Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Robert F Kennedy explains vaccines and the autism coverup

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because there is no reason to believe that it is harmful at the levels in vaccines.
    And one crank crying that there's a cover doesn't amount to scientific evidence.

    Going by

    a) his qualification
    b) his expertise on the specific topic at hand

    http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

    (there is a list of his published papers on there.)

    'crank' as you call is plain incorrect and a little poorly researched on behalf of yourself. He's far more qualified than you or I to make statements on this. So he either

    a) believes this himself
    b) your theory: he is monstrously evil and is in it to sell books.

    km wrote:

    Not too mention this guy is mixing up mercury and ethyl mercury all over the place.

    Hmm. There is simply no way you read that article and made that comment. You skimmed over it. In it he admonishes the CDC scientists for mixing up the types of mercury. He is apparently quite an authority on it. Has done a numbers of published papers on it.
    km wrote:
    Yes it's funny how he alludes that anyone who has some kind of financial stake in the science must be involved in a cover up.
    Then sell his books on his website.

    Not really. I am good friends with an Egyptian oncologist who recently attended a conference in Switzerland which was sponsored by a large pharmaceutical company. After the conference the speakers lobbyists asked for the doctors present to lend their support to a new drug even though the evidence presented at the talk was new and in no way could be properly examined by any of the participants. His then told me that at least half of those present signed their consensus for it. This may be anecdotal but I have no reason not to believe an otherwise perfectly honest individual.

    km wrote:
    Well given the title of this thread you can see why I might make that mistake.
    actually no I can't.
    My first post states clearly that I am undecided. That should have set you straight. But I imagine you thought you smelt a CT and thought you sniff him out. Sorry.
    km wrote:
    But vaccines don't contain pure mercury.

    This is getting embarrassing. Ethyl mercury is neuro toxic. It just clears from the body quicker (although as stated everywhere with consensus there isn't a whole lot of data on this) but that doesn't help (it clearing quicker) in high risk cases (newborns, people with suppressive immuno disorders, elderly etc.)
    km wrote:
    What exactly leads you to believe there is a link?

    Research supports mercury-autism linkBy Michael Wagnitz1x1.gifIt was reported repeatedly in 2006 that the link between mercury-containing vaccines and autism has been disproven. Yet if one looks at the most recent research coming from some of our major universities, one may draw the opposite conclusion.1x1.gifWhat we have learned in the last couple of years is that the underlying medical condition of autism is neuroinflammatory disease. In a study conducted at John Hopkins University, brain tissue from deceased autistic patients was examined. The tissue showed an active neuroinflammatory process and marked activation of microglia cells. Neuroinflammatory disease is synonymous with an activation of microglia cells.1x1.gifA study done at the University of Washington showed that baby primates exposed to injected thimerosal (50 percent mercury), at a rate equal to the 1990s childhood vaccine schedule, retained twice as much inorganic mercury in their brains as primates exposed to equal amounts of ingested methylmercury. We know from autometallographic determination that inorganic mercury present in the brain, following the dealkylation of organic mercury, is the toxic agent responsible for changes in the microglial population and leads to neuroinflammation.1x1.gifRecently it was shown that in more than 250 examined patients, atypical urinary porphyrins were almost three times higher in autistic patients than controls. Porphyrins are precursors to heme, the oxygen-carrying component of blood. Mercury inhibits the conversion of porphyrins to heme. When the patients were treated to remove mercury, urinary porphyrins returned to normal levels.1x1.gifIn a study done at the University of Arkansas, autistic children were found to have significantly lower levels of the antioxidant glutathione. Glutathione is the major antioxidant needed for the elimination of mercury at the cellular level. This may explain why some children are more severely affected by thimerosal in vaccines than others.1x1.gifWhile all the government-conducted epidemiological (statistical) studies show no link between thimerosal and autism, the clinical studies examining brain tissue, blood, urine and human cells show a completely different picture.1x1.gifMichael Wagnitz is a Madison resident with more than 20 years of experience as a chemist working with trace metal analysis.1x1.gifPublished: February 27, 2007
    km wrote:

    But you would trust a single guy on the internet who wrote an article on a site that pretty much publishes anything?


    Yeah one guy, with tonnes of references an official government report, personal expertise and no apparent motive for lying except delirium.

    Oh btw it's not one guy.
    And I think I've made point. I'll bow out now. I've seen these go on and on. I'm making no outlandish claims and you're choosing 100% the official government spin. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,493 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Going by

    a) his qualification
    b) his expertise on the specific topic at hand

    http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

    (there is a list of his published papers on there.)

    'crank' as you call is plain incorrect and a little poorly researched on behalf of yourself. He's far more qualified than you or I to make statements on this. So he either
    And as we all know doctors are infallible and can't be wrong on something. Even if the the vast majority of other doctors (with actual research) disagree.

    stevejazzx wrote: »
    a) believes this himself
    b) your theory: he is monstrously evil and is in it to sell books.
    I never said that.
    But if you believe that the CDC are out for profit and alter science accordingly, why can't this guy misrepresent science for a similar reason?
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Hmm. There is simply no way you read that article and made that comment. You skimmed over it. In it he admonishes the CDC scientists for mixing up the types of mercury. He is apparently quite an authority on it. Has done a numbers of published papers on it.
    Because it's a biased analysis of a meeting, not a scientific paper.
    Just because he is an authority doesn't make him right.
    What about all the other authorities that disagree with him?

    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Not really. I am good friends with an Egyptian oncologist who recently attended a conference in Switzerland which was sponsored by a large pharmaceutical company. After the conference the speakers lobbyists asked for the doctors present to lend their support to a new drug even though the evidence presented at the talk was new and in no way could be properly examined by any of the participants. His then told me that at least half of those present signed their consensus for it. This may be anecdotal but I have no reason not to believe an otherwise perfectly honest individual.
    Yes it is anecdotal.
    You said yourself that the evidence was presented at the talk.
    What did this support entail exactly? Further study? More tests? Approval for sale?
    Your not exactly giving an abundance of facts on this.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    actually no I can't.
    My first post states clearly that I am undecided. That should have set you straight. But I imagine you thought you smelt a CT and thought you sniff him out. Sorry.
    Yes your first post linked to this.
    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/
    Japanese Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

    I stated the fact that the scientific consensus says otherwise.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    This is getting embarrassing. Ethyl mercury is neuro toxic. It just clears from the body quicker (although as stated everywhere with consensus there isn't a whole lot of data on this) but that doesn't help (it clearing quicker) in high risk cases (newborns, people with suppressive immuno disorders, elderly etc.)
    Dude full fat milk is harmful to newborn infants.
    Loads of medicines are harmful to all those groups. That's why they are high risk.

    The ethylmercury that was in vaccine where at a safe level.
    The fact it does clear the body quickly is a very big deal.

    Oh and the fact ethylmercury is completely different chemically to pure mercury.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Research supports mercury-autism linkBy Michael Wagnitz1x1.gifIt was reported repeatedly in 2006 that the link between mercury-containing vaccines and autism has been disproven. Yet if one looks at the most recent research coming from some of our major universities, one may draw the opposite conclusion.1x1.gifWhat we have learned in the last couple of years is that the underlying medical condition of autism is neuroinflammatory disease. In a study conducted at John Hopkins University, brain tissue from deceased autistic patients was examined. The tissue showed an active neuroinflammatory process and marked activation of microglia cells. Neuroinflammatory disease is synonymous with an activation of microglia cells.1x1.gifA study done at the University of Washington showed that baby primates exposed to injected thimerosal (50 percent mercury), at a rate equal to the 1990s childhood vaccine schedule, retained twice as much inorganic mercury in their brains as primates exposed to equal amounts of ingested methylmercury. We know from autometallographic determination that inorganic mercury present in the brain, following the dealkylation of organic mercury, is the toxic agent responsible for changes in the microglial population and leads to neuroinflammation.1x1.gifRecently it was shown that in more than 250 examined patients, atypical urinary porphyrins were almost three times higher in autistic patients than controls. Porphyrins are precursors to heme, the oxygen-carrying component of blood. Mercury inhibits the conversion of porphyrins to heme. When the patients were treated to remove mercury, urinary porphyrins returned to normal levels.1x1.gifIn a study done at the University of Arkansas, autistic children were found to have significantly lower levels of the antioxidant glutathione. Glutathione is the major antioxidant needed for the elimination of mercury at the cellular level. This may explain why some children are more severely affected by thimerosal in vaccines than others.1x1.gifWhile all the government-conducted epidemiological (statistical) studies show no link between thimerosal and autism, the clinical studies examining brain tissue, blood, urine and human cells show a completely different picture.1x1.gifMichael Wagnitz is a Madison resident with more than 20 years of experience as a chemist working with trace metal analysis.1x1.gifPublished: February 27, 2007
    And what about the studies I linked in my first post? Did you read them?
    Cause they all show there was no decrease in the rate of autism when Thimersol was removed.

    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Yeah one guy, with tonnes of references an official government report, personal expertise and no apparent motive for lying except delirium.

    Oh btw it's not one guy.
    And it's completely impossible that he simply has the wrong idea?
    And no the whole movement is not one guy.
    But numbers don't equal scientific evidence.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    And I think I've made point. I'll bow out now. I've seen these go on and on. I'm making no outlandish claims and you're choosing 100% the official government spin. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between.
    No I'm believing the scientific consensus which is supported by the evidence.

    Why exactly do you believe the guys with no evidence?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,311 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    samson09 wrote: »
    What's wrong with the logic? Consider the use of mercury in the vaccines: It was used as a preservative chemical to prevent vaccine spoilage. When the mercury was removed, it was replaced with other preservative chemicals that are also toxic to the human nervous system. Thus, the continuing increase in autism rates following vaccination may be due to the toxic chemicals that replaced thimerosal. While mercury injections probably initiated the increase in autism, the toxic substance has been replaced with other dangerous chemicals that are continuing to increase the risk of autism.

    Here's an example to explain this a bit more:

    <snip>

    Notice that when mercury was removed from vaccines (which is not entirely true, by the way, bringing into question yet more details about this study), the rates of autism did not drop? This means the vaccines remain dangerous to children. Autism continued to climb right alongside vaccination rates, indicating the possibility that something in the vaccines (or a combination of various chemicals) may very well be responsible for the increase. Based on the fact that thimerosal was replaced with other toxic chemicals in the vaccines, there is absolutely no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any harmful effects. There are too many variables operating now, and no study can isolate one variable (thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be harmless.
    I've highlighted the "may be" in both paragraphs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11 cahill31


    Here is a link to the most recent study on the subject of a connection between Autism and Thimerosal
    http://dprogram.net/2009/07/10/new-study-proves-thimerosal-induces-autism-like-neurotoxicity/


  • Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭samson09


    cahill31 wrote: »
    Here is a link to the most recent study on the subject of a connection between Autism and Thimerosal
    http://dprogram.net/2009/07/10/new-study-proves-thimerosal-induces-autism-like-neurotoxicity/

    Nice find cahill ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,493 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    cahill31 wrote: »
    Here is a link to the most recent study on the subject of a connection between Autism and Thimerosal
    http://dprogram.net/2009/07/10/new-study-proves-thimerosal-induces-autism-like-neurotoxicity/

    Well here's a much larger study involving actual autistic children not just in vitro cells that says otherwise.
    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281
    The weight of the evidence in this study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins administered prenatally or during infancy and neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11 cahill31


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well here's a much larger study involving actual autistic children not just in vitro cells that says otherwise.
    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281

    Yeah it definitely says otherwise.

    [FONT=arial, helvetica] "Higher prenatal mercury exposure was associated with better performance on one measure of language"[/FONT]
    [FONT=arial, helvetica]"Increasing levels of mercury exposure from birth to 7 months were associated with better performance on one measure of fine motor coordination and on one measure of attention and executive functioning.[/FONT]"

    Mercury is good for you now? I didn't know that. Thanks New England Journal!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,493 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    cahill31 wrote: »
    Yeah it definitely says otherwise.

    [FONT=arial, helvetica] "Higher prenatal mercury exposure was associated with better performance on one measure of language"[/FONT]
    [FONT=arial, helvetica]"Increasing levels of mercury exposure from birth to 7 months were associated with better performance on one measure of fine motor coordination and on one measure of attention and executive functioning.[/FONT]"

    Mercury is good for you now? I didn't know that. Thanks New England Journal!
    That's not what they say.

    So you gonna actually comment on the science of the paper?

    You know the bit that actually shows no link between autism and vaccines?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11 cahill31


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's not what they say.

    So you gonna actually comment on the science of the paper?

    You know the bit that actually shows no link between autism and vaccines?

    But it is what they say, its in plain English.
    Also, no I'm not going to comment on the science of the paper because I came across something more interesting.

    "[SIZE=-1]Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.[/SIZE]"

    Vaccine manufacturers supported the study! ROFL. Conflicts of interest spring to mind?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,311 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    cahill31 wrote: »
    Vaccine manufacturers supported the study! ROFL. Conflicts of interest spring to mind?
    And yet when it's pointed that out about the authors of the studies you link to have conflicts of interest, you assume it's lies?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,493 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    cahill31 wrote: »
    But it is what they say, its in plain English.
    It doesn't say mercury is good for you. It says they found an interesting correlation.
    cahill31 wrote: »
    Also, no I'm not going to comment on the science of the paper because I came across something more interesting.

    "[SIZE=-1]Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.[/SIZE]"

    Vaccine manufacturers supported the study! ROFL. Conflicts of interest spring to mind?

    Wow that was sneaky of them, hiding that information in the paper.
    No one would think of looking there.

    Do you have anything other than your own bias that any data was falsified?
    Or you just dismissing it because you don't agree with its findings?
    Cause that wouldn't be a particular honest way to do that.

    And since that paper doesn't pass your standards.
    How about these?
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/577
    We could find no convincing evidence that early exposure to thimerosal had any deleterious effect on neurologic or psychological outcome when given according to an accelerated schedule. This is reassuring for developing countries that receive DTP vaccines according to the Expanded Program of Immunization schedule and where multidose vials that contain the thimerosal preservative are often the only option. In the face of the current evidence from this study and the growing literature, the dangers posed by contaminated multidose vaccine vials far outweigh any potential risk posed by thimerosal.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604
    The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism. Our data cannot, of course, exclude the possibility that thimerosal at doses larger than used in Denmark may lead to neurodevelopmental damage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 Quacksalber


    I think there is enough opinion on here without me adding another one. Read it for yourself


Advertisement