaccinations without putting much thought into it. I get them to research the issue. That shouldn't be an problem, should it?
"They know that they should be able to support their statements, rather than declare their conclusions and pretend they've backed them up".
I can back up everything that I say.
"It's nice that you are able to compartmentalize like that. Most people apply the same ethics and standards to on or off line personas".
Really? So does Kev berate people in his "real life"? Does the Diva get on her high horse and rant away? Does David (pending diploma) swear at people and call them nasty names? Hopefully not. My point is, I express my opinions about vaccinations on forums where that is the topic being discussed. If it's not the topic, I'm typically not discussing it... A few of my friends are aware of my beliefs so they will occassionally ask me a question or two and I'll give them my opinion but that's about it...
"You have 10 kids"?
Yup. I don't know how I do it either.
Common Sense: I can back up everything that I say.
Good, you can start by backing up your statement that thimerosal - at the levels found in vaccines - is a neurotoxin and explain how that could possibly cause autism.
"I think that people find you somewhat amusing Kev. You certainly can also be a complete a-hole to those that disagree with you."
I can most certainly be an a-hole to those that behave like a-hole's to me. I operate a simple rule. I treat others as they treat me (that's true in all aspects of my life). Disagreement is absolutely fine. Behaviour such as you displayed on my blog from your very first visit onwards is not.
"That is by far the funniest thing that I have heard in a long time. The idea that I could have spent 39 hrs. of time on your blog in 11 days. Hilarious, Kev. Now, here's the thing... it is possible that maybe I was logged in to my computer/your site and left it on for a while to boost that average but NO CHANCE in hell that I spent 39 hrs. on your blog this month? On what? You haven't even had any good debates going on?? You are off your rocker if you believe that stat, Kev. Too funny."
Who are you trying so hard to convince? ;o)
Sue, its OK - websites are there to be visited - there's no shame in having one's little obsessions :o)
Sue Margaret,
a blast from the past...
John Best said, "I think you should hang yourself, you'd be better off."
Death? Nice. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Mr. John Fore Sam Best, Rescue Angel extraordinare, supported and encouraged by JB Handley of Generation Rescue.
Although it was plugged earlier, check out Joseph's cataloging of some of Best's bests.
This is the guy that typifies Generation Rescue. The strap-hangers like the boot-licking Handley-is-god poster above typify the scientifically ignorant, type-A, conspiracy mongerers who spend their calories spreading a belief, and nothing more than an evidence-free belief.
Posted by: Sick of it all | May 16, 2006 01:03 PM
Sick of it all,
Are you caring for a child with autism or are you just pissed off and angry for no reason?
What exctly are you sick of?
If things don't improve your way soon, you should take John's advice and off yourself.
I certainly won't miss you and your nasty off the wall comments.
Margaret
Posted by: margaret | May 16, 2006 01:16 PM
link
I think Not Mercury makes a good request of Common Sense. Let's see her data, and then we can continue from there.
Please, everybody, don't distract Common Sense from her research into the subject, and providing us with the evidence for her stance. We know she is easily distracted, so if she seems to be going on in a different direction, we can always refer back to Not Mercury's request.
I don't inject anybody with anything these days as I have left practice.
But prior to that I did vaccinate children (and have my own vaccinated) - but of course, no thimerosal since around 2001. But before that I did vaccinate children with thimerosal-containing vaccines, yes.
And strangely I am from a birth cohort (1969) who received the 5 shot DPT series (with thimerosal) prior to school entry. And stangely, there was very little autism back then.
"I treat others as they treat me (that's true in all aspects of my life). Disagreement is absolutely fine. Behaviour such as you displayed on my blog from your very first visit onwards is not".
Sure, Kev. You are an a-hole to anyone who has an opinion which is different from you. Anyone who can read can see that. Most recently to that guy John who posted on your site. You were an a-hole.
"Who are you trying so hard to convince? ;o)"
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I actually am finding it quite funny that this is how you use your tracking system. Hey, guess what? I just went to your site to check on John's name (see above), in the meantime, I got up from my computer to fix some breakfast for one of my 10 kids... so does it show you that I spent 15 minutes on your oh so informative site? Good stat, Kev. Desperato?
"I treat others as they treat me (that's true in all aspects of my life). Disagreement is absolutely fine. Behaviour such as you displayed on my blog from your very first visit onwards is not".
Sure, Kev. You are an a-hole to anyone who has an opinion which is different from you. Anyone who can read can see that. Most recently to that guy John who posted on your site. You were an a-hole.
"Who are you trying so hard to convince? ;o)"
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I actually am finding it quite funny that this is how you use your tracking system. Hey, guess what? I just went to your site to check on John's name (see above), in the meantime, I got up from my computer to fix some breakfast for one of my 10 kids... so does it show you that I spent 15 minutes on your oh so informative site? Good stat, Kev. Desperato?
My post was so good it needed to be seen twice....
Hey 390,
Guess what? I have never been Margaret. Good try though. Have your facts together before you try to pin crap on me. Good detective work.
How about that... identical twins.
Sue M defending whale.to - nothing ever changes I guess.
Sue doesn't have ten kids. She actually used to talk about her kids (who didn't have autism but developmental issues, if I'm not mistaken) all the time but I certainly don't remember her having ten of them.
So I think this person isn't Sue but a completely non-clever impostor. Or maybe there are multiple people using the handle Common Sense. Or maybe this thread is becoming pointless.
"I don't inject anybody with anything these days as I have left practice.
But prior to that I did vaccinate children (and have my own vaccinated) - but of course, no thimerosal since around 2001. But before that I did vaccinate children with thimerosal-containing vaccines, yes.
And strangely I am from a birth cohort (1969) who received the 5 shot DPT series (with thimerosal) prior to school entry. And stangely, there was very little autism back then".
Dr. Steve,
You should probably do some more research on that 2001 date. I imagine that while the thimerosal-content of vaccines was decreasing, kids that you were vaccinating were receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines into 2002-2003. Don't worry about the kids who are now being injected with thimerosal-containing flu shots or the pregnant mommies. Just ignore that whole situation.
What other shots other than those 5 DPT's did you receive? How about the Prevnar? Flu? Did they mix the mmr with the DPT? How about Hep B at birth w/thimerosal, did you get that? How about the HIB? Chicken Pox? Did you get them all by the age of 2? Didn't think so. Now, you also must know (being a doctor and all) that the DPT caused serious reactions in some children. Hence, the reason for the switch to the "safer" DTaP. Possibly you got lucky or don't have a genetic predisposition to injury from vaccines.
Oh, yeah, one more thing. If you are going to hang out here you should know one thing. The people here will disagree with you about there being very little autism back then. They will say there has been no increase in the number of cases of autism. They will tell you that the quirky kids of yesteryear are the autistic kids of today. Possibly you missed the memo.
"Please, everybody, don't distract Common Sense from her research into the subject, and providing us with the evidence for her stance".
Hi Kristjan,
Are you still trying to defend the Danish studies? That is very important research, don't let us distract you.
Sue I just wanted you to know you are doing a sterling job highlighting the rationality and Common Sense many of us have come to expect from your quarter. Now that the Mark Geier and Boyd Haley are effectively useless as expert witnesses have you considered stepping into the role? I for one think you'd be great at it :o)
[De-lurk]
Common Sense, you seem to keep evading substantive questions in favor of non-substantive issues. I'm personally interested in your answer to the following:
1) What evidence do you have that thimerosal causes autism?
2) What evidence would convince you that there is no thimerosal-autism link?
[/De-lurk]
"Now that the Mark Geier and Boyd Haley are effectively useless as expert witnesses have you considered stepping into the role? I for one think you'd be great at it :o)"
I'm way to busy with my 10 kids for that. Don't worry, Kev, the trials have just begun. We have a long way to go yet. I don't care, I have all the time in the world to watch you sink. I know what I need to know. How about you Kev? Have you given your youngest child all her vaccines? Are you going with the Prevnar? I wonder when Not Mercury is going to vaccinate his younger child?
My point was this: My cohort had at least 5 shots with thimerosal before school entry and no one even heard of autism back then (until Rainman).
Since 2001 or so ONLY those kids who received non-preservative free flu vaccines 3 time AND who's Moms got 2 doses of Rhogam can claim to have received as much thimerosal as my cohort.
See it? Then: about 5 full doses of thimerosal and very little autism.
Now: a similar amount of thimerosal (at the MOST, and the average would be much less) and much more autism.
Dr. Steve,
I can't agree with that. I ('64) quite vividly recall at least one obviously autistic boy (tiptoeing, pencil flipping, who was called "autistic" long before rain man) in my school and at least 2 children on the spectrum in my class at any time - they just weren't called "autistic" or "ASD", they were called "quirky", "withdrawn", "writes straight As, but doesn't talk much".
Dr. Steve,
I would start investigating the combination of vaccinations together ie toxins such as aluminum with live viruses. Or look at the incredible amount of vaccinations given to young babies with undeveloped immune systems. It has to do with vaccinations... count on it. Now see what I told you about the people here... there was no less autism back when you were a kid. It's just better diagnosis. You see, Steve, when you were young doctors were really stupid. They weren't concerned with odd "autistic" behaviours. It didn't phase them when children couldn't talk by age six. These kids were quirky, not autistic. Doctors started getting really smart right around 1990... It's just a coincidence that this is the time when more vaccinations were added to the schedule. That's the mentality here, doc.
Sue,
there is no aluminum in "live" viral vaccines (anyone else notice just *how* last year mercury is and how aluminum is so *it* these days).
1969, the birth year of Dr. Steve was quite an active research year on the thing that there was so little of back then - err - autism. For example, Clancy et al defined a list of behavioural symptoms that could be used to diagnose infantile autism. You should read more about autism and how it was viewed in the 60ties - very interesting (given that it was such a "rare" condition as you claim).
In any case, stating that there were less cases of autism in 1969 than now, is like claiming that there were less left handed children back then. Given that when I entered first grade in 1970, children who wanted to write with their left hand were forced to hold a wet sponge in the left and to write with their right hand, I am sure you'll even find statistics that "prove" the low incidence of left-handedness. And if you plotted the incidence of children who actually write with the left, you would get a increase starting in the 80ties and soaring in the 90ties (concommittant with "special services/products for the left handed") that you could try to correlate with the increase in number of vaccines given.
Does anything that is not "typical" need a name or label? "Neurotypical" is an artificial average. I am "familotypical" - married, two children (one girl and one boy). You are not. What can we call you? What caused you to be non-typical? Many of the non-neurotypical children in my schools did quite well - the one who could not talk wrote very well, so did the girl who could, but would not talk. Last I heard of her was that she was studying chemistry. Cool - what would a label have changed for her? That is my mentality.
Or look at the incredible amount of vaccinations given to young babies with undeveloped immune systems.
If babies had undeveloped immune systems they'd die of just about anything. Why in the world would you think tiny exposures to the DTaP vaccine, for example, would be more harmful than exposures to the thousands of antigens a child is exposed to every day?
That is illogical.
Steve, when you were young doctors were really stupid. They weren't concerned with odd "autistic" behaviours. It didn't phase them when children couldn't talk by age six. These kids were quirky, not autistic.
Clearly, "CommonSense/Sue/John Best posing as Sue/David H" never read the precious California DDS report. You know, the ones which illustrated that well over two-thirds of all autistics suffer from little or no mental retardation? Is it possible that most people who get the diagnosis of autism are not completely non-verbal? Is it possible that autistic people were all around you for years and you didn't know it because they didn't have the "label"?
The fact you won't even consider that to be a possibility is reason enough to discount every single thing you say. That and the fact you're clueless.
"there is no aluminum in "live" viral vaccines (anyone else notice just *how* last year mercury is and how aluminum is so *it* these days)".
I am quite aware that there is no aluminum in the mmr. That's why I specifically mentioned the combination of vaccines. It's not a difficult concept. As an example, giving the Prevnar vaccine (aluminum) along WITH the mmr (live virus vaccine). What is the effect of the aluminum on the live virus vaccine? My son was given the Prevnar, the HIB, the mmr and the flu shot all in one visit. What were the interactions between all those ingredients. Dr. Steve, do you know? Didn't think so... Isn't that the issue?
See what I mean, Doctor Steve... All those older doctors that you used to respect were all idiots. They couldn't identify a non-verbal child back then... quirky, my friend. Yeah right. I like your left-handed analogy Catherina. My only problem with it is ... What did they used to do with the "quirky" non-verbal kids to make them talk? Did the sponge in the hand help with them too? If so, let me know, I'll alert my local developmental therapists.
"If babies had undeveloped immune systems they'd die of just about anything. Why in the world would you think tiny exposures to the DTaP vaccine, for example, would be more harmful than exposures to the thousands of antigens a child is exposed to every day"?
Using my common sense, mouse, let me say this. Possibly a tiny exposure to the DTaP vaccine wouldn't cause an adverse reaction to a baby. Let's see here. Let's try 4 DTap's, 3 Polios, 4 HIB's, 1 mmr, 3 Hep B's (including one on day 1 of life), 1 chicken pox, 3 Prevnar, and 2 flu shots all given within the first 18 months of life?
As for me being clueless? You can't even figure out who I am. Duh?
Sue - they didn't do anything to "make them talk". I cannot remember a single incident where a child was forced to speak (but many where children were forced to shut up). There wasn't much stress on verbal contribution in primary school.
In high school, the non speaking girl got a lower mark in French (as this was a topic in which written assessment only counted 50% or so). As for the boy who was always flicking his pencil - he was not in my class, but I distinctly remember that when he joined the school, we were all instructed not to bully him. I don't know what his day in class was like. Maybe the chemistry between teachers and pupils was just right, but then, the girl in the wheelchair was not forced to walk, either, maybe I should give my school credit for being quite tolerant.
"Sue - they didn't do anything to "make them talk".
Catherina, I think that you completely missed my point. That's ok, though... I'm just quite happy to hear that ALL the children diagnosed with Autism today will soon be studying French and doing chemistry.
No, CS. See, back when I was in school, non-verbal children were called "mentally retarded" - a classification which I have witnessed in my clinical career to all but disappear. I guess the vaccines must have done that too.
So your hypothesis is that the thimerosal did it and if not that then the aluminum and if not that then the comination of antigens and if not that then the antigens with the aluminum with the immature immune system. But it just has to be the vaccines.
You have officially crossed over to a faith-based belief in the vaccine-autism link. Maybe you should start a church. At least that way you can get tax-free status.
Please ignore "Common Sense"... she has it in her mind that celiac disease and diabetes are caused by vaccines. See this:
http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=295#comment-3604
Common Sense, are you planning on addressing my questions? I really am curious what evidence you have supporting the link between thimerosal (or even just vaccinations) and autism, as well as what evidence would convince you there is no link.
Sheesh, that's twice I had to de-lurk on this comment thread.
I have written two guest posts about the subject, which explains why I think some of the attacks on one of the studies were wrong. People could read my reasoning, and agree or disagree with me. I don't particularly need to write more about them.
You, on the other hand, have so far made many wild claims, yet have not provided us with anything we can use for evaluating those claims.
"No, CS. See, back when I was in school, non-verbal children were called "mentally retarded" - a classification which I have witnessed in my clinical career to all but disappear. I guess the vaccines must have done that too".
Oh, Dr. Steve you are VERY new here. I have given my opinion about just that over and over again. The numbers don't add up my friend. I'm willing to believe that some autistic children were diagnosed as "mentally retarded" a few decades ago. Certainly NOT in the numbers that are here today. I may have had about 3 "mentally retarded" children in my elementary school growing up. That's about it. It doesn't add up. If you are really interested in the topic, get out of here and do some real research (seriously). I would argue that the majority of doctors (despite their thoughts about vaccinations) would agree that your theory about the shifting diagnostics is way off. I loved this quote from Imus in the morning when he interviewed Senator Dodd the other day. I'm not claiming that either is an expert in the field but it was fun anyway. I thought of you guys.
Imus: but, people who think this epidemic of autism is just genetics based are idiots.
Dodd: I think I may have mentioned this before, we have an 1100% increase in autism in the greater New Haven area. 1100% in the last 10 or 15 years. Obviously we are doing a better job of detecting and picking up on autism conditions earlier than a couple of years ago. But, there is no way you can justify that kind of increase solely on better diagnosis or blaming it on genetics.
Even the really stupid talk show people and idiot Senators :) are starting to get it. Study up, Doc.
"Please ignore "Common Sense"... she has it in her mind that celiac disease and diabetes are caused by vaccines. See this:
http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=295#comment-3604"
Yes, please ignore me because there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with injecting infants with a known neurotoxin which is also used to induce autoimmune reactions. No problem there. I loved this from your post: "Please ignore Common Sense". Truly classic. Thanks HCN.
"Yes, please ignore me because there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with injecting infants with a known neurotoxin which is also used to induce autoimmune reactions."
Common Sense,
You're doing a remarkable job in this thread of holding your own - several clever retorts, subterfuge, and some genuine humour. All things considered, it should be realised that you maintain unsupported assertions and unaddressed questions.
1. Please explain the results of the Burbacher study and what it delivers evidence of; please afford specific detail to the toxicity of the different forms of mercury and autism.
2. Please demonstrate that Thiomersal at vaccine levels, in vivo (human), is a neurotoxin.
3. Please explain how Thiomersal could cause autism, and present evidence that supports the hypothesis.
"Even the really stupid talk show people and idiot Senators :) are starting to get it."
I understand the implication that you hold a belief that the answer is simple, therefore even "talk show people and idiot Senators :) are starting to get it". Have you considered the possibility that they might not be significantly more than "really stupid talk show people and idiot Senators"? Could they rally round and answer the 3 questions above?
"You're doing a remarkable job in this thread of holding your own - several clever retorts, subterfuge, and some genuine humour. All things considered, it should be realised that you maintain unsupported assertions and unaddressed questions.
1. Please explain the results of the Burbacher study and what it delivers evidence of; please afford specific detail to the toxicity of the different forms of mercury and autism.
2. Please demonstrate that Thiomersal at vaccine levels, in vivo (human), is a neurotoxin.
3. Please explain how Thiomersal could cause autism, and present evidence that supports the hypothesis".
Dear Froggy Toad,
On many occasions I have posted the scientific studies which show that the possibility of an association between thimerosal (mercury) and autism. I have also actually posted the website where you can go to actually hear the researchers themselves speak of their studies and the possible implications (such as Burbacher). So, I have no idea why YOU would want ME to give you my own rendition of what the study means. I have a PhD in common sense, not science. Why don't you go to the researcher himself to hear what he has to say... feel free to bypass me. Do you need the link?
As for the safety of thimerosal (in vaccine amounts) and its safety, I'll make a deal with you. If you show me and prove to me that thimerosal is safe and effective in the vaccine amounts then I will answer your question.
"Common Sense, are you planning on addressing my questions? I really am curious what evidence you have supporting the link between thimerosal (or even just vaccinations) and autism, as well as what evidence would convince you there is no link.
Sheesh, that's twice I had to de-lurk on this comment thread".
You De-lurked for that Davis? I'm not so sure why me posting the supporting evidence that I have again for what the tenth time is going to change how people view that evidence. So you are either a) new here and are honestly interested in the information or b) not new, know the evidence, don't like the evidence or don't find the evidence credible -- in which case why should I bother showing you where it is again?
So, my only question for you is: are you new here (that's option a on the choices above).
We'll show you that thimerosal is safe as soon as you show me that water is safe.
Common Sense - "I can back up everything that I say."
Evidently you cannot or you are not willing.
Safety data on Thiomersal has not been requested of you. The request is that you back up your assertion that Thiomersal at vaccine levels, in vivo (human), is a neurotoxin. I will not declare that it is not, but you need to back up your assertion that it is, or retract it.
It would appear that you do not assert that Thiomersal can cause autism, since you discuss only possibilities of associations and studies with possible implications.
"We'll show you that thimerosal is safe as soon as you show me that water is safe".
There is NO WAY that you are a doctor.
"It would appear that you do not assert that Thiomersal can cause autism, since you discuss only possibilities of associations and studies with possible implications".
Yes, Froggy of course. If anyone could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt so that even the Paul Offit's of the world believed it... would we still be hear yakking about it? Common sense says no.
Can anyone prove it beyond a shadow of possibility? The court document subject of this post indicates that a probable answer is "no".
Do you see fit to back up your assertion that Thiomersal at vaccine levels, in vivo (human), is a neurotoxin, or will you be retracting it?
Have you considered the possibility that "really stupid talk show people and idiot Senators" might be just that, "really stupid talk show people and idiot Senators"?
"Do you see fit to back up your assertion that Thiomersal at vaccine levels, in vivo (human), is a neurotoxin, or will you be retracting it"?
Froggy,
Here's what I would like from you. Please show me a QUOTE from *me* which you believe should be retracted? In order for me to retract something, I need to know what you think I said which needs to be retracted. It should be easy for you. Please advise.
Common Sue said: There is NO WAY that you are a doctor
Shall we consider that your answer? Can you or can't you show us that water is safe?
How about this, 'Ms. 1+1=2'- How many people drink water everyday and how many people have been vaccinated with thimerosal containg vaccines?
How many people have died within hours of drinking a glass of water?
Oh, and since insulin is also a neurotoxin, when will you stop injecting your child with a neurotoxin?
I'm not here to prove that thimerosal is safe. I'm here to request evidence that it does what the antivax nuts say it does. They've been typing a lot, but saying nothing. I don't want absolute proof: Such things exist only in the realm of pure math. I want mere confidence, not certainty. So far, my confidence is in the negative numbers.
The water analogy is just so stupid. How many times do we need to hear it. Foolish. Here we go. Let's pretend Dr. Steve is in his office (his old office). A teenager wanders in and says hey Dr. Steve, I have a potential problem here. I was fooling around with my friend playing Russian Roullette. We had two syringes on the table. One syringe contained water and the other contained 1000 mcg's of thimerosal. We each injected the syringes into our arms. I'm not sure which syringe I received, should I be worried?
What would Dr. Steve say at this point?
"Oh, and since insulin is also a neurotoxin, when will you stop injecting your child with a neurotoxin"?
Hey, I wish I didn't have to inject insulin into my daughter. If it turns out that injecting insulin into her body causes a neurotoxic effect well, that truly sucks. It is either that OR my daughter would be dead within a week. Not sure why that is so hard for you to grasp? Are you an idiot?
I'm just waiting for the good Dr. Steve to tell me that there hasn't been an increase in type 1 diabetes over the past 20 years ...
"So far, my confidence is in the negative numbers".
Hey, that's fine with me as long as you don't say stupid things such as the numbers have always been the same or it's ONLY better diagnosis or it's ALL genetics.
Common Sue said: One syringe contained water and the other contained 1000 mcg's of thimerosal
How much water? Since you quantified, and greatly multiplied, the quantity of thimerosal you need to do the same for the syringe full of water. If you don't think dose is relevant, I encourage you to try it and report your results.
CS: If it turns out that injecting insulin into her body causes a neurotoxic effect well, that truly sucks.
I didn't say there will be a neurotoxic effect, in fact I think you should (by all means) continue to give her insulin, but by your standards you are poisoning your child. Life is full of choices I guess.
"How much water? Since you quantified, and greatly multiplied, the quantity of thimerosal you need to do the same for the syringe full of water. If you don't think dose is relevant, I encourage you to try it and report your results".
Ok, let me use the amount of 150 mcg of thimerosal instead of 1000 mcg's. Should the teenager be concerned? If not, why not?
"I didn't say there will be a neurotoxic effect, in fact I think you should (by all means) continue to give her insulin, but by your standards you are poisoning your child. Life is full of choices I guess".
You really are a nitwit, Clone. "By your standards you are poisoning your child". Really? How so?
Doc Steve, do you see the mentality of the people here?
"Here's what I would like from you. Please show me a QUOTE from *me* which you believe should be retracted? In order for me to retract something, I need to know what you think I said which needs to be retracted. It should be easy for you. Please advise."
This shouldn't have proven so difficult for you. It appeared in strong typeface the first time.
"Yes, please ignore me because there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with injecting infants with a known neurotoxin which is also used to induce autoimmune reactions."
You are sarcastically asserting that immunisation is "injecting infants with a known neurotoxin", implying that immunization level doses are harmful. Please back up the assertion just as you stated you could.
"I can back up everything that I say."
Here is a question you should consider backing up, or withdraw.
"Since you are a "doctor", do you inject neurotoxins into babies? Seriously, it's not a trick question and it deserves an answer. So, do you?"
This plainly asserts that immunisation is "injecting neurotoxins into babies". You could be absolutely spot on about that, but you'll need to back up the assertion that immunisation component levels are neurotoxic in vivo (human) with sufficient evidence, or withdraw the question.
Froggy,
I'm not implying anything. Is mercury a known neurotoxin? Yes. Does thimerosal contain mercury? Yes. Are we injecting it into babies? Yes.
Sorry, nothing to retract.
"I'm not implying anything".
I take that back. Yes, I am implying something. I'm implying that it is irresponsible and dangerous to inject babies with a known neurotoxin.
CS: Ok, let me use the amount of 150 mcg of thimerosal instead of 1000 mcg's. Should the teenager be concerned? If not, why not?
OK, so do you wish to retract or qualify the hypothetical question? You still need to quantify the H20 content and explain how you arrived at the 150 mcg figure. Which vaccines have ever contained 150 mcg?
You really are a nitwit, Clone. "By your standards you are poisoning your child". Really? How so?
Because insulin can act as a neurotoxin under certain conditions and concentrations as can thimerosal. If you choose to ignore thimerosal concentration, at least be consistent and ignore concentrations for all substances including insulin.
You asked Dr. Steve if he injects neurotoxins into babies so why can't I ask if you inject your daughter with neurotoxin?
Now don't you also have a child with celiac disease? Why do you continue to expose your child to gliadin which is toxic to people with celiac disease?
"I'm implying that it is irresponsible and dangerous to inject babies with a known neurotoxin."
Please provide the proof that it is neurotoxic, dangerous, and irresponsible at immunisation levels.
"OK, so do you wish to retract or qualify the hypothetical question? You still need to quantify the H20 content and explain how you arrived at the 150 mcg figure. Which vaccines have ever contained 150 mcg"?
No, I'm not going to go around and around on the question. Obviously it was hypothetical. If Dr. Steve wishes to add to the discussion then I will clarify it briefly like this: The 150 mcg of thimerosal was considering the fact that the teenager is obviously MUCH larger/weighs more than an infant, right? The H2O content you can deal with. You come up with the amount, Clone. Just remember, though, as you are thinking this through... I don't have an issue if you want to discuss the neurotoxic effects of water. Go for it. It will concern me when you show me proof that you know of a doctor who is in fact injecting babies with large doses of water. I'll turn him in to the cops.
"Because insulin can act as a neurotoxin under certain conditions and concentrations as can thimerosal".
Earth to Clone... if I gave my daughter too much insulin she would die almost immediately. Her blood sugar would go so low, she would seize, and die. You really are a nitwit.
"Now don't you also have a child with celiac disease? Why do you continue to expose your child to gliadin which is toxic to people with celiac disease"?
Ah, I don't.... My daughter is on a very stict gluten-free diet. What's your point again?
"Please provide the proof that it is neurotoxic, dangerous, and irresponsible at immunisation levels".
You show me proof of safety first. Just curious though, would you also like to see proof that arsenic and lead would be dangerous and irresponsible to inject into babies (at any level). Isn't that just common sense?
if I gave my daughter too much insulin she would die almost immediately.
Likewise with thimerosal which is why that doesn't happen. If you don't agree, please present your evidence.
My daughter is on a very stict gluten-free diet. What's your point again?
Are you sure about that? She never ingests any gluten whatsoever? Not even a few ppm? Even gluten free foods contain some gluten but why should you care? Concentration is irrelevant isn't it?
Common Sue: It will concern me when you show me proof that you know of a doctor who is in fact injecting babies with large doses of water. I'll turn him in to the cops.
How about Lupron, does that concern you? Will you turn in the Geiers?
Safety is a negative claim: It's a claim about the lack of danger. You're making a very specific claim about the dangers. I would think that you would be able to back up such a specific claim, rather than ask us to back up a broad negative claim that some of us are not even making.
You might as well ask Randi to disprove the existence of all psi in order to debunk Sylvia Browne.
I would think that if you had evidence of your claim, you'd have it quite easy. Instead, you engage in Sylvia-style rhetorical stalling tactics.
"Likewise with thimerosal which is why that doesn't happen. If you don't agree, please present your evidence".
Right. It's likely that thimerosal just gives you that slow death... Or interupts your development when you are just a mere fetus or an infant. Sounds like a great idea for a completely unnecessary preservative.
"Are you sure about that? She never ingests any gluten whatsoever? Not even a few ppm? Even gluten free foods contain some gluten but why should you care? Concentration is irrelevant isn't it"?
She is on a very strict diet. If she does eat some crumbs or whatever... she will likely have diarrhea. Thankfully she has the GI system which can keep those really TOXIC gliadin particles out of her brain. Too bad that's not the case when you inject mercury into a baby's bloodstream.
"How about Lupron, does that concern you? Will you turn in the Geiers"?
The dose is way too low on the Lupron to do any damage. The doses of Lupron that these children get can't possibly injure a child. It's perfectly safe, in ALL children.
Thankfully she has the GI system which can keep those really TOXIC gliadin particles out of her brain. Too bad that's not the case when you inject mercury into a baby's bloodstream.
Oh good, more wild claims. So thimerosal somehow causes gliadin to cross the intestinal barrier, make it to the BBB, cross another barrier intact, and do what exactly?
Sue, out of respect for Orac and his blog this will be my last comment on this thread. You haven't made a single point and you've said some incredibly stupid things, even more than usual.
Bronze Dog,
Don't you find it pretty pathetic that you can just sit back on the thimerosal safety issue? You say, prove it to me that it's dangerous? Hey dimwit, the CDC and FDA should be able to show me that it is safe before they unnecessarily inject it into my baby ...
Don't you find it at all ironic that you are all screaming and crying about the whole Lupron thing? The hypocritical attitudes of the ND's is astounding.
"Oh good, more wild claims. So thimerosal somehow causes gliadin to cross the intestinal barrier, make it to the BBB, cross another barrier intact, and do what exactly"?
Huh? Clearly you are confused. Read again, Clone. Where's my reference to thimerosal doing anything to gliadin? I say stupid things? Have you read any of your own posts here?
They can, but that's not the issue. You're making claims that you can't back up, so you engage in these pointless stalling tactics. You claim there's a danger, and you claim that you can back it up, so stop trying your rhetorical skullduggery and show me your proof.
Lupron has its dangers, and we know them. We have no reason to believe that thimerosal is dangerous in the amounts given. They've been used safely all this time, but that's an entirely different issue you're trying to use as a red herring, just like you did just now with the Lupron.
Stay on topic! Put up or shut up!
"They can, but that's not the issue".
Really, cool, they can prove safety? Link, please?
"Lupron has its dangers, and we know them".
Really, it's dangerous? Prove it. You need to back up your claims. I need 100 peer reviewed studies from reputable sources that Lupron in the amounts typically given to autistic children is dangerous. No amount of anectdotal stories will count AT ALL.
"just like you did just now with the Lupron.
Stay on topic! Put up or shut up"!
I'll forward this yelling to your buddy Clone. He's the one bringing up the Lupron. Take him to task for it, not me.
Water, at high doses is indeed a known neurotoxin. Some psychotic folks (or sometimes just thirsty ones) drink enough to become hyponatremic enough that they get seizures and die. This sometimes happens with improperly mixed baby formula. And sometimes it occurs with improper use of intravenous hydration causing PML.
The point is that a poison is in the dose so your oft-repaeated query of "how can we inject a known neurotoxin into babies?" is bankrupt without quantification since, as you now know, water is a known neurotoxin but not at the doses commonly consumed.
And you still have not answered the larger question: Since other contries like Australia, Canada, and Denmark removed thimerosal from their supplies years before America did (and thimerosal=autism), why did they not see their levels of autism plummet to pre-1970's levels?
Let me guess - it might not actually be the thimerosal but some other unspecified aspect of vaccines. The aluminum or the genetic material or maybe even the water.
To answer you analogy - both kids are in trouble. However, if we escalate the water kid's dose to something similarly astronomical to the amount of thimerosal, like say 5 litres of sterile water, he would likely be dead and not in my office asking about it.
"Lupron has its dangers, and we know them".
Really, it's dangerous?
Check the manufacturers own PI - look under "pituitary apoplexy".
"Check the manufacturers own PI - look under "pituitary apoplexy".
Dr. Steve,
Have you ever looked at the MSDS for Thimerosal??
Again, I need to see the 100 peer reviewed studies from respected journals about Lupron (in small doses) damaging children. If you can't provide them, Lupron is SAFE for all children. Period. Again, anectdotal evidence will not suffice.
"Water, at high doses is indeed a known neurotoxin".
Ok. I can accept that. If you can show me how that is relevant to the issue at hand, then we can continue to discuss it. Do you know of doctors who are injecting or forcing children to drink gallons of water? If so, please advise.
"The point is that a poison is in the dose so your oft-repaeated query of "how can we inject a known neurotoxin into babies?"
Ok. I will accept that. What are the doses of thimerosal which have been proven safe to be injected into babies? Since you claim that the doses in vaccines is a "safe" amount of thimerosal (a neurotoxin) you will need to back up the point of safety. What constitutes a "safe dose".
"Let me guess - it might not actually be the thimerosal but some other unspecified aspect of vaccines. The aluminum or the genetic material or maybe even the water".
Ah, yeah. Quite possibly (doubt it's the water though). What would make that such a strech for you?
"To answer you analogy - both kids are in trouble. However, if we escalate the water kid's dose to something similarly astronomical to the amount of thimerosal, like say 5 litres of sterile water, he would likely be dead and not in my office asking about it".
The amount of thimerosal that I asked about was 150 mcg's (I changed it from 1000 mcg's). Certainly, that is not all that astronomical considering the weight of the teenager as compared with the amounts previously given to an infant. Again, the question was obviously an analogy. If you find water being given in such a dangerous way, I suggest that you take it up with the medical board. What should I do about the thimerosal issue, Doctor Steve?
I'm still not seeing CS back up his assertion.
"I'm still not seeing CS back up his assertion".
Here's the thing. I thought that I had already been over this with you all. I have plenty of studies, background information, and links to researchers talking, etc. which leads me to my position today. I "assume" that you know where it is or know where to find it. I had previously asked the question if anyone needed the links. I "assumed" that if you were new and were really interested or whatever than you would have spoken up. I didn't get any responses so I figured that no one was interested in the information that I have. I can tell you that I have no more/no less than any of the other pro-biomed (you would call us the "mercury militia") have. Just because it isn't good enough for you doesn't mean that I'm going to continue wasting my time posting what information I do have. That wouldn't be using my common sense now would it?
Hi Sue,
California numbers are out today. You can read about them over at the Autism-Natural Variation blog, or see all the raw data at the CDDS website.
What does your "common sense" tell you this suggests?
"What does your "common sense" tell you this suggests"?
Common Sense tells me it is definately time for a comprehensive study on fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. There should be no delay and it is about time. That is the only way to really get to the bottom of the do vaccines contribute to the development of autism? What's the problem with studying that?
Sue wrote:
"What's the problem with studying that?"
I don't have a real problem with it being studied if it's done right, but correlation doesn't equal causation. While potentially helpful in determining where to aim research, it can't really get to the bottom of it. Sounds likely to be a waste of dollars that might be better spent on more definitive research or services.
Though interested in vaccine issues for some time, I have been reading these threads for only about a week. The implications of the anti-vac position trouble me.
If CS and his/her ilk are successful in convincing everyone of the unacceptable danger of vaccines, then no child will be immunised and children will once again die in their thousands of diphtheria, whooping cough and polio, will be blinded, deafened and brain-damaged by rubella and measles, etc.
Only the fact that so many people are currently immunised gives the anti-vac cohort the luxury of rejecting vaccines with few serious consequences. If community levels of immunity drop significantly and childhood diseases regain historic prevalence rates, it will force a real choice between proven risk of death from a killer disease and hypothetical risk of impairment from a vaccine additive.
If this issue has already been fully analysed elsewhere, I apologise for the duplication, plead my novice status and request links to those threads. Thanks.
Neophyteposter,
No need to apologize for your novice status. It is quite clear that you are new because this has been discussed over and over again. It comes down to a serious trust issue. If we, as parents, can't trust the authorities who make the decisions about certain vaccinations than the problems with increase instead of decrease. That's where we are today. You can't trust them. You have to do your own homework. When you do this, you realize that many (but not all) of the vaccines given today are unnecessary and dangerous in terms of the ingredients in them and the schedule that is recommended.
"Sounds likely to be a waste of dollars that might be better spent on more definitive research or services".
Come on, a waste of dollars? In the grand scheme of things it would be a drop in the bucket to have this research done. It could also answer a lot of questions being posed. Anyone who would challege a study like this is simply concerned about what the results would show.
"You have to do your own homework. When you do this, you realize that many (but not all) of the vaccines given today are unnecessary and dangerous in terms of the ingredients in them and the schedule that is recommended."
Or you realize that there is no science to back up a vaccine/mercury autism connection.
Okay, I think I've got it. First I "do my own homework," presumably reading everything written on vaccines. I "can't trust the authorities," so instead I must rely upon research by ... whom? Geiers, Haley, et al? Well, anyway, having unerringly trusted only valid sources, I then handcraft my own immunisation schedule, which will be superior to anything cobbled together by those wankers at the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Pediatrics. Every other parent has an identical obligation. By the way, after doing our homework, are we all going to agree on which vaccines and dosages are "unnecessary and dangerous," or will there be thousands of different handcrafted immunisation schedules?
None of this addresses my concern: the potential for the resurgence of preventable lethal disease if immunisation levels decline.
"None of this addresses my concern: the potential for the resurgence of preventable lethal disease if immunisation levels decline".
Wanker, look to a safer immunization program as opposed to a foolish "let's vaccinate for everything before the age of 2 mentality". Duh, easy.
"Safer" defined as what, specifically? By whom, exactly? on the basis of what hard data, precisely? "Duh, easy" doesn't address any of these questions -- unless "easy" and "safe" equate to "No icky shots and let 'em take their chances on surviving to age two."
"Safer" defined as what, specifically"?
Yawn. This has been discussed too many times to waste more time on here.
Common Sense:
"Again, I need to see the 100 peer reviewed studies from respected journals about Lupron (in small doses) damaging children. If you can't provide them, Lupron is SAFE for all children. Period. Again, anectdotal evidence will not suffice."
Me:
Again, I need to see the 100 peer reviewed studies from respected journals about THIMEROSAL (in small doses) damaging children. If you can't provide them, THIMEROSAL is SAFE for all children. Period. Again, anectdotal evidence will not suffice.
Common Sense: you have none. I'm sorry that you feel this burning need to crusade against something that you have no evidence for. I hope you are one day able to get over it.
PS. Yes, yes, I know that (fill in the blank with some ridiculous red herring that means you can ignore me). I'm sure you can convinc everyone still reading this that you are completely wonderful and I'm an idiot. Please do. I won't be reading you anymore, and, likely, not many other people are either, as all you do is repeat that you have evidence (without giving it) or change the subject. I really do hope that you are able to mov on and be a healthy person someday.
I've never seen a case of measles. Many infectious disease specialists at my hospital have never seen a case of measles. We like this.
All medicine is a balance of the risk-benefit ratio. When the benefit is so great, and the risk nebulous and miniscule at best, the decision is easy. Research and debate are important, but until there is a major shift in risk and benefit, please vaccinate your children. (And use RhoGAM as needed.)
"Again, I need to see the 100 peer reviewed studies from respected journals about THIMEROSAL (in small doses) damaging children. If you can't provide them, THIMEROSAL is SAFE for all children. Period. Again, anectdotal evidence will not suffice".
I can only hope that you got my sarcasm there previously. I was mocking you guys :) Duh!
"We like this".
I'm happy that you are happy about the no cases of measles. I hope that you are equally happy about all the children with severe GI issues that you have caused due to your negligence. Hopefully, when you see these children you don't just tell their parents that severe diarrhea and GI distress is "just part of their autism". Keep up the good work.
"Research and debate are important, but until there is a major shift in risk and benefit, please vaccinate your children. (And use RhoGAM as needed.)"
My major shift has already happened my friend. I can tell you that there is certainly more risk to my children than benefit to certain (not all) vaccines. It's simple. It's the people in the medical field that need to GET IT, not me. For the record, my older two children are fully vaccinated (in a very unsafe way). My youngest only sparingly vaccinated (well, after 4 months anyways, only wish I knew earlier to save him even more)... Youngest of course is so much healthier than the older two. As for RhoGam, I had it... 6 shots in 6 years.... each shot also contained (at the time) a healthy dose of mercury for me and my kids... wonderful. RhoGam ok, mercury to preserve it ... definately NOT ok.
Last time I checked, you hadn't posted any evidence here. (By "here" do you mean this blog? This post? The internets?) I'm a regular reader of this blog (and some of the other Scienceblogs), and I've yet to see any evidence supporting anti-vaccination claims from anyone espousing rhetoric similar to yours. There is the work of the Geiers, but they seem to have annihilated any shred of credibility they might have had.
So let me ask one last time. What scientific evidence do you base your claims on?
"So let me ask one last time. What scientific evidence do you base your claims on"?
I suppose it's possible that I haven't posted any of the scientific studies here on Orac's blog. I have elsewhere over and over again. Most of the regulars here (on the autism posts) are very well aware of that. Here's where to go:
www.generationrescue.org
www.autismmedia.org
www.safeminds.org
Someone may post that the people who started those org's are evil and do such awful things as post fake names of petitions, etc... To them, I would ask how they feel about Kev Leitch submitting to VAERS that his daughter turned into Wonder Woman after a vaccination? Kev should stick to misrepresenting himself to the UK equivalent to VAERS. Do your homework. Any of you who really are doctors and surgeons... stop ignoring parents who claim their children had bad reactions to vaccinations. Use your common sense.