[LUconn]

Oprah is to blame for this latest rise in autism/vaccine confusion. I can't believe people still talk about this.

[NJLibertyboy]

I am pretty sure Oprah is to blame for everything.

[matshark]

Really? No link to Autism? Because Reuters and the U.S. Gov't Vaccine Court say otherwise.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... RN20090225

No one would feed their child Mercury. That would be insane. The problem? Most vaccines contain Thimerosal, which is 46.9% Mercury.

http://www.healing-arts.org/children/va ... ercury.htm

"The FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research (CBER) began by adding up the total amount of mercury given to children through vaccines in the U.S. immunization schedule. Thimerosal was present in over 30 licensed vaccines in the U.S. in concentrations of 0.003% to 0.01%. According to the agency's calculations, an infant six months old, receiving all vaccine doses on schedule, would receive:

75 micrograms of mercury from three doses of DTP,
75 micrograms from three doses of Hib, and
37.5 micrograms from three doses of hepatitis B vaccine;

for a total of 187.5 micrograms of mercury.

Thimerosal is metabolized in humans to ethylmercury, but guidelines for safe mercury intake relate only to methylmercury. The literature on ethylmercury toxicity was so scant that toxicologists did not know if ethylmercury was more or less toxic than methylmercury. Left with no choice, CBER analysts assumed that the toxicity of the ethyl compound was equivalent to the methyl compound.

Given this assumption, the mercury intake from vaccines in children six months old, 187.5 micrograms, was compared to the suggested safe limits for methylmercury intake published by three federal agencies: EPA, FDA, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Mercury intake through vaccination during the first six months of life exceeded the limit set by the EPA. "

[LUconn]

You just posted a press release from Jenny McCarthy. I'm glad we have court systems deciding things like this instead of medical researchers. I hope the courts come up with a cure for cancer soon. Wait, they can't even agree with themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/12/au ... index.html


There's some mercury in vaccines apparently. Where does autism come in? There is no link.

[RagingTireFire]

Jim Carrey, Hollywood legend and Generation Rescue board member

Wow. This is the same guy who made Number 23, Me, Myself & Irene and Once Bitten, right?



That second link is from an alternative healing site and was written by this guy.



He's a Canadian Indian healer who "has great passion about replacing the reigning biomedical model with a new paradigm".

[matshark]

Let's see, no autism in kids who haven't had vaccinations. All kids with autism have it discovered AFTER having vaccinations.

Does that mean vaccinations cause autism in all kids? no. however, it's very likely that vaccinations cause autism in SOME kids. (some of all/all of some)

tell you what, go inject high levels of mercury into your body and tell me how you feel.

secondly, medical researchers are typically paid by companies who create drugs, etc... so, given that a medical researcher on, say the topic of whether vaccinations are dangerous, would have their salary paid by a company that makes vaccinations is totally not a conflict of interest. no. not at all.

injecting toxic levels of heavy metals into the body while it's still developing is certainly something that could cause serious developmental issues. i mean unless you're going to blame the parents for their kids getting autism, the parents are saying "Hey. There's a problem here. My kid was fine before they got vaccinated, and now they aren't."

But then again, I guess no medical procedure EVER has side effects. I mean, just look at all the prescriptions you can get from your doctor. Nope. no side effects there. Everything recommended by the health professionals is completely harmless. (And there's a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale. I can get you a great deal on it.)

[LUconn]

tell you what, go inject high levels of mercury into your body and tell me how you feel.

I did. And Ive had it done to my children. Were you not vaccinated as a child? I think you're forgetting that many children died from junk like measles, mumps, and typhoid before vaccines existed.

[RagingTireFire]

I can't believe you're still running with this.

Let's see, no autism in kids who haven't had vaccinations. All kids with autism have it discovered AFTER having vaccinations.

Does that mean vaccinations cause autism in all kids? no. however, it's very likely that vaccinations cause autism in SOME kids. (some of all/all of some)

That makes no logical sense whatsoever. That's the equivalent of saying that people with dark hair have an increased chance of being grave robbers.

i mean unless you're going to blame the parents for their kids getting autism,

Autism is genetically-based. You could blame the parents if you wanted but that really wouldn't be fair.

[southern_reckoner]

matshark: I looked at your links you provided.

Because Reuters and the U.S. Gov't Vaccine Court say otherwise.

The link you proved is a press release from Generation Rescue. Reuters has no opinion. According to WebMD ( http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/ ... ism-claims ),
"Feb. 12, 2009 -- The federal "vaccine court" has rejected claims that either the measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine or thimerosal in vaccines caused children's autism."

Also, according to http://www.autism-watch.org/ , "a scientific perspective on the many aspects of autism", Dr. Lewis Mehl-Madrona from your link http://www.healing-arts.org/children/va ... ercury.htm and Jennifer McCarthy of Generation Rescue are on the "Nonrecommended Information Sources". I looked at both of those references for quite some time. I concur with autism-watch.org.

Correlation is not the same as causation. The majority of autism is diagnosed between the ages of 18 months and 3 yrs old. This happens to coincide with the same times that vaccinations occur. But it is not true that one causes the other.

Please read the CDC FAQ on Thimerosal http://www.fda.gov/CbER/vaccine/thimfaq.htm and this chart on Thimersal in vaccines today, not 10 years ago http://www.fda.gov/CbER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#t1. Out of the 19 vaccines, 4 have Thimerisal. One of the three available DPT vaccines have Thimerisal and three of the five influenza vaccines have Thimerisal. If you are still concerned, then you have non-Thimerosal vaccine choices available.

I feel for parents with autistic children. I can understand parents grasping at any and all causes/cures of autism. But one has to be rational about these things. The best we have can be found at: http://www.asatonline.org/resources/aut ... tm#applied and http://www.autism-watch.org/ .

matshark: I hope you look at the information provided. I cannot twist your arm to change your beliefs (nor would I try even if Nancy Pelosi approved it ).

[scuzdriver]

Putting bad stuff into your body, i.e. mercury, nicotine, meth....., can't be good for you. Why are people so down on those of us that prefer a more natural coarse of medicine? Kaiser Permanate is a huge hmo provider and in the last several years have embraced natural medicines. Can't we all just get along?

[Ed Dantes]

The truth about vaccines, according to the Head of the Cleveland Clinic:

The benefits outweigh the risks of vaccination by like a 20:1 margin.
Vaccines do not cause autism, but if someone is more at risk for the condition, it can bring it out.
The smart thing is to spread out the vaccines so that you're not getting it all at once. But to say that you shouldn't vaccinate is plain poppycock.

[RagingTireFire]

Why are people so down on those of us that prefer a more natural coarse of medicine?

Because so much of it is crap.

[Rocketfan]

Why are people so down on those of us that prefer a more natural coarse of medicine?

Because so much of it is crap.

ohh please, that can be said on the other side of the arguement as well.....

[southern_reckoner]

It looks like the mother and the 13 yr old boy is now attempting to flee to Mexico.

This mother believes in a form natural medicine and has brainwashed her child into the same beliefs. She rejects the science that has a 95.3% cure rate for Hodgkin's Lymphoma. If the cancer had a 10% cure rate, then it would be ok to look into "alternative modes" of healing. Make the child comfortable and happy as possible. The poor boy is going to die without the chemo!

scuzdriver:

Why are people so down on those of us that prefer a more natural coarse of medicine? Kaiser Permanate is a huge hmo provider and in the last several years have embraced natural medicines. Can't we all just get along?

I would love for us to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"! But that is not the issue at hand. It is the misinformation that concerns me. I looked into the Kaiser Permanente. It is a shame that an HMO provider offers to pay for treatments (addressed below). It gives legitimacy to areas that do not deserve the it. The alternative treatments provided:

acupuncture: No evidence of it working. Harm caused: http://whatstheharm.net/acupuncture.html
massage therapy services: Makes you feel good. No real harm.
fitness club memberships: I agree with this one. It would be good to have more insurances pay for memberships.
chiropractic care: No evidence of it working. Harm caused: http://whatstheharm.net/chiropractic.html
herbs, vitamins, and supplements: Unregulated drugs. They may help, but there is much more harm: http://whatstheharm.net/herbalremedies.html
health and fitness books and videos: No real comments without looking into more details.

[LUconn]

I'd like to know who the busy body is that brought this whole issue up to the state in the first place. I guess the doctor who made the recommendation for chemo could have handed it over to the social services rep who works in the hospital. But at what point does the parent have a choice? southern Reckoner has taken examples of extremes (95.3% vs 10%) because that is easier to swallow for state intervention vs parental choice. What about 75%, 50%. Where would the state draw the line?

[southern_reckoner]

LUconn wrote:

southern Reckoner has taken examples of extremes (95.3% vs 10%) because that is easier to swallow for state intervention vs parental choice. What about 75%, 50%. Where would the state draw the line?

Excellent question! I wish I could draw a line in the sand and give an answer. The extremes are easier to see and this particular case is one of those extremes. I have to yield that question to Bioethic experts, local gov, and state gov. However, the Federal gov needs to stay out of it. My personal opinion is at least 70% with greater than 80% more preferential for gov intervention. I prefer less gov interference as possible. Anything between 50-70% would be somewhat acceptable. Below 50%, let the parents decide.

[TDDance234]

This is tough for me. On one hand, the state should not be able to mandate what kind of treatment is done for the child. On the other, the child has to be protected. As a culture, we have decided that 18 is when children can make logical decisions on their own. Until then, I think the state has to intervene and protect the child.

[RagingTireFire]

Why are people so down on those of us that prefer a more natural coarse of medicine?

Because so much of it is crap.

ohh please, that can be said on the other side of the arguement as well.....

No, it can't. For every prescribed medication with a side effect, there are easily a half-dozen "natural remedies" that are either completely useless at curing the problem or carry side effects of their own that are worse if not downright detrimental. Natural medicine says to take colloidal silver to cure an infection. Actual medicine says take an antibiotic. One of these works and won't turn your skin blue. Natural medicine says to take ephedra to lose weight. Actual medicine says lose weight with better diet and exercise. One of these works and won't make your heart explode. While we're at it, we could discuss chelation therapy, maleriotherapy, ozone treatment, cavitation surgery and magnetic bracelets, as well as any number of "cleansers" and homeopathic products.

The fact is that modern medicine is at least somewhat dependable because countless hours of research, case study and evidence back it up. Natural medicine's only evidence is that Bubba's auntie's grandma's cousin swears by it.

[southern_reckoner]

RagingTireFire wrote:

The fact is that modern medicine is at least somewhat dependable because countless hours of research, case study and evidence back it up. Natural medicine's only evidence is that Bubba's auntie's grandma's cousin swears by it.

You hit the nail on the head! Good job on your thinking skills.

[RubberMallet]

my fixitall

[scuzdriver]

my fixitall

You must be Greek.

[matshark]

LUconn wrote:

southern Reckoner has taken examples of extremes (95.3% vs 10%) because that is easier to swallow for state intervention vs parental choice. What about 75%, 50%. Where would the state draw the line?

Excellent question! I wish I could draw a line in the sand and give an answer. The extremes are easier to see and this particular case is one of those extremes. I have to yield that question to Bioethic experts, local gov, and state gov. However, the Federal gov needs to stay out of it. My personal opinion is at least 70% with greater than 80% more preferential for gov intervention. I prefer less gov interference as possible. Anything between 50-70% would be somewhat acceptable. Below 50%, let the parents decide.

It should be up to the parents, period. It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. period.

[Dr. Sheh]

Matshark is right on. The government has absolutely no jurisdiction in this case to intervene and become the parent. This is another situation where the government encroaches on personal liberty. There are also many many other instances in which the government has no authority, but that's the libertarian in me speaking

[Baldspot]

Parent's selling their children's sexual services to cover illegal drug use agree as well.

[Dr. Sheh]

Parent's selling their children's sexual services to cover illegal drug use agree as well.

That is true, however, it is far different than the chemo case because the selling of a child's sexual services encroaches on the child's personal liberty.